|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is it open season on evangelicals?
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye
I think that it's a good thing to call ourselves Christian if that's how we see ourselves. Whether it means anything or nothing must surely be subjective. I didn't suggest that anyone who considers it to have meaning is a divisive bigot, nor did I mean to be patronising.
It seems to me that to categorise ourselves as 'evangelical', 'charismatic', 'conservative' etc may be divisive. It doesn't seem to help us to bond together as fellow Christians, does it?
I agree that labels can be divisive, but any kind of definition and meaning, being particular, is divisive, because logically it excludes some concepts. If the definition of a word excluded nothing, then it would mean nothing. Take the word 'British', for example. This word has a particular meaning, and therefore it excludes most people. Thus it could be viewed as 'divisive'. But clearly 'divisive' is not the right description of this kind of exclusiveness. It simply describes a person who fulfils certain criteria.
The same applies to 'Christian'. If someone says he is a Christian, but denies the existence of God, or the divinity of - or perhaps even the importance of - Jesus Christ, then what meaning does his Christianity have?
You talk about Christians bonding together, but we can only "bond together" if we have something meaningful and significant in common; in other words, if we have fulfilled certain criteria. For example, how could I, as a Christian, pray with someone who claimed to be a Christian, but who mocked the whole idea of prayer? How would that kind of bonding and fellowship work? Or who mocked the idea of the existence of God (yes, there are so called "Christian atheists")? Or what about trying to do a Bible study with a 'Christian' who poured scorn on the Bible?
If the term 'Christian' only has meaning on a subjective basis, then it follows that I, as a professing Christian, have the right to exclude people on a subjective basis (on the basis that I do not agree with their definition of 'Christian'). You can't have it both ways.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'd be interested to know whether you're all talking about people who fall under this label:
wiki definition whether or not you call yourselves 'evangelical'.
.
That description of what "evangelical" means looks fair enough to me. And not so different from my own summary on this recent thread
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'd also like to know why anyone wants to put themselves into a category of Christian. Isn't this divisive in itself?
Pretty much every Christian reckons they are just a Christian and their church is just a church. Its the other lot who are weird.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Hairy Biker. Interested in your last post. What brought you out of the wilderness?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
other traditions, particularly liberal mainstream Protestantism, are in terminal decline.
I wouldn't have a clue where I stand on the theological spectrum, and to be quite honest I very rarely remember identities on the ship ... maybe 20 or so have stuck in my egotistitical and solipsistic mind ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
One or two of those have been crusaders. There was a gaggle of Sydney Anglicans, defined both geographically and theologically, who crusaded around a few years ago. Two flounced because someone said "fuck" (ITTWACWS) and one was expelled. Deservedly for all sorts of reasons, but in the end because he called an admin a dickhead or some such. Not smart. Death by admin.
There have been one or two atheist crusaders - my former fellow countryman The Atheist is the one I best recall - who crusaded a bit. Usually they have either mellowed, converted, or flounced because we theists are irredeemable fuckwits and they've proved their self-importance to, er, themselves.
IngoB has sometimes been accused of being a crusading Catholic (since he became one) but on the whole I have found his posts - the ones I can understand - erudite and thought provoking. He has copped some flak and a few hell calls though - and taken them on the chin. That's always good.
There are one or two hellion dogpilers (as Foaming Draught of blessed memory - not the evo to whom I was referring, though he too eventually committed death by admin - used to call them) who have never indicated that they have half a brain cell attuned to any world view but enjoy pouring poo, because that is the extent of their skill base. They too are crusaders, though I suspect they crusade only to aggrandize their own egos, which are of course the centre and sum-total of the universe.
The common theme is crusading. I don't visit Purgatory often these days - it's too close to my day job - but if I started crusading for whatever my theological position is, refusing to engage with others, then sooner or later I would have enough ammunition to be assured of a healthy persecution complex. Then I could flounce, happy because you are all hell-bound cretins, or I could stay to maintain my martydrom complex. Either way my ego would be massaged and I would be a legend in my own lunch hour.
But no, I don't think evos are persecuted. Occasionally their views are pilloried or at least challenged, but the ones with integrity just roll with the punches - like the Orthodoxen, Catholics, Atheists, Inner-lightists and God is a big Tomato-in-the-groundists. And they stay, and we enjoy the conversations.
Fucktards, on the other hand, tend to be pounced on. Can't imagine why. Maybe because they're fucktards.
[ 14. October 2012, 11:43: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
ooops - sorry - I got so carried away with my last spiel I forgot to make reference back to the quote I cited in my link ... my only reference to that was that it was a slightly loaded comment, and, though often made, is not always backed up by facts.
Things like that throwawayb statement can after a while signify a problem with a poster's attitudes, and if they become a habit then some poo can begin to fly. They may not even realize why it's flying, because they are so unable to escape their presuppositions.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
I think there would be far more Christians if it wasn't for evangelicals of all stripes.[/qb]
Are you sure you wanted the "of all stripes" in there? Evangelicalism is a broad spectrum of belief and practice. A minority of us would fall into you "bible bashers" description, the majority of us would strenuously attempt to avoid being "arrogant judges" (after all, the Bible we hold so highly records Jesus as saying "judge not").
quote:
The message that "this is true because it says so in the bible" is a guaranteed turn-off for almost everyone who doesn't understand what the bible does say.
I was brought to the faith by an Evangelical youth organisation. One of the first things I learnt was "The Bible says ..." is the start of a discussion, not the end. Evangelical regard for Scripture demands that we seek our hardest to understand what Scripture says (which is a heck of a lot more than just remembering the words).
I suggest that in your 30 years in the wilderness you encountered only a vocal minority of evangelicals. To accuse all of us of being the same is a big stretch.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
I'm a evangelical Sydney Anglican and everyone loves us to bits. Especially Evangeline, who thinks we're fab. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
ooops - sorry - I got so carried away with my last spiel I forgot to make reference back to the quote I cited in my link ... my only reference to that was that it was a slightly loaded comment, and, though often made, is not always backed up by facts.
I am not going to attempt to respond to your "last spiel" because I am not at all sure what you were talking about - which I'm bound to say could just as easily be the result of a relaxing Sunday evening glass of red on my part as of meandering impenetrability on yours.
But as regards your follow-up post, if you want "facts" about the often remarked upon decline of mainstream liberal Protestantism in Western countries, you could start with the census figures for the Uniting and Anglican churches in Australia.
[ 14. October 2012, 08:53: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was brought to the faith by an Evangelical youth organisation. One of the first things I learnt was "The Bible says ..." is the start of a discussion, not the end. Evangelical regard for Scripture demands that we seek our hardest to understand what Scripture says (which is a heck of a lot more than just remembering the words).
And yet there is a tendency in (my experiences of) Evangelicalism to use 'The Bible says' as if it were an irrefutable argument. The whole proof-texting thing that says I can settle a discussion by throwing in a short Bible excerpt with no reference to the context or other Bible passages that seem to say something different.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see what Hairy Biker is getting at, but you can't blame 'Bible-bashers' for the decline of the liberal, mainstream Protestant denominations - unless you're going to say that it's guilt by association and that people assume that all Christians are 'Bible-bashers'.
I think the broad position is that the more conservative forms of church-expression - including the Orthodox - have grown or been able to sustain themselves in recent years whilst the more liberal ones (with some localised exceptions) have, generally, been in decline.
That said, I think evangelical growth has plateau-ed both in the UK and the USA - and probably in Australia, Canada and other Anglophone countries too. It's probably still on the increase in non-Anglophone countries though.
Part of the issue with evangelicalism, though, is that it tends to be a revolving door. I think it was on these Boards that I learned that Australian Pentecostalism, for instance, tends to experience an almost complete turnover in membership every ten years.
It's with good reason that evangelicals often find themselves drawing on the resources of the older and more contemplative traditions in order to sustain 'spiritual formation' (to use a more Catholic expression).
Sure, there was a highly developed sense of 'experimental religion' in the older Reformed tradition but this seems to have become obscured somewhere along the line - although I'm sure it's very real and very valuable for those involved with it still.
Personally, I'm very comfortable with people coming to faith through evangelicalism and maintaining the kind of oomph and drive that this provides, whilst later broadening out and taking on board insights and practices from the more catholic or more liberal traditions. That way they perhaps get the best of both worlds.
At the risk of offending people, I often find with the more liberal end of things that there isn't much 'there' there. At least there's a 'there' there with the evangelicals (and the more conservative or mystical side of the sacramental spectrum. Ok, one may find it misguided and rather off-putting at times but at least there's a momentum there that can, hopefully, be channelled in positive directions.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I agree that labels can be divisive, but any kind of definition and meaning, being particular, is divisive, because logically it excludes some concepts. If the definition of a word excluded nothing, then it would mean nothing. Take the word 'British', for example. This word has a particular meaning, and therefore it excludes most people. Thus it could be viewed as 'divisive'. But clearly 'divisive' is not the right description of this kind of exclusiveness. It simply describes a person who fulfils certain criteria.
The same applies to 'Christian'. If someone says he is a Christian, but denies the existence of God, or the divinity of - or perhaps even the importance of - Jesus Christ, then what meaning does his Christianity have?
You talk about Christians bonding together, but we can only "bond together" if we have something meaningful and significant in common; in other words, if we have fulfilled certain criteria. For example, how could I, as a Christian, pray with someone who claimed to be a Christian, but who mocked the whole idea of prayer? How would that kind of bonding and fellowship work? Or who mocked the idea of the existence of God (yes, there are so called "Christian atheists")? Or what about trying to do a Bible study with a 'Christian' who poured scorn on the Bible?
If the term 'Christian' only has meaning on a subjective basis, then it follows that I, as a professing Christian, have the right to exclude people on a subjective basis (on the basis that I do not agree with their definition of 'Christian'). You can't have it both ways.
Isn't this at the crux of the issue here, that people who 'crusade' as Zappa describes, who try to enforce their own ideas and mock those of other people rather than engaging with them and allowing them to express their faith in their own way, are vilified, perhaps rightly.
If a category of Christian as in 'evangelical' is assumed to incorporate this trait as a given, it may well become open season so that everyone who sees themselves as outside of it throws stones.
I think that it would be right to exclude someone from a prayer meeting or Bible study group who mocked the others for their beliefs, and who was not prepared to engage. However, if any such group were of an homogenous theology, I suggest that this might adversely affect its life force for growth.
There's only one 'Christian atheist' I've engaged with, and the fact that he dismissed the idea of a supernatural God didn't prevent him from engaging with people who did. He was the polar opposite of a literalist in that he saw all aspects of the the religion in metaphorical terms. He was focussed on the message of love given out by Christ, and recognised 'the divine' as a spiritual dimension outside of himself. I wouldn't want him to be excluded from worship or from meetings, any more than I would want to exclude a literalist, however much I disagreed with their views, and I would not want to pre-suppose what they believed based on their labels.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...and recognised 'the divine' as a spiritual dimension outside of himself.
What exactly does that mean? (considering he was a "Christian Atheist")
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That description of what "evangelical" means looks fair enough to me. And not so different from my own summary on this recent thread
Thank you Ken, that's very helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
"Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...and recognised 'the divine' as a spiritual dimension outside of himself."
What exactly does that mean? (considering he was a "Christian Atheist")
He said that he recognised that there was a spiritual dimension outside of himself, 'other' than within himself, but couldn't or wouldn't make the connection between that sense of the numinous and a supernatural being called God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was brought to the faith by an Evangelical youth organisation. One of the first things I learnt was "The Bible says ..." is the start of a discussion, not the end. Evangelical regard for Scripture demands that we seek our hardest to understand what Scripture says (which is a heck of a lot more than just remembering the words).
And yet there is a tendency in (my experiences of) Evangelicalism to use 'The Bible says' as if it were an irrefutable argument. The whole proof-texting thing that says I can settle a discussion by throwing in a short Bible excerpt with no reference to the context or other Bible passages that seem to say something different.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of 'proof texting' either. But, it has a place. It forms a theological short-cut in discussions with people who share some considerable common ground in theological basics. When I hear a proof-text, or use one myself, the text quoted brings to mind a whole raft of associated texts plus the interpretations normally associated with them. They form a neat summary of "this is where I'm coming from" to enable discussion to continue without needing to cover the common ground where both sides agree.
If they are used in contexts where the associated baggage of texts and interpretations are different, or even practically non-existent, then they simply fail to work. At best, they highlight the fact that there's less common ground than thought (or, at least, that the common ground is expressed in different ways). At worst they can sow confusion if both sides are thinking the texts are used for different purposes - including if one side is trying to use the text as a definitive answer or assuming that's what the other side is doing.
Of course, there are times when proof-texting is misused.
An analogy I've used before is to examine interpretations of the "all Scripture is God-breathed" verse. By "all Scripture" do we mean each individual passage, even verse, or the whole of Scripture in it's entirety?
Those who think in terms of individual passages are probably more likely to quote individual verses, and think those verses on their own hold greater relevance. Of course, they'd read around the passage, read other passages, put everything into context. But usually they'd start with a passage and say "what does this have to say?". My experience is that it's a view of Scripture much more common at the 'Fundamentalist' end of the Evangelical spectrum.
The other alternative is probably more work. It takes the whole of Scripture, looks for themes and messages that run through the Bible. We start with the wide context, and come to an individual passage asking "how does this relate to the rest of Scripture? and, how does that then affect the message of Scripture?", usually looking for nuances rather than radical messages (although, sometimes you find something that results in a radical rethink). It's more work, because it requires a good overall knowledge of Scripture rather than just memorising those verses that support particular doctrines.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Evangelicals - certainly in the UK - all give a high value to scripture but vary enormously in their views about what constitutes a sound hermeneutic. I'm in the Alan Cresswell camp, by the way.
I came across this provocative quote by Brian McLaren recently (in the context of a lot issues which are Ship's Dead Horses). Brian McLaren is proving to be increasingly popular with evos in the UK who consider themselves to be "open" and are often considered by conservatives to be "water-downers". Anyway, here's the quote
quote:
So I re-opened the issue, read a lot of books, re-studied the Scriptures, and eventually came to believe that just as the Western church had been wrong on slavery, wrong on colonialism, wrong on environmental plunder, wrong on subordinating women, wrong on segregation and apartheid (all of which it justified biblically) ... we had been wrong on this issue. In this process, I did not reject the Bible. In fact, my love and reverence for the Bible increased when I became more aware of the hermeneutical assumptions on which many now-discredited traditional interpretations were based and defended. I was able to distinguish "what the Bible says" from "what this school of interpretation says the Bible says," and that helped me in many ways.
Of course not all the voices in the Western Church were wrong on the issues he lists, but I take his point. A lot were, some still are.
Rethinking often comes about when we consider major biblical themes (e.g. justice, mercy, faithfulness, love) and look at hot topics in the light of what we can learn from scripture as a whole, rather than proof texts. Proof texting gets in the way of "weighing scripture with scripture".
Of course, as Alan points out, it's harder to do that, but it seems much more in keeping with the "wrestling with God" concept mentioned earlier.
Personally, I get pretty cheesed off if someone observes that I'm departing from scripture when what I've actually been doing is something akin to the approach Alan describes. Proof texting can close minds, be very reductionist in its approach to the complex challenges we face as people of faith.
[ 16. October 2012, 07:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was brought to the faith by an Evangelical youth organisation. One of the first things I learnt was "The Bible says ..." is the start of a discussion, not the end. Evangelical regard for Scripture demands that we seek our hardest to understand what Scripture says (which is a heck of a lot more than just remembering the words).
And yet there is a tendency in (my experiences of) Evangelicalism to use 'The Bible says' as if it were an irrefutable argument. The whole proof-texting thing that says I can settle a discussion by throwing in a short Bible excerpt with no reference to the context or other Bible passages that seem to say something different.
I think there's often mutual misunderstanding here. Many Evangelicals will say "The Bible says..." to begin a discussion - the assumption is that the discussion will revolve around the interpretation of the Bible, and so other people will respond with other passages, consideration of context, other possible interpretations etc. It's not intended to shut down discussion, but to centre it around the Bible.
This is certainly my approach if I quote the Bible and offer the interpretation in a thread on the Ship - I'm not quoting the Bible as trump card, but offering up an interpretation as an argument to be considered and discussed.
However, many non-evangelicals hear this as a power-grab, a shutting-down of the discussion. Also, for non-evangelicals, interpreting the Bible is less likely to be the central issue in any given discussion. We understand the terms of the discussion differently, and need to be aware of that if we're to avoid talking past each other.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I don't think it's open season on evangelicals, but I do think there's a strong tendency for very broad brushes to be used, generally negatively. Hairy Biker's post, for example. Such a portrayal denies the existence of balanced, positive, thinking evangelicals (e.g. Alan Cresswell, Barnabas62 and many others, hopefully self included, albeit a long way down the list).
As someone else said, "evangelical" is often (or often feels to be) a Ship synonym for "narrow minded fundamentalist bigot". It can be a bit wearing after a while, especially if one self-identifies as evangelical but (hopefully) isn't a narrow minded bigot. Folk seem to value nuance, but don't seem to apply it to the E-word (E-bomb?, the precursor to the F-bomb?).
Of course, as an evangelical, it's perfectly OK for me to use the term disparagingly about the fundie-nutter-bigot arseholes giving the rest of us a bad name. Because I know and apply the nuance. When anyone else does it, I assume it's an unjustified personal slur and how very dare they! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) A bit like it being fine for me to slag off my mum for some of her foibles, but I'll take down with extreme prejudice anyone outside the family who does the same. Partly an irrational thing, but partly because from the 'inside' there's a tacit acknowledgement of all the good whilst digging at the bad, from the 'outside' it often seems the bad is unjustly viewed as the whole story.
IME "evangelicals" are as homogenous as "Anglicans" or "Roman Catholics" or even "Christians" - i.e. not very much at all. So the short-hand term of abuse is just a bit lazy and grating (when it lands).
And, finally, one is obviously somewhat more sensitive to brickbats aimed (unfairly or otherwise) at a group one identifies with, than when they're aimed equally at another group who are more like rarely seen relatives.
[Edit to correct Barnabas62's name. Oh the shame]
[ 16. October 2012, 11:46: Message edited by: Snags ]
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell and Barnabas62 - agreed, and thanks for your responses.
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Many Evangelicals will say "The Bible says..." to begin a discussion - the assumption is that the discussion will revolve around the interpretation of the Bible, and so other people will respond with other passages, consideration of context, other possible interpretations etc. It's not intended to shut down discussion, but to centre it around the Bible.
And I'm fine with this - don't get me wrong, I think it's thoroughly appropriate to use the Bible in discussions of Christian doctrine and practice! But I've had plenty of discussions where one party has said something like 'But the Bible says....' and not been willing to dig deeper.
Creationism / evolution is an obvious example of this: 'But the Bible says God made the cosmos in six days.' It's hard to take a discussion further when people are unwilling to look beyond a crudely literal reading of the Bible...
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
How much is the fact that a goodly number of the liberals, MoTRs and non-evangelicals generally are also ex-evangelicals? [Puts up hand]
Naturally enough one tends to have the bad things about it - what drove one to no longer be one - in ones mind when it comes up.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How much is the fact that a goodly number of the liberals, MoTRs and non-evangelicals generally are also ex-evangelicals? [Puts up hand]
Naturally enough one tends to have the bad things about it - what drove one to no longer be one - in ones mind when it comes up.
I've never thought of myself as an evangelical, not even knowing what it meant, but let's see:
Personal conversion: tick, not an instant event but a progressive one.
High regard for Biblical authority: semi-tick (see the separate thread on this).
Emphasis on teaching re: proclamation of the cross and resurrection: tick, after all this is at the centre of our faith and worth dwelling on.
Actively sharing the gospel: tick, but without crusading and not necessarily with words at all.
Am I an evangelical?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I've never thought of myself as an evangelical, not even knowing what it meant, but let's see:
Personal conversion: tick, not an instant event but a progressive one.
High regard for Biblical authority: semi-tick (see the separate thread on this).
Emphasis on teaching re: proclamation of the cross and resurrection: tick, after all this is at the centre of our faith and worth dwelling on.
Actively sharing the gospel: tick, but without crusading and not necessarily with words at all.
Am I an evangelical?
Do you want to self-identify as evangelical?
In terms of the quadrilateral. The first one is more "belief that conversion, a definitive decision to follow Christ, is essential for all Christians" than "I was converted", I'm not sure which of those you meant. And, no, there's nothing in evangelicalism that says conversion has to be instantaneous - indeed many of us would stress that the decision to follow Christ is something we do everyday. This is held in contrast to what's probably a straw man of "I'm a Christian because I was born into a Christian family and attend church" - I'm not sure if there's anyone who would say that that's adequate without some commitment to follow Christ.
The activism part of evangelicalism is an odd one in some ways. Evangelicals would be emphatic that you can not earn your salvation, we are saved by grace alone. Yet, we would also be the first in the line to do something. We can't earn our salvation, but we can sure as heck put in our all to work hard to bring in the Kingdom of God. Of course, that includes active evangelism. But, it will also include a heavy emphasis on providing quality teaching to everyone so they can grow in their understanding of the faith, an heavy emphasis on practical action to help those in need, a strong concern for social justice issues. It's not an accident that over the last few centuries evangelicals have been over-represented in working in setting up hospitals and schools in developing nations, in supporting a range of development projects, in campaigning against slavery and other social injustice, Bible translation etc.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do you want to self-identify as evangelical?
In terms of the quadrilateral. The first one is more "belief that conversion, a definitive decision to follow Christ, is essential for all Christians" than "I was converted", I'm not sure which of those you meant. And, no, there's nothing in evangelicalism that says conversion has to be instantaneous - indeed many of us would stress that the decision to follow Christ is something we do everyday. This is held in contrast to what's probably a straw man of "I'm a Christian because I was born into a Christian family and attend church" - I'm not sure if there's anyone who would say that that's adequate without some commitment to follow Christ.
The activism part of evangelicalism is an odd one in some ways. Evangelicals would be emphatic that you can not earn your salvation, we are saved by grace alone. Yet, we would also be the first in the line to do something. We can't earn our salvation, but we can sure as heck put in our all to work hard to bring in the Kingdom of God. Of course, that includes active evangelism. But, it will also include a heavy emphasis on providing quality teaching to everyone so they can grow in their understanding of the faith, an heavy emphasis on practical action to help those in need, a strong concern for social justice issues. It's not an accident that over the last few centuries evangelicals have been over-represented in working in setting up hospitals and schools in developing nations, in supporting a range of development projects, in campaigning against slavery and other social injustice, Bible translation etc.
Thank you for the expansion of terms.
I don't want to self-identify under any category except for that of Christian, as I think that all of the above are in its territory, and are not exclusive to evangelicalism. Is there anything exclusive to evangelicalism in your view that is not followed by people who identify under any other Christian label?
[ 16. October 2012, 16:21: Message edited by: Raptor Eye ]
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How much is the fact that a goodly number of the liberals, MoTRs and non-evangelicals generally are also ex-evangelicals? [Puts up hand]
Naturally enough one tends to have the bad things about it - what drove one to no longer be one - in ones mind when it comes up.
I've never thought of myself as an evangelical, not even knowing what it meant, but let's see:
Personal conversion: tick, not an instant event but a progressive one.
High regard for Biblical authority: semi-tick (see the separate thread on this).
Emphasis on teaching re: proclamation of the cross and resurrection: tick, after all this is at the centre of our faith and worth dwelling on.
Actively sharing the gospel: tick, but without crusading and not necessarily with words at all.
Am I an evangelical?
The Puritans didn't primarily understand the word evangelical in terms of churchmanship. They saw it simply as the recovery of justification by grace alone through faith alone as the heart of the "the gospel" message. Evangelical faith was pretty much based on recovering this gospel as a cogent and understandable message to be believed rather than a psuedo-magical act to be consumed or a set of commands to be obeyed.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
In a word 'no'. Though I guess doctrines like PSA can end up being critiqued in terms that would result in a Hell Call if applied to other things.
That said, a number of evangelicals on this board tend to hint at fairly negative energy readings of their own doctrines.
Being part of a large and expansive looking grouping in The Church, I can understand that 'my' views might be occasionally subject to more robust critique than other parts of the church - from both good and bad motives.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is there anything exclusive to evangelicalism in your view that is not followed by people who identify under any other Christian label?
No, I think all of the evangelical distinctives are found in other parts of the church, though whether they're all found together in a non-evangelical part of the church I'm not sure.
The ones more likely to be distinctively evangelical are Biblicentrism and Crucicentrism.
The evangelical emphasis on the Bible is often expressed in terms of "infallibility" or even "inerrancy" and "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct". Those outside the evangelical tradition are a) less likely to describe the Bible in those terms and b) more likely to hold additional authorities (eg: Creeds, the Pope, Church Fathers) in higher regard - although it is one common failing of evangelicals to recognise that we also have a body of tradition that we hold as highly as others hold their traditions.
And, the evangelical emphasis on the Cross can also become unbalanced. You can find some evangelicals who would hold almost the whole ministry of Jesus as nothing more than setting the scene for Good Friday, and that the events of Easter Sunday and afterwards are nothing more than a vindication of the sacrifice on the Cross. The vast majority of us wouldn't go that far, but we would still probably work on an assumption that the Cross shows the love of God more than the Incarnation. If asked the question "what must I do to be saved?" then we would say "put your faith in Jesus who on the Cross enabled your sins to be forgiven" (or similar) - so we struggle with "sell all your possessions and give to the poor" more than other traditions, even though that's the answer Jesus himself gave! Even simply "follow Jesus" would be seen as inadequate as it doesn't mention the cross. That's even without venturing into the whole PSA mess, which for the record I hold as an imperfect model among a collection of imperfect models - and, when we're dealing with God's dealings with people all models are imperfect.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is there anything exclusive to evangelicalism in your view that is not followed by people who identify under any other Christian label?
No, I think all of the evangelical distinctives are found in other parts of the church, though whether they're all found together in a non-evangelical part of the church I'm not sure.
The ones more likely to be distinctively evangelical are Biblicentrism and Crucicentrism.
The evangelical emphasis on the Bible is often expressed in terms of "infallibility" or even "inerrancy" and "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct". Those outside the evangelical tradition are a) less likely to describe the Bible in those terms and b) more likely to hold additional authorities (eg: Creeds, the Pope, Church Fathers) in higher regard - although it is one common failing of evangelicals to recognise that we also have a body of tradition that we hold as highly as others hold their traditions.
And, the evangelical emphasis on the Cross can also become unbalanced. You can find some evangelicals who would hold almost the whole ministry of Jesus as nothing more than setting the scene for Good Friday, and that the events of Easter Sunday and afterwards are nothing more than a vindication of the sacrifice on the Cross. The vast majority of us wouldn't go that far, but we would still probably work on an assumption that the Cross shows the love of God more than the Incarnation. If asked the question "what must I do to be saved?" then we would say "put your faith in Jesus who on the Cross enabled your sins to be forgiven" (or similar) - so we struggle with "sell all your possessions and give to the poor" more than other traditions, even though that's the answer Jesus himself gave! Even simply "follow Jesus" would be seen as inadequate as it doesn't mention the cross. That's even without venturing into the whole PSA mess, which for the record I hold as an imperfect model among a collection of imperfect models - and, when we're dealing with God's dealings with people all models are imperfect.
You see, this is just where the non-evangelicals get their 'ammunition' from! Such generalisations, inaccurate reflection and sweeping statements do nothing to show the truth of what evangelicals believe!
These are all half truths and cynical comments!
We don't treat Good Friday in the way you suggest at all - I can tell you I've had to struggle in some ways with other evangelicals to keep the resurrection OUT of Good Friday! Easter Sunday is the most glorious day - have you ever heard Salvationists sing 'Up from the grave he arose!' or Thine is the Glory'?
I have never struggled with 'sell your possessions...' I preached on it on Sunday!
And, as far as I am concerned PSA is not a 'mess' at all - and like you I hold it (as do evangelicals) as one of the facets of a beautiful diamond of atonement' I certainly don't damn it with faint praise as you do!
A bit of fair and accurate comment would go a long way to allaying the fears of non-evangelicals that we are not unbalanced in our theology.
And whilst you suggest that 'the vast majority' of evangelicals don't believe in the way you suggest that 'some' of them do, the fact that you even write this stuff does tend to set in people's minds that evangelicals are in fact unbalanced in their theology.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How much is the fact that a goodly number of the liberals, MoTRs and non-evangelicals generally are also ex-evangelicals? [Puts up hand]
Naturally enough one tends to have the bad things about it - what drove one to no longer be one - in ones mind when it comes up.
I think this is pretty key.
Karl, all generalisations are wrong, including this one, but a common thread I've found amongst those who've had enough is finding that serious questions about faith which mattered to them were not welcomed, were viewed with suspicion as "dodgy". "Not many wise are called. We're simple people, we believe the bible".
Or folks have found themselves directed for guidance to a "safe, conservative" source. Brian McLaren's belief in the value of diversity (which I quoted above) is relatively uncommon.
What's quite interesting in this context is that some evo refugees I've talked to, who have found a home in a MOTR congregation, have this kind of reaction to the experience. (Observation from a very good friend)
"I get frustrated with myself sometimes. Why is it that in the presence of liberals I find myself becoming more conservative, whereas in the presence of conservatives I find myself becoming more liberal?"
I think more than anything else it is the irksome effect of finding closed minds on issues where our own are open and exploring. Wrestling with God is done better in communities which accept that such wrestling is a good sign, not a bad one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I know this is blowing my own trumpet, as it were (!) but Salvationis is out and out evangelical in belief - the Bible is given by inspiration of God and is 'the only divine rule for Christian faith and practice' but not , according to our doctrine book, either infallible or inerrant - we prefer 'entirely trustworthy.'
We don't have tongues, we don't limit the atonement to PSA and we major (another pun?) on 'works'.
Come and join us?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Barnabas62
"I get frustrated with myself sometimes. Why is it that in the presence of liberals I find myself becoming more conservative, whereas in the presence of conservatives I find myself becoming more liberal?"
This resonates powerfully with me. Of course, it could just be that I'm a contrary so-and-so ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I find it very odd that the two biblical quotes offered in this entire thread - or at least the second page of it that I've just read through - were used in ways that are typical of proof texters, and wrong interpretations IMNSHO!
At its worst Evangelicalism is, like any other religion, a self referent self confident system of human thought that discourages thought or engagement with the real world. At its best it is a helpful structure that enables people to grow in their knowledge of God. For me the starting point is:
quote:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Mt 7:21-23
We are being explicitly warned here that doing miracles are not evidence of being acceptable by God. It's about 'knowing' Him. The challenge is at what point do we stop doing that. The reality we face is that it's easier to fade out from God than to carry on 'taking up our cross'. The problem is that two people can end up 'believing' the same things, but in reality one still knows God, whilst the other has turned their back. In this context at its best the bible is an effective discerner of the reality, but the danger is to assume that because a person is rejecting something that I think is 'obvious' from the bible, therefore they've apostasied. Where I'm at now is to emphasis the role of the Holy Spirit after I've presented 'my truth'; if they warm to it then something good has happened, if they reject it then one of us is wrong. Beyond a hopefully gentle clearing away of genuinely intellectual misunderstandings, it's at that point I should walk away; the danger is to go on quoting bible at them in a way that DOES constitute 'bible bashing'.
PS - the point about being unwilling to explore is well made. It is important to be willing to explore - though there are some red lines which do need to be respected; it's not OK to come to the point of saying that 'it's clear that the bible and tradition are overwhelmingly and clearly to mind saying "x" but I know better'. It's at that point that you cease, IMHO, to be an Evangelical...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
ES
Re-thinking, or thinking again, is a form of repentance. I don't think its arrogant to reflect on the way some traditional interpretations of scripture have been unjust in their treatment of minorities, or the poor, or the downtrodden. Despite tha fact that there is a whole lot of scripture which enunciates the principle that Christians shouldn't do that. And come to the conclusion that there is something wrong somewhere.
Of course it all gets mixed up when we consider the impact of bad behaviour on ourselves and others. And what we think bad behaviour actually is. Falling short of the mark.
I suppose, because it is described as the most excellent way, I tend to think that agape is our over-riding guideline. Its earlier translation of "charity" tells us something as well. Generosity of heart and spirit. Unselfish love. Looking to the needs of others.
Where it is clear that the church has been, or still is, uncharitable, or to use Philip Yancey's helpful phrase, demonstrating "ungrace", it really is time to "re-think". And not just about the specific issue, but the underlying causes.
I think Brian Mclaren is right, that the traditional hermeneutic often led good folks in the direction of ungrace. The Truth always had a capital T but far too often the love had a small l. That way lies self-righteousness, which does a lot more to kill the soul than generosity.
I believe in a generous orthodoxy and I'm seeking to find out what that means. Every day.
[ 17. October 2012, 10:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...I suppose, because it is described as the most excellent way, I tend to think that agape is our over-riding guideline. Its earlier translation of "charity" tells us something as well. Generosity of heart and spirit. Unselfish love. Looking to the needs of others...
To my mind that sounds exactly the same logic as:
quote:
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Mt 7:9-12
For me the obvious example of this is divorce and remarriage. It's hard to find an example of where the bible is less unambiguous, yet most 'Evangelicals' use your emphasis on 'generosity of heart' to set aside the blindingly obvious teaching of scripture. Paul, quoting Jesus says:
quote:
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
1 Cor 7:10-12
Yet the blessing of divorcees remarrying is endemic, and many 'Evangelicals' will even do the remarrying.
It's nice to be nice. The modern emphasis is on being 'loving' - in contrast to the past where the emphasis was on being just and holy. Given that your emphasis is following the zeitgeist, I think you have to work VERY hard to justify your behaviour; Christians who conform to the standards of the world are... not going in a good direction.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You see, this is just where the non-evangelicals get their 'ammunition' from! Such generalisations, inaccurate reflection and sweeping statements do nothing to show the truth of what evangelicals believe!
These are all half truths and cynical comments!
Yes, 'half truths' in that, as I said, I was only expressing the views of some evangelicals. A very few, true, but I have met some. And, for those few I would say they are theologically unbalanced.
What I was trying to illustrate was the tendancy in evangelicalism, which way we tilt when we get unbalanced. I find that informative. I thought it would help others if they see that when we talk of crucicentrism the danger we (as evangelicals) need to guard against is making everything a mere backdrop to Good Friday, and usually we succeed in that but if we were to fail that is where we'd fall.
I have no problem saying that evangelicalism can sometimes become unbalanced. I would expect that anyone from another tradition would also have no problem accepting that their tradition can also become unbalanced, and that the direction people in their tradition tend to fall when things get out of balance is equally informative about where they hold particular emphasis.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As much as I admire the Salvation Army, Mudfrog, I don't think I could ever 'join' it. I understand your view of the sacraments but would rather practice them rather than acknowledge their value and yet leave them on the shelf ...
I know you don't see it that way, but that's how it 'looks'.
But that might be setting off a whole load of other tangents and risk raising the spectre of sacramental fascism which has been directed at the SA and your good self from time to time on these Boards ...
Coming back to your main point, though ... I would agree that evangelicalism can be misrepresented but would argue that it largely only has itself to blame for that because it tends to focus on sound-bites and proof-texts to a large extent.
I would love to be able to combine the best of evangelicalism with the best of the more sacramental traditions - in theory it should be possible but in practice it seems fiendishly difficult ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would love to be able to combine the best of evangelicalism with the best of the more sacramental traditions - in theory it should be possible but in practice it seems fiendishly difficult ...
Now, that seems like an interesting idea for a new thread ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Evangelicals - certainly in the UK - all give a high value to scripture but vary enormously in their views about what constitutes a sound hermeneutic.
The Evangelical NT Wright says that Evangelicals are mostly misguided when they say they have a high view of scripture and actually debase it. Here in How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? Not that Evangelicals are alone in this.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Gam,
I'm currently reading Retro-Christianity by Michael Svigel. I have found a lot to like in the book. It's a tad evangelical for me, but the emphasis on the meaning and value of the sacramentals and liturgical calendar, among other things, is an attractive idea. He has a good blog too.
K.
[ 17. October 2012, 12:15: Message edited by: Komensky ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Already done.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's nice to be nice. The modern emphasis is on being 'loving' - in contrast to the past where the emphasis was on being just and holy. Given that your emphasis is following the zeitgeist, I think you have to work VERY hard to justify your behaviour; Christians who conform to the standards of the world are... not going in a good direction.
It seems to me that you want us to return to being under laws. The standards of the world are that it's nice to be nasty rather than the golden rule.
It won't do to use just a few selected verses out of context from the discourse in Matthew Chapters 5-7 which tell us that we have to go much further than just keeping a list of laws to justify ourselves. The golden rule is the way we are to fulfill the law and the prophets. You want us to be enslaved in laws our forefathers could not keep.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that your emphasis is following the zeitgeist, I think you have to work VERY hard to justify your behaviour.
A preamble
Lets look at the scripture you describe as Mt 7:9-12. Your quotation is from Mark 7, not Matthew 7.
The context is observation and criticism of traditional beliefs and practices and the text is an uncovering of the hypocrisy involved in neglecting parents financially. Looking after a Father and Mother in need is a loving response consistent with the command to honour them. That itself is Corban. Neglecting their financial needs on the grounds of "Corban" is missing both the point of the commandment and the requirements of love.
That's the meaning given in the footnote to my study NIV bible. It says "the Corban formula was simply a means of circumventing the clear responsibility of children towards their parents".
So I don't think it holds the water you put into it. If you want to discuss that further, we could take it to Kerygmania
The quote from your post
If I really thought I was following the spirit of the age, I would agree with you. But your assumption that I am doing that is just an assumption. I'm not interested in courting popularity, or going with the crowd.
"It's nice to be nice" made me wince at its crassness. It is a huge misunderstanding of the way of agape to think it can be so characterised, or that my desire to be generous is based on some understanding that such a desire is "nice". Love is God-directed in obedience, it is a setting aside of self-will and self-pleasing, it is not an impulse from the feelings or natural inclinations. When exercised towards people, whether of faith or not, it seeks the welfare of all and works no ill towards any. It seeks opportunity to do good to and for all.
Back at zeitgeist again, I cannot personally think of anything more opposed to the zeitgeist than the way of agape. The zeitgeist in the West is the lionising of self.
It is hard to follow the most excellent way, but it is the highest command we have received in terms of our responsibility to others. With the help of God, I'm doing the best I can to follow it. That's my witness.
You're free to criticise my opinions and understandings but you are quite wrong to think that fashion or popularity have anything to do with them.
[ 17. October 2012, 13:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Just wondering how evangelicals can be accused of making Good Friday the be all and end all of the faith when, on walking into a Catholic or High Anglican Church the only visual evidence I can see of the Christ is that he's a dead man on a cross.
Sort of a permanent Good Friday in wood, stone or coloured bits of glass, if you ask me.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's not relevant what other traditions do. It's about what we, as evangelicals do.
Hw many times have you heard a street evangelist proclaim the gospel with a message that can be summarised as "We are sinners, and there is a penalty to pay for our sin. But God loves us, and so sent his Son to die on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sins." A message that, although entirely true (IMO), does not need any mention of the three years of ministry that preceded the crucifiction, nor does it even need a resurrection except perhaps as a sign that the sacrifice was accepted by God. It's a true, but incomplete, message. I would bet that if you asked evangelicals to summarise the gospel message in 50 words or less that in the majority of cases you would have something not that different to the summary above, although most of us would want to add a caveat that "it's not a bad summary, but there's a lot more I would say is also important".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I think you're mischaracterising your local Anglican or RC church. The local RC church has the stations of the cross around the church. The local CofE church has the following depictions of Christ:
- a crucifix on the rood screen with Mary, John and Mary Magdalene,
- 6 portrayals of Jesus: the annunciation, baptism of Christ, last supper, resurrection, Jesus ascended found in a reredos.
- In the east window behind that there are the nativity, ascension and crucifixion.
- There's a window by the font showing the baptism of Christ.
- The window next to that are portrayals of the baptism of the Eunuch, Jesus with the children (suffer the children come unto me) and the presentation of Jesus to the Temple
- there's a relief of Mary and baby Jesus
- the window showing Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and John and the Virgin Mary also has Jesus as a baby and child.
- the window showing Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea in two panels flanking the resurrected Jesus also show Jesus alive as small panels underneath
- 14 stations of the cross on the pillars
and that's before all the portrayals of the Lamb of God, evangelists and angels to be found elsewhere in the church. Yes, it's Victorian.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's nice to be nice. The modern emphasis is on being 'loving' - in contrast to the past where the emphasis was on being just and holy. Given that your emphasis is following the zeitgeist, I think you have to work VERY hard to justify your behaviour; Christians who conform to the standards of the world are... not going in a good direction.
It seems to me that you want us to return to being under laws. The standards of the world are that it's nice to be nasty rather than the golden rule.
It won't do to use just a few selected verses out of context from the discourse in Matthew Chapters 5-7 which tell us that we have to go much further than just keeping a list of laws to justify ourselves. The golden rule is the way we are to fulfill the law and the prophets. You want us to be enslaved in laws our forefathers could not keep.
No - I'm suggesting that if Jesus issues a COMMAND then it's just conceivably possible that He meant us to keep it...
The core problem is that humans are innately inclined to look for a way round what God wants them to do, which is, of course, for their best. This is a classic example where 'the traditions of men' - be those suggestions like your about 'not being under law', or B's generalised 'agape' have the effect of torpedoing the clear words of scripture. AFAICS the parallel with Corban is exact... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Ender's Shadow
I thought the commands to love God and our neighbour as ourselves (agape in the Greek) were the commands on which all the law and the prophets hang.
Therefore, to seek to see the law and the prophets through those commandments is to seek to see them through the over-arching principles which flow from our understanding of agape. That's not torpedoing scripture. It is the vital principle which protects us from being loveless about its contents. Such as those who would use the letter of the law re Corban to excuse meanness to parents.
The argument that "I can't afford to help you because of the devotion of my resources to the things of God"(e.g. tithing, sacrifice etc) is just an excuse for meanness isn't it? However it may have been justified by reference to other aspects of the law and the prophets, we can all see how unloving, how rationalising, it is.
In sharp contrast to this immortal summary from Ephesians 3.
"And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."
Guess which Greek word for love is being used.
Without being rooted and grounded in love, we are likely to have some problems in grasping what scripture has to tell us about love of God and neighbour. That seems to me to be the means by which scripture is illuminated. Not torpedoed.
I'd say that was pretty clear. What's wrong with it?
[ 17. October 2012, 17:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
ES
The "command" is that we are to love one another and be a neighbour to all.
I place "command" in quotes because it is not a law, nor can we obey it unless God dwells in us (through the Holy Spirit if you like."
I assert that it is wrong-headed and completely misses the Gospel if you start listing out commands to obey, even if they were spoken by Jesus. You have not understood at all.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That's an interesting take, Latchkey Kid. The Christian life is a calling to "be imitators of Christ and to live a life of love" or "walk in love", as it's put in Ephesians 5. (It's agape again).
So following Jesus in obedience does involve, at the deepest level, obedience to the commandment to love God and neighbour. That was Jesus' example. Even unto death. I think you are right that it is qualitatively different to following a set of rules for life. The nature of the command is "Follow me" - as Jesus put it to the disciples at the start of his ministry and re-emphasised with Peter at the end. "Do you love me? Then follow me."
In the process of "walking in love", we learn more about what love actually is, who Christ is, who our neighbour is.
Agape themes permeate the gospels and the letters, with good reason.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Let's try and move the focus off the word 'command' which is obviously causing more of an issue than it's worth. The point for me is that Jesus gives clear guidance that the remarriage of divorcees is a no-no. The question is how this relates to 'agape'; for me the need for this arises because the propensity of humanity to allow this, but it's not actually acceptable to God. If this is the case, then we have to ask how God would have indicated it other than how He has done? Is it not the most simple solution to see this guidance as arising out of God's amazingly high view of marriage vow, in contrast to our own willingness to go for relatively easy divorce and remarriage? That's the logic that makes sense to me - to my mind any other understanding to ignore the clear words of scripture.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Mudfrog - I would have said the same thing at one time. At the risk of sounding patronising, I think I've come to a greater understanding of why the RCs and the Anglo-Catholics have crucifixes with depictions of Christ hanging on them rather than an 'empty' cross. It doesn't mean that they're downplaying the resurrection any more than the evangelical emphasis on the cross ('we preach Christ crucified') means that evangelicals are downplaying the resurrection either.
That said, I've certainly come across very conservative evangelicals for whom the resurrection seems almost a bolt-on extra, an afterthought. Not in your particular Wesleyan tradition, it has to be said, but I've heard very conservative Baptists and others give this impression on many occasions.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
