|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Rev Steve Chalke a post - evangelical?
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I may be being naive here, but isn't PSA pretty darn fundamental to the Christian faith whichever ''label'' we wear?
Doesn't Catholic orthodoxy broadly accept PSA?
I sort of (maybe I'm mistaken) assumed most 'orthodox' Christians would accept PSA?
The idea that Jesus' death was substitutionary - he died in our place - is accepted by most Christians, I think, but it's the specifically penal part - he died to take our punishment - that is disputed. What Karl: Liberal Backslider, really.
I thought as you did, Saul the Apostle, until I read The Lost Message of Jesus a few years ago. It never crossed my mind that some Christians had other ways to explain how the atonement works, and for this realisation I'm very grateful to Chalke.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I may be being naive here, but isn't PSA pretty darn fundamental to the Christian faith whichever ''label'' we wear?
Doesn't Catholic orthodoxy broadly accept PSA?
I sort of (maybe I'm mistaken) assumed most 'orthodox' Christians would accept PSA?
The idea that Jesus' death was substitutionary - he died in our place - is accepted by most Christians,
Absolutely not - only by evangelicals, a minority and modern innovation.
There have been loads of threads on PSA so might be a tangent here - but the idea that he died 'in our place' is unscriptural - it hinges on the meaning of the Greek uper - the gist of which is that we share his death in baptism and throughout our lives - but we die too.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think there are about half a dozen different theories of the atonement, some of them rather obscure, and PSA certainly strikes me as not one found in the early church. It seems to conform to 16th century legal theory and language, doesn't it?
The 'satisfaction' theory is itself fairly late; I suppose a quite early view is 'moral influence' and the 'Victor' theory.
Presumably, PSA was a refinement of the satisfaction account, but it's pretty complicated to trace out all the different strands. For example, there is a 'participatory' idea, that we all share in the atonement, probably found in different theories.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
[QUOTE] Un-orthodox says that I've strayed out of the bounds of Christianity altogether.
Depends on what basis you describe un-orthodox: is it a statement of beliefs, practices or both? I'd describe myself as very un-orthodox on a fair few things as a Baptist in BUGB (political views way left of centre; baptism not vital for membership; speaking out publically and vehemently against issues of justice, poverty and class discrimination in the uk etc) but even my detractors would describe me as evangelical doctrinally and conservative to boot.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think there are about half a dozen different theories of the atonement, some of them rather obscure, and PSA certainly strikes me as not one found in the early church. It seems to conform to 16th century legal theory and language, doesn't it?
The 'satisfaction' theory is itself fairly late; I suppose a quite early view is 'moral influence' and the 'Victor' theory.
Presumably, PSA was a refinement of the satisfaction account, but it's pretty complicated to trace out all the different strands. For example, there is a 'participatory' idea, that we all share in the atonement, probably found in different theories.
I think Romans 3: 21 - 26 is instructive here.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Absolutely not - a minority and modern innovation.
I don't know. Romans 3: 21 - 26 suggests otherwise.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Well the positive element is that I have read and studied my Bible and commentaries quite a bit as I have tried to weigh up this conundrum.
I came across a 2006 statement by the Evangelical Alliance. Obviously this is reference to PSA and the debate that erupted a while ago, due to Chalke's book ''The Lost Message of Jesus'' :
quote:
Board Statement of 27/02/06
The Board of the Evangelical Alliance:
1. Unanimously reaffirms the Alliance Basis of Faith, as revised and adopted in September 2005.
2. Notes that the Basis defines 'all people' to have been 'corrupted by sin', that this sin 'incurs divine wrath and judgement', and that on the cross Jesus sacrificially atoned for sin by 'dying in our place' and 'paying the price' of such sin.
3. Understands these descriptions of Jesus' death to affirm penal substitutionary atonement.
4. Accepts that the Bible speaks of the cross in various other ways in addition to, but not at the expense of, penal substitutionary atonement;
5. Emphasises that other models of atonement are endorsed in the Basis of Faith alongside penal substitution, including Christus Victor, Moral Influence and Recapitulation, but that these should be seen as complementing rather than negating penal substitution.
6. Is committed to ensuring that the Basis of Faith remains determinative of the Alliance's doctrine and practice.
7. Underlines the requirement that Board, Council, permanent staff and all members of the Alliance should assent to the Basis of Faith annually, and should do so with integrity.
I was interested in this one as it seemed to link into what we've been discussing: quote:
(The EA) Emphasises that other models of atonement are endorsed in the Basis of Faith alongside penal substitution, including Christus Victor, Moral Influence and Recapitulation, but that these should be seen as complementing rather than negating penal substitution.
So PSA seems pretty important to EA, but I guess some would say, they would say that wouldn't they, and that is of course true. But EA is fairly unambiguous and with SSM I would bet on Chalke being seen as ''hopping'' over to Emergent Church territory - IMHO.
I expect Chalke would define himself as a ''Christian''. But the natives do seem to be getting restless and I wonder what bombshell may be landed on evangelicals next by Chalke? Who can tell.
Saul the Apostle.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think there are about half a dozen different theories of the atonement, some of them rather obscure, and PSA certainly strikes me as not one found in the early church. It seems to conform to 16th century legal theory and language, doesn't it?
The 'satisfaction' theory is itself fairly late; I suppose a quite early view is 'moral influence' and the 'Victor' theory.
Presumably, PSA was a refinement of the satisfaction account, but it's pretty complicated to trace out all the different strands. For example, there is a 'participatory' idea, that we all share in the atonement, probably found in different theories.
I think Romans 3: 21 - 26 is instructive here.
It certainly is, but I doubt that it equates to PSA. However, this is o/t, and probably has been done to death on this forum.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Saul the Apostle
The Evangelical Alliance is a voluntary organisation. You can't define socialist by member of the Labour Party, nor can you define Evangelical by member of the Evangelical Alliance.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Absolutely not - a minority and modern innovation.
I don't know. Romans 3: 21 - 26 suggests otherwise.
Not so, IMO. To read either original sin or PSA into those verses i s precisely that -to read them in, to eisogise.
The verses affirm the universal sinfulness of humankind, certainly, but most Christians would do that, whilst many doing so would not believe in OS. And v 25 could actually be read as God demonstrating, in Christ, His implacable rejection of punishment as a way of dealing with sin.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding - and I confess to not being a theologian or a scholar - is that PSA was quite a late development, (16th century), and that for example, the early church did not teach it.
I don't think you can accurately say PSA is a late-term development, given there's some pretty heavy duty biblical support for it, as well as allusions to it (perhaps not by name) in patristic writings & creedal statements. But what you do see as a later development is PSA as the only image for the atonement.
In earlier church history, other images would be prominent in various times/place, or multiple images would be given as different ways to explain/ understand the atonement, but PSA would usually be in the mix somewhere. But seeing PSA as the only explanation, rather than just one image among at least five, that's relatively recent.
[ 04. March 2013, 19:33: 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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Absolutely not - a minority and modern innovation.
I don't know. Romans 3: 21 - 26 suggests otherwise.
Not so, IMO. To read either original sin or PSA into those verses i s precisely that -to read them in, to eisogise.
The verses affirm the universal sinfulness of humankind, certainly, but most Christians would do that, whilst many doing so would not believe in OS. And v 25 could actually be read as God demonstrating, in Christ, His implacable rejection of punishment as a way of dealing with sin.
It's not eisegesis to point out the imagery found in biblical texts. Rom. 3 goes beyond just affirming the universal sinfulness of all humanity. In fact, honestly, you seem to be engaging in a bit of eisegesis yourself re: v. 25-- it's hard to see how you can get "rejection of punishment" from a phrase like "sacrifice of atonement". otoh, that precise phrase-- the heavy use of temple imagery-- fits better with satisfaction theory rather than substitution. Rom. 5:15-21, otoh, with it's heavy use of legal terminology, seems to point us to substitution theory.
All of which IMHO points us to the fact that substitution has been there since the beginning-- but so have the other five major images of the atonement, all of which have a rich biblical pedigree. IMHO, the problem is not with PSA per se, but with stressing PSA as the only image-- thus pressing the metaphor too far. When you recognize/ appreciate all five of the biblical images of the atonement they tend to balance one another out, correcting for the limitations of each, and reminding us that each is only an image. Not a legal transaction, but a metaphor for an awesome transcendent mystery.
[ 04. March 2013, 19:46: 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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ Cliffdweller
I agree that the imagery points towards OT sacrifice, but that is not an affirmation of a penal understanding of the atonement. The animal to be sacrificed wasn't a sin-bearer. Had it been, it would be unclean, and thus not acceptable. The sin-bearing scapegoat was sent out, not sacrificed. Furthermore, substitution is not necessarily penal. Think "champion", rather than "victim".
But it's the text, rather than the imagery that seems to me to speak against PSA. The natural meaning of v25 seems toe to be that the death of Christ explains why God had not punished wrongdoing, that His idea of justice is concerned with restoration, not punishment, and that this is accomplished through the self-sacrifice of the Godhead.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ Cliffdweller
I agree that the imagery points towards OT sacrifice, but that is not an affirmation of a penal understanding of the atonement. The animal to be sacrificed wasn't a sin-bearer. Had it been, it would be unclean, and thus not acceptable. The sin-bearing scapegoat was sent out, not sacrificed. Furthermore, substitution is not necessarily penal. Think "champion", rather than "victim".
But it's the text, rather than the imagery that seems to me to speak against PSA. The natural meaning of v25 seems toe to be that the death of Christ explains why God had not punished wrongdoing, that His idea of justice is concerned with restoration, not punishment, and that this is accomplished through the self-sacrifice of the Godhead.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This is beginning to turn into yet another PSA thread ...
But it is pertinent as it strikes me that PSA is a particular evangelical shibboleth and one which the EA and others would fight hard to defend.
The Orthodox, of course, would argue very strongly against it and claim that there is very little Patristic emphasis on it - although some of the more balanced Orthodox treatments I've read would concede that there are hints/odd references to what might be understood in a substitutionary way but it's the penal bit that they take exception to.
But I'm no expert.
Fr Gregory, who used to post on these boards, once told me how surprised a visiting group of Anglican theological students were when they came to a service at his church (as part of their studies) and found that here was a Christian tradition that didn't emphasise vicarious substitutionary atonement. It's not that the Orthodox don't believe in the atonement - they do - but they understand it very differently.
PSA as it is currently understood did develop from the 16th century onwards, although reaching back into medieval Catholic understandings - particularly Anselm with his 'Cur Deus Homo', a version of the 'satisfaction' theory.
I'm simplifying things, but in Orthodoxy the emphasis seems to be more on the entire 'Christ event' - from the Incarnation to the Ascension with the Cross/Resurrection more closely linked than they sometimes are - or appear to be - in certain Western emphases.
As for the roots of evangelicalism, well, evangelicalism as we know it is essentially the spiritual descendent of Puritanism mediated through 18th century Pietism and revivalism - and involves a fusion of Calvinist and Arminian elements to a large extent. The Puritan tradition and its forebears didn't emphasise the 'conversion' aspect as much as they believed you could be deceived into thinking that you were among the Elect when you weren't ...
Reading some of the accounts of the Wesleys and their supporters during the 18th century Great Awakening it seems that it was the emphasis on sudden conversion and the 'conscious' apprehension that one's sins had been forgiven that proved among the most controversial elements. Some of the old school 'Black Calvinists' didn't like that at all.
Lollardy in 14th century England and the Hussites and Waldensians on the continent were certainly precursors of Protestantism but not necessarily direct precursors of evangelicalism. Any features they share with evangelicalism would be features they share with Protestantism overall rather than evangelicalism in particular.
I say this because there appears to be a default position within evangelicalism that their particular 'take' constitutes orthodox Protestantism and that other varieties of Protestantism somehow aren't the real deal.
I think we can see this, and I say this respectfully, in the way that Saul and to an extent EM are posting here ... and it's a way I'd have frame things myself at one time ...
He said Emergently ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ Cliffdweller
I agree that the imagery points towards OT sacrifice, but that is not an affirmation of a penal understanding of the atonement. The animal to be sacrificed wasn't a sin-bearer. Had it been, it would be unclean, and thus not acceptable. The sin-bearing scapegoat was sent out, not sacrificed. Furthermore, substitution is not necessarily penal. Think "champion", rather than "victim".
But it's the text, rather than the imagery that seems to me to speak against PSA. The natural meaning of v25 seems toe to be that the death of Christ explains why God had not punished wrongdoing, that His idea of justice is concerned with restoration, not punishment, and that this is accomplished through the self-sacrifice of the Godhead.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
@ Cliffdweller
I agree that the imagery points towards OT sacrifice, but that is not an affirmation of a penal understanding of the atonement. The animal to be sacrificed wasn't a sin-bearer. Had it been, it would be unclean, and thus not acceptable. The sin-bearing scapegoat was sent out, not sacrificed. Furthermore, substitution is not necessarily penal. Think "champion", rather than "victim".
Yes, which fwiw it's what I said-- that it fits satisfaction (temple image), not substitution (law court image).
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But it's the text, rather than the imagery that seems to me to speak against PSA. The natural meaning of v25 seems toe to be that the death of Christ explains why God had not punished wrongdoing, that His idea of justice is concerned with restoration, not punishment, and that this is accomplished through the self-sacrifice of the Godhead.
Agreed. But that's a bit different than what you said in your post, which seemed like more of a reach to me. Thanks for the clarification.
--------------------
"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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think we can see this, and I say this respectfully, in the way that Saul and to an extent EM are posting here ... and it's a way I'd have frame things myself at one time ...
He said Emergently ...
On the other hand, where you are now, I once was. Emergent/emerging - now emerged but a long way from Chalke and McClaren.
You see it from the POV of Orthodox, I see it from the POV of evangelicalism. I don't deny orthodoxen(?) are believers: their balance of the various explanations for (or strands of) the atonement (PSA included) is just different from mine that's all. I don't deny any of the theories advanced here: IMHO taken together they give a balanced and nuanced view of God's work. I might just want to include PSA where others take it out or play it down.
As for PSA being new - well, we're open to new understandings of human sexuality for example, so why not atonement? If we're prepared to move beyond tradition, then we can't pick and chose where the impact is felt.
[ 04. March 2013, 21:34: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Every self identifying group needs an out group! It comes from the nature of language. In order to be able say "that" you have to be able to say "not that".
Evangelicalism has a long tradition of opposing liberalism, which is why we speak of Open rather than Liberal Evangelicals.
No Evangelical would dare call themselves liberal, no matter how liberal they become. Open is the substitute word.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Heck, balaam, I did for years, until I settled for the more general nonconformist.
One conevo friend, to whom I described myself as a liberal evangelical, huffed and puffed. "Isn't that term rather like 'boiling ice'?". To which I replied airily "Of course not. Its a classic dissenter's right to differ!". And then observed that at the right temperature and pressure, ice will actually vapourise ... (nonconformism can be such fun).
I still do self-identify as an evangelical, for historical and ongoing community reasons. If the child is father to the man, my spritual childhood was spent almost entirely in the evo-world, these days I travel more widely.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Absolutely not - only by evangelicals, a minority and modern innovation.
There have been loads of threads on PSA so might be a tangent here
PSA is not the only substitutionary theology of the atonement. A large number of theologies of the atonement are substitutionary at some level.
PSA may be a shibboleth in some evangelical circles, but I suspect it's largely as an unconscious attempt to give themselves an identity in the face of evangelical diffuseness. Once liberalism largely faded away, a form of liberalism was invented so that evangelicalism could define itself against it.
Post evangelism seems to me to be more characterised by the movements and individuals who have tried to keep the bebbington quadrilateral in the background while rediscovering the wider christian tradition (otherwise why even call them post evanglical - you may as well call them the new liberals). I'm not sure that Steve Chalke is necessarily characteristic of that movement such as it is.
[ 04. March 2013, 23:07: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Every self identifying group needs an out group! It comes from the nature of language. In order to be able say "that" you have to be able to say "not that".
Evangelicalism has a long tradition of opposing liberalism, which is why we speak of Open rather than Liberal Evangelicals.
No Evangelical would dare call themselves liberal, no matter how liberal they become. Open is the substitute word.
I refer to myself as liberal (or left-wing) evangelical, but that's primarily a reference to the distinction between political liberal/conservatism & theological.
--------------------
"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
I've noticed that (in the British context) the word 'liberal' seems less attractive as a self-confessed label than 'evangelical'. The word 'evangelical' has a longer historical pedigree, of course. It seems to have a culture, an identity. Paradoxically, it also seems more inclusive, in the sense that it has the grass-roots, plain-speaking connotations of the plough boy with his Bible, whereas 'liberal' implies ivory towers and theologians who are far from the people.
In reality, the boundaries between the two are shifting all the time, depending on internal and external factors. Perhaps it's often more of a spectrum than two completely separate entities. Nevertheless, calling oneself a 'liberal evangelical' does seem a bit like trying to have one's cake and eat it! In the UK, 'moderates' in the church might think of themselves as open or broad evangelicals. I don't much hear the term 'liberal' used, except in reference to certain clergymen or theologians, or on this website. The increasing amount of self-confessed evangelicalism in our congregations means I'm likely to hear it even less.
Maybe a rebranding exercise is needed re 'liberal' Christianity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think 'liberal Christian' has become meaningless. If people ask me what I am, I usually say I don't know. This combines truth with brevity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
One of the root meanings of the word "liberal" (before it became enmeshed in politics, probably to its detriment) is "generous in giving".
I think when McLaren used the term "generous orthodoxy", that is the kind of value he was reaching for.
I like the word "generous" in this context these days, rather than the word "liberal". Fewer overtones. I suppose you might argue it's an attempt to grab a bit of moral highground. But I don't mind its use by anyone, provided that they are generous!
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One of the root meanings of the word "liberal" (before it became enmeshed in politics, probably to its detriment) is "generous in giving".
I think when McLaren used the term "generous orthodoxy", that is the kind of value he was reaching for.
I like the word "generous" in this context these days, rather than the word "liberal". Fewer overtones. I suppose you might argue it's an attempt to grab a bit of moral highground. But I don't mind its use by anyone, provided that they are generous!
McClaren has destroyed any vestige of usefulness in the term "generous" - since he isn't, at least to his opponents.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think 'liberal Christian' has become meaningless. If people ask me what I am, I usually say I don't know. This combines truth with brevity.
I say 'liberal, pretty modalist, closely verging on universalist, with occasional atheist tendencies and an enthusiastic evangelical follower of Jesus Christ'
That stumps 'em (and it's true!)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Exclamation Mark
I don't think he likes meanness, Exclamation Mark. I don't think he attacks folks who see differently. Pointing to what he sees as mean-spirited attitudes is playing the ball not the person. People can always respond by explaining why they think the criticism is misplaced.
Of course any of us can take offence at an implication that we are mean. The distinction between criticising an argument or an attitude as mean, and saying that a person is mean, is pretty well recognised in our dialogues here (Commandment 3)
I think McLaren is Purgatorial, not Hellish. It is possible to maintain generosity towards people while disagreeing with them over views and outlook.
[ 05. March 2013, 08:00: 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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think McLaren is Purgatorial, not Hellish. It is possible to maintain generosity towards people while disagreeing with them over views and outlook.
Yeah, and given the abuse that gets dished out to him, Steve C & Rob B, they all do pretty well treat those people graciously.
It's perfectly possible to disagree profoundly, yet treat each other with respect and humility. A great example would be NT Wright & Marcus Borg's The Meaning of Jesus.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure where I'm 'at', to be honest, ExclamationMark. Non-conformity is in my spiritual DNA as it is with Barnabas62 and your good self - but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I was drawn in a more 'catholic' (broad c) direction when it comes to the sacraments and spirituality - contemplative prayer and so forth.
Evangelicalism is part of my DNA too and for that reason, I too am reluctant to abandon PSA entirely - although I would say I'm inclined to 'use' it alongside the other available theories.
I take your point about progressive revelation and that if we are to adapt/develop our views on issues such as human sexuality, then why not on issues such as the atonement? But that sounds a bit like having one's cake and eating it. But then, perhaps that's the reality of where we're at and up to ...
I s'pose I do use the Orthodox as something of a yard-stick - even though I've not crossed the Bosphorus - in that they've been around longer and I like aspects of their theology very much. That doesn't mean that they don't have problems - they have them in spades - nor does it mean that the RCs (and other Western traditions) don't have some valid points to make against them either.
I like the kind of 'Deep Church' ecumenism espoused by the likes of Andrew Walker - a general 'orthodoxy' based on Paleo-Orthodox pre-Schism emphases common to both East and West ... but then there's an issue because we could end up with 'stasis' based around the 10th century ...
@SvitlanaV2, I think 'liberal' is a loaded term in most evangelical minds and stands as short-hand for 'apostate' or unbelieving. I don't think it's often appreciated that there are nuances and a continuum there just as much as there is within evangelicalism or Catholicism ...
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Exclamation Mark
I don't think he likes meanness, Exclamation Mark. I don't think he attacks folks who see differently. Pointing to what he sees as mean-spirited attitudes is playing the ball not the person. People can always respond by explaining why they think the criticism is misplaced.
McClaren is very disingenuous in what he says over a lot of issues. In fact, he is so disingenuous (and that's what has turned me off from being a big follower at the start), that he has blurred the boundaries such that when he's saying he's playing the ball, he's actually playing the man. That's when you can wrestle a real opinion or truth out of him. (Don't forget though that he rarely admits even to playing the ball). After all, don't forget the ball belongs to the man - as do the attitudes. Attack the attitude and you attack the man.
It's rather like claiming you can hate the sin but love the sinner - it's complete nonesense: to the "sinner", the "sin" isn't "sin" but acceptable, normal behaviour. Matthew Parris pointed this out some years ago in the Times, in a leader article about the church and homosexuality.
What was once incredibly refreshing has become tiresomely similar to what has gone before.
[ 05. March 2013, 09:05: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
After all, don't forget the ball belongs to the man - as do the attitudes. Attack the attitude and you attack the man.
This is worth a thread of its own. There must be a line to be drawn between ball and man, or discussion would not be possible at all.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure where I'm 'at', to be honest, ExclamationMark. Non-conformity is in my spiritual DNA as it is with Barnabas62 and your good self - but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I was drawn in a more 'catholic' (broad c) direction when it comes to the sacraments and spirituality - contemplative prayer and so forth.
Evangelicalism is part of my DNA too and for that reason, I too am reluctant to abandon PSA entirely - although I would say I'm inclined to 'use' it alongside the other available theories.
I take your point about progressive revelation and that if we are to adapt/develop our views on issues such as human sexuality, then why not on issues such as the atonement? But that sounds a bit like having one's cake and eating it. But then, perhaps that's the reality of where we're at and up to ...
I s'pose I do use the Orthodox as something of a yard-stick - even though I've not crossed the Bosphorus - in that they've been around longer and I like aspects of their theology very much. That doesn't mean that they don't have problems - they have them in spades - nor does it mean that the RCs (and other Western traditions) don't have some valid points to make against them either.
I like the kind of 'Deep Church' ecumenism espoused by the likes of Andrew Walker - a general 'orthodoxy' based on Paleo-Orthodox pre-Schism emphases common to both East and West ... but then there's an issue because we could end up with 'stasis' based around the 10th century ...
@SvitlanaV2, I think 'liberal' is a loaded term in most evangelical minds and stands as short-hand for 'apostate' or unbelieving. I don't think it's often appreciated that there are nuances and a continuum there just as much as there is within evangelicalism or Catholicism ...
Thanks Gamaliel. Reasonable as always.
I wouldn't self identify under any label these days as they are all devalued or misunderstood in some way.
I might say dissenter is closet but what am I dissenting against or from? Poverty? The class system in England? The established church? The BUGB? The politicians in Westminster? The so called landed gentry and royalty? Churches that don't give the impression that their faith matters?
All of them as it happens. But, that's perhaps more a function of my nature than my spiritual positioning. I was dissenting in that way well before I became part of any "church."
I accept that you find Orthodoxy gives you a lens to see things in a sacramental way. I'm glad but it's not for me either naturally or spiritually. I'm more inclined to find my sacraments - as befits an ex farm labourer - in the open air of creation, recognising that redemption and sacrifice is a part of that too. I'm not comfortable with anything - people, ritual or qualification - that comes between humanity and God, which is why I am not of a priestly inclination at all.
My life experiences where I was ridiculed for many years for my accent, background and living standards has ignited a fire that seeks to consume abuse of position, hierarchy and social class: sometimes it burns over into a desire to remove all 3 entirely when some spectacular abuse comes to light. At times like that the baby can go out with the bathwater and in attacking the issue, by definition I play the man. I bite the hand that feeds me: (once to the edge of self destruction). Done it once or twice in the BUGB so I'm surprised I was ever allowed to move churches!
Having said all that, if you asked any of the churches I've served they'd certainly say (as they have) "EM is a real life, hard line, paid up Con Evo. He's into looking at new ways of being church but he's on a firm foundation."
I'd no longer say the same even though my preaching/beliefs etc haven't changed - it's just that Evangelicalism has moved to a place where I don't feel defined (or perhaps even welcome) any more.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
After all, don't forget the ball belongs to the man - as do the attitudes. Attack the attitude and you attack the man.
This is worth a thread of its own. There must be a line to be drawn between ball and man, or discussion would not be possible at all.
Depends on the level of ownership. If I own the ball (whether actually) or by association, anyomne playing it is polaying me depending on how "tight" my ownership is.
I'm not a footballer but a cricketer. While I have the ball to bowl it's mine: a good length ball unceremoniously dumped for 6 is not just playing that ball, it's playing me. The skill and effort I've put in is being disparaged: it's not batsman:bowler, this is persoanl.
Why are theological arguments any different unless you are deliberatly trolling or setting up straw men which you don't or can't own?
An e.g for you. If someone disparages the teaching profession for its attitiudes on say strikes or absence here on the ship, you will rightly fly to its defence. You own it and/or it owns you. Different issue but same result: in playing the ball of soem teachers and some bad attitudes (in very walk of like known to man), the whole team crys foul.
Discussion will only really take place when ownership is low - ie people are willing not just to listen (which we can all do) but to move or change (which is another thing entirely). A fair bit of stuff on the ship and in real life isn't discussion but an exchange of views: not much will change as a result unless ownership is loose and the people concerned willing.
It's a very unusual person (and I've not coem across one I know tloerably well in 50 years tbh) who doesn't play the person from time to time under the pretence of playing the ball.
[ 05. March 2013, 09:40: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Those who acknowledge that they are on a journey, that their faith and belief has changed and will probably change again, are inevitably going to be more provisional, cautious and humble. They will be easy to talk to, ready to see a different view as well as to tentatively express their own. If there is disagreement with them, it shouldn't feel final. You are simply reporting on how things seem to you from where you are at the moment.
Those who believe they have arrived at a faith and belief that is true are less easy to talk to. Especially those who think that a yard to either side lie false beliefs that will take anyone who strays there straight to damnation. Talking with such a person is never more than clarifying where you stand. Either you agree and all is well, or you disagree and are therefore enemies who had better disengage.
My point, rather obvious, perhaps, is that there are styles of belief as well as beliefs. There are ways of being evangelical or agnostic or catholic or whatever. You can have a dynamic attitude to faith, as a kitbag for a journey, or you can regard it as static, a territory to be defended.
When the EA redefines and reasserts its beliefs again, and scrutinises the position of Steve Chalke to see if he is still one of us or not, it is operating on the static model.
Those who self-describe as open, and who seek dialogue, are operating on the dynamic model. They might believe that same sex marriage is a terrible thing, and that PSA is the only acceptable understanding of the cross, but if they know that these beliefs are ones that have gradually grown in appeal for them, and acknowledge that they might one day move on from them, then they are as different in spirit as you can imagine from the firm and fixed believers.
Labels and limits will always matter greatly to the static type. For the shifters, not so much. It's about direction more than location.
The dynamic people are, in my opinion, the only interesting ones, and the only ones really fit to talk to. Who wants to risk sharing a precious insight with someone who already knows what they think about everything?
I think it's an observable fact that those on the evangelical liberal spectrum who are open rather than closed drift leftwards.
I think that in reality everyone is a work in progress. Hard evangelicals are simply in denial and bolster their current position with conferences, books, sound mantras and approved heroes. They are scared to think that Jesus might be the Way. They want to fix and freeze everything, not realising that insistent firmness of belief is a failure of faith.
Just a few of my prejudices.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The dynamic people are, in my opinion, the only interesting ones, and the only ones really fit to talk to. Who wants to risk sharing a precious insight with someone who already knows what they think about everything?
I think you're revealing more than prejudice here hatless: you're saying you're not prepared to listen to their insights and thus guilty of the same things you charge them with.
It's worth IME contending with every pharisee and becoming vulnerable with them. OK they may not listen but it's worth listening to them even if you don't agree. It might - just - win their trust and develope the ground for dialogue and growth.
I try no to give up on anyone and I know God won't.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I see that another PSA-type atonement thread has just arrived. Here.
If you want to get busy on that topic per se, I suggest you take your arguments there. On the wider questions of evangelicalism and post-evangelicalism, let's use this thread.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
You're right, of course, Exc.Mark. It's painful, though, sharing tentative, hopeful insights with someone who knows the right answer to everything.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The exchange between hatless and Exclamation Mark reminds me of a nice bit of Adrian Plass
"Freely I confess my sin
For God has poured His Grace in
But when another speaks my faults
I want to smash his face in"
But seriously, folks ..
It really is possible to discuss differences of opinion, outlook and vision without rancour. Regardless of how dangerous we perceive the views of others to be - and vice versa.
It's a Romans 12 standard viz
quote:
18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Nobody ever said it was easy. But we're obliged to at least explore the limits of what is possible.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Both sides make valid points and may think they’re having a dialogue, but they’re not exactly engaging with each other in a meaningful way. The best we can hope for is that each one models a Christ-like way of handling a difference of opinion. Although, based on a reading of this month’s letters page in Christianity, I won’t be holding my breath … Since when did pretending there was no disagreement / difference of opinion and refusing to discuss the issue at all a sensible way of dealing with anything?!
Chalke is saying is that his pastoral experience tells him that the church needs to engage with certain issues and communities in a different way – as it’s current method of operation isn’t doing it any favours whatsoever. And is, in some incidences, completely contrary to the message of the Gospel. His Scriptural interpretation isn’t all it could be, but … The EA’s response is fine as far it as goes – that Scripture says blah, but it ignores the pastoral aspect.
EM – if you substitute the word gay into some of your posts about being mistreated because of your class, accent etc, and your desire to serve the poor, I suspect that you and Chalke are closer than you think.
In Baptist terms, Chalke’s behaviour makes total sense - he has thought and prayed over an issue and bought his conclusions to the discussion … As a Minister, his position is slightly interesting as his actions go against BUGB rules, but he hasn’t signed anything and Baptist Trainfan’s comments suggest that he may not have been aware there were rules.
The thing about congregational government is that you have to accept what the congregation decides whether you like it or not – and that particular Oasis congregation decided that they’re okay with SSM. By wading in the BUGB are going to please as many people as they piss off. No wonder they’re keeping quiet. (And, if pushed, I suspect that most Baptists would argue that congregational government trumps taking a firm stance against that sort of thing as people should be left to make their own minds up).
I’m not sure what the EA can do. They can state that by their definition, Chalke isn’t an evangelical … They can kick Oasis out of the EA if it’s a member. And, um, that’s it … I'd say that Chalke is a evanglical - ticking some of the boxes, but not others. Bit like most of us really.
Tubbs
[ 05. March 2013, 12:49: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Don't get me wrong, EM ... if I am taking a more 'sacramental' line these days, it doesn't mean that I don't see God in the open air and all the rest of it ... same as you do.
It's both/and not either/or.
I think these things can be a barrier and stand 'between' but they can also act as conduits and channels of grace. It depends how you approach them, I suppose ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Forgot to add … When many Christians say words like Christian, Evangelical or Sound, what they actually mean is “People Who Agree With Me”. The fact that is perfectly possible to be a Christian and not agree with them can come as a surprise. Some manage to get their head round this, whilst others go into conversation mode or seek to close the discussion down entirely.
One of the reasons that Chalke has come in for quite such spectacular criticism is that Good Little Evangelical poster boys are not supposed to go off message and start expressing opinions of their own. Where will it end?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's sad what happens when folks forget that all us noncos are here because our predecessors in the faith found the courage to dissent.
Of all people, nonconformists should be the most comfortable with the possibility of diverse views expressed by sincere believers.
--------------------
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
My point of view is that if people self-identify as liberal, catholic, charismatic, evangelical, atheist even, than that's OK; but let them have integrity and BE those things. I do not mind in the slightest if Rev Chalke wishes to be more liberal and less evangelical - God is fine with that BUT he needs to make clear that he is no longer in that evangelical scenario. If I decided I wanted to celebrate the Lord's supper in salvation Army services, the only honourable and honest thing to do would be to resign my commission (as people I know have done)and accept ordination into the Methodist church.
You cannot have your cake and eat it.
The problem ,as I see it, with some people who become 'poster boys' as has been described, or have become media figures, is that they begin to feel they are bigger and more significant than they really are.
I wonder whether there is a case for suggesting that SC, being a well-known face, thought his media-presence and self-perceived popularity would persuade evangelical people of the validity of his cause.
Actually, it seems that his previous self-publicising and rather patronising tones (in the written word as well as vocally) have rather turned people off him.
I still have a negative view of him since he started his Faithworks stuff and the tour he embarked on to teach the rest of the church that he had invented community work and that the church should listen to and learn from him, because he had discovered how to do it all!
As a Salvationist I found that to be patronising and offensive, and rather ignorant of the vast amount of valuable and professionally undertaken community work that a great many church, including TSA, have done for decades.
--------------------
"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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think 'liberal' is a loaded term in most evangelical minds and stands as short-hand for 'apostate' or unbelieving. I don't think it's often appreciated that there are nuances and a continuum there just as much as there is within evangelicalism or Catholicism ...
To be fair, though, in some circles the word 'evangelical' is a bit of a insult, so the feelings of unease and incomprehension are probably mutual.
I was interested to read in a denominational survey that the Methodist church is the only denomination where self-professed liberal Christians are a growing proportion of the whole. Maybe that's because the most evangelical ones among them have left for other churches. (Or because for some reason the term 'liberal' doesn't inspire as much confusion and anxiety there as it seems to do among Baptists and Anglicans!)
By Methodist standards I'd easily be a broad evangelical, but I don't know if evangelicals in other denominations would have much patience with me. In reality though, the only two places where I see these labels discussed is on the internet or in books.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can certainly understand your position, Mudfrog but would suggest that whilst there are parallels in the example you use, I also think there are some important differences.
Arguably, there is nothing in Chalke's position in terms of belief that would go against his being a Baptist. His 'blessing' of a same-sex relationship ie. an issue of praxis - might well be.
There are Baptist ministers around who take a far more 'liberal' view of things than he might. There are Baptist ministers around who are practically if not fully unitarian, for instance.
So that begs the question of what exactly it is about Chalke's position that might put him beyond the pale in evangelical terms - or EA terms - rather than specifically Baptist terms? Most Baptists are evangelical but you don't HAVE to be evangelical to be a Baptist. Hatless here is an example of a non-evangelical Baptist minister. He isn't the only one, although he may feel that he is at times ...
Is it SSM? Particular views on the atonement?
For the record, some liberals I've spoken too also have an issue with Steve Chalke - they think he's somewhat attention-seeking and is making a career out of clashing with his own tradition.
My own view is that the irritating facets - and I think I've have been irritated by the Faithworks tour thingy if I was a Salvationist - come from within the tradition itself. He's simply utilised the style of presentation that has become associated with the popular end of the evangelical movement - the Spring Harvests and so on.
And I suspect that's why he's had so much stick. Because the people he's dissenting from also use that style of communication and they're fearful of seeing it used against them.
I don't have anything against Chalke but he's not a hefty theologian by any stretch of the imagination but a somewhat populist communicator - and in a style that is endemic within contemporary evangelicalism for better or for worse.
I don't think that your irritation with Chalke is an example of Parable of the Prodigal Son elder-brother type behaviour, Mudfrog, but a legitimate response. That said, I think all of us would be gracious enough to concede that Chalke's faith/works going together emphasis is a welcome one in the evangelical world as a whole.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think if you got up close and personal to certain evangelical churches and congregations, SvitlanaV2 you'd quickly find that these things aren't just discussed on the internet or in books. They'd quickly try to suss you out to find how 'sound' you were.
I think that the broad evangelical position you've described wouldn't be out-of-place in most evangelical CofE or BUGB Baptist congregations. But there are places I can think of where they'd ask shibboleth questions to find out where you were at and whether or not you were one of them ...
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
1. I suspect that you and Chalke are closer than you think.
2. In Baptist terms, Chalke’s behaviour makes total sense - he has thought and prayed over an issue and bought his conclusions to the discussion …
3. As a Minister, his position is slightly interesting as his actions go against BUGB rules, but he hasn’t signed anything and Baptist Trainfan’s comments suggest that he may not have been aware there were rules.
4. No wonder they’re keeping quiet. Tubbs
1. Yes I know. Tiresome isn't it but in my defence I've always been a thorn in soembody's side in BUGB
2. Yep and everyone can decide in conscience whether he's right or wrong.
3. Yes it does go against the rules. I can understand that he hasn't signed anything but the chnages have been prettyt heavily signposted over the years that it's pretty near inconceiveable that he wouldn't have known. In fact, the "new" guidelines are more liberal on SSm than the old (which he probably did sign being a "good boy" then destined for higher things).
4. Yes the BUGB are hung is they do, hung if they don't. An invidious position but one they have partly backed themselves into by refusing to address the issue of SSM earlier, at Conference level (and please no, not at that unelected, misrepresentative BU Council).
Hung if they do - as you say, many are sympathetic. Far more than most people realise. Not active supporters, just couldn't care less or see it as a time bandit with lots else to do.
Hung if they don't - creates a precedent. What would it take to get deaccredited? If they don't address this then it efectively blows the whole idea of accreditation out of the water and there's no ins or outs. What about those removed from the list for having affairs - well that action is based on the acceditation rules and would, if Steve C faces no action, be technically free from BUGB action.
Of course they may be concerned that if they do something (why change the habit of a lifetime) then there's a legal perspective on it all. To my knowledge where that route has been put on the table, BUGB have rolled over and played dead every time.
It's a total mess and made worse because the BUGB will basically do nothing. neither to affirm Steve or to challenge him - instead the debate is being thrashed out in the public arena. No place to air our dirty linen.
I am still perplexed why Steve C chose to bring it up now. The BUGB is in state of change: the leadership at national and local level has its eyes on its own future not the doings of its ministers (or that's what it feels like on the ground for a number of reasons other than this debate). Presumably this all happened a while ago. is this all an attempt to be "a good day to bury bad news" type of thing? Perhaps only Steve C can tell.
As regards his evangelicalism - I'm sure Steve and I share many opinion in common. I'm just becoming more and more certain that our differences (and more the way he arrives at the decision) make it hard for me to take some of his stuff seriously.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My point of view is that if people self-identify as liberal, catholic, charismatic, evangelical, atheist even, than that's OK; but let them have integrity and BE those things. I do not mind in the slightest if Rev Chalke wishes to be more liberal and less evangelical - God is fine with that BUT he needs to make clear that he is no longer in that evangelical scenario. If I decided I wanted to celebrate the Lord's supper in salvation Army services, the only honourable and honest thing to do would be to resign my commission (as people I know have done)and accept ordination into the Methodist church.
You cannot have your cake and eat it.
The problem ,as I see it, with some people who become 'poster boys' as has been described, or have become media figures, is that they begin to feel they are bigger and more significant than they really are.
I wonder whether there is a case for suggesting that SC, being a well-known face, thought his media-presence and self-perceived popularity would persuade evangelical people of the validity of his cause.
Actually, it seems that his previous self-publicising and rather patronising tones (in the written word as well as vocally) have rather turned people off him.
I still have a negative view of him since he started his Faithworks stuff and the tour he embarked on to teach the rest of the church that he had invented community work and that the church should listen to and learn from him, because he had discovered how to do it all!
As a Salvationist I found that to be patronising and offensive, and rather ignorant of the vast amount of valuable and professionally undertaken community work that a great many church, including TSA, have done for decades.
But that assumes we agree on what those things are in the first place. Now, I could read the EA, the UCCF and similar statements of faith and say that I agree with them. No lie. But whether or not they’d agree with my interpretation of them is another question entirely. If someone self identifies as something, all that someone else can say is that in their opinion, that’s not right.
To be honest, I think that by writing the article in Christianity and putting supporting material in places where it will be seen by the wider Christian community, Chalke has shown bucket loads of integrity. (Same goes for his comments on PSA – however badly expressed I thought they were). It’s a start of a discussion, not the end of one. It would have been far easier to have kept his gob shut.
At the time when FaithWorks was started, some churches had taken a step away from doing practical social Gospel type things – that was covered off by the annual charitable donation to something like Tearfund or Christian Aid. What Chalke did through FaithWorks was get people thinking that a) it could be done and b) it could be them doing it. Some churches still have the social awareness of a stone. It would have been better if Chalke had acknowledged the work some churches were already doing – but that can lead people to think that if someone’s already doing it, it means they don’t have to.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My point of view is that if people self-identify as liberal, catholic, charismatic, evangelical, atheist even, than that's OK; but let them have integrity and BE those things. I do not mind in the slightest if Rev Chalke wishes to be more liberal and less evangelical - God is fine with that BUT he needs to make clear that he is no longer in that evangelical scenario. If I decided I wanted to celebrate the Lord's supper in salvation Army services, the only honourable and honest thing to do would be to resign my commission (as people I know have done)and accept ordination into the Methodist church.
You cannot have your cake and eat it.
The problem ,as I see it, with some people who become 'poster boys' as has been described, or have become media figures, is that they begin to feel they are bigger and more significant than they really are.
I wonder whether there is a case for suggesting that SC, being a well-known face, thought his media-presence and self-perceived popularity would persuade evangelical people of the validity of his cause.
Actually, it seems that his previous self-publicising and rather patronising tones (in the written word as well as vocally) have rather turned people off him.
I still have a negative view of him since he started his Faithworks stuff and the tour he embarked on to teach the rest of the church that he had invented community work and that the church should listen to and learn from him, because he had discovered how to do it all!
As a Salvationist I found that to be patronising and offensive, and rather ignorant of the vast amount of valuable and professionally undertaken community work that a great many church, including TSA, have done for decades.
Interesting points here.
Yes the Salvation Army were being cutting edge when cutting edge meant getting beaten up and there were near riots when SA folk turned up to preach Christ and temperance from the demon drink in Victorian times :-)
Certainly, like a lot of ''new'' kids on the block, Chalke is neither novel in what he does practically or what he says in his books.
He is a persuasive man with an Essex glottal stop; very keen to be noticed and to be fair to Chalke he likes the publicity but he has, it appears, done much through the Ministry he set up and works for today.
But, the debunking proces AKA ''The Lost Message of Jesus'' could be described as being ''lost'' because often the debunking process claims to find something ''new'' when actually it is ressurecting old heresies or stuff which was ''lost'' for quite good reason in the first place; more like a rehash of previous messsages.
I think the call for authenticity by MF is fair. If you are an elephant, call yourself an elephant and be done with it; do the things elephants do - don't try and drag unwilling and less gullible folk with you. But we're back to defining oneself and Chalke will have a label for himself and I am sure others will slap labels on him.
As MF points out God is big enough to deal with Chalke, whatever his motivations may be.
As stated previously I know little of Chalke and his background. I am a straight down the line evangelical and I think the argument for PSA is a strong one, after all - cross - Jesus - in my place - sin - saved. If I might make it that blindingly simple; to find the ''lost'' message seems naive and quite disingenuous to me and the flippant side of me wants to retort not half so lost as the man who penned the book, but that is not for me to know or to judge.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
