|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Rev Steve Chalke a post - evangelical?
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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.
Whether or not Chalke is a Baptist Minister is less relevant in the wider debate than him being a Minister and A Famous Christian. The particular subtlety of him being a Baptist is probably lost on many people – as is the tangle that the BUGB has made for itself. (You and I will disagree on this as I think in this instance, keeping well out of it is their best option. I think Ministers should be left to decide for themselves).
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Steve Chalke has done some great stuff through faithworks. Yes, it did annoy a few of us in the implication that we weren't doing anything but it made us think.
Yes the "Lost Message" wasn't "Lost" - it's always been there if you want to search it out. That's what annoyed those of us who have read a bit of theology and remember the church history lectures.
Yes he has been honest with the SSB article but his justification for it has proved to be sketchy. It hasn't helped him either in a lot of people's eyes by seeking to escape the wrath of BUGB by saying he doesn't know or can't understand the rules. Wakey wakey Steve, the rest of us know (even idiots like me with way more in common with you than most realise) and if we're going to break them, do so with eyes wide open and don't wriggle when we're found out. That's the saddest of all. I would have said to the BUGB, "So what?" make my 5 minutes if I felt so strongly about it as Steve C seems to want to do.
Steve C has an element of a PR image about him. It has served him, Oasis and the gospel well in the past and does so in any ways now. But don't forget he's a Spurgeons Graduate who did his first church ministry when ordained at Tonbridge.
The saddest thing is that he could have chosen a number of other things from a social justice POV to go public on that (to my mind) are much more important and which would have united poeple behind him and not brought incipient division. Why doesn't he pick up on the Govts benefi reforms that are impacting the poorest in our society? On my doorstep there are 1100 redundancies happening by April (probably impacting 7000 more jobs because of the nature of the industry) with the benefit cuts taking £20 a week off of families. Who is speaking up on that? The Tory MP's and the Council have probably got a contract out on me at the moment on the issue cos I can't keep quiet --- where's Chalk on this?
I can only reiterate my earlier point: why this? why now?
It all smacks of the kind of approach of a smile and a stab: how fatally the BUGB is wounded remains to be seen.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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 ...
I wasn't saying they wouldn't have strict theological requirements for belonging, simply that the term 'evangelical' itself doesn't seem to be much in evidence in the ecumenical environment I'm familiar with. Maybe that's just ecumenical diplomacy at play! But I admit that the Baptist minister I know has openly delared as an evangelical without any prompting. (He certainly wouldn't be caught conducting any SSM blessings, but he's said that other Baptist ministers might.) I don't know if their congregations would routinely use this terminology.
A number of local Christians, knowing that I'm between churches, have angled for me to join them at their church, including the Baptist minister. None of them have exactly tried to suss me out, perhaps because they already know me from my previous church work, and they approve of my commitment. No - what I get sometimes is the slight sense of being 'preached at', which is a bit different!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Gamaliel said quote:
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 ...
I think I'm non-Evangelical, not non-evangelical. That is, I'm keen on sharing the faith, evangelism, but I'm not part of that informal grouping of people who make up the Evangelical movement.
And I don't feel at all lonely. You tend to gravitate towards the like-minded, but I had no problem just now ticking off on my fingers ten serving Baptist ministers whose positions would be very close to mine. I've just moved from Yorkshire to the Midlands, and I find myself in a town with at least five ministers (two retired) who are kindred spirits. I suspect that the further south you go, we lovely unsound ones get fewer and farther between, though.
I've never met Steve Chalke, and I'm sure we would disagree about many things. Nonetheless I am very grateful to him for raising the issue of SSM. I see him as a force for good in the denomination. I think the consternation that he has caused - the whole question of what Evangelicals should believe - is wonderful. We should all always be challenged about our identities and beliefs.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]You and I will disagree on this as I think in this instance, keeping well out of it is their best option. I think Ministers should be left to decide for themselves. Tubbs
I think we might disagree but it's not for want of my trying not to! I've seen people leave ministry where IMHO the BUGB have been culpable. I've seen some ministries concluded as a result of "breaking the rules"
I accept it's a no win whatever BUGB does. But I think Steve C knows exactly what he is doing and why. He knows nothing will be done and I know nothing will be done. This generosity is not extended IME to other people by the BUGB. It's the partiality that really raises my hackles esp as the BUGB professes to despise it in other denominations.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Gamaliel said quote:
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 ...
I think I'm non-Evangelical, not non-evangelical. That is, I'm keen on sharing the faith, evangelism, but I'm not part of that informal grouping of people who make up the Evangelical movement.
I don't mean to be nosy, but what are you getting at here? Surely, if the movement is informal then anyone can 'belong' to it? Do you mean you're not part of an evangelical subculture, or that you don't attend an obviously evangelical church?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I suspect that the further south you go, we lovely unsound ones get fewer and farther between, though.
Supposedly it depends on which college you trained at, not location of ministry. I know that when I went to one church it was in an area noted for "liberalism" in any and all denominations. Even Baptists. That wasn't quite as far south as is possible but not that far off. The same was true of the midlands.
In both places as of now, I'm probably in the 1/3 minority as a con evo - although I wouldn't use the term of myself. Nice chaps and all that but not much common ground I'm afraid.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Exclamation Mark asks quote:
I can only reiterate my earlier point: why this? why now?
I can't speak for Steve Chalke, but for me it's important because it's a gospel value. Jesus healed the sick - bad backs, bad arms, bad eyes, skin diseases - but the emphasis in the gospels is that he healed particularly and precisely those who were also being judged as unclean by the religion of his society. It was the man with the withered arm in a synagogue, the woman made ritually unclean by her haemorrhage, Simon's mother in law on the Sabbath. Jesus deliberately confronted religious condemnation of people as well as sickness itself. He healed, but he also forgave. Sometimes, as with the man lowered through the roof, the forgiving seems to have been the bigger deal.
The religious war on gay people makes them the equivalent for us of the unclean in Jesus' time. The more implacable the churches' stand against justice for gays becomes, the more important I think it is to stand with them. It's the biggest issue for the integrity of Christianity today. If we are not on the side of those judged because of their sexuality then we are not, in my opinion, where Jesus is, and the good news is not proclaimed.
Perhaps Steve C feels the same, I don't know. I do know that I came quite close to resigning my accreditation and therefore my ministry over the possibility that the BU would discipline a minister over this issue.
Being evangelical (not Evangelical) makes this a crucial issue for me. I dare say Steve is the same.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2 said quote:
I don't mean to be nosy, but what are you getting at here? Surely, if the movement is informal then anyone can 'belong' to it? Do you mean you're not part of an evangelical subculture, or that you don't attend an obviously evangelical church?
The movement is made of people with a whole set of beliefs and traditions. I share some of the traditions, but not many of the beliefs. I do, though, believe in the preaching of the gospel, evangelism. The church I attend is keen to reach the community and share its faith, but not particularly committed to other Evangelical beliefs about, for example, sin, scripture and atonement.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
SvitlanaV2 said quote:
I don't mean to be nosy, but what are you getting at here? Surely, if the movement is informal then anyone can 'belong' to it? Do you mean you're not part of an evangelical subculture, or that you don't attend an obviously evangelical church?
The movement is made of people with a whole set of beliefs and traditions. I share some of the traditions, but not many of the beliefs. I do, though, believe in the preaching of the gospel, evangelism. The church I attend is keen to reach the community and share its faith, but not particularly committed to other Evangelical beliefs about, for example, sin, scripture and atonement.
That's interesting. What you're implying is that evangelism is now so wedded to notions of evangelicalism (whether big 'e' or little 'e')in the popular mind that anyone who wishes to talk about Jesus with non-believers is by default an evangelical, because non-evangelical Christians in our culture no longer attempt to do this.
It's a sad stateof affairs if only 'evangelical' Christians are assumed to be interested in sharing the gospel. Actually, I'm sure there many Christians in non-evangelical congregations who would be offended by your assumption. Whether they would be justified in feeling offended is another matter, though!
[ 05. March 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
1. It's the biggest issue for the integrity of Christianity today.
2. Perhaps Steve C feels the same, I don't know. I do know that I came quite close to resigning my accreditation and therefore my ministry over the possibility that the BU would discipline a minister over this issue.
1. I don't agree. Poverty - the result of deliberate and unjust policies - is. It's a systematic attempt to fragment a nation and to break and punish a group (class) of people for the mistakes of others (bankers), that if perpetrated on other races would be classed as racist genocide. I cannot sit by and watch children go hungry on my doorstep in the name of benefit reform without saying or doing anything. The church - local and national - has said little to its total and absolute shame. Whited sepulcres.
2. It's a brave decision. Bear in mind though that I know of some who will resign if the BUGB doesn't discipline a Minister who has taken that step.
[ 05. March 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
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.
Depends how you read Romans.
PSA is read BACK into some Pauline texts.
N. T. Wright has written much about this tendency, going back to Luther (who was not into PSA).
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Poverty is a huge issue. Global inequality is, I think, a greater one. Our foolish and vindictive penal system is another. Arguing about where gay rights comes in the list will get us into dead horse territory, but I wanted to make the point that it is, in my opinion, tightly tied up with the proclamation of the gospel.
Human flourishing and good relationships (free of racism, sexism and gross inequality) are truly part of the gospel, but like the issue of the woman bent double who, after eighteen years, shouldn't wait another few hours for the Sabbath to be over but has to be healed now, because she also is a daughter of Abraham, says Jesus, our GLBT sisters and brothers are a marker case. They haven't just happened to find themselves on the wrong side of an economic policy. Their full part in society, their human dignity, is denied because of who they are (as has happened and still does happen with women). Moreover, the church is the main driver of their dehumanisation.
I think you simply cannot proclaim the gospel without fighting this battle. We will always have a new battle to fight for the rights of the disadvantaged. This one, though, is for our time, the test case, the symbolic case, the one that is the key to all the others. Or so it seems to me, and perhaps Steve C also.
I don't believe we can say God so loved the world while still denying gay people equal regard.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
1. It's the biggest issue for the integrity of Christianity today.
2. Perhaps Steve C feels the same, I don't know. I do know that I came quite close to resigning my accreditation and therefore my ministry over the possibility that the BU would discipline a minister over this issue.
1. I don't agree. Poverty - the result of deliberate and unjust policies - is. It's a systematic attempt to fragment a nation and to break and punish a group (class) of people for the mistakes of others (bankers), that if perpetrated on other races would be classed as racist genocide. I cannot sit by and watch children go hungry on my doorstep in the name of benefit reform without saying or doing anything. The church - local and national - has said little to its total and absolute shame. Whited sepulcres.
2. It's a brave decision. Bear in mind though that I know of some who will resign if the BUGB doesn't discipline a Minister who has taken that step.
But how would you know whether the BUGB has disciplined anyone for this? Would you like a full page ad in the Baptist Times? With pictures ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Most work related disciplinarys take place in private, with only those directly involved knowing about it. Assuming that BUGB ones work in a similar way, then by demanding that it's done differently because it's Chalke is a bit crap. Partial even.
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[qb] [QUOTE]But how would you know whether the BUGB has disciplined anyone for this? Would you like a full page ad in the Baptist Times? With pictures ...
Most work related disciplinarys take place in private, with only those directly involved knowing about it. Assuming that BUGB ones work in a similar way, then by demanding that it's done differently because it's Chalke is a bit crap. Partial even. Tubbs
Well, it all rather depends on who EM is and who and what he/she knows, doesn't it lol!
A full page spread - no, I don't think so. Just tarring and feathering should do - or, we could reintroduce the ducking stool on Westminster Bridge. It'll have to be that as I've thrown away my portable stake, heretics burning for the use of.
Name and shame? Well not quite that but Steve's comments have been pretty public .... having said that a discussion on the issues he's raised would not come amiss before any action is taken. Let's see what BUGB think and let ministers decide for themselves which way they want to turn depending on BUGB's decision.
It all has shades of the Ordinariat about it doesn't it? What I find so sad is that we're all getting hot under the collar about this when there's more immediate concerns to deal with.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To confuse issues, hatless, I understand the distinction that you're making between small-e and Big E evangelicalism, but I've heard Big E Evangelicals make finer distinctions than that ... claiming that their particular brand of Big E Evangelicalism was the original and best ... and that not all evangelicals are Evangelicals ... and not all Evangelicals are Evangelicals either ...
And so it goes on ... all traditions do similar things. All Orthodox are Orthodox but some are less Orthodox than others. All Catholics are Catholic but some are ...
And so on and so forth ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[qb] [QUOTE]But how would you know whether the BUGB has disciplined anyone for this? Would you like a full page ad in the Baptist Times? With pictures ...
Most work related disciplinarys take place in private, with only those directly involved knowing about it. Assuming that BUGB ones work in a similar way, then by demanding that it's done differently because it's Chalke is a bit crap. Partial even. Tubbs
Well, it all rather depends on who EM is and who and what he/she knows, doesn't it lol!
A full page spread - no, I don't think so. Just tarring and feathering should do - or, we could reintroduce the ducking stool on Westminster Bridge. It'll have to be that as I've thrown away my portable stake, heretics burning for the use of.
Name and shame? Well not quite that but Steve's comments have been pretty public .... having said that a discussion on the issues he's raised would not come amiss before any action is taken. Let's see what BUGB think and let ministers decide for themselves which way they want to turn depending on BUGB's decision.
It all has shades of the Ordinariat about it doesn't it? What I find so sad is that we're all getting hot under the collar about this when there's more immediate concerns to deal with.
I'd assumed that you're more up on the Baptist grapevine than us. But how can you have any discussion when some of the participants have already decided that they're going to resign if the BUGB doesn't deal with the issue in the way they think is right?
I think Chalke was more concerned about contributing to the discussion about SSM - and anyone who has read his recent books won't be entirely surprised by this - than a desire to put one over on his fellow Baptists.
Good luck with the job application for General Secretary. If you get it, please would you come and preach at our church? Not sure if we could run to GenSec type expenses, but I'd cook you a really nice lunch. ![[Razz]](tongue.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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
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.
Coming very late to this thread to say that kicking people out of the EA appears to be a lot more difficult than it was back in the Jesus Army days.
As I understand it, it took all the local EA church leaders round Brentwood to resign from the EA to get the notorious Peniel church thrown out a few years back.
Today, if you draw the EA's attention to the overwhelming documentary evidence of serious misbehavings of a member organisation (and let me just make it clear I'm not talking about the church movement I used to be part of!), their first step at present is to invite the trustees of that self-same organisation to investigate, rather than conduct an independent inquiry themselves (which is a bit like asking Iran to conduct its own nuclear inspection programme) - on the basis that the EA has no remit to investigate.
Of course, different standards may apply for anything to do with sex.
My perspective is that the EA is very happy to count as many warm bodies as possible when it comes to claiming how many people they speak for, but extremely reluctant to own any of them when it comes to keeping its own house in order, including on issues I personally think are far more serious than Steve Chalke's headline-grabbing.
[ 05. March 2013, 20:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
....
It all has shades of the Ordinariat about it doesn't it? What I find so sad is that we're all getting hot under the collar about this when there's more immediate concerns to deal with.
It's not like the church isn't trying to challenge
popular myths about poverty as well as doing more practical things ... But what's the better news story? Minster says controversial stuff OR church challenges the prejudices that this newspaper has helped create and continually feed?!
Tubbs
[ 05. March 2013, 21:04: 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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]
1. I'd assumed that you're more up on the Baptist grapevine than us. But how can you have any discussion when some of the participants have already decided that they're going to resign if the BUGB doesn't deal with the issue in the way they think is right?
2. I think Chalke was more concerned about contributing to the discussion about SSM - and anyone who has read his recent books won't be entirely surprised by this - than a desire to put one over on his fellow Baptists.
3. Good luck with the job application for General Secretary. If you get it, please would you come and preach at our church? Not sure if we could run to GenSec type expenses, but I'd cook you a really nice lunch. Tubbs
1. I've picked up a bit over the years (nudge, nudge).
It's a bit silly in the cold light of day but I think a lot of people are hacked off with the BU's pace of movement on this one that's why the rumblings are starting. Don't forget that hatless said he/she would drop off the accredited list if it went against SSM - so its not all one way.
If the BUGB got their act together and allowed the debate they've suppressed for some years, we'd be further on. At least the antis (on whatever side) would respect the idea of a decision being made even if they disagree with it. It's the classic fudge I'm afraid and BUGB is rather good at it.
I've heard tonight from another source of a minister who has asked his church to think about ditching its charitable status if SSM is permitted by the BU.
2. Yes I can see that and I am far from one to chuck stones at that one. I rather like provocation myself. But, I still have a nagging question about why he's chosen to do it now when the BUGB is rather on the ropes vis a vis leadership and Gen Secs.
3. Aha! My secret is out, my campaign must gather pace. Eugene, the chain saw please.
I'm mad but not that mad. Impossible job as it combines a demand for strategic thinking allied to a managerial whizz kid with an eye for detail. In 30 years of leadership and management (some time in the city)I've only ever seen 2 people capable of delivering that. Neither are/were baptist ministers.
However, that said, I am available for outside gigs weddings, bar mitzvahs, masonic lodge openings and the like. Happy to preach and I don't usually frighten children or the elderly unless asked to do so. I'm cheap (free actually, don't even charge expenses and am house trained. My carer, Nurse Mrs E M, will have the syringe ready just in case. Does it help if I say I trained somewhere on a hill in South London??
Joking aside you only have to ask - and the free bit is true. Always glad to help out. PM me for the truth!
4. Love the blog and recipe ideas. Soup works well for us
5. There is no point 5
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My perspective is that the EA is very happy to count as many warm bodies as possible when it comes to claiming how many people they speak for, but extremely reluctant to own any of them when it comes to keeping its own house in order, including on issues I personally think are far more serious than Steve Chalke's headline-grabbing. [/QB]
I'm coming to this thread late as well...on purpose!
I'm a relatively new Baptist Minister and had to sign the agreement not to promote or bless same sex relationships. Am not particuarly happy about it and feel as if I come to ths debate with my hands tied.
My only annoyance wih SC is that he comes to the debate from a fairly safe position as he is unlikely to loose his job and then his house etc for speaking out. Many Baptist ministers would love to speak on this as it is an issue of the gospel, justice and grace but don't because of the fear of consequences.
The main difficulty I have is that the head of the BU Ministry dept has spoken in support of same sex relationships. The BU is by no means united in its theological position.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]
1. I'd assumed that you're more up on the Baptist grapevine than us. But how can you have any discussion when some of the participants have already decided that they're going to resign if the BUGB doesn't deal with the issue in the way they think is right?
2. I think Chalke was more concerned about contributing to the discussion about SSM - and anyone who has read his recent books won't be entirely surprised by this - than a desire to put one over on his fellow Baptists.
3. Good luck with the job application for General Secretary. If you get it, please would you come and preach at our church? Not sure if we could run to GenSec type expenses, but I'd cook you a really nice lunch. Tubbs
1. I've picked up a bit over the years (nudge, nudge).
It's a bit silly in the cold light of day but I think a lot of people are hacked off with the BU's pace of movement on this one that's why the rumblings are starting. Don't forget that hatless said he/she would drop off the accredited list if it went against SSM - so its not all one way.
If the BUGB got their act together and allowed the debate they've suppressed for some years, we'd be further on. At least the antis (on whatever side) would respect the idea of a decision being made even if they disagree with it. It's the classic fudge I'm afraid and BUGB is rather good at it.
I've heard tonight from another source of a minister who has asked his church to think about ditching its charitable status if SSM is permitted by the BU.
2. Yes I can see that and I am far from one to chuck stones at that one. I rather like provocation myself. But, I still have a nagging question about why he's chosen to do it now when the BUGB is rather on the ropes vis a vis leadership and Gen Secs.
3. Aha! My secret is out, my campaign must gather pace. Eugene, the chain saw please.
I'm mad but not that mad. Impossible job as it combines a demand for strategic thinking allied to a managerial whizz kid with an eye for detail. In 30 years of leadership and management (some time in the city)I've only ever seen 2 people capable of delivering that. Neither are/were baptist ministers.
However, that said, I am available for outside gigs weddings, bar mitzvahs, masonic lodge openings and the like. Happy to preach and I don't usually frighten children or the elderly unless asked to do so. I'm cheap (free actually, don't even charge expenses and am house trained. My carer, Nurse Mrs E M, will have the syringe ready just in case. Does it help if I say I trained somewhere on a hill in South London??
Joking aside you only have to ask - and the free bit is true. Always glad to help out. PM me for the truth!
4. Love the blog and recipe ideas. Soup works well for us
5. There is no point 5
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
[QUOTE]The main difficulty I have is that the head of the BU Ministry dept has spoken in support of same sex relationships. The BU is by no means united in its theological position.
Yes, that's the daft thing isn't it. A supporter of SMM who will have to kick anyone who does it. We're at home to Mr Cock Up aren't we Baldrick?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
[QUOTE]The main difficulty I have is that the head of the BU Ministry dept has spoken in support of same sex relationships. The BU is by no means united in its theological position.
Yes, that's the daft thing isn't it. A supporter of SMM who will have to kick anyone who does it. We're at home to Mr Cock Up aren't we Baldrick?
So you wouldn't want to apply for the Head of Ministry post when PG leaves with the others then?
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
The main difficulty I have is that the head of the BU Ministry dept has spoken in support of same sex relationships. The BU is by no means united in its theological position.
Interesting but not IMO surprising. Can you give me chapter and verse, please?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
[QUOTE]So you wouldn't want to apply for the Head of Ministry post when PG leaves with the others then?
Whats going on? Everyone wants me in Didcot. Help! How do you know Im not there now????
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You quote your location as "New Jerusalem". I understand irony, but Didcot?!?
You'd not be able to post for laughing.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You quote your location as "New Jerusalem". I understand irony, but Didcot?!?
You'd not be able to post for laughing.
Truth is stranger than fiction Karl
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Mind you, I know a URC lay preacher - a good friend of mine - who is convinced that God's special light shines down upon Framlingham.
Except when it's raining - then it's just another dull little English town.
It's prettier than Didcot (not difficult), but lacks a Railway Museum.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Mind you, I know a URC lay preacher - a good friend of mine - who is convinced that God's special light shines down upon Framlingham.
Except when it's raining - then it's just another dull little English town.
It's prettier than Didcot (not difficult), but lacks a Railway Museum.
Come off it Trainfan - you KNOW where I live and move and have my being! There's bits of railway in the New jerusalem church building (timbers and cast iron piller shoes) - it's close enough to the tracks in any event (less than 3 cricket pitches away).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Excuse my ignorance, but as a baptist I don't really have a clue about the shenanigans which EM is alluding to. I've never really thought of the BU as being anything more than an administrative and support organisation rather than a denomination. Maybe it's something that's only really affecting the ministers.
Or maybe my church just doesn't really want to pay any attention. When someone asked people to sign the petition against SSM the leaders were at pains to point out that this was a personal decision, not something the church had a position on.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There's bits of railway in the New jerusalem church building (timbers and cast iron piller shoes)
Now there's an idea: a little railway in church. They had one in Lincoln Cathedral a few years ago when they were doing some building work, and another at Canterbury for moving sandbags during the War.
But something tells me that this has little to do with Steve Chalke (whoops, I failed to genuflect properly there) and Post-Evangelicalism.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Excuse my ignorance, but as a baptist I don't really have a clue about the shenanigans which EM is alluding to. I've never really thought of the BU as being anything more than an administrative and support organisation rather than a denomination. Maybe it's something that's only really affecting the ministers.
Or maybe my church just doesn't really want to pay any attention. When someone asked people to sign the petition against SSM the leaders were at pains to point out that this was a personal decision, not something the church had a position on.
The BUGB has always been a puzzle.
In some respects it's very hands off, in others quite directive. As a minister there's certain pressures, mostly unseen, to "encourage" one's church to support BUGB. If your church is receiving grants in order to have a minister then that link is much much tighter still (inspections, reports, decisions about funding).
Then there's conferences, regional and national; committees - again regional and national.
We're often being reminded about the baptist "family" but that's not necessarily the most helpful metaphor for a lot of people for a lot of reasons. I suppose we use "family" as a substitute for denomination - which IMHO BUGB is adenomination even if it claims it isn't: distinctive beliefs in common (baptism, church meeting priesthod of all believers, central organisation, hierarchy (of sorts), distinctive "arme" that rely on churches for support (BMS, HMF).
Funnily enough the freedom of conscience which most baptists would say demonstrates our non denominational status actually underpins the denominational status - it's a belief and a prcatice and one promoted and held in common as a baptist distinctive.
Soem churches are very BUGB grounded others not at all. It may be that your church is just happy enough in its own way but dig a bit deeper and you'll probably find more BUGB links than you think. Fulfilling your BMS and HMF quota --- ah, now you see!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... something tells me that this has little to do with Steve Chalke (whoops, I failed to genuflect properly there) and Post-Evangelicalism.
True. But speaking as a host and contributor here, it's been light relief. I've enjoyed Exclamation Mark's tongue-in-cheek stuff (particularly "there is no point 5").
And the general absence of genuflection. Nonconformists don't like any suggestion of a minister getting too big for his or her boots. Helping them towards humility is a service. Keeps them closer to God, don't you know. It's one of the ways we do submission.
On quantpole's post, my reading of the earlier posts is that the BUGB really didn't want to have a "centrally stated" and prescriptive policy on SSM and SSB, but its hand was forced by the pressure of government legislation (actual and impending?)
Is that a reasonable reading? Maybe there was more than one pressure at work?
[ 06. March 2013, 07:34: 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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My reading of the earlier posts is that the BUGB really didn't want to have a "centrally stated" and prescriptive policy on SSM and SSB, but its hand was forced by the pressure of government legislation (actual and impending?)
I don't think so (but I may be wrong). I think it had more to do with internal pressures within the BU, and conformity to perceived Evangelical norms. It's worth remembering that Council (which made the decision) has tended to be older, less diverse and possibly more conservative than the Union as a whole - although the African churches, which would presumably take a "harder line" on this, are hardly represented.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]On quantpole's post, my reading of the earlier posts is that the BUGB really didn't want to have a "centrally stated" and prescriptive policy on SSM and SSB, but its hand was forced by the pressure of government legislation (actual and impending?)
Is that a reasonable reading? Maybe there was more than one pressure at work?
The BUGB has always been wary of openly discussing SSM and SSB. Various groups and people have tried to get it on the Agenda for Annual Conferences but it's always, somehow, been kept off.
It may be that they have other good reasons for this but I do have a sneaking suspicion that
a) they thought if it wasn't mentioned it would go away
b) it's a case of don't ask, don't tell about what ministers teach or get up to (there's a few examples to support this)
c) they assume (rightly IMHO and IME) that on this issue the denominational views are not as conservative as our ecclesiology would require (view of sctipture): they are afraid of the fall out.
It's all been shoved on us by wider dicussions and internal pressures: there is a significant and growing number of people who don't see SSM and SSB as a problem. If rumour is correct, this includes some very senior people in the hierarchy.
Currently (and whatever anyone claims to the contrary) the ministerial rules for accredited ministers require a "traditional" approach to teaching and practice on same sex issues. Doesn't matter if you sign them or not, they are there. No one checks if individual ministers sign them but they are there nonetheless. No one checks if ministers amend the forms they were sent to be signed: I did and no one has challnged it.
There's an untenable position here when you tie in our understanding of freedom of conscience - a key baptist cornerstone - and guidelines which have to be seen as prescriptive.
The seeds then of the current debate were sown a long time ago but the plant has grown. Heads in the sand mean it will all have a greater impact than if it had been addressed when it first became clear that the wind was blowing in this direction. What Steve Chalke has done is to stimulate debate - for which I affirm and admire him even though I don't agree with his actions, timing or methodology. We sit on two different sides of this issue.
What is curious is why he has choisen to do it now. The cynic in me says that if i wanted to destabilish the union then I'd drop this kind of bombshell at a time when we're going through a very painful reorganisation and looking for new direction at the top. It looks too good an opportunity to miss when the eye has been elsewhere. I'm sure I'm putting too much too it but then again ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE] although the African churches, which would presumably take a "harder line" on this, are hardly represented.
The African Churches take the hardest of hard lines on this. they now form a significantly minority in the Union and are beginning to punch to their weight. They are the ones most likely to leave if SSB's are permitted alongside a few more calvinist type churches and a few who just can't stick the BUGB's indecisiveness anymore.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, Shipmates. I wasn't sure whether signing an agreement to a pre-existing denominational policy might be seen to have some protective benefit to ministers (both in terms of discussions with any couple coming forward, or in terms of what test cases have to say about present and impending legislation).
The way it struck me, in terms of normal Baptist congregational independence, is that any congo could pass a motion at a members' meeting, stating that, as a matter of conscience, it is the policy of this congregation to do (or not do) "x" (however that might be worded).
So any incoming minister would know the group view, and the strength of it. From the outside, that struck me as a normal road for Baptists to tread, and take the consequences which flow from belief in congregational government.
I'm aware I'm straying into Dead Horse territory, so if any of you fancy a Steve-Chalke-free discussion on that, I'm happy to set up a thread in DH.
--------------------
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
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
EM, if I was asked what denomination I was I'd say Baptist, not Baptist Union (or Grace Baptist or Reformed Baptist - churches I've been to at some point in the past). I personally don't think that Baptist Union is any more of a qualifier to beliefs as saying you are part of the Evangelical Alliance for instance, and I don't think people would argue that the EA is a denomination. These structures just don't seem to matter much on the ground, in my experience, and are much less evident than they are in say the CofE or New Frontiers.
In terms of conferences, I can't actually think of any Baptist specific ones. I'm sure there are some but the vast majority of people in my experience go along to New Wine, Greenbelt, Spring Harvest, Keswick etc depending on what they like.
I am aware of a split in the 70s, which I think was caused by the principal of Northern Baptist College denying the divinity of Christ? The main problem then being not that he believed this but that the BU was unwilling to say he was wrong. This is very much chinese whispers though so I could be very wide of the mark.
Apologies for making this a 'Baptist' thread but I do think it touches on the reaction to Steve Chalke.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks, Shipmates. I wasn't sure whether signing an agreement to a pre-existing denominational policy might be seen to have some protective benefit to ministers (both in terms of discussions with any couple coming forward, or in terms of what test cases have to say about present and impending legislation).
The way it struck me, in terms of normal Baptist congregational independence, is that any congo could pass a motion at a members' meeting, stating that, as a matter of conscience, it is the policy of this congregation to do (or not do) "x" (however that might be worded).
So any incoming minister would know the group view, and the strength of it. From the outside, that struck me as a normal road for Baptists to tread, and take the consequences which flow from belief in congregational government.
I'm aware I'm straying into Dead Horse territory, so if any of you fancy a Steve-Chalke-free discussion on that, I'm happy to set up a thread in DH.
The accreditation rules pre date any discussions of SSM and were updated about 4 or so years ago. Their review was not prompterd by SSM debates, more a function of revised processes for accreditation which included a probationary period with very prescriptive developmental goals.
Churches can take the road you mention although their ability to do so could be limited in other ways. A lot of churches are held in trust for the local congregational by outside trustees either BUGB or Regional Associations. A church may want to offer SSB's but if its trustee is BUGB or an association which is anti, then the guidelines might be given that SSB's can't take place in such churches in trust to these groups.
A church could ignore the trustees wishes of course, under the freedom of conscience idea, but they would be technically and positively in breach of their property trust by doing so. I suspect but don't know for eceratin these days that SSB's do happen in baptist Churches under the radar on a don't ask, don't tell basis.
I doubt though that we'd see legal action even if this did occur. I don't think BUGB on anyone would welcome the resultant PR disaster. Tbh who cares anyway what goes on somewhere else - the vast majority of people in baptist churches have become very local minded and unless it imnapcts them directly they do have concerns but it doesn't go very far from that. I can't see many getting wound up enough to write to the Union, Steve Chalke, Gen Sec or whatever/whoever.
Congregational Govt has many pluses but sometimes it can breed isolation. Ceratinly churches do "advertise" their position on certain things when looking for new minsiters - and vice versa. That way you hope that there's a theological fit which brings a practical fit. I'd very quickly hve problems in a middle class liberal congregation for example which is why I'm where I am - getting down n dirty.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hi Quantpole! How're things?
I used to a member of Quantpole's church when I lived where he does. I'm not surprised it emphasised the signing of the petition as a personal decision - that fits with the ethos there.
Here, in our local evangelical Anglican parish church they practically lined us all up against the wall and threatened to machine-gun us if we didn't sign the petition. They were all going around with gloomy faces the day the bill went through Parliament as if the sky were about to fall in.
Even if I'd have wanted to sign a petition against SSM I wouldn't have signed it because of the way they were pressurising us all to sign, 'Surely any real Christian would be against this Bill?' was the shocked tone behind it all.
Perhaps I'm still a Baptist at heart. My wife is. I want to raise two-fingers to anyone who tries to compel or coerce me to do anything. I had enough of that back in the restorationist house-churches. I certainly don't want to see it in Baptist or Anglican churches.
I wouldn't say that Quantpole's church was particularly isolated - it's involved ecumenically with the Anglicans and Methodists on local youth work etc - but I think it's fair to say that it sits loosely by BUGB stipulations.
I do think, though, that the BUGB is really only an issue at ministerial level. The people in the pews or the plastic chairs aren't really that bothered, unless they're 'Big Baptists' and keen on all things Baptist in an organisational kind of way.
--------------------
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 quantpole:
EM, if I was asked what denomination I was I'd say Baptist, not Baptist Union (or Grace Baptist or Reformed Baptist - churches I've been to at some point in the past). I personally don't think that Baptist Union is any more of a qualifier to beliefs as saying you are part of the Evangelical Alliance for instance, and I don't think people would argue that the EA is a denomination. These structures just don't seem to matter much on the ground, in my experience, and are much less evident than they are in say the CofE or New Frontiers.
In terms of conferences, I can't actually think of any Baptist specific ones. I'm sure there are some but the vast majority of people in my experience go along to New Wine, Greenbelt, Spring Harvest, Keswick etc depending on what they like.
I am aware of a split in the 70s, which I think was caused by the principal of Northern Baptist College denying the divinity of Christ? The main problem then being not that he believed this but that the BU was unwilling to say he was wrong. This is very much chinese whispers though so I could be very wide of the mark.
Apologies for making this a 'Baptist' thread but I do think it touches on the reaction to Steve Chalke.
There's quite a strong EA/BUGB link in the sense that the statements of beief are very similar and some of the personnel move back and forwards.
I agree that very little of this matters on the ground unless you chose to allow it to or unless you are a BUGB minister when there's little choice but to tow what is a (broadish) party line. Perhaps not broad enough for some but too broad for others.
I wouldn't even claim to be a baptist anyway. In the words of the Monkees "I'm a believer" .
You're right on the money in your description of the 1970's split. Taylor's was a view held by a fair few but the BUGB accepted it in the sense that they tried to keep it quiet. Without success and it all blew up at the 1971(?) Assembly. Te Union lost a lot of big influential churches over it mainly because their politics and indecisiveness over scriptual beliefs were revealed.
The same strands are worringly apparent over the SSM issue today: a groundswell of opinion, a lack of decision making, and a boil about to burst. This time it will be external pressures, not just internal ones that will make it go pop.
We may well see black majority churches jumping ship if the question isn't addressed to their satisfaction. They'll be joined by the con evos (of whcih they are many) and those hacked off by the BUGB;s lack of decision making. Nothing is happening at the moment at least publicly but it should be - not least an emergency motion at the conference in may.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I should clarify, of course, if clarity is required, that the petition they were pushing our arms up our backs to sign at the local evangelical Anglican parish wasn't the same one as the BUGB were asking people to consider. That, if I understand it correctly, was more a connexional/denominational thing.
The one that came round our Anglican parish was more a 'vote-against-this-or-else-the-sky-will-fall-in-and-we'll-all-go-to-hell-in-a-handcart'. It was backed up by scaremongering stories of how Christians would be discriminated against and how freedom of conscience would be irretrievably lost.
--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
I do think, though, that the BUGB is really only an issue at ministerial level. The people in the pews or the plastic chairs aren't really that bothered, unless they're 'Big Baptists' and keen on all things Baptist in an organisational kind of way.
I tend to agree Gamaliel. The number of big baptists is dropping off - witness the attendance at regional and national and even local events on a baptist theme. Baptists aren't as distinctive as they once were. You can find all the theology and practice in other churches but possibly only in baptist churches does it come together in a unique way which if it "works" can be an amazing experience.
Like you I am a dissenter by nature and by experience. A fair few bits of my life have made me like it or reinforced it. I'll always ask "Why?" - great for vision in the church bit not so welcome from denomiunations who expoect you not to ask that question.
As for doing what someone tells me to do without explanation - because I say so or because it's the rules - you can whistle perhaps for good, certainly for a time. I don't do to others and don't expect others to do it to me.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think these recent exchanges show the constraints and freedoms very well.
In the non-Baptist-Union independent nonconformist assemblies, one classic reaction to any questions re policy is to wave the Bible and say "we follow this". Unpicking that kind of gets to the root of the OP. Lots of folks from within think that evangelicalism doesn't have fuzzy edges, which is why the pulpit is "protected" from "unsound" teachers. Reminds me of a Sir Humphrey-ism. "Our policy to is ensure that the Prime Minister is not confused!". In nonco congos, that's often the aim of deacons and elders in their congregational oversight. We need clear proclamation. Trumpets must not sound uncertain notes.
I suppose as I've got older, I've realised that the Christian faith is full of paradoxes. One in Three. Fully human and fully divine. Made in the image of God, marred by sin. Inspired and diverse in understanding. No doubt you can see others. There are things that we do best to hold in tension, recognising that each polarity speaks to the other and the total picture would lack truth without them. Even if we don't understand, we can see the dangers in the demand to resolve the tensions.
But communicating that sort of understanding is not easy to a congo which includes searchers, beginners, longtime travellers and everything in between. The best we can do is "we know in part", which can also make the trumpet sound an uncertain note.
I like questions, questioning voices, wrestling with stuff. It's one of the reasons I'm here. But not only is not everyone like me, I don't think the majority of folks I've met in churches are like me. So I understand the aim of avoiding confusion. In practice, however, I've also found that the "don't confuse" policy (whether stated or not) can be very constraining for the explorers, who may seek to boldly go where no one has gone before. "Heere be mynes". True enough. But "Heere be Treasure" too.
Steve is a pioneer-type, an explorer. That sort of outlook can get you into trouble. But evangelicalism needs its explorers, doesn't it?
[ 06. March 2013, 09:54: 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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But evangelicalism needs its explorers, doesn't it?
Yes it does but sometimes the explorer ends up being changed by the culture of the new country he's found - and not for good.
I do take issue with Steve Chalke's reaction to all this though: if it creates a problem hold your hands up mate, don't pretend you didn't know the rules.
It's a McClaren style disingenuism and it doesn't work. Have the real courage of your convictions Steve - hit the rules head on and you'll have got a lot more respect instead of a lot of us thinking you're wriggling once you see the waves you've created.
Yes he's got previous as well - something of the same happened with the so called "Lost Message" - when he allegedly claimed that his collaborater on the book put stuff in he (Steve) didn't know about.
Back to the OP - is Steve an Evangelical? Not by my (albeit subjective and post modern) analysis. Is he emergent? Certainly but what into? Brian McClaren for the man on the Clapham Omnibus? I value an admire Steve for a lot of what he does esp when I disagree but there's just too much of the unaccounted for on this one.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP - is Steve an Evangelical? Not by my (albeit subjective and post modern) analysis.
So why not? What makes him not Evangelical?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP - is Steve an Evangelical? Not by my (albeit subjective and post modern) analysis.
So why not? What makes him not Evangelical?
A low view of the divine authorship and divine authority of Scripture, evidently.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
But in his article, Chalke argues that anyone condemning slavery must have a similarly "low view" of Scripture ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A low view of the divine authorship and divine authority of Scripture, evidently.
Yeah, evidently:
quote:
I have formed my view, however, not out of any disregard for the Bible’s authority
-- Steve Chalke
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
