|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Rev Steve Chalke a post - evangelical?
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Barnabas, Spot on.
I knew Steve years ago when I worked for Oasis for a year. He is someone who asks the right questions. I don't think I fully agree with where he ends-up theologically but what makes me far more uncomfortable is the fellow-evangelicals I know who seem to want him to go away and stop asking awkward questions. I think this kind of theological-control-freakery (that is sadly far too common in evangelical circles) is far more dangerous than most heresies - whatever they are...
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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.
...
By doing that he’s admitted to being too lazy / busy to have read the final proof, as well as not being bothered the content of material that goes out under his name. Classy. It doesn’t wash. Particularly as, having heard Chalke talk at numerous seminars, the whole chapter sounds exactly like the transcript of a tape recorded conversation where he went off on one. And got left as is because there wasn’t time to do a proper editing job on it because the book was due for submission.
B62 wrote:
quote:
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.
I’d agree with that. As I’d mentioned before, Christians divide broadly into two camps – ones who use Christian and related terms to mean Someone Who Agrees With Me. And they expect their church experience, teaching, the books they read and the songs they sing to reinforce what they already think. Which is fine. Others belong to the Martyn Joseph school of “Treasure the Questions” and believe that Bible passages aren’t the end of a discussion, but the start of one. Which is also fine.
The problem with issues like SSM etc is that they bring the two camps into direct conflict. It’s never pretty. BTW, EM when I was blathering on about people having decided they’re going to take their bat and ball home if the BUGB didn’t do what they wanted, I was having a go at both camps. Saying that you’re going to resign if the BUGB doesn’t discipline Chalke is equally as unhelpful as saying that you’re going to resign if they do.
Thing is, issues like this do get to the heart of what it means to be a Baptist. And I suspect that the average Baptist in the pew would think that issues like this are ones where Didcot should keep quiet and let individuals and congregations discern for themselves. Some ministers may want the BUGB to do something – but attempts to force their hand may not play well at church and could result in a few Ministerial bloody noses. Seen that happen a few times over the years.
Tubbs
[ 06. March 2013, 10:53: 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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Barnabas, Spot on.
I knew Steve years ago when I worked for Oasis for a year. He is someone who asks the right questions. I don't think I fully agree with where he ends-up theologically but what makes me far more uncomfortable is the fellow-evangelicals I know who seem to want him to go away and stop asking awkward questions. I think this kind of theological-control-freakery (that is sadly far too common in evangelical circles) is far more dangerous than most heresies - whatever they are...
AFZ
It's also unBiblical. Christians are explictly told that they have to be able to give a reason for the hope they have. You can't do that if you too busy telling anyone else with a different opinion to STFUP in Christian Love because "we have to present a united front".
Tubbs
[ 06. March 2013, 10:58: 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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
"we have to present a united front".
I was looking for this cartoon (from Os Guinness' The Gravedigger File) while you were editing your post to add that, Tubbs. The book was published in 1983 so the issues have shifted a bit, but I think it gets the 'gnats-and-camels' idea nicely ![[Frown]](frown.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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm pretty chewed up and torn on a lot of these issues, as is probably evident from my posts right across these Boards ...
Let's stick with the Baptist thing a moment, and I really do think it's pertinent to this thread in a lot of ways.
My own experience of Baptists has generally been positive - although I'd seen a lot of infighting and dysfunctionality in Baptist churches in my native South Wales. My brother was involved with one for a time, as was I during university holidays.
Within about 18 months/2 years of my evangelical conversion at university I was embedded in full-on charismatic evangelical restorationism - although I remained reasonably eirenic and had wider contacts throughout my time on that scene.
18 years later, when I finally pulled out of the restorationist/new church scene the Baptists were a god-send. I'd heard all sorts of disparaging comments about the 'church-meeting' and so on when I was in restorationist circles - often from former Baptists. So when I first attended 'church-meetings' after years on the restorationist ambit where things were very top-down, I was amazed. It was like a breath of fresh-air.
As EM and other Baptist ministers have observed, when Baptist church polity works it can be truly jaw-dropping.
That said, I was never that convinced by the talks I heard on Baptist ecclesiology and the efforts to find evidence of it in the NT ... it struck me that there was more of a continuum between the early church and the emerging bishops, priests and deacons thing that appeared during the sub-apostolic and Patristic periods than many Baptists were prepared to admit.
You had to have some kind of notion of everything 'falling away' very rapidly from an apparent NT norm and I'm not sure that church history bears that out.
I was also moving to a more sacramental form of spirituality and that was tolerated (and even encouraged) in the Baptist circles in which I moved - although some former RCs among the Baptists had difficulties with my position because they thought I was heading where they'd been ...
So I find myself in a cleft-stick ... I'm a dissenter by nature but warm towards aspects of spirituality that are perhaps emphasised most in more heirarchical church structures. Problem.
I've heard it said, for instance, that many, if not most, Orthodox priests are control-freaks and that bothers me as it reminds me of the old restorationist days which were control-freakery personified. I'm finding that evangelical Anglican vicars can also be control-freaks over particular aspects ...
Nigel Wright toyed with restorationism for a while but said that it made him realise that he was a 'Baptist' ... and that he needed to draw from his own spiritual roots.
That's fine, but as has equally been said by EM, the Baptists are becoming less distinctive. They often seem to represent a fairly bland mulch of middle-of-the-road, mainstream evangelicalism. I don't have a big issue with evangelicalism per se but I don't like its sub-cultural aspects - and I certainly don't warm to the current trends in worship-styles that are found within evangelicalism ... unless, of course, they are borrowing (as some do) from the more reflective/contemplative or loosely 'catholic' end of things.
So, I'm in an awkward position. I find full-on conservative evangelicalism doctrinaire, tribal and off-putting. I like the idea of open evangelicalism but have yet to find much that approximates to that - at least not in the CofE, despite all claims to the contrary.
I know one can't have one's cake and eat it ... combining the best of each - the dissenting voice, 'soul-competence' and the church-meeting with the sacramental and the numinous ... these things don't work out as neatly as that.
I'm wary of Chalke on one level - the media-personality/poster-boy aspect - but am pleased he's asking the questions.
I'm not sure Mudfrog is right when he says that Chalke is sitting loosely with the authority and divine authorship of scripture ... that strikes me as a subjective judgement ie. 'he doesn't agree with me, therefore he must sit lightly by the authority and divine authorship of scripture ...'
We can all play at that game. I won't play it but one could easily turn around and say to Mudfrog, 'If you're that keen on the divine authority of scripture then why aren't you observing the sacraments ...'
But he'd have an answer for that, of course. Namely that he recognises their efficacy but doesn't see the need to practice them for various ecclesial and soteriological reasons - ie, they are not necessary for salvation.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong, just using it as an example where a tit-for-tat comment could be directed in return - ie. if you sat so squarely on scriptural authority why don't you do X, Y or Z ... baptise people, celebrate the eucharist, sell your possessions and give to the poor, etc etc whatever else ...
--------------------
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 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?
Simply my subjective view that he's not in my tribe, whatever that tribe now is. It's probably different from yesterday and not what it will be tomorrow. What I don't say by the way is that he isn't saved, nor that he isn't a believer.
If you take the EA's view he isn't - on his view of scripture (however much he protests some of his his writings suggest otherwise). By the BUGB measure well it's more debateable but it does depend on how you define the E word.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
Barnabas62 - totally agree with your post. You and me both...
[tangent]As regarding paradox, I'm quite comfortable with it, and not surprised at finding paradoxical elements in the Christian faith. Paradox is at the heart of the nature of the physical universe, as I discovered when studying quantum mechanics (and especially wave/particle duality) so I'm not surprised to find it at the heart of the spiritual world as well. [/tangent]
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I suppose the real problem, Exclamation Mark, is that nonconformism in general is a good place for folks who ask questions, don't necessarily take received wisdom as wise, are willing to DISSENT when what is presented as received wisdom doesn't strike them as either wise or all that Christian.
Nonconformism and evangelicalism were the "manure" in the Christian field where I got planted and grew up. Same for Steve. I'm pretty "communitaire" despite my "liberal" "open" "emergent" (pick your adjective views).
I think it does my local congo good to have me around and they think so too. My "wishy-washy" is well known to the more conservative, but they love me anyway and I love them.
So I'm not much taken by "re-branding". The child was father to the man. I owe a lot to my background and early learning.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you take the EA's view he isn't - on his view of scripture (however much he protests some of his his writings suggest otherwise).
Okay. Tiptoeing round DH territory, how is it that the EA is not in support of slavery, then? What hermeneutic allows one to say "times have changed" with regard to slavery and not, say, SSM?
Generally, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find a definition of "high view of scripture" that doesn't actually mean "different interpretation of scripture to mine".
(I'm not trying to single you out, EM, or say these are your own views, but you seem to have a handle on where the EA is coming from on this).
More on-topic, is the current furore about Chalke really about maintaining "high view of Scripture" or is it about sex? Would there be such a furore if he was "merely" lying? Somehow I doubt it.
--------------------
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 Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
"we have to present a united front".
I was looking for this cartoon (from Os Guinness' The Gravedigger File) while you were editing your post to add that, Tubbs. The book was published in 1983 so the issues have shifted a bit, but I think it gets the 'gnats-and-camels' idea nicely
I love that, thanks for sharing!
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 Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you take the EA's view he isn't - on his view of scripture (however much he protests some of his his writings suggest otherwise).
Okay. Tiptoeing round DH territory, how is it that the EA is not in support of slavery, then? What hermeneutic allows one to say "times have changed" with regard to slavery and not, say, SSM?
Generally, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find a definition of "high view of scripture" that doesn't actually mean "different interpretation of scripture to mine".
(I'm not trying to single you out, EM, or say these are your own views, but you seem to have a handle on where the EA is coming from on this).
More on-topic, is the current furore about Chalke really about maintaining "high view of Scripture" or is it about sex? Would there be such a furore if he was "merely" lying? Somehow I doubt it.
The EA perhaps like other evangelicals would not see slavery and same sex relationships in the same way. They would condemn slavery as being naturally unjust. They would (?probably) condemn homophobia as unjust.
Where they depart from an open view is that they have reservations and opposition to same sex relationships that are treated on the basis at hetereosexual marriage. It may seem unjust to some to deny equal treatment, to accept it would seem wrong to others.
There's a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the debate that confuses the issue. Here's a resume of some stuff going around and I don't say I agree or disagree with any of it. It's just here to illustrate the spin.
No, there's no actual proof of the gay gene. Equally there's no reason why we shouldn't revise our thinking about such relationships. Yes, Jewish tradition and practice considered same sex activity an abomination but Jesus didn't condemn it. Claims that same sex activity was common in Jesus' time amongst greeks and roman are true in fact but fanciful in estimating the prevalence of it. Far less than people estimate or imagine. SSM affects 10% of the population who are gay so we have to be concerned. less than 2% of the population are exclusively gay: the others chose bisexuality of whatever - why be driven by a small moinority not all of whom wnat it? The bible says it's ok if it's loving and lasting. The bible condemns it all.
Some of it boils down to ignorance, some to revulsion, some to prejudice some to indifference, some to being informed. It's a pretty personal decision for most depending on what one has been fed or what one instinctively believes on gut reaction whether grounded or thought through or not.
The real fuss is not so much the SSM issue but the biblical basis on which aceptance of this practice is arrived at. For some the question is not what baby will be thrown out of the bathwater next, but is there any water left to wash the infant?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So I'm not much taken by "re-branding". The child was father to the man. I owe a lot to my background and early learning.
You and me both. The angry young man has matured but is still indignant about the exploitation of the weak by those who should know better. These days the young man has learned enough to proclaim "The Sky is Red" - read the signs of the times.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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.
I would put questioning the divinity of Jesus in a completely different realm to SSM. In the circles I move in so far there hasn't been much of a reaction to Chalke at all. I doubt most people are even aware of what he's said. I mentioned it to someone at another BU church and there was a bit of tutting and an air of "Oh what a naughty boy". To the conservatives I think he's basically on ignore now after his comments about PSA, so it's no particular surprise for them to see him supporting SSM. I haven't heard anyone saying that the BU should take action against him.
I think the comment about 'big' baptists is pretty accurate - all of the people I've come across who have been passionate about baptist heritage and so on have been 60+.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] Some ministers may want the BUGB to do something – but attempts to force their hand may not play well at church and could result in a few Ministerial bloody noses. Seen that happen a few times over the years.
Tubbs
Yes, when roused there's a few in the BUGB who presume to punch above their weight class. What sanction do they really have?
They do tend to pick on easier targets and leave the diffcult stuff (as of now and 1971) hopoing it will all go away.
[ 06. March 2013, 12:02: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Where they depart from an open view is that they have reservations and opposition to same sex relationships that are treated on the basis at hetereosexual marriage.
But (correct me if I'm wrong) Steve Chalke isn't arguing for that.
He says quote:
I leave it to others to debate whether a Civil Partnership plus a dedication and blessing should equal a marriage or not
and that when he conducted such a ceremony it was quote:
Not to challenge the traditional understanding of marriage – far from it
It may well be that he is being disingenuous and provocative, but unless somebody can show me where he's been more specific, it seems to me that saying "Steve Chalke condones SSM, that's unbiblical, ergo he is not an evangelical" is a gross misrepresentation of his remarks by people who make a point out of examining carefully what the text actually says.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
And since when have critics been carefully examining their victims' statements before atacking them wih all guns blazing?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I would put questioning the divinity of Jesus in a completely different realm to SSM ... To the conservatives I think he's basically on ignore now after his comments about PSA, so it's no particular surprise for them to see him supporting SSM.
I think the comment about 'big' baptists is pretty accurate - all of the people I've come across who have been passionate about baptist heritage and so on have been 60+.
I agree on both counts (and I'm 59!!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
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
"...except in those areas where I disagree with it." he might have said.
--------------------
"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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE] It may well be that he is being disingenuous and provocative, but unless somebody can show me where he's been more specific, it seems to me that saying "Steve Chalke condones SSM, that's unbiblical, ergo he is not an evangelical" is a gross misrepresentation of his remarks by people who make a point out of examining carefully what the text actually says.
It's being very disingenuous. The very act and setting and context gives the impression of equality even if that isn't the design.
Yes we intrepret Steve's actions but what he says about them but also the non verbal interpretation of his actions dependent on possible equivalence. Occam's razor possibly applies here - Steve may not think it is intended to be x but that's the net result.
Since he's actually saying - what's the fuss about, it isn't equal to marriage whetever you might think - he's trying to wriggle again and in the process trying to put the blame onto opponents for their interpretation. They have every right to interpret it that way, however daft we might think it to be.
However, if it walks like a duck, quacks like one then it is a ...... duck. C'mon Steve you can really really better than that whatever you say. If that's the case anyway, why did he do it?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
"...except in those areas where I disagree with it." he might have said.
Don't you mean "except in those areas where I disagree with his interpretation"?
Do you seriously think he has come to different conclusions to you simply because he has a lower regard for Scripture? Is it in fact his different conclusions that prove (in your eyes) that he has a lower view of Scripture? If not, what is it?
Can you point out a way he 'mishandles' Scripture to reach his conclusions and be sure that you yourself never 'mishandle' Scripture in the same way to arrive at your own?
![[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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
However, if it walks like a duck, quacks like one then it is a ...... duck. C'mon Steve you can really really better than that whatever you say. If that's the case anyway, why did he do it?
So (back to the OP!) what is a "duck" here? A non-evangelical? A liberal? A post-evangelical?
And if you think Chalke is, um, ducking and weaving, what is it you think he should come right out and say? "Sorry folks, I only pretend to take Scripture seriously, I think teh gayz should really have equal everything, I hereby hand in my evangelical party badge, kthkxbi"?
(I still don't understand how people who support close readings of the text as regard Scripture seem to persist in thinking that anything written by anybody else has a subtext, but still...)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
However, if it walks like a duck, quacks like one then it is a ...... duck. C'mon Steve you can really really better than that whatever you say. If that's the case anyway, why did he do it?
So (back to the OP!) what is a "duck" here? A non-evangelical? A liberal? A post-evangelical?
And if you think Chalke is, um, ducking and weaving, what is it you think he should come right out and say? "Sorry folks, I only pretend to take Scripture seriously, I think teh gayz should really have equal everything, I hereby hand in my evangelical party badge, kthkxbi"?
(I still don't understand how people who support close readings of the text as regard Scripture seem to persist in thinking that anything written by anybody else has a subtext, but still...)
The duck here can be any variety we want - Indian Runner or Khaki Campbell.
I think you're putting up an argument here not based on anything I've said. I've not saying he's ducking and weaving - though perhaps I should - nor that he's not telling the truth. I just think he's blind to what hsi actions look like whether unconsciously or deliberately. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
What he did was specific and planned act. It was in a church and in the presence of a congregation. I'm sure some words were used to recognise commitment of one person to another (vows). It's in the presence of God. That was celebration, prayers and the fellowship giving their support to the 2 people involved.
All these factors taken together with a man and a woman on sat 23rd march in the new jerusalem will constitute a marriage. No the paperwork but the actions. Why is what Steve Chalke did actually any different? What does he see he was doing?
I don't know what he should say actually: I'm not him. If it were me I'd say this is what I'm doing and why esp if I was a minister with a public profile like him whose words are likely to be seized on.
[ 06. March 2013, 12:45: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] Some ministers may want the BUGB to do something – but attempts to force their hand may not play well at church and could result in a few Ministerial bloody noses. Seen that happen a few times over the years.
Tubbs
Yes, when roused there's a few in the BUGB who presume to punch above their weight class. What sanction do they really have?
They do tend to pick on easier targets and leave the diffcult stuff (as of now and 1971) hopoing it will all go away.
That’s not quite what I meant … Ministers and congregations may have a very different take on this. Ministers may see this purely as a disciplinary issue – where a Minister who’s flouted the rules should go through due process – to encourage the others and because it’s only fair. Congregations may wonder why the BUGB ruled on what is essentially a matter of conscience for Ministers and congregations in the first place.
What I can see happening is, in some cases, Ministers deciding that this is a matter of principle and asking their church to support them in leaving / staying etc and being told to bog right off.
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 ExclamationMark:
I don't know what he should say actually: I'm not him.
While I have some sympathy with your annoyance, I don't have much sympathy with your argument.
We're no further forward about what the "duck" you imply Chalke to be is.
You say Chalke is no longer an evangelical, but you can't actually spell out why in terms of his theology (only his actions).
You take issue with his disingenuous style, but you back away from actually articulating what you think it is he would be saying if he were to state his position more overtly.
Your argument comes down to "we all know why he shouldn't be considered an evangelical any more". The trouble is, we don't.
I have to say that this approach strikes me as being every bit as disingenuous as his, and I am no further forward in my quest for understanding.
--------------------
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
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
He is certainly a Christian despite his deficient Sacramental understanding.
Deficient? How?
In the same way the Orthodox would probably see mine as deficient!
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Eutychus is right, Mudfrog.
You could say, 'Steve Chalke has a high view of scripture only insofar as those points in which it agrees with him ...'
To which I (or someone else) could respond, 'Mudfrog has a high view of scripture only insofar as those points in which it agrees with him ...'
To which you could reply, 'Gamaliel has a high view of scripture only insofar ...'
See the pattern?
I won't do so, but I could claim that you were being less than scriptural for believing in but not practising the sacraments. You could, legitimately, say that I'm behaving less than scripturally by posting some of the things I do and 'using language' at times in Hell and even in Purgatory.
That Gamaliel, calls himself a Christian/evangelical/post-evangelical/delete as appropriate and yet he's got a mouth on him like I don't know what ...
It cuts all ways round.
--------------------
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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
We have spent some time discussing Chalke's position.
Well, the evangelical position is scripture centred and the flow of scripture, the traditions of the church and the actions, writing of our Jewish forefathers all point towards one man and one woman becoming ''one flesh'' or the equivalent word /phrase in classical hebrew.
I can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?
We are not talking exclusively about SSM marriage, in these threads, but surely what Steve Clifford says about Chalke, whilst couched in polite phrases he does state Chalke ''made a god in his own image''.
It's probably the most pointed thing any evangelical can say to another evangelical and indeed Clifford says that Chalke is not being rigorous enough and his tough love is not tough enough to really push through adequately in this area (that is SSM).
It's a tough one. As was said a while back we can all say ''in my view......'' etc etc etc. But the ''elephant '' in the room is that most tradition, most exegesis, all seem to point in a unified direction - that tradition and that Genesis starting point, the call of God for Adam to have a mate was Eve. For many, whilst there can be some ''wriggle'' room, for many others there can be none. Chalke has moved (for some) beyond the bounds of acceptable church leader and they see him as a false leader, moving towards clear error.
The evangelical tribe is broad and Banner of Truth will (predictably) clearly label Chalke heretic and false teacher as will other tribes withing the evo. nation, but in a nicer way that is what Clifford has done surely in his statement to Chalke?
It's not going away and the debate will dog him for years to come I'm sure.
Saul the Apostle
[ 06. March 2013, 15:48: Message edited by: 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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Not originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
We have spent some time discussing Wilberforce's position.
Well, the evangelical position is scripture centred and the flow of scripture, the traditions of the church and the actions, writing of our Jewish forefathers all point towards slavery being a normal and God-ordained state, governed by rules set out on the OT and guidelines promoted by the Apostle Paul.
I can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?
Not Saul the Apostle
[ 06. March 2013, 15:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
The question then is what do we do about someone who we believe is wrong (assuming of course that you do). There are degrees of wrongness. Some things would call into question whether that person is a Christian or not. Others would call into question whether that person is 'sound' (to use conevo parlance), and as such whether they should be ignored or not. Other issues might be regarded as peripheral and just a disagreement.
I suspect that for the fundamentalists there will be some who effectively don't think he is a Christian. The conservatives will think he is unsound so won't invite him to conferences and advise against reading his books etc. The open end will either disagree with him but think he is entitled to his opinion or agree with what he has said and try to use it to forge change.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Saul the ApostleI can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?
Absolutely, but the point is that, for whatever reason, SC sees that same trajectory differently. He disagrees with you. For sound, evangelical reasons. That's the truth. You may not like it, you may think it blindingly obvious that he is mistaken, but you can't see inside his soul, and neither can I. As it happens, I think he's right to disagree with you, but that really doesen't matter. I would no more think that you could place outwith the evo camp those who believe in a 6 day creation or handle snakes in their services. Disagree with, yes, but if they hold to the basics of evangelicalism, (Biblical authority, check, conversionist, check, mission focussed, check, objective atonement (crucicentric) check) then how can I deny they are evangelical?
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
most tradition, most exegesis, all seem to point in a unified direction - that tradition and that Genesis starting point, the call of God for Adam to have a mate was Eve.
Granted. I don't think Chalke would disagree. The question here is how (if one thinks that is the "ideal", to use Chalke's word) one deals with those that for one reason or another, aren't in a position to live up to that ideal.
It's balancing all you say with other major themes within the Bible such as acceptance and inclusion.
I really think the EA's position is straining gnats and swallowing camels, neglecting justice, mercy and faithfulness.
Whatever my views on LGBT issues, the day I decided I could never sign up to the EA in the UK was the day I read their advice to surgically transgendered people seeking EA church membership: they should surgically revert to their original gender, in full knowledge of the associated risks of suicide. I think that about sums up the measure of mercy in their pronouncements.
My view of the EA has not been helped by the fact that for over five months now, I have before them a clear case of misconduct by a member organisation that has none of the shades of grey about it of these high-falutin' theological issues - and they won't even sit down to look at the detailed evidence.
[ETA oh, and very clever, KLB!]
[ 06. March 2013, 16:23: 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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
OK, people, as we run out of new things to say on Baptist politics and word definitions, the thread looks more and more Horsey to me.
Off to chat with Louise and Tony about whether we should send it "as is", or redirect the Horse talk to other threads.
Keep rapping meantimes.
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Eutychus is right, Mudfrog.
You could say, 'Steve Chalke has a high view of scripture only insofar as those points in which it agrees with him ...'
To which I (or someone else) could respond, 'Mudfrog has a high view of scripture only insofar as those points in which it agrees with him ...'
To which you could reply, 'Gamaliel has a high view of scripture only insofar ...'
I suspect that part of the problem in the evangelical world is that the various emphasises have proven to be so subjective to be rendered almost (but not quite) meaningless.
Things like the Chicago statement end up being unsuccessful ways of determining the boundaries (Scripture is Inerrant if you don't consider the following to be errors).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think Croesos nailed it right back on page 1.
There are people who think "evangelical" means signing up to a set of rules. This is doomed to failure in much the same way as writing the definitive rules of Calvinball is doomed to failure.
There are other people who see evangelicalism more as mode of spirituality. Admittedly, one that places a major emphasis on what the Bible says, but which from that point outwards is willing to admit differences of opinion and a fair degree of getting one's hands dirty.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
While we're waiting ..
I came across this nice comment in a post by Triple Tiara on a completely different thread, which seemed to me to have something to say.
quote:
As I heard Desmond Tutu once say, there is a fine dividing line between being right and being self righteous. I think we always need to be the first and never the second.
If you offer your perception of truth on an open hand, it can be seen as a gift to be taken or left.
If you offer your perception of truth with a closed hand, it can easily be seen as a fist.
--------------------
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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Not originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
We have spent some time discussing Wilberforce's position.
Well, the evangelical position is scripture centred and the flow of scripture, the traditions of the church and the actions, writing of our Jewish forefathers all point towards slavery being a normal and God-ordained state, governed by rules set out on the OT and guidelines promoted by the Apostle Paul.
I can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?
Not Saul the Apostle
KLB
trouble is my original statement makes no sense now does it?
As slaves were never encouraged to revolt (in the NT), indeed slaves were encouraged to work well, even when their masters weren't present. Slave dealers were seen (in NT) times, to be part of the problem i.e. not very nice people, but to try and swop it around makes it little sense or non sense.
Definitely 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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There are people who think "evangelical" means signing up to a set of rules. This is doomed to failure in much the same way as writing the definitive rules of Calvinball is doomed to failure.
I think originally there was enough clearish blue water between the Evangelicals and the 'others' such that some of their statements made some sense as defining markers (the classic Bebbington Quadrilateral).
Since then those boundary markers turn out to be a little bit more fuzzy than envisaged, and at the same time the markers have proved to be sufficiently attractive to be adopted as language (explicitly language rather than practice) by other movements.
Calling oneself 'cross-centered' may have made more sense when there were some groups which downplayed that sort of language (Fosdick etc). When a large amount of people use the term in different ways it's less useful as a boundary marker.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The LGBT issue isn't only an evangelical hot-potato, of course. I could show you internet discussion boards where conservative RCs and Orthodox are having similar discussions and bemoaning the onset of relativism, pluralism and the like. If you altered some of the names and phraseology slightly you'd be forgiven for thinking you'd stumbled across a discussion on a conservative evangelical website.
Be all that as it may ...
The issue for me, though, is what do we actually DO about it? How do we actually treat LGBT people? I've asked that question on those other boards and no-one's given me a straight answer.
It's easy to pontificate about these issues - whether for or against - quite another to deal with them when someone comes to your church who is gay, bi- or transgender. What do you say? Repent? Become celibate? Have your operation reversed? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
But that's getting into DH territory.
I'm not sure Steve Chalke's views are a big deal to most conservative evangelicals anyway ... as has been said several times, they pretty much wrote him off over the PSA issue a few years back.
I've had a brief discussion on this issue with a friend from my old house-church days and his view was that Chalke had long since moved beyond the pale so what he's saying is an irrelevance.
I think the more significant issue isn't Chalke's position nor where he stands on whatever issue we may care to discuss but the fact that these views were aired where they were - ie. in Christianity magazine, probably the most influential of all pan-evangelical publications in the UK ... in fact, it might be practically the only one left as far as I know ...
In which case it might represent a groundswell of opinion or dissent within popular evangelicalism as a whole ... in which case I can foresee some polarisation ahead within the evangelical subculture as a whole.
I think evangelicalism as a whole is developing fuzzier boundaries than may once have been the case and there'll be rallyings around different issues as that process continues.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think originally there was enough clearish blue water between the Evangelicals and the 'others' such that some of their statements made some sense as defining markers
Hasn't this sort of debate been going on since about Acts 15 (which seems to set a precedent for cautious inclusiveness, BTW... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK, people, as we run out of new things to say on Baptist politics and word definitions, the thread looks more and more Horsey to me.
Well, we do't get many Baptisty conversations on this vessel. Please keep the Dead Horses in the hold for now!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There are people who think "evangelical" means signing up to a set of rules.
I was preaching on the Second Commandment on Sunday. In particular I mentioned idols that Christians create and suggested that doctrine - whether Evangelical or Liberal - could become idol if we were too concerned with ticking its one and had forgotten that it is only a human construct for getting a handle on the far bigger God that lies behind it.
[ 06. March 2013, 21:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK, people, as we run out of new things to say on Baptist politics and word definitions, the thread looks more and more Horsey to me.
Well, we do't get many Baptisty conversations on this vessel. Please keep the Dead Horses in the hold for now!
It's in my mind in advance of any decision. It's just a bit difficult to separate out the Horses from a free ranging discussion on this aspect of Baptist policy. Tendency to inerrancy and the general outlook of the more conevo in the Baptist world means the nags are never far away.
But then you probably know more about that than I do.
But I'll do my best. The Baptist chat has been both illuminating and entertaining.
With tongue firmly in cheek, I must ask this. Did your sermon on the second commandment (graven images) have five points beginning with G or I?
--------------------
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
Removes tongue and sticks it in other cheek.
No, it did not. What do you think I am - a Proper Preacher? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) Heaven forfend!
Any way, Real Sermons have three points: "Evry fule kno that".
[ 06. March 2013, 22:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That's the East Anglian standard. Welsh Baptists are rarely so confined ...
[I was walking Offa's Dyke with an old friend and we sheltered from a thunderstorm in a providentially placed Baptist Church. The minister came in on some routine task, was suspicious at first, then saw an opportunity to share faith. In a remarkably inappropriate segue - I think one of us said how glad we were to have found a place of shelter - he observed that safety and shelter could be a delusion. "Of course I believe in the total depravity of man ..". ("Total depravity" came rolling out with Max Boyce-like cadences.) My friend smiled, said "It's all right, we're both Christians". Minister relaxed visibly, said he was so glad we'd found the place, then we talked about Welsh chances in the (then) Five Nations. Lovely man once he relaxed.]
[ 06. March 2013, 23:21: 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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
(sticks on Host Hat)
Following a Hostly exchange, we've agreed to leave the thread here. But on the condition that I strongly encourage all of you to take any extended discussion of same sex marriage per se (or any allied discussion on inerrant ways of looking at scripture) to the DH board, either in an existing thread or a new one if you like. We're hoping that wont prove too difficult in practice.
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think originally there was enough clearish blue water between the Evangelicals and the 'others' such that some of their statements made some sense as defining markers
Hasn't this sort of debate been going on since about Acts 15 (which seems to set a precedent for cautious inclusiveness, BTW... )?
I'm not arguing for or against evangelicalism - at least not here - I'm just pointing out that the form the movement took had some kind of historical logic to it.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A clarification.
Further to my Host post, Louise has now bumped in Dead Horses this thread on Steve Chalke and same sex marriage.
You should go there if SSM and SSB per se, rather than the nature of evangelicalism or the Baptist approach to doctrine and the independence of local churches.
B62, Purg 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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Incidentally, Baptists are an interesting sect of Protestantism. Quite successful and quite dissenting too.
Bearing in mind the current debates I came across this quote from Baptist historian Walter Shurden, he says:
quote:
Baptists have faced many controversies in their 400-year history, controversies of the level of crises. The word "crisis" comes from the Greek word meaning "to decide Contrary to the presumed negative view of crises, some controversies that reach a crisis level may actually be "positive and highly productive. Schism, though never ideal, has often produced positive results.Crises among Baptists each have become decision-moments that shaped their future. Some controversies that have shaped Baptists include the "missions crisis", the "slavery crisis", the "landmark crisis", and the "modernist crisis".
Interesting stuff.
I tend to think the Dissenters (Protestant sects like Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostalists etc etc etc. or the evangelical manifestations of those groupings, are far less ''defined'' than say 30 to 40 years ago.
So maybe reference the Chalke controversies, we may see ''clusters'' further forming rather less than armed distinct camps?
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Not originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
We have spent some time discussing Wilberforce's position.
Well, the evangelical position is scripture centred and the flow of scripture, the traditions of the church and the actions, writing of our Jewish forefathers all point towards slavery being a normal and God-ordained state, governed by rules set out on the OT and guidelines promoted by the Apostle Paul.
I can do double somersaults and discover all sorts of ''new'' angles (the ''new'' or ''lost'' message of Jesus) and all sorts of aspects to give rationale to the zeitgeist but for an evangelical, the weight of scripture and it's consistent thrust are key surely?
Not Saul the Apostle
KLB
trouble is my original statement makes no sense now does it?
Au Contraire it makes perfect sense and I'm sure plenty of Christians wanting to defend the institution of slavery argued thus.
quote:
As slaves were never encouraged to revolt (in the NT), indeed slaves were encouraged to work well, even when their masters weren't present.
Which wasn't hard to interpret as being approval of the status of slavery.
quote:
Slave dealers were seen (in NT) times, to be part of the problem i.e. not very nice people
Really? When Paul goes off on one about all the naughty people that he's forseeing the wrath of God coming on, when he lists the fruits of the fleshly nature or whatever, does he list slave trading or slave owning? Does he actually implore Philemon to grant Onesimus his freedom? No. Slave owning in the NT is considered perfectly normal and non-objectionable.
quote:
Definitely Saul the Apostle.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Diddenters becoming less defined is an intrguing topic. Some of us were never well defined or ever wanted to be. The basic pattern through history of English dissent is schism and merger, with the boundaries being drawn differently each time. That is also true of the Reformed tradition.
The other thing is the slow but steady demise of the "200 years member" within the chapel . That is someone whose parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc all worshipped in a specific chapel (Yes I have met some of these, I know of none under 80). At one time they were the bulwark of the chapel, the maintainers of the identity. They were replaced by people with a more denominational identity and they in turn are being replaced by people with a looser Christian identity still (maybe non-conformist).
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
