homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Is Rev Steve Chalke a post - evangelical? (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Is Rev Steve Chalke a post - evangelical?
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Hatless and Saul in their different ways have answered your question, SvitlanaV2.

I've heard an Orthodox priest say the same as Hatless on this one, he'd like to see the Baptists recover radical dissent rather than blending in with MOTR evangelicalism or the New Wine ambit.

And the example Saul gives is a good one. I think Baptists can draw on neo-monasticism, retreats, pilgrimage and so on without having to vest up and everything ... although some may be drawn that way in the process.

As for what Jolly Jape has said ... well, I wish that was the case around here ...

[Frown]

--------------------
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
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for what Jolly Jape has said ... well, I wish that was the case around here ...

[Frown]

I feel the same way... A.
[Edit to re-phrase]

[ 10. March 2013, 11:03: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Radical orthodoxy for today's Baptists ought to lie, I think, in a rediscovery of dissent.

Dissent became uncomfortable because it meant separation from the Anglican Church, but there is a deeper meaning, which is dissenting from the accommodation with state and power which the establishment of the CofE represents, and the appropriation by the Catholic Church of power and privilege into its own structures.

The recent popularity of the Anabaptist tradition is evidence that this strand of Protestantism has appeal today. It might be 're-discovered' by means of a renewed emphasis on congregationalism and the church meeting, a new enthusiasm for some of the worship styles of earlier non-conformism (the hymns of James Montgomery, for example), and the establishment of a cultural and spiritual distance from the spirit of the age in its commercialism, celebrity, and violence.

John Smyth, 17thC proto-Baptist, was clear that liberty has to be for all. If we would claim liberty to practice our religion, then we must claim it also for everyone else. That could be a powerful point of focus for the New Dissenters.

This is an interesting message. However, in Britain it's hard to see how Baptists currently fail to live up to what you describe as 'dissent'. They're already congregationalist; they already focus on church meetings; they're not especially celebrity-obsessed, mired in commercialism or troubled by internal violence. Not as far as I can tell, anyway! And surely Dissenters/Non-conformists now have all the freedom they need. The question is whether you have the freedom to dissent and remain in the gang, or whether freedom means that you go off and start your own gang. Dissenters have usually gone for the latter option, but that's not what's you're proposing, is it?

Re the Anabaptists, what appeals to me about them wouldn't appeal to the traditionalists on this thread; I understand that it was Anabaptist practice to question the preacher after his sermon, during the service itself. I'd like to be able to do this, but I've never come across a church where it happens.

Finally, in my own experience of ecumenicalism I can say that the evangelical denominations have valued the input and fellowship from the more traditional CofE and RCC. The Baptist minister admits he welcomes the chance to mark Lent, which would otherwise go unnoticed in his church. Whether this means his congregation are going to go all liturgical is another matter. I suspect not! The Methodists are a special case.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It might just be me, SvitlanaV2 but whilst I think you're in the right ball-park in general terms, I think there are exceptions to any of these general rules. For instance, I can think of a number of RC and Orthodox priests who've told me of incidents where they've been questioned after sermons or challenged by members of their respective congregations in ways that I found very surprising - and would have found embarrassing or discombobulating (if that's a right word!) in a Protestant setting.

As far as the Baptists and radicalism go, well, yes ... you're right to an extent but I think what Hatless (and my Orthodox priest friend) had in mind was actual 'lay' engagement in radical causes and so on.

I well remember reading an article in The Baptist Times by a minister who told of his involvement in a local pressure-group of some kind - I can't remember what the issue was but it was the sort of thing that ExclamationMark, Hatless and other Baptist ministers here would undoubtedly support.

He said that the most significant thing about it was when a Communist member of the group turned to him and said, 'It's great that you are here and supporting this. But where's the rest of your congregation?'

He had no answer for that challenge.

--------------------
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
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gamaliel

Oh, I don't claim to be making 'rules' about the whole of British Christianity! I talk about my own experiences and my own reading, and what people have told me.

In my experience (maybe not yours or anyone else's!) preachers might be questioned over coffee after the service, but actually being questioned as a regular part of the service is a different matter. Do the clergy you're referring to make space for this questioning as part of the service? Does it happen sporadically? Is it just a quick drubbing at the door on the way home?

What sometimes happens in Methodist services is that the lead-in to the sermon might involve the preacher asking the congregation questions. But at the end of the sermon, the service will continue in the 'normal' way, without any further feedback from the congregation. However, preachers try to hang around after the service, where they're likely to be engaged in serious chats by one or two eager people.

Again, I accept that my experiences and feelings won't be necessarily be shared by others. That's why the conversation is worth having!

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure - yes, as soon as I posted that I anticipated that this would be your response - and it's a reasonable question to ask. I can't say for sure, but I suspect in each case space for questions wasn't built into the sermon itself ...

That said, I've seen space for questions and quite robust debate following talks at Orthodox conferences - and I suspect that all traditions - RC, Protestant and Orthodox have scope for that sort of thing at the more conference-y events ... just not on a Sunday morning as part of the actual service ...

--------------------
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
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SvitlanaV2 wrote
quote:
This is an interesting message. However, in Britain it's hard to see how Baptists currently fail to live up to what you describe as 'dissent'.
You're right. I suppose I'd like to see us become a bit more distinctive by accentuating certain parts of our tradition.

Yes, we have church meetings, but I don't think we really make the most of them. The attempt to walk together while moving at different speeds, unity in diversity, a consensus rich in tension, all that sort of stuff is a really radical programme. Just having lots of votes is missing the point. Some of those attempts to improve listening by having people repeat what the person before said, passing an object, or only having certain chairs where people can speak indicate to me how far we could go with the Church Meeting. It could be not only a way of making decisions, but form a particular sort of community, membership of which would be a sign and sacrament of the Kingdom.

We do have all the freedom we need, but others don't - asylum seekers, the learning disabled, for example. More importantly, though, we don't use our freedom. We are not properly distinctive. I have long admired the Amish for their deliberate disengagement from the mainstream culture. I don't want to go all the way down that road, but I'd like to see us dissenting in the way we holiday or buy houses or fill our leisure time. And, of course, in more important ways like how we raise our children, how we vote, how we serve our neighbours. Our minds are not properly free, and therefore our lives always falling flat like toddlers.

I think that the way we handle power is crucial. Dissenters traditionally were not powerful people. They were often drawn from the lower classes (though not uneducated). They sought to make a difference by the costly and persuasive exercise of conscience. I think that road is still worth exploring.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So do I.

I daresay that some of the more sacramental traditions would say that this radical or 'other-worldly' (for want of a better word) edge is achieved in the monastery, convent or the base-community. These are people who have taken a step or two away from 'the world' and its values.

However, the very distinctiveness of that, if you like, can, it seems to me, let everyone else off the hook. Someone else is doing it so we don't have to.

All of us are highly selective of course and can always see the mote in our sisters' or brothers' eyes ... (notice how I inverted the usual order there in order to start practising what I'm preaching ... [Biased] )

Our local vicar, for instance, is pretty right-on when it comes to Fair Trade, not kow-towing to fashions and advertising and so on ... but in other ways he's pretty 'establishment' if we can put it like that.

It's all relative and inconsistent wherever we are on the ecclesial spectrum.

--------------------
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
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure - yes, as soon as I posted that I anticipated that this would be your response - and it's a reasonable question to ask. I can't say for sure, but I suspect in each case space for questions wasn't built into the sermon itself ...

That said, I've seen space for questions and quite robust debate following talks at Orthodox conferences - and I suspect that all traditions - RC, Protestant and Orthodox have scope for that sort of thing at the more conference-y events ... just not on a Sunday morning as part of the actual service ...

[no doubt a tangent but...] Thanks, SvitlanaV2. I wish some churches -- even the liturgical ones -- might try on this Anabaptist practice and ask questions of the preacher in church following the sermon, as part of the service.

There's an established procedure for doing this at conference talks given in secular life, as Gamaliel notes. It's even established practice for a designated audience member to "seed" the discussion with a question, if no one else raises a hand at the end of the talk. (A new duty for the Vestry members! They'll be overjoyed!)

In professional development settings, the practice is to break up into small groups after a talk, discuss the issues raised, then come back to the full group with suggestions. That would make a regular Sunday service much too lengthy for modern tastes, but it might be done at certain special services.

I think I'd love doing this. Imagine developing the congregation's prayers for themselves and their parish in this way, say at Ember / Rogation days!

Enough --

[/no doubt a tangent but...]

Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hatless

It's been said before that today's evangelicals aren't significantly distinguishable from the surrounding culture, but it's difficult for the churches to know what to do about this. Christians find it easier to condemn the world when they can't afford to buy into what the world offers, but as we know, abstinence aids the pocket, Christians become middle class, and then shunning material goods, leisure activities and social advancement seems a less attractive thing to do.

Most churches these days do seem to be engaged in social outreach of some sort, although urban theologians complain that there's not enough commitment to attacking structural inequality. And though lip service is paid to being welcoming to all, the reality is that only certain kinds of people will feel comfortable in most churches. Generally speaking, the 'lower classes' haven't felt too comfortable in our churches for a long time - and I speak as someone who mostly worships in inner city churches. The churches with the most resources and manpower are in distant suburbs, where standing alongside the poor is something you do in the abstract. From my point of view, the CofE have a strong advantage in being willing and able to redirect resources to struggling areas, whereas the Nonconformist churches have to sink or swim alone, a reality that may make them less likely to engage in 'radical' adventures.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Re the Anabaptists, what appeals to me about them wouldn't appeal to the traditionalists on this thread; I understand that it was Anabaptist practice to question the preacher after his sermon, during the service itself. I'd like to be able to do this, but I've never come across a church where it happens.

(Continuing tangent) A few years ago I attended a CofE church plant of a congregation that met in a school hall on a modern estate that was a long way from the parish church, and the curate at the time took questions after the sermon. The service was very informal (for the CofE), to match the surroundings, so this wasn't too difficult to arrange. I was very impressed with this practice, but it stopped when the curate finished his training and moved on (as they do).
Angus

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
SvitlanaV2 wrote
quote:
This is an interesting message. However, in Britain it's hard to see how Baptists currently fail to live up to what you describe as 'dissent'.
You're right. I suppose I'd like to see us become a bit more distinctive by accentuating certain parts of our tradition.
That's an excellent idea but I suppose it depends on what our "tradition" is and from where it might come.

To what extent are English baptists the product of Anabaptist influence? The Stuart Murray Williams's of this world would say "a lot", others (possibly Roger Hayden?) would say that any link is purely speculative.

Tradition has a lot to teach us but only with a nod to how tradition might or might not be expressed in a manner which engages with a contemporary world. I struggle to see, for example, how we might replicate the city state of Munster (though there might - just - be a few candidates whose testicles would benefit from being nailed to the city gates).

Radical dissent is a strange beast. Somem people's radical dissent amounts to little more than supporting certain "causes" and, at a distance. It can seem, to the more extreme, a bit like the posh kids trying to talk cockney or a Gideon Osborne claiming we're all in this together.

For others, radical dissent pushes more boundaries than just doing stuff - it's being things. I suspect that the early baptists were seen as pushing the boundaries of good taste as well as anything else - certainly the Methodist Church had to endure the sneering of the established church over its love feasts.

Rediscovering radical dissent is not simply what we say but also what we are prepared to do and/or become. The ultimate radical dissent is a confrontation to unhelpful, unjust or exploitative power bases (for all abuse is founded on the exercise of power). Yes, it may even mean confronting the power base of the police and other agencies who are merely state enforcers, seeking to maintain the status quo. Stand for your local council. Get on the Governing bodies of your local schools/academies. Question, question, question. Pray and pray unti something happens - above all, don't just sit there and aceept. Speak out for the lost, the lonely, the mentally ill, the homeless, the unborn children in a holcaust of abortion. Go out and if necesaary, go down fighting. Fight but don't heed the wouns or count the cost to yourself: imagine what will happen if you don't speak out. If you really want to make a statement fly the red flag over your church! It'll certainly get a lot of publicity.

If you really mean business and say you don't agree with Government policy refuse to pay tax. let them take your home and send you to prison. Yes they might, can and probably will beat you up but if enough people step forward there's more power if not safety in numbers. (Christian dissent just isn't organised and often looks more like a day out at the seaside as opposed to a real desire to change something by on the ground confrontation).

Now, that's radical dissent - not hand wringing and saying how terrible it all is while sipping our latte's and planning our skiing holidays and summer trips to Umbria.

The kind of action this demands is, say, a takeover of parliament over issues of sanctity of life, sexuality or whatever- but we've missed that boat as Otis Ferry was one step ahead. But there's way more scope - 16000 churchgoers in a town of 200,000 that calls 2 MP's could change the course of an election.

Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective.


.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
SvitlanaV2 wrote
quote:
This is an interesting message. However, in Britain it's hard to see how Baptists currently fail to live up to what you describe as 'dissent'.
You're right. I suppose I'd like to see us become a bit more distinctive by accentuating certain parts of our tradition.
That's an excellent idea but I suppose it depends on what our "tradition" is and from where it might come.

To what extent are English baptists the product of Anabaptist influence? The Stuart Murray Williams's of this world would say "a lot", others (possibly Roger Hayden?) would say that any link is purely speculative.

Tradition has a lot to teach us but only with a nod to how tradition might or might not be expressed in a manner which engages with a contemporary world. I struggle to see, for example, how we might replicate the city state of Munster (though there might - just - be a few candidates whose testicles would benefit from being nailed to the city gates).

Radical dissent is a strange beast. Somem people's radical dissent amounts to little more than supporting certain "causes" and, at a distance. It can seem, to the more extreme, a bit like the posh kids trying to talk cockney or a Gideon Osborne claiming we're all in this together.

For others, radical dissent pushes more boundaries than just doing stuff - it's being things. I suspect that the early baptists were seen as pushing the boundaries of good taste as well as anything else - certainly the Methodist Church had to endure the sneering of the established church over its love feasts.

Rediscovering radical dissent is not simply what we say but also what we are prepared to do and/or become. The ultimate radical dissent is a confrontation to unhelpful, unjust or exploitative power bases (for all abuse is founded on the exercise of power). Yes, it may even mean confronting the power base of the police and other agencies who are merely state enforcers, seeking to maintain the status quo. Stand for your local council. Get on the Governing bodies of your local schools/academies. Question, question, question. Pray and pray unti something happens - above all, don't just sit there and aceept. Speak out for the lost, the lonely, the mentally ill, the homeless, the unborn children in a holcaust of abortion. Go out and if necesaary, go down fighting. Fight but don't heed the wouns or count the cost to yourself: imagine what will happen if you don't speak out. If you really want to make a statement fly the red flag over your church! It'll certainly get a lot of publicity.

If you really mean business and say you don't agree with Government policy refuse to pay tax. let them take your home and send you to prison. Yes they might, can and probably will beat you up but if enough people step forward there's more power if not safety in numbers. (Christian dissent just isn't organised and often looks more like a day out at the seaside as opposed to a real desire to change something by on the ground confrontation).

Now, that's radical dissent - not hand wringing and saying how terrible it all is while sipping our latte's and planning our skiing holidays and summer trips to Umbria.

The kind of action this demands is, say, a takeover of parliament over issues of sanctity of life, sexuality or whatever- but we've missed that boat as Otis Ferry was one step ahead. But there's way more scope - 16000 churchgoers in a town of 200,000 that calls 2 MP's could change the course of an election.

Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective.


.

EM

interesting post.

Is Chalke a ''radical dissenter'' in your opinion?

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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A lot of good stuff there, EM.

I think two of my models for radical dissent (certainly writers/speakers who fired me up) were both US citizens,which seems a bit strange given the generally conservative nature of much US Christianity. Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo. Both of whom have done a fair bit of jail time as a result of protests. Campolo is a Baptist, Wallis grew up with the Brethren, so each knows something of the Anabaptist inheritance. Their church "parentages" have often looked askance at the way in which they've both spoken and put dissent into action.

I think it's probably true that dissent, English version, is generally too polite!

Campolo is an interesting radical, because he is often conservative on a number of issues of personal morality but anything but conservative on poverty.

My favourite Campolo story relates to the time he was one of Clinton's spiritual advisers on personal morality, post Lewinski. Apparently he had an appointment at the White House but had been protesting publicly about some iniquitous Workfair provision and got arrested and locked up over night. He used his phone call from jail to phone the White House to let them know he couldn't make the scheduled 'moral guidance' appointment with the President because he was in jail after protesting against the application of a White House policy.

Not sure how that went down. My guess is that Clinton at least would have had a good laugh.

But the serious point is the one I think you are making. Radical dissent can get you into trouble like that. If you shirk the prospect, that can blunt the cutting edge. Your reputation for "respectability" can take some knocks of course, but, historically, radical dissenters often argued about how wrong "respectable" views were.

--------------------
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      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
[QUOTE]interesting post.

Is Chalke a ''radical dissenter'' in your opinion?

Saul the Apostle

Based on subject matter perhaps - but who cares outside the church tbh?

Based on persoanl commitment - I just don't know

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Excellent post, ExclamationMark!

I wouldn't worry too much about the historical details of our tradition and whether or not today's Baptists are in direct line from the Anabaptists. Most good traditions are adopted.

I'm particularly interested in your comment about style and taste, questions of being. I'm sure you can't develop an ethos without doing stuff, but I think that if you can get the ethos right, then it will set the activism free.

And I agree that in order to get the ethos right we have to focus on the big thing, which as you say, is money and power.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Excellent post, ExclamationMark!

I wouldn't worry too much about the historical details of our tradition and whether or not today's Baptists are in direct line from the Anabaptists. Most good traditions are adopted.

I'm particularly interested in your comment about style and taste, questions of being. I'm sure you can't develop an ethos without doing stuff, but I think that if you can get the ethos right, then it will set the activism free.

And I agree that in order to get the ethos right we have to focus on the big thing, which as you say, is money and power.

Yeah, no good being without doing. Integrity and credibility bring authenticity or as James put it - faith without works is dead.

Why is it that the church (and even the so called radical dissenters of BUGB) look like we're playing a game instead of fighting a war for the lives of our nation? Why is it that we find it so easy to send money to a (real life) need in Africa but we can't put our hands in our pockets for the people on our doorstep.

Why did we apologise for slavery and not apologise for the abuses in baptist run orphanages and mother and baby homes? Why do we not speak out about the ongoing inequalities in our society such that children from poorer homes are many, many times less likely to proceed to teriary education than those from middle class homes?

When did we apologise for baptist complicity in the exploitation of labour in factories and on farms? (Ok we may not be directly involved but when did you hear the BUGB speak out (ever) for farm labourers, the poorest paid in the UK?

The injustices and our failure to speak out and act agaiunst them are a running sore on all denominations, God help us. "Even as you do this for the least of these little ones - you do it unto me." Do we ever read matthew 25 and its condemnation of pious self righteousness and indifference?

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed ... don't be too tough on the Baptists, though, EM, in my experience some of them do (individually) do get involved with sort of thing - but perhaps not at the organisational/denominational level. I was always mightily impressed with a Baptist urban-eco-warrior I knew in a large northern city who would only ever cycle places and who only worked two or three days a week - he said that gave him enough to live on - and who deliberately lived in a council house on a run-down estate but had created a superb garden where he grew his own food (he even made many of his own clothes) and generally practised what he preached.

He used to cycle off to G8 summits in a rickshaw and do all sorts of activist things.

I wish there were more like him.

I wish I were more like him ... [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
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
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What about Bob Holman in Glasgow? (Not a Baptist, I owe). He left a good social work post in academe to live in Easterhouse. Also John Miller, the legendary CofS minister in Castlemilk who got into trouble with his Presbytery by insisting on living in a Council House rather than in the Manse in a "nice" area a couple of miles away.

"Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective." Aye, that's the root of the problem.

FWIW, here's a quote from my sermon a couple of weeks ago (on the Second Commandment - I hope I don't sound too pompous):

I think the first idol we might worship is the idol of “respectability”. You know, church people are well-known for being steady and industrious and moral and good citizens – which is all to the good! But the danger comes when we start thinking of church as a group of “people like us”, of folk who never “make waves”, of individuals who never say outrageous but always keep their head well below the parapet of controversy. And it gets even worse when folk within the church itself start saying, “He shouldn’t have said (or done) that: he may be right but it will tarnish the god name of the church”. Talking like that means that we are worshipping that particular idol.

For we have to remember that the Bible contains a long tradition of God’s people not behaving respectably; it is not a Christian virtue! There are prophets such as Hosea who married a prostitute or Jeremiah who got thrown down a well for speaking boldly. There is St. Paul – a man who, in his earlier life, would have valued the praise of the “Establishment” – daring to say, “I couldn’t care less if people call me a mad man, I want to be a fool for Christ”. And he, of course, was only following Jesus who had scandalised the Jewish society of his day by criticising the pompous religious leaders, eating with the wrong people and doing miracles when he shouldn’t have. In fact I think that the Church could do with a lot less respectability and a lot more outrageousness – that would shake up the world, wouldn’t it!


Sorry I've been absent: computer problems!

[ 12. March 2013, 18:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed ... don't be too tough on the Baptists, though, EM, in my experience some of them do (individually) do get involved with sort of thing - but perhaps not at the organisational/denominational level. I wish I were more like him ... [Hot and Hormonal]

I'm tough on us because I'm tough on myself. I challenged the new jerusalem on Sunday (preaching from mark 10: 17 - 31 - ironic that, eh, as an ex finance guy and consultant) about the good we could do (hypothetical). I then went on the challange them on the good we would do (real).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What about Bob Holman in Glasgow? (Not a Baptist, I owe). He left a good social work post in academe to live in Easterhouse. Also John Miller, the legendary CofS minister in Castlemilk who got into trouble with his Presbytery by insisting on living in a Council House rather than in the Manse in a "nice" area a couple of miles away.

"Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective." Aye, that's the root of the problem.

FWIW, here's a quote from my sermon a couple of weeks ago (on the Second Commandment - I hope I don't sound too pompous):

I think the first idol we might worship is the idol of “respectability”. You know, church people are well-known for being steady and industrious and moral and good citizens – which is all to the good! But the danger comes when we start thinking of church as a group of “people like us”, of folk who never “make waves”, of individuals who never say outrageous but always keep their head well below the parapet of controversy. And it gets even worse when folk within the church itself start saying, “He shouldn’t have said (or done) that: he may be right but it will tarnish the god name of the church”. Talking like that means that we are worshipping that particular idol.

For we have to remember that the Bible contains a long tradition of God’s people not behaving respectably; it is not a Christian virtue! There are prophets such as Hosea who married a prostitute or Jeremiah who got thrown down a well for speaking boldly. There is St. Paul – a man who, in his earlier life, would have valued the praise of the “Establishment” – daring to say, “I couldn’t care less if people call me a mad man, I want to be a fool for Christ”. And he, of course, was only following Jesus who had scandalised the Jewish society of his day by criticising the pompous religious leaders, eating with the wrong people and doing miracles when he shouldn’t have. In fact I think that the Church could do with a lot less respectability and a lot more outrageousness – that would shake up the world, wouldn’t it!


Sorry I've been absent: computer problems!

Thanks - some great stuff here. I wish had more to share than just ppt slides (and I don't always follow those these days when I preach).

I think the "church" should be known as "people behaving badly" who are affronted by our commitment to justice and love.

Spent a while recently arguing with the Borough Solicitor who wanted me to recommend that a homeless guy who visits our lunch club be given an ASBO that effectively removes him from town and the little support he does get. I did quote the Elizabethan Poor Law at him (Borough Solicitor) and have managed to get a reprieve!

I don't think they take much notice of vulnerable adults with schizophrenia living on the streets in this neck of the woods. They just want to run them out of the borough limits and into soemone else's responsibility.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What about Bob Holman in Glasgow? (Not a Baptist, I owe). He left a good social work post in academe to live in Easterhouse. Also John Miller, the legendary CofS minister in Castlemilk who got into trouble with his Presbytery by insisting on living in a Council House rather than in the Manse in a "nice" area a couple of miles away.

I understand the idea, but wasn't the second guy taking up a council house that could've gone to someone who really needed it? I hope the manse was rented out rather than being left empty.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All sorts of problems, there really is difference between being a professional living in a run down area and being one who comes in for the working day. Look where your spending money goes for starters. How much harder is it for people to knock on your door at midnight if they have to travel two miles. You also probably do not know the stresses of living in the area. Does the ministers kids go to the schools the kids around the church? Living with the people is different than just working with the people. I am not sure it is better but it is not the same*.

As to whether the manse was rented out. The CofS is run by Scots, so the manse will have been rented out.


If there is a grouping who pulls this sort of Christian together in the UK it is Jesus in the City. I think it has fallen short of the dream, and become more an Evangelical thing but at least at the start it included the whole Church. It probably technically still does.

If they are still going, there are a couple of people living this sort of life somewhere in Manchester. When I last went to Jesus in the City, over a decade ago they were close on burnout.

Jengie
* A personal reflection on how to do mission in these areas.

--------------------
"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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are you thinking of the Eden Project, Jengie Jon?

As a single bloke I was involved with something similar, back in the day, under the auspices of one of the 'new church' set-ups ... and it was hard work ... very hard work. I'm not sure I'd have entertained it if I'd had a wife and kids.

These things are difficult to work out ... the rhetoric is a lot easier. But I think there are ways of doing it ... not sure what the application is in my case though ... don't do an awful lot of activism these days.

--------------------
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      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are you thinking of the Eden Project, Jengie Jon?

As a single bloke I was involved with something similar, back in the day, under the auspices of one of the 'new church' set-ups ... and it was hard work ... very hard work. I'm not sure I'd have entertained it if I'd had a wife and kids.

These things are difficult to work out ... the rhetoric is a lot easier. But I think there are ways of doing it ... not sure what the application is in my case though ... don't do an awful lot of activism these days.

Wasn't there also the World Wide Message Tribe aka "The Tribe?" From my experience of both (talking to someone who went there for a year) their biggest supporterds weren't the local churches (who seemed to see it as a muscling in on their patch - they weren't doing it much) but churches in the rest of the UK.

There's a few exceptions from a baptist pov - Buttershaw in Bradford and New Addington in London, which seemed to be doing a good job.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I know of Buttershaw ... it's doing a good job in a very difficult area. It wouldn't be my cup of tea in terms of style - it's become quite New Wine-y - but they're certainly doing some good stuff.

--------------------
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
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What about Bob Holman in Glasgow? (Not a Baptist, I owe). He left a good social work post in academe to live in Easterhouse. Also John Miller, the legendary CofS minister in Castlemilk who got into trouble with his Presbytery by insisting on living in a Council House rather than in the Manse in a "nice" area a couple of miles away.

"Any dissent we see is generally very polite and extremely english and, as a result generally ineffective." Aye, that's the root of the problem.

FWIW, here's a quote from my sermon a couple of weeks ago (on the Second Commandment - I hope I don't sound too pompous):

I think the first idol we might worship is the idol of “respectability”. You know, church people are well-known for being steady and industrious and moral and good citizens – which is all to the good! But the danger comes when we start thinking of church as a group of “people like us”, of folk who never “make waves”, of individuals who never say outrageous but always keep their head well below the parapet of controversy. And it gets even worse when folk within the church itself start saying, “He shouldn’t have said (or done) that: he may be right but it will tarnish the god name of the church”. Talking like that means that we are worshipping that particular idol.

For we have to remember that the Bible contains a long tradition of God’s people not behaving respectably; it is not a Christian virtue! There are prophets such as Hosea who married a prostitute or Jeremiah who got thrown down a well for speaking boldly. There is St. Paul – a man who, in his earlier life, would have valued the praise of the “Establishment” – daring to say, “I couldn’t care less if people call me a mad man, I want to be a fool for Christ”. And he, of course, was only following Jesus who had scandalised the Jewish society of his day by criticising the pompous religious leaders, eating with the wrong people and doing miracles when he shouldn’t have. In fact I think that the Church could do with a lot less respectability and a lot more outrageousness – that would shake up the world, wouldn’t it!


Sorry I've been absent: computer problems!

I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I like the turn the thread has taken! So far as Steve C is concerned on "respectability", I also like David Kerrigan's observation, which I quoted on the DH thread.

quote:
I see Steve as someone who has walked beyond the safety of the community perimeter to stand by those who are outside but who do not feel the community wants them inside unless they change. It’s a risk to step outside – it may prove to be wrong to have done so, but it may prove to be right. History will declare its judgement in its own time. God already knows.
Most radical acts involve walking beyond "the safety of the community perimeter to stand with those who are outside". That's why they tend to fail the respectability test. The real issue is that Steve's stand is probably getting him more respect "outside the community perimeter than inside".

Does that make him a populist, chasing "the Spirit of the Age"? Or a radical challenging a wrong kind of respectability?

Perhaps some folks judge that maybe there's a bit of both going on. But I'm not about to challenge his sincerity on the basis of what he's written and said so far. He sounds sincere to me. Doesn't make him right of course, either totally or in part. But I think he's a lot more right than wrong. Social injustices and personal morality are not mutually exclusive zones.

--------------------
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      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I like the turn the thread has taken! So far as Steve C is concerned on "respectability", I also like David Kerrigan's observation, which I quoted on the DH thread.

quote:
I see Steve as someone who has walked beyond the safety of the community perimeter to stand by those who are outside but who do not feel the community wants them inside unless they change. It’s a risk to step outside – it may prove to be wrong to have done so, but it may prove to be right. History will declare its judgement in its own time. God already knows.
Most radical acts involve walking beyond "the safety of the community perimeter to stand with those who are outside". That's why they tend to fail the respectability test. The real issue is that Steve's stand is probably getting him more respect "outside the community perimeter than inside".

Does that make him a populist, chasing "the Spirit of the Age"? Or a radical challenging a wrong kind of respectability?

Perhaps some folks judge that maybe there's a bit of both going on. But I'm not about to challenge his sincerity on the basis of what he's written and said so far. He sounds sincere to me. Doesn't make him right of course, either totally or in part. But I think he's a lot more right than wrong. Social injustices and personal morality are not mutually exclusive zones.

I don't disagree but to be really honest how radical is Steve's kind of dissent? Surely dissent impacts and challenges both inside and outside the church? SSM is pretty much a done deal for most - it's the rhetorical "So what?" response that most people would now have even including readers of the Daily Toilet Paper.

Even (many of) those who have serious reservations about the theology and practice of it all, are accepting that any opposition is basically fruitless, liab;le to stir up all sorts of stuff and tbh possibly self indulgent.

If what Steve Chalke has said and done represents the totality of radical dissent, then God help us all. Yes, I'm aware of the argument that you start in a small way and then build .... but why not start with a big splash? Why no march in Central London centred on Steve's church to protest against welfare and pensions reforms? Why don't 25 people swamp No 10 - not many police and the day I walked past there all the police were chatting up some young ladies on holiday. A few martyrs to the cause - if Andrew Mitchell can get out we'd get in with a bit of a diversion! (Must stop having those dreams ...)

Radical dissent DOESN'T mean you can pick and choose the injustices you call to account. If you think and/or act if it does, then it isn't radical dissent - it's an interest group making a fuss.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes - but as ever with this sort of thing, EM, whenever we point the finger at someone there are three pointing back at us. Rather than railing about what Steve Chalke is or isn't doing why you don't you hop on a bus to London and 'steam' Parliament yourself?

Better still, why not walk?

It would save money, draw attention to your cause and it may turn into a contemporary version of the Jarrow March.

I don't disagree with the stance you're taking on these issues but it seems to me that pointing the finger and blarting on about what other ministers are or aren't doing no more constitutes 'radical dissent' than whatever it is you're accusing Steve Chalke of doing.

If you're as 'hard' on yourself as you claim then you'd get your freakin' boots on and get marching.

Otherwise some of us might begin to suspect that you're simply getting a 'hard on' at the sound of your own voice and your own rhetoric.

[Razz]

--------------------
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
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, well I've just taken a look at the website for Steve Chalke's church, the Oasis Church in Waterloo. It would be highly unfair to say that such a socially committed, outward-looking and locally engaged busy church wasn't radical enough. As for their head minister, he's obviously far more effective in his dynamic agenda for the social gospel than the vast majority of church leaders manage to be. He has highly valuable but clearly quite rare skills.

It's interesting to read that the church is actually the result of a merger between two congregations during the war. One of these churches doesn't appear to have been Baptist. Oasis may now be in the BUGB, but Baptists are only mentioned twice on the whole website, as far as I can see. (There's no Baptist logo, or anything like that.) Is this normal for Baptist church websites?

Despite the references to inclusivity, there's not much emphasis on congregational diversity. There's no spelling out of who actually attends. My sense is that the church probably isn't as diverse as the surrounding area, either ethnically or socially. But that's true of many churches.

Finally, looking at the website, I can kind of see how the 'post-evangelical' label might apply. The emphasis on the church's social commitments is far deeper than on its doctrines and teachings.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

If what Steve Chalke has said and done represents the totality of radical dissent, then God help us all...
Radical dissent DOESN'T mean you can pick and choose the injustices you call to account. If you think and/or act if it does, then it isn't radical dissent - it's an interest group making a fuss.

(Sorry for the selective quoting, but just wanted to highlight the bits I wanted to respond to).

The thing is, I'm not sure anyone's say what Chalke's said and done are the totality of radical dissent; I don't suppose he particularly thinks that, either. The most I guess people are saying is that it represents an example of radical dissent within one particular context (the UK Baptist denomination) and regarding one particular issue.

As to the second point, is it really possible for one person to fight against every single injustice they come across? Is there anyone who has the time, the knowledge, the sheer energy to do that without either spreading themselves too thin, burning themselves out, saying nothing about lots of things, or being accused of jumping on every bandwagon that rolls by. And it's not as if this is the only issue Chalke's involved in: he's involved in work on human trafficking, amongst other things.

I think to right off someone's claims to "radical dissent" simply because they don't speak up on every single issue in the way you or I might like is deeply unfair. Is getting publicly angry about everything the only way to be a true radical dissenter?

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's interesting to read that the church is actually the result of a merger between two congregations during the war. One of these churches doesn't appear to have been Baptist. Oasis may now be in the BUGB, but Baptists are only mentioned twice on the whole website, as far as I can see.

This gives a bit of the background history.

Is this normal for Baptist church websites (There's no Baptist logo, or anything like that.)

I think there are many Baptist churches who do not make explicit links to the parent denomination. Some years ago the London Baptist Associstion attempted a common "branding" operation, but it was not taken up by many churches.

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Baptist Trainfan

Hmmm.

It's my experience that the URC is normally less evangelical than the Baptists, so a merger between the two, as in the case of Oasis, might create a slightly less strictly evangelical church than would otherwise be the case. It may be that the merged church was already more 'broad' than the other evangelical churches in the area, or in the South East, but it just took this newsworthy issue to bring the differences out into the open.

(This is just a theory. I don't claim to have special knowledge on the matter.)

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think there are many Baptist churches who do not make explicit links to the parent denomination. Some years ago the London Baptist Associstion attempted a common "branding" operation, but it was not taken up by many churches.

I think that's a strength for Baptists, actually. Resisting the branding. [Big Grin] 'Branding' works well for other traditions, sure, but I think the autonomy and independence of Baptist churches is an advantage.

Because of course (among other things) you are all linked by the great theological distinctive of believer's baptism ... a distinctive which your spiritual fathers and mothers died for. ( [Frown] )

Love your sermon quotes, by the way. [Smile] Totally agree.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It might sound contrary, Laurelin but it fits the Baptist way ... I've heard several Baptist ministers say that their greatest theological distinctives are the congregational form of government and the idea of 'soul-competence' and the priesthood of all believers.

These aren't exclusively Baptist concerns, of course, but there is an argument for suggesting that believer's baptism and all that goes with that emanates from this particular ethos and not the other way round.

So the believer's baptism thing is a corollary of their first principles ... if that makes sense.

--------------------
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
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are you thinking of the Eden Project, Jengie Jon?

As a single bloke I was involved with something similar, back in the day, under the auspices of one of the 'new church' set-ups ... and it was hard work ... very hard work. I'm not sure I'd have entertained it if I'd had a wife and kids.


No this group pre-dates Eden, not even sure if they had a name. They already had been there for quite a while in 2001 (I'd say around a decade). There was definitely wife and kids in one household.

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
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I think that's a strength for Baptists, actually. Resisting the branding. [Big Grin] 'Branding' works well for other traditions, sure, but I think the autonomy and independence of Baptist churches is an advantage.


However, hatless says this:

quote:


I suppose I'd like to see us become a bit more distinctive by accentuating certain parts of our tradition.

The question is, how is it possible to acccentuate aspects of the tradition if you also want to step away from being explicit about the tradition? Do the Baptists have to engage in some kind of clever postmodern shapeshifting in order to achieve these apparently conflicting aims?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard several Baptist ministers say that their greatest theological distinctives are the congregational form of government and the idea of 'soul-competence' and the priesthood of all believers.

These aren't exclusively Baptist concerns, of course, but there is an argument for suggesting that believer's baptism and all that goes with that emanates from this particular ethos and not the other way round.

So the believer's baptism thing is a corollary of their first principles ... if that makes sense.

I've never heard of "soul competence" ... but I agree with the rest of what you say. In fact the idea of being part of a "covenanted community" fits well with the idea of being baptised into it ... not that "open" Baptists usually make such an explicit link (unlike the so-called "Grace" Baptists).

Regarding Steve Chalke's Church: I think it was pretty moribund by the time he came in, so I doubt if the theological distinctives of the two denominations were very strong.

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808

 - Posted      Profile for Saul the Apostle   Email Saul the Apostle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I like the turn the thread has taken! So far as Steve C is concerned on "respectability", I also like David Kerrigan's observation, which I quoted on the DH thread.

quote:
I see Steve as someone who has walked beyond the safety of the community perimeter to stand by those who are outside but who do not feel the community wants them inside unless they change. It’s a risk to step outside – it may prove to be wrong to have done so, but it may prove to be right. History will declare its judgement in its own time. God already knows.
Most radical acts involve walking beyond "the safety of the community perimeter to stand with those who are outside". That's why they tend to fail the respectability test. The real issue is that Steve's stand is probably getting him more respect "outside the community perimeter than inside".

Does that make him a populist, chasing "the Spirit of the Age"? Or a radical challenging a wrong kind of respectability?

Perhaps some folks judge that maybe there's a bit of both going on. But I'm not about to challenge his sincerity on the basis of what he's written and said so far. He sounds sincere to me. Doesn't make him right of course, either totally or in part. But I think he's a lot more right than wrong. Social injustices and personal morality are not mutually exclusive zones.

I don't disagree but to be really honest how radical is Steve's kind of dissent? Surely dissent impacts and challenges both inside and outside the church? SSM is pretty much a done deal for most - it's the rhetorical "So what?" response that most people would now have even including readers of the Daily Toilet Paper.

Even (many of) those who have serious reservations about the theology and practice of it all, are accepting that any opposition is basically fruitless, liab;le to stir up all sorts of stuff and tbh possibly self indulgent.

If what Steve Chalke has said and done represents the totality of radical dissent, then God help us all. Yes, I'm aware of the argument that you start in a small way and then build .... but why not start with a big splash? Why no march in Central London centred on Steve's church to protest against welfare and pensions reforms? Why don't 25 people swamp No 10 - not many police and the day I walked past there all the police were chatting up some young ladies on holiday. A few martyrs to the cause - if Andrew Mitchell can get out we'd get in with a bit of a diversion! (Must stop having those dreams ...)

Radical dissent DOESN'T mean you can pick and choose the injustices you call to account. If you think and/or act if it does, then it isn't radical dissent - it's an interest group making a fuss.

EM

I suppose you can be in the ''radical dissenting'' tradition and I think of England in the English civil war and post war period when there were all sorts of dissenting going on. Some of it we would call orthodox dissent and some was incredible in it's heretical nature.

Of course it depends on how you see Chalke's arguments.

I would veer towards Steve Clifford's interpretation which is ''not radical enough''. It seems he's saying sorry Steve you're a good bloke and all, we like the work you've done, but sorry buddy, you are not bang on the money on this one. I hope I am being fair to what Clifford said here, that's how I interpreted it anyway.

Radical dissent.....but not radical enough then is one interpretation on Chalke.

Saul

--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've never heard of soul competence. Well, I did once read the phrase on here, but I've forgotten what it means, so it can't be much of a Baptist distinctive!

I think you're right, Gammy, that congregational government is the prime Baptist distinctive. And it's related to the point about resisting branding. We're a cussed lot, "agin' the government" as a friend of mine used to put it (RIP JW), and that is one of our attributes. So, yes, post-modern shape-shifters is a great phrase and I think we should all do it more often.

I don't claim to have any answers to all this, though. I don't know if it's possible or desirable to re-energise the Baptist churches.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Regarding Steve Chalke's Church: I think it was pretty moribund by the time he came in, so I doubt if the theological distinctives of the two denominations were very strong.

That's interesting. One reason for decline is the lack of unity in a congregation, and that can have theological, social or denominational causes. Maybe this church didn't have a single strong identity, evangelical or otherwise, because the members still saw themselves as two separate groups of people.

On the other hand, most churches would like to be 'moribund' if it meant they could attract a famous minister, and branch out into education a year after he takes over as leader!* According to the church website, Chalke became the senoir minister in 2003. (Was he a member there before he became the senior minister?) He conducted the same sex blessings in 2012. That's not a long time for a moribund congregation to grow, supposedly become strongly evangelical then post-evangelical, as the OP would have it.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/jan/23/evangelical-gay-marriage-steve-chalke

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Two points.

1. Chalke had been associated with Haddon Hall Baptist Church in the late 80s-early 90s. That's not far away. However my son worshipped there for a while about 3 years ago and no-one seemed to have heard of him (Steve, that is)! But of course this is an area of high population turnover.

2. From 1994-2003 he was busy with Oasis. I am not sure how he got involved with Christ Church, I think it was more of an amicable takeover by Oasis (with the London Baptist Association's support) rather than a conventional ministerial "call". I do remember that it was billed as something of a radical "new start" for the church.

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Baptist Trainfan

Thanks a lot! I really appreciate your comments and inside knowledge!

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Christ Church and Upton Chapel are United Reformed Churches as is Salford Central. I have been chasing that down from a vague memory. At Salford Central there still is a URC minister as well as OASIS input. At Christ Church and Upton Chapel I do not know but I do know that there were negotiations about it. I can't say it was moribund, but I do suspect it may have been a close to closure but it may well be that the congregation made the first contacts with Steve.

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
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, it was an LEP and may still be legally - Upton Chapel is/was Baptist.

But I suspect your assessment is right - I only know the "general" history as a (then) London Baptist. As it happens my wife was a Director of the Association at the time but I don't recall her mentioning much about Oasis, suggesting that the Association wasn't much involved, or that it all hapened before she was appointed. But I don't know for sure.

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
/Tangent alert/ Taking you into DH territory as I've just had the "Baptist Times" weekly update.

Baptist Union Council is meeting next week and Council will be asked if it wishes to reconsider its guidance for ministers on civil partnerships developed in 2006. If yes, a process will be developed to enable this to take place at November 2013 Council.

How much has Steve's recent "outburst" contributed to this, if at all?

/Tangent ends/ or else you know where we'll all be shunted!

[ 13. March 2013, 19:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If you're as 'hard' on yourself as you claim then you'd get your freakin' boots on and get marching.

How do you know that I'm not?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
/Tangent alert/ Taking you into DH territory as I've just had the "Baptist Times" weekly update.

Baptist Union Council is meeting next week and Council will be asked if it wishes to reconsider its guidance for ministers on civil partnerships developed in 2006. If yes, a process will be developed to enable this to take place at November 2013 Council.

How much has Steve's recent "outburst" contributed to this, if at all?

/Tangent ends/ or else you know where we'll all be shunted!

Yep just clocked it. Reconsider could mean anything from do nothing to remove prohibition to get more hard line. The first is most likely.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
.. but to be really honest how radical is Steve's kind of dissent? Surely dissent impacts and challenges both inside and outside the church?

I tick him on both boxes, personally. Not sure what sort of challenges you're thinking about.

A prevailing theme of his social activism has been the challenge to the "outside" (as well as "inside" in some places) view that Christianity is primarily personal. That hasn't just been a proclamation. He's worked for years to get a "level playing field" for provision of public services by Christian organisations, and to encourage Christian organisations to get stuck into social support. That's rattled quite a few cages "outside". He's also got quite a lot of flack from outside the church for these moves, from folks suspicious of whether religious involvement would be either competent or fair.

Anyways, so far as I can see, the history of challenge (OT and NT) is to both social and spiritual authority when it is seen to be both unfair and indifferent to poverty. Both of these are seen as "agin God". Often the social and spiritual authority were the same. Jesus' challenges on matters of both social inequity and personal morality seem to have been primarily directed in the first place to the members and leaders of his own community, within which those considered "outsiders" (i.e. poor or not so respectable) were welcomed and heard him gladly.

So I'm not sure there's all that sharp a distinction between "inside" and "outside" when it comes to challenge.

[ 14. March 2013, 07:44: 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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools