|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Has the Evangelical Alliance shot itself in the foot?
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
In the early 90s the Anglican Church I went to had a keen young Evangelical vicar. He was keen to show he was open minded, forward thinking and so forth, so ran a long sermon series on Sunday evenings on Sex: The Christian attitude to sex before marriage, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and so on. These got rapidly less exciting as it became clear the answer to each one was, "Don't".
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You will appreciate that, after careful study, other Christians will see your views as wrong as you see theirs.
Only in a very limited sense of meaning of the word 'appreciate'. And I don't really accept that people who are anti-gay are Christian (see here).
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
- Posted 03 May, 2014 17:32 Profile for Robert Armin Send new private message Edit/delete post Reply with quote
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
In the early 90s the Anglican Church I went to had a keen young Evangelical vicar. He was keen to show he was open minded, forward thinking and so forth, so ran a long sermon series on Sunday evenings on Sex: The Christian attitude to sex before marriage, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and so on. These got rapidly less exciting as it became clear the answer to each one was, "Don't".
----
In those days a theologically simplistic, robustly expressed view was seen as sign of spiritual maturity.
Maybe that's why the evangelical sector back then attracted many folk without any hope of getting involved in such pursuits anyway. Internet dating has forced us all to confront practical issues seen at one time as only theoretical.... These days it seems that an increasing number of younger evos are heterosexual and married by 22, thereby avoiding the issues.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
These days it seems that an increasing number of younger evos are heterosexual and married by 22, thereby avoiding the issues.
I actually think that there has always been a lot of pressure on Evos to match up and get married early. My son (at College in Bristol 10 years ago) certainly found it so ... and ended up at a much less Evangelical church as a direct result.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
it's just that the conservatives are totally and completely wrong in their interpretation of scripture.
The conservatives are completely traditional in their interpretation of scripture.
In my adult lifetime the view of homosexuality in society has changed, led in part by gays campaigning for equal rights, but also by science. Psychologists and Sociologists have been to the fore in us accepting to some degree that there is a range in human sexuality which is greater than the old beliefs of heterosexuality or perversion.
Any while I would not suggest that society is tolerant of gays, it has moved and is moving in that direction.
What we have are people so set in their ways that they are not willing to look again at what the Bible teaches in view of what science has told us about human sexuality. It is possible to have a view of human sexuality that regards non-heterosexual leanings as being normal without going down the slippery slope towards liberalism, (which of course is worse in the eyes of the con-evos than satanism ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
I'm not ready to remove my EA membership yet. But I am seriously looking at how this pans out.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] As I said previously, I think it's a mistake as the EA's stance automatically excludes liberal / open evangelicals. Not much of an Alliance, more a closed shop. Tubbs
I think you're misrepresenting the understanding of "Alliance" in the Evangelical Alliance.
It isn't a joining of the strands of evangelicalism but an alliance of churches and groups who all accept EA's definition of evangelicalism.
Except, of course, those groups and individuals who accept all of the definitions of evangelicalism described in the statement of belief, but disagree on a matter not mentioned in those statements of evangelical belief.
And therein lies the can of worms that has been opened. The generally accepted definition of evangelical is someone who subscribes to Bebbington's four pillars:
- biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)
- crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross
- conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted
- activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort
If the EA had based their decision on Chalke's comments on the atonement, they could have presented a fairly robust argument that he / Oasis could no longer be members because they'd stepped well away from the accepted thinking on crucicentrism.
By focusing on equal marriage and homosexuality, the EA has created a fifth pillar - right thinking. Once you start down that road, where do you stop? Telling members where to shop, what charities to support or who to vote for? A glance over the ocean suggests that this may not end well.
What's truly annoying - apart from the little matters of redefining evangelism in their own image and closing down discussion - is that rumblings from various Shipmates over the years suggest the EA is very picky about the issues it gets involved in. Not so keen on Investigating members who are charlatans conning people in the name or Christ or churches attempting to subvert the political process ... But a gobby minister who strays from the party line?! All over that.
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Tubbs;
quote:
By focusing on equal marriage and homosexuality, the EA has created a fifth pillar - right thinking.
I think the EA would believe that this issue is part of pillar 1, "biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)". And I'm still waiting for a convincing argument that they would be wrong in that assessment.
The EA does tend to be, even among its non-conformist members, committed to a form of the 'Christian country' principle and therefore to the idea that UK law should reflect biblical standards. Similar to, for example, a certain David Silvester who had such ideas despite being a non-conformist (though I don't know if he and/or his church are EA members). I'm personally still not convinced that homosexual sex is acceptable Christian conduct; but I have no problem with it being legal in a plural democracy.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Tubbs;
quote:
By focusing on equal marriage and homosexuality, the EA has created a fifth pillar - right thinking.
I think the EA would believe that this issue is part of pillar 1, "biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)". And I'm still waiting for a convincing argument that they would be wrong in that assessment.
The EA does tend to be, even among its non-conformist members, committed to a form of the 'Christian country' principle and therefore to the idea that UK law should reflect biblical standards. Similar to, for example, a certain David Silvester who had such ideas despite being a non-conformist (though I don't know if he and/or his church are EA members). I'm personally still not convinced that homosexual sex is acceptable Christian conduct; but I have no problem with it being legal in a plural democracy.
Fair point, but as the EA has told everyone what they think the answer to this particular Biblical question has to be, they have created a fifth pillar. Under this ruling, according to the EA, you're not an evangelical if you believe in equal marriage etc even if you believe in all the other things. And you can't be an EA member either. Ho and indeed hum.
Tubbs
[ 04. May 2014, 12:55: 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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the EA would believe that this issue is part of pillar 1, "biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)". And I'm still waiting for a convincing argument that they would be wrong in that assessment.
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars who would hold a "biblicism" position (and, accept the other 3 pillars too) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity. You may not agree with their arguments, but the fact is that they are made by people who take the Bible very seriously as the "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct". That, as far as I'm concerned, puts the whole issue into the realm of "where believers disagree", and therefore by definition not something that can delineate between evangelical and other Christian.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars (...) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
I think it's widely accepted that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars who would hold a "biblicism" position (and, accept the other 3 pillars too) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
I think you meant "proscribe"; 'prescribe' would mean to command whatever was in question, 'proscribe' means 'forbid'.
Also by AC;
quote:
That, as far as I'm concerned, puts the whole issue into the realm of "where believers disagree", and therefore by definition not something that can delineate between evangelical and other Christian.
Just about with you there; but surely the EA are still entitled to say that those concerned haven't yet satisfied the EA and therefore can't be EA members?
I still regard it as the bigger problem that the EA have not only been campaigning about the Christian position for Christians; they've also been campaigning against SSM for non-Christians, not only in a sense of preaching it as part of Christian morality which unbelievers may accept or reject, but also in the sense they have opposed it becoming a legal option in a plural society for non-Christians as well as Christians. That is a separate issue and I thoroughly disagree with them on that point (and as you know, Alan, my disagreement is 'biblicist').
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just about with you there; but surely the EA are still entitled to say that those concerned haven't yet satisfied the EA and therefore can't be EA members?
Not if the "rule" has come in subtly and without consultation and agreement. It's like fining someone for parking on a yellow line which wasn't there when they first parked up!
quote:
I still regard it as the bigger problem that the EA have not only been campaigning about the Christian position for Christians; they've also been campaigning against SSM for non-Christians, not only in a sense of preaching it as part of Christian morality which unbelievers may accept or reject, but also in the sense they have opposed it becoming a legal option in a plural society for non-Christians as well as Christians. That is a separate issue and I thoroughly disagree with them on that point.
Not sure that it's the "bigger" problem - apart from that, I agree 100%. The EA has the right to make its views known in a plural society, but not to demand agreement.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd say about 40% of all BUGB ministers have a clear view that SSM is a core issue - recognising that the biblical interpretation that might accommodate it will result in reviewing other areas of belief and practice that are much more uncomfortable.
Surely the problem with this is that you're basically extrapolating from what people have said to what they haven't said and may in fact strenuously deny.
And if we are going to proscribe models of Biblical interpretation because they might lead to heresy, we might as well not read the Bible at all.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Baptist Trainfan;
quote:
Not if the "rule" has come in subtly and without consultation and agreement. It's like fining someone for parking on a yellow line which wasn't there when they first parked up!
As to how much consultation and agreement there was, I'll defer to your superior knowledge of EA internal affairs; but I think for an average 'biblicist' position, it would be perceived that the yellow line in question was always there and that the other party was trying to have it removed...?
Also by BT;
quote:
The EA has the right to make its views known in a plural society, but not to demand agreement.
I assume you mean agreement by the plural society; but again, I'm not sure how much they are 'demanding' in that context - I thought they were basically 'campaigning' in that area. Within the EA surely there are circumstances when they may properly 'demand agreement' of their members (I'm not professing to judge if this is such a case)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd say about 40% of all BUGB ministers have a clear view that SSM is a core issue - recognising that the biblical interpretation that might accommodate it will result in reviewing other areas of belief and practice that are much more uncomfortable.
Surely the problem with this is that you're basically extrapolating from what people have said to what they haven't said and may in fact strenuously deny.
And if we are going to proscribe models of Biblical interpretation because they might lead to heresy, we might as well not read the Bible at all.
That's very likely partly true but based on 9admittedly anecdotal experience and figures quoted a conference by others).
Er, I don't think I mentioned heresy.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars (...) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
I think it's widely accepted that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
Neither side of the argument is widely accepted. Both sides are widely rejected.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE]Only in a very limited sense of meaning of the word 'appreciate'. And I don't really accept that people who are anti-gay are Christian
In that case you are taking a different view from God.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
The problem is that there are a large number of scholars who would hold a "biblicism" position (and, accept the other 3 pillars too) who would argue that the Bible does not prescribe homosexual activity.
I think you meant "proscribe"; 'prescribe' would mean to command whatever was in question, 'proscribe' means 'forbid'.
Yes, I meant 'proscribe'. Sorry for saying the exact opposite of what I meant!
quote:
but surely the EA are still entitled to say that those concerned haven't yet satisfied the EA and therefore can't be EA members?
Of course, the EA is entirely free to define who can or cannot be a member. I don't even have a particular problem with them defining membership criteria that exclude current members. It would be great if that was done after extensive consultation, especially with those who would be excluded. But, a clear statement of the change of membership criteria is needed. Put in a line in the statement of belief "We believe the Bible teaches homosexual activity to be a sin" and those of us who disagree with that interpretation can leave (or, in my case, not rejoin).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE] As I said previously, I think it's a mistake as the EA's stance automatically excludes liberal / open evangelicals. Not much of an Alliance, more a closed shop. Tubbs
I think you're misrepresenting the understanding of "Alliance" in the Evangelical Alliance.
It isn't a joining of the strands of evangelicalism but an alliance of churches and groups who all accept EA's definition of evangelicalism.
In that case, I think they should no longer be referred to as The Evangelical Alliance, but instead an Evangelical Alliance. The thing that makes you an evangelical is, well, being an evangelical, not being anti-gay. There are many many people who would call themselves evangelicals, but not agree with the (an) EA's stance on this issue. They don't have the monopoly on Evangelicalism.
Tubbs is right - this is a huge can of worms that has been opened, and I think it will come back to bite an EA in the arse. I find it all very sad and disappointing.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE]Only in a very limited sense of meaning of the word 'appreciate'. And I don't really accept that people who are anti-gay are Christian
In that case you are taking a different view from God.
Wow. You know the mind of God?
No I don't but I can't find anywhere where he says that those who find SSR's hard to accept, are excluded from His grace.
Well Starlight seems to be doing the same from another POV in deciding who's Christian and who isn't. Me? I like joining in with an approach that seems reasonable.
Perhaps you'll be telling your two Bishops the same thing Leo. I understand from your previous posts that one has taken a very hard line on such matters and I'm aware from personal conversations with the other, that he feels the same way.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
goperryrevs
That's a bit picky! You might just as well criticise denominations that call themselves 'The Church of God/Christ/the Holy Spirit', etc, instead of 'A Church of...' since they have no exclusive right to whatever godly-sounding label they've given themselves.
The point is, things have changed. Once up on a time, latitude on sexual matters certainly wasn't what one associated with evangelicalism. Now, the term apparently encompasses a range of perspectives on all sorts of personal stuff. I don't know much about the EA, but it's hardly surprising that it's in a muddle, all things considered!
Maybe it's time to split the organisation (at least) two or ways, and have a 'Conservative Evangelical Alliance' and a 'Liberal' or 'Open Evangelical Alliance'. This might even attract a range of MOTR congregations that haven't seen themselves as evangelical thus far.
[ 04. May 2014, 20:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
yeah, it was a bit tongue in cheek. I don't really like it when Christian groups use those other types of names either though...
I understand what you're saying about it being possibly easier to have two organisations, a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' one, but that is also what makes me so sad. Sometimes division and separation has to happen, but it should be a last resort, and over things that are a huge deal. At most, the issue here is a medium-sized one. It is not a debate over some central truth of the Christian faith. It's essentially a difference in interpretation by people who approach the bible with the same worldview, but come out with different conclusions, like the issue of women in leadership or whatever else. They're all Evangelicals though.
We have a faith that unites us, and much, much more in common than the things we differ on, but when we refuse to stay in fellowship with each other we do Christ a disservice.
But then, that's how I feel about the Church as a whole. It makes me sad that Evangelicals are falling out of fellowship with each other. It makes me sadder that there is not enough fellowship between Christians of all flavours. We're really not a great advertisement for our Saviour a lot of the time. When I read the start 1 Corinthians, it makes me think that if St Paul was, here he'd kick our butts into next Saturday.
It's not like Oasis have even come out pro-gay, they just refuse to be anti-gay.
It's not even like there is a massive difference in Steve Chalke's view of sexual morality and the EA's. I'm sure in terms of fidelity, exclusivity, equality, non-promiscuity and all sorts of other things they'd be in full agreement. The difference only lies in who they each believe can be in that godly type of relationship. So it's a small part of one issue which itself is a small part of Christian belief. Just because it's a hot theological issue of the zeitgeist, does not make it important in the big scheme of Christian Beliefs. By making it something worth disfellowshipping over the EA have simply got it wrong, and set a crappy precedent. I mean, if the solution is to have two new EA's, one pro-gay and one anti-gay, then how long before we have four (one pro-gay / pro-women-in-leadership, one anti-gay / pro-WIL, one pro-gay / anti-WIL and one anti-gay / anti-WIL)? Then eight, then sixteen, and so on, as we find each new issue to fall out over. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I understand what you're saying about it being possibly easier to have two organisations, a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' one, but that is also what makes me so sad. Sometimes division and separation has to happen
That works if the y you define conservative and liberal are judged solely on your reaction to the same sax relationship debate. I don't fit into either a gay intolerant or a liberal organisation, and I don't thing I'm alone on this. Where would we go?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
yeah, it was a bit tongue in cheek. I don't really like it when Christian groups use those other types of names either though...
Such as "The Church of England" ...? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I mean, if the solution is to have two new EA's, one pro-gay and one anti-gay, then how long before we have four (one pro-gay / pro-women-in-leadership, one anti-gay / pro-WIL, one pro-gay / anti-WIL and one anti-gay / anti-WIL)? Then eight, then sixteen, and so on, as we find each new issue to fall out over.
Too late ... David Coffey wrote years ago about
the tribes of evangelicalism who won't talk to each other.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's not even like there is a massive difference in Steve Chalke's view of sexual morality and the EA's. I'm sure in terms of fidelity, exclusivity, equality, non-promiscuity and all sorts of other things they'd be in full agreement. The difference only lies in who they each believe can be in that godly type of relationship. So it's a small part of one issue which itself is a small part of Christian belief. Just because it's a hot theological issue of the zeitgeist, does not make it important in the big scheme of Christian Beliefs. By making it something worth disfellowshipping over the EA have simply got it wrong, and set a crappy precedent. I mean, if the solution is to have two new EA's, one pro-gay and one anti-gay, then how long before we have four (one pro-gay / pro-women-in-leadership, one anti-gay / pro-WIL, one pro-gay / anti-WIL and one anti-gay / anti-WIL)? Then eight, then sixteen, and so on, as we find each new issue to fall out over.
Well, it's not a big deal to you, but it obviously is to some other folk! At least for now. The reasons are partly symbolic, I think.
I must say, I don't have a huge problem with the idea of Christian separation. Sometimes people get on better when they're no longer living in the same house. It doesn't mean they have to hate each other.
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I don't fit into either a gay intolerant or a liberal organisation, and I don't thing I'm alone on this. Where would we go?
The problem is that SSM has been promoted all along as something that liberally-minded, tolerant people would approve of, not as something that dovetails nicely with any sort of conservatism, whether Christian or not.
At present, the whole issue still comes across as though it's owned, ideologically, by non-religious people or by radical liberal Christians. Pro-SSM evangelicals seem to be in the process 'getting in on the act' rather than generating a serious theology about family diversity that bolsters their evangelicalism rather than qualifying it. Someone ought to write a book or a PhD thesis exploring diverse sexualities as a potential or actual facet of evangelicalism. (The EA's current muddle should surely be worth at least a paragraph or two.) I'd be interested in reading it!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
There has long been a conservative/separatist counterpart to the EA - the former British Evangelical Council, rebranded ten years ago as 'Affinity'.
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I wish them well, but 'Affinity'? I wonder how much they had to pay a marketing agency to come up with that?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
If the EA had based their decision on Chalke's comments on the atonement, they could have presented a fairly robust argument that he / Oasis could no longer be members because they'd stepped well away from the accepted thinking on crucicentrism.
I agree: Booting Chalke for holding 'unacceptable' atonement views would have made sense... the atonement could be regarded as the most important theological issue in Christianity as it is central to the Christian faith and the preaching of the gospel.
But booting him for his website being insufficiently anti-gay??? It's a bit of a lame-duck issue by comparison. I guess it simply shows that evangelicals are actually more obsessed with sexual taboos than they are with the gospel. Because we really really really need to make sure guys' dicks go in the right places, else God will be angry, or something. And we all know that we can't have the "wrong kind of people" getting married!
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by ExplanationMark:
No I don't but I can't find anywhere where he says that those who find SSR's hard to accept, are excluded from His grace.
1 John 4:20
"Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also."
Those that hate others can obviously repent and find God's grace. But they can hardly claim to be Christians or be rightly regarded as such while they are actively hating and persecuting others.
quote:
Originally posted by ExplanationMark:
Well Starlight seems to be doing the same from another POV in deciding who's Christian and who isn't.
It's not exactly that I'm trying to decide who's Christian, so much as trying to decide how to regard "Christianity" as a whole.
To explain (see also this thread):
The historical African slave trade was extremely harmful and oppressive to those it exploited, and I would thus personally call it "wrong" and "evil" and "immoral". If you were to convince me that "Christianity", as a whole and as an entity, endorsed and was responsible for that institution of slavery, then I would have to regard "Christianity" as morally responsible for the harm done to all those people and thus hold the view that "Christianity" was harmful/evil/wrong etc. Now it is clear that a lot of self-professed bible-believing Christians were historically involved in the slave-trade and that they saw no conflict between their own profession of Christianity and the atrocities they were committing. But we can look back at that and say, "well they were deceiving themselves, they were totally wrong about the basics of Christian love for others and how the basic Christian message was incompatible with the harm they were perpetrating on others, and so while they thought of themselves as Christians they were self-deceived and weren't really Christians." The alternative, it seems to me, is to blame Christianity as an entity for the evils of that time.
Thus, I challenge any Christian today to answer the three yes/no questions:
1. Was the slave trade evil?
2. Was it compatible with Christianity?
3. Were the people who participated in it, who thought of themselves as Christians, therefore really True Christians?
(Feel free to answer in the comparison of homosexuality with slavery thread if your answer is big/complex and going to derail this one)
It seems to me you wind up either having to admit that Christianity is evil or that those people weren't really true Christians.
In an exactly analogous way, today there is the issue of Christians who are anti-gay. Christians have brought great harm to a great number of gay people through ongoing persecution and a systematic attempt to deny gay people basic human rights. The world's biggest scientific organisations in the medical, psychological, and sociological fields have repeatedly testified to governments and courts that persecution of, and opposition of, gay people and gay rights brings significant harm to those people affected, up to and including massively increasing their suicide rate. These organisations have also testified repeatedly that extensive scientific research has shown no rational or reasonable basis for such opposition to gay people or their human rights, and that gay people are scientifically provably no different to straight people in every socially relevant way.
In a way exactly analogous to slavery then, we can see that opposition to gay people and their rights, and the persecution of those gay people, is significantly harmful and thus evil. We are then left in a dilemma: Is Christianity evil for promoting harm to gay people? Or are the Christians who are opposing gay people and their rights not really following Christianity? I used favour the second option, and took it for granted that Christianity was about loving others and that therefore anyone who was anti-gay wasn't really Christian... but upon learning the true number of Christians who are anti-gay I now tend toward the view that Christianity as an entity on the whole does indeed promote harm towards gay people and that therefore Christians and Christianity are evil.
[ 05. May 2014, 04:07: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
It seems to me you wind up either having to admit that Christianity is evil or that those people weren't really true Christians.
...
In a way exactly analogous to slavery then, we can see that opposition to gay people and their rights, and the persecution of those gay people, is significantly harmful and thus evil. We are then left in a dilemma: Is Christianity evil for promoting harm to gay people? Or are the Christians who are opposing gay people and their rights not really following Christianity?
There's a significant difference between "not following Christ very well (or at all)" and "not really a Christian". I have often been a very crappy Christian, but that doesn't mean I'm not one.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
balaam
My local congo is a member of the EA and Steve Chalke was the keynote speaker at the celebratory event we held when we moved to a bigger location for Sunday worship. I'd say the congo is typical in that it contains conevos and open evos co-existing pretty well most of the time over local mission as well as living with differences. Not everyone has as much time for Steve Chalke as I do. Given my own convictions, I figure it as part of my personal responsibility to be a voice for change from within. I'm by no means alone in that. I like a lot of the people I disagree with, find a lot of good in them which coexists with what seem to me to be blind spots. And they may well think the same about me. When has this not been a normal part of seeking to live in peace with others in so far as it is possible for us?
Of course there are limits. I will be speaking out about what I see as a big mistake by the EA, without knowing what the effect of that will be. That sort of thing is an ongoing challenge of peaceful co-existence.
On the related tangent. Personally, I think the moral issue which connects slavery and gay-bashing is demeaning other human beings. The difference is that slavery also incorporates the exploitation, (very often, in both ancient and modern times, this included/includes the sexual abuse) of other human beings, regarded as "owned property".
So I think one has to be careful about the moral comparison. I suspect that the Christians who condoned the status of slavery did not condone the mistreatment and abuse of slaves. The kinds of ancient protective paternalism we tend these days to see as morally reprehensible were not seen as a justification for ongoing cruelty, even if they were, in our terms, blind to the intrinsic cruelty of enslavement or other forms of imposed economic and social servitude. A comment more related to the other thread, of course, but we're at a cross-over point.
[ 05. May 2014, 07:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Starlight, you're basically arguing that the only True Christian is one who is perfect in all regards. Knows the mind of God perfectly, and is perfect in executing His will.
Whereas Christians are basically flawed folk seeking to follow Jesus as best they can. So we all screw up; we all do unloving things; we all have limited understanding and usually flawed implementation of even that.
Also, one can disagree with something without hating it ...
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd say about 40% of all BUGB ministers have a clear view that SSM is a core issue - recognising that the biblical interpretation that might accommodate it will result in reviewing other areas of belief and practice that are much more uncomfortable.
Surely the problem with this is that you're basically extrapolating from what people have said to what they haven't said and may in fact strenuously deny.
And if we are going to proscribe models of Biblical interpretation because they might lead to heresy, we might as well not read the Bible at all.
That's very likely partly true but based on 9admittedly anecdotal experience and figures quoted a conference by others).
Er, I don't think I mentioned heresy.
I extrapolated it (sic) from your comment about "reviewing other areas of belief and practice that are much more uncomfortable". I thought you meant something on the lines of "If we can read Romans 1-2 in a non-intuitive way, couldn't we do the same to the resurrection passages and say they mean Christ was resurrected in the hearts of his disciples?" But I appreciate that either way you're reporting other people's opinions rather than necessarily setting forth your own.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Whereas Christians are basically flawed folk seeking to follow Jesus as best they can. So we all screw up; we all do unloving things; we all have limited understanding and usually flawed implementation of even that.
My interest here is in understanding and identifying what Christianity is. If someone is doing something that harms other people (eg supporting slavery, being anti-gay), are they doing it because of or in spite of their Christianity?
It's one thing to say that the people actively harming others simply aren't living up to the ideals of Christianity. That's entirely understandable: Everyone's human and nobody's perfect. It's quite another thing to say that actively harming others is an essential part and parcel of Christianity - that would portray Christianity itself as the cause of the harm, rather the person's fallen human nature as the cause of the harm. And that seems to me what the E.A. is doing here: Far from condemning anti-gay positions as unloving, harmful, and unchristian and considering them as positions that it is understandable that some older people in our society still hold through indoctrination in their youth but which urgently need changing in the light of the bible's teachings of love... The E.A. has instead said that being anti-gay is a core tenet of Christianity and has thrown someone out for having a website that says too many nice and supportive things to gay people.
quote:
Also, one can disagree with something without hating it...
If someone privately in their own mind doesn't approve of gay activity and chooses therefore not perform any gay activity themselves, that is totally fine with me. If you don't think gay marriage should be a thing, then don't get gay married.
However, a very large number of the people who "disagree" with gay sex or gay marriage seem to feel the need to express that view, and particularly to express it strongly in the direction of gay people in the form of clearly conveyed disapproval and condemnation, and express it in the public forums in the form of campaigns to reduce the human rights of gay people and support active discrimination against them within businesses and in legislation concerning marriage. Unfortunately, human psychology is such that if many people make negative comments towards a particular person regularly, that person can become depressed, stressed, anxious, and feel unloved. Such stigmatized people will often feel ostracised and may use alcohol or drugs to compensate, or commit suicide as a result. The negative health consequences for stigmatized groups are typically severe overall. Thus the effect of large numbers of Christians "disagreeing" with gay activities and expressing that view, is that a substantial amount of harm is done to gay people up to and including causing the deaths of a large number of them through suicide. (eg see the Royal College of Psychiatrist's 2012 submission to the UK government on the subject, or the American Anthropological Association's 2013 submission to the US Supreme Court)
Unfortunately a lot of Christians are unfamiliar with this and don't understand how gay people are getting harmed by them "simply disagreeing with the gay lifestyle". I don't particularly mind whether someone thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, as it typically harms no one either way. But unfortunately when you start stigmatizing minorities and teaching prejudice and discrimination toward them, and when the upshot of this ends up being campaigns to deny people human rights, and the circulation of malicious lies about that group ("they molest children" / "they raise children badly" etc), and thousands of the stigmatized group end up committing suicide who otherwise wouldn't have... then you have strayed well out of the territory of simple disagreement and into the territory of pretty actively and seriously harming others.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, it's not a big deal to you, but it obviously is to some other folk! At least for now. The reasons are partly symbolic, I think.
Yes, I think it is symbolic, and that's bad. It's used as a symbol of the liberal/conservative divide, and I think the pastoral implications of it becoming a symbol to highlight the divide is tragic.
The thing is, it is also a big deal to me. But it's a big deal because of the social and pastoral issues that surround it. It's not a big deal because of the theological differences that lead to differing conclusions. So breaking out of fellowship with each other over it is simply wrong. As others have said, if they'd picked the atonement that would have been more of an actual decent reason to kick Oasis out (though I still think they'd have been wrong).
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I must say, I don't have a huge problem with the idea of Christian separation. Sometimes people get on better when they're no longer living in the same house. It doesn't mean they have to hate each other.
That's true, but that's not how I interpret what has happened. There are all sorts of Christian groups with different traditions, and we have much to learn from each other. But we're all part of the same family. What the EA has done is the equivalent kick a family member out of the house, or refuse to invite a brother or sister to a family gathering. Catholics and Orthodox might be cousins to the EA, but Oasis are siblings - the differences are far too small to refuse to fellowship over.
Of course there is a time to kick a brother or sister out of your house, but you have to have a very good reason for it, and should be a last resort. To outsiders, if they don't see a good reason why someone has done that, then that person just looks like an asshole. Jesus said the world would know his disciples by the way they love each other. That's not what I see in the EA's actions.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
It seems to me you wind up either having to admit that Christianity is evil or that those people weren't really true Christians.
If we're going that way, there's only really ever been one True Christian.
Otherwise, we run the risk of saying, I thank you God that I am not as those people who supported the slave trade. I have signed an online petition against deportation; I buy my coffee from the church Fair Trade coffee stall; I marched against the War in Iraq.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's used as a symbol of the liberal/conservative divide, and I think the pastoral implications of it becoming a symbol to highlight the divide is tragic.
[..]
The thing is, it is also a big deal to me. But it's a big deal because of the social and pastoral issues that surround it. It's not a big deal because of the theological differences that lead to differing conclusions.
As I said in my previous post, this issue has already been 'owned' by more liberal forces in society, so it would be difficult for it to have avoided becoming a symbol of the 'liberal/conservative divide'.
There are pastoral implications, but these aren't new; most churches have members whose sex lives aren't lived strictly in accordance with church 'rules', and church leaders must routinely have to work out what to do about that, if anything. I suspect that many churchgoers (including those whose churches are still in the EA) take their own counsel regarding sexual morality, regardless of church teachings. This may be because, in the words of one scholar, 'the self, rather than religious authority structures' now guides Christians' 'journeys of spirituality and sexuality.'
Isn't there an element of evangelicalism that's always been more about personal spirituality rather than doctrinal purity and/or rule-keeping? I don't know to what extent the EA is in the tradition of the former rather than the latter.
quote:
Jesus said the world would know his disciples by the way they love each other. That's not what I see in the EA's actions.
Well, you could just hope that the world remains entirely ignorant of what the EA says and does! But as I implied, Open Evangelicals might benefit from this situation by being freed up to create new ecumenical partnerships. Maybe Steve Chalke is working on something at this very moment!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Who'd have thunk it.
With a bit of a media storm I can't find* a mention of this on the EA website. The Oasis site it is the first item under Latest news.
(* Silly me, I was looking in the wrong place. I was looking under News, it is under Current Affairs/Media/Press releases. Not the most obvious place. But for an organisation that prides itself on reprting evangelicals in the media it could be more prominent when the news is about them.)
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As I said in my previous post, this issue has already been 'owned' by more liberal forces in society, so it would be difficult for it to have avoided becoming a symbol of the 'liberal/conservative divide'.
But for those who are theologically conservative for the most part it leaves us in limbo, not part of the liberal half and not in the gay-rejecting half either.
At least I'm Anglican, just about anything is acceptable somewhere in Anglicanism.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Out of interest, are there individual Anglican churches in the EA?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Out of interest, are there individual Anglican churches in the EA?
Yes. If you search for a local postcode on the EA's website to bring up all churches in an area, then list by all and search for the word "England". Looking around central London for example, we get:
- All Souls, Langham Place
- All Saints Islington
- HTB (of course!)
- St Stephen's Canonbury
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
That's interesting; it seems to be very much down to individual congregations - and their leaders. ISTM, then, that open evangelicals and their churches and leaders need to wrangle themselves into positions of power and influence in sufficient numbers so that para-church organisations no longer presume that a more conservative position is dominant.
As someone who's a bit of an outsider yet has some affinities with evangelicalism, I'd say that that open evangelicals need to avoid complaining about other evangelicals making them look bad. This sort of carry-on always strikes me as weak in the mainstream churches, and it's no more impressive in evangelicalism. Complaining about other people's churches changes nothing; what you need to do is work to ensure your own status in these big institutions and in public consciousness. The EA is presumably like all other institutions on earth (not least churches), in that it understands power.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
open evangelicals need to avoid complaining about other evangelicals making them look bad. This sort of carry-on always strikes me as weak in the mainstream churches, and it's no more impressive in evangelicalism. Complaining about other people's churches changes nothing; what you need to do is work to ensure your own status in these big institutions and in public consciousness.
Isn't that a bit self-contradictory? The way to "ensure your own status" is to stand in contradistinction to the more conservative views. That inherently entails a critique of that which you oppose. It's not necessarily that one whinges, but rather to say "I am happy to worship alongside this person/group/etc but with regards to issue X I disagree with them."
quote:
The EA is presumably like all other institutions on earth (not least churches), in that it understands power.
Herein lies the problem. As soon we use a rhetoric of power we all too easily lose sight of the rhetoric of service. This is a true for churches as it is of politicians or businesses.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
The way to "ensure your own status" is to stand in contradistinction to the more conservative views. That inherently entails a critique of that which you oppose. It's not necessarily that one whinges, but rather to say "I am happy to worship alongside this person/group/etc but with regards to issue X I disagree with them."
I hope the EA isn't forbidding anyone from joining the Oasis Church in ecumenical worship! The problem is one of how you represent each other in a more formal ecumenical way. For some churches formal ecumenical ventures must be like walking on eggshells; you have to watch what you say so you don't embarrass the rest. Or else you say whatever you like, and then the others get cross and embarrassed because they feel your strong words taint them in some way.
quote:
As soon we use a rhetoric of power we all too easily lose sight of the rhetoric of service. This is a true for churches as it is of politicians or businesses.
Yes, but even when we use the rhetoric of service we still buy into the reality of power. Maybe it's cynical of me to say so, but I don't think that any institutional church, no matter how kind and caring its ministry is, avoids power games within its environment, if only in a subconscious way.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Didn't know where to post this, and I can only comment on what I've seen on Twitter as I'm not there in person, but it sounds like the Baptist Assembly has voted to allow churches to hold same-sex marriages in their premises (if the church wishes to) and to allow ministers to officiate at these ceremonies (which, as I understood it is the new bit, though I may be wrong).
Which would suggest (to me) that Steve Chalke is unlikely to be censured by the BUGB for his actions, though again I may be wrong on that.
Strikes me as a significant and probably inevitable move (though I'm sure not everyone will agree with that!).
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
1. Which would suggest (to me) that Steve Chalke is unlikely to be censured by the BUGB for his actions, though again I may be wrong on that.
2. Strikes me as a significant and probably inevitable move (though I'm sure not everyone will agree with that!).
1. There was a lot of bluster that Steve Chalke would be spoken to - he hasn't been AFAIK even though he'd acted outside the agreed "rules" for accredited ministers.
2. Possibly inevitable but also likely to cause a real fracture in the denomination as there's a substantial majority against it (estimates vary but it seems to be around 2/3rds against and 1/3 in favour).
Of course Baptist churches are not compelled to take any notice of the Conference or of Council - in fact, they can make their own rules provided hey don't baptise infants. Now there's a thought .....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Didn't know where to post this, and I can only comment on what I've seen on Twitter as I'm not there in person, but it sounds like the Baptist Assembly has voted to allow churches to hold same-sex marriages in their premises (if the church wishes to) and to allow ministers to officiate at these ceremonies (which, as I understood it is the new bit, though I may be wrong).
You're right. The holding of such ceremonies has always been down to the local churches as they are independent, but BU Accredited Ministers have not been allowed to host them. I should be delighted if your understanding is the correct one.
Do you have a link I could check this on? I don't seem to be able to find it on the official Twitter feed.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan: no, sadly I don't have a link and nothing was mentioned on the official Twitter feed; it was mentioned on the feeds of people who were there. According to them, an official announcement will be made on BUGB's website on Monday.
EM: re your point 2, I don't if this was voted on or whether it was announced from "on high" - do you (genuine question!)? If the former, given the numbers you cite, which wouldn't entirely surprise me, wondering how this got through Assembly?
And you're right: there's nothing compelling churches and ministers to take any notice of this at all; I wonder if that might be the thing that stops a split?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
