|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Has the Evangelical Alliance shot itself in the foot?
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If there were assurances given that the status quo was going to continue then there was no conversation to be had. If there was to be a conversation then any assurances about where that conversation would go are meaningless.
I'll repeat myself: A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
--------------------
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
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
The decision by the BU is the right one although it looks like, feels like bit of a fudge. It sounds as if they are trying to please everyone and ending up not pleasing anyone!
However, all BU churches have at the heart of their ecclesiology the autonomy of the local church and it was ever so slightly hypocritical to boast about this and then say apart from one issue.
Until we focus on more what it is to be a Covenant Community rather than prize our autonomy then we will see more 'fudges' like this.
Although I have a lot of sympathy with SSM I am still unsure whether I would want to take a scenario to my church meeting. In addition if ministers go back into the settlement process I could see questions about this matter deciding whether a minister should be called to a specific church or not.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
The decision by the BU is the right one although it looks like, feels like bit of a fudge. It sounds as if they are trying to please everyone and ending up not pleasing anyone!
Which I am sure must be the first time this has happened in any church, ever! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
However, all BU churches have at the heart of their ecclesiology the autonomy of the local church and it was ever so slightly hypocritical to boast about this and then say apart from one issue.
Especially as a local Church could take whatever position it wished on this issue - it was only the Minister who could not.
Your final comment is, I think, pertinent and true.
P.S. Some of us like Fudge - not just the sweetmeat but a rather nice brown Labrador of my acquaintance. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 15. May 2014, 16:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
To go back a little to the EA's efforts to define evangelicalism, 'conservative' is very much in the eye of the beholder. There's a very substantial evangelical constituency to the right of the EA, largely represented by the Federation of Independent Evangelical Churches. FIEC churches tend not to pop up on people's radars because they keep themselves to themselves at local level, but quite a few of them are big thriving congregations with very healthy age profiles. Total membership in FIEC churches has grown by 15% in ten years (and churches in the FIEC are pretty restrictive about who they let into membership). If current trends continue the FIEC will have overtaken the main historic non-conformist denominations in several decades. And then there are the more-Reformed-than-thou types who think the FIEC isn't quite conservative enough! The EA's stance on issues as ecumenism and the role of women is positively liberal by con evo standards. The same is broadly true of the Baptists. There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU. For example when I lived in Oxford the second biggest Baptist church in the city was non-BU, and I think that would be fairly typical.
[ 24. May 2014, 19:17: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Sojourner
Apprentice
# 17776
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
To go back a little to the EA's efforts to define evangelicalism, 'conservative' is very much in the eye of the beholder. There's a very substantial evangelical constituency to the right of the EA, largely represented by the Federation of Independent Evangelical Churches. FIEC churches tend not to pop up on people's radars because they keep themselves to themselves at local level, but quite a few of them are big thriving congregations with very healthy age profiles. Total membership in FIEC churches has grown by 15% in ten years (and churches in the FIEC are pretty restrictive about who they let into membership). If current trends continue the FIEC will have overtaken the main historic non-conformist denominations in several decades. And then there are the more-Reformed-than-thou types who think the FIEC isn't quite conservative enough! The EA's stance on issues as ecumenism and the role of women is positively liberal by con evo standards. The same is broadly true of the Baptists. There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU. For example when I lived in Oxford the second biggest Baptist church in the city was non-BU, and I think that would be fairly typical.
I would suggest though that many FIEC are doing OK at the moment as they are acting as gather churches, hoovering up much of the remaining vitality of the smaller Brethren Halls. I know many a Brethren Hall that has lost its remaining families to the bigger FIEC aligned church as they offer greater options for the families etc. without anything remotely charismatic. The question is whether these groupings can retain their children once their older... I would suggest that in many cases they are just making the same mistakes as the Brethren have done, expect that they have gained an extra twenty plus years to their lifespan due to removing the remaining vitality of the Brethren...
This is purely my experience though, so if anyone with greater knowledge wishes to say otherwise I will happily bow to their greater knowledge...
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU.
It's interesting you should say this. I met up with a cousin of mine a few weeks ago. I've always known that the other side of her family was mostly Baptist, but now it turns out that most of them belong to an Independent Baptist church, and from what she says it does sound far stricter than the Baptist churches I'm aware of. (I don't know which church it is, but it is 'in the middle' of England, funnily enough.)
I don't know what percentage of EA churches are also in the BU, but maybe both organisations are fearful of losing their strictest churches to other groups. This would obviously be a concern if such churches are a growing constituency. But I imagine that a growing number of churches are also becoming gradually less strict on some of these issues. It's hardly surprising if the EA feels it's being pulled in different directions at the same time!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU.
It's interesting you should say this. I met up with a cousin of mine a few weeks ago. I've always known that the other side of her family was mostly Baptist, but now it turns out that most of them belong to an Independent Baptist church, and from what she says it does sound far stricter than the Baptist churches I'm aware of. (I don't know which church it is, but it is 'in the middle' of England, funnily enough.)
I don't know what percentage of EA churches are also in the BU, but maybe both organisations are fearful of losing their strictest churches to other groups. This would obviously be a concern if such churches are a growing constituency. But I imagine that a growing number of churches are also becoming gradually less strict on some of these issues. It's hardly surprising if the EA feels it's being pulled in different directions at the same time!
Out of curiosity due to a cousin of mine attending what I think is an Independent Baptist church - is it in Rugby or in the area?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Many independent baptist churches of this nature refer to themselves as "Grace Baptists", formerly known as the Strict Baptists. They are concentrated in the north and east of England and many would consider the FIEC dodgy. Then of course there are those who consider the Grace Baptists too woolly. In short, the EA is never going to attract these churches into its constituency, not least because of their fiercely independent ethos and practice of strict communion (i.e. secondary separatism).
[ 26. May 2014, 06:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] I don't know what percentage of EA churches are also in the BU, but maybe both organisations are fearful of losing their strictest churches to other groups.
It's probably more accurate to say that many BU churches are in the EA - but I do know what you mean. The majority of the BU is Con Evo ( also most churches are also strongly in favour of women's ministry), sitting well with EA's position.
Bear in mind that the BU sees itself as an association of churches not a denomination, with local churches setting their positions individually as a result of their understanding of scripture. There is technically no hierarchy and no one has authority beyond the local church meeting. If you don't like what the BU or your Regional Minister (aka Bishops) say, then you don't have to do it. This can lead to a wide diversity of opinion on such things as SSM and women's ordination.
Historically, the more reformed Baptist churches and the more charismatic ones are less BU focussed - they tend to link into other groups (New Wine and NFI for some, FIEC for others). Very historically many of the "hard line" BU churches left in the 1970's (e.g. Penzance and Redruth I think) in protest over liberalising trends. Some joined FIEC, many remain totally independent. It may be one of those your family attend - such churches are very unlikely to be members of any ecumenical groups, probably non charismatic and 100% likely to be anti SSM.
This may well continue as the BU is (and is becoming) more liberal on many issues (not just DH ones). The con evos are still in a majority but it's a declining one. Most of the students coming out of college now, although they may self describe as "evangelical," would not be so classed by those taking longer (historical) perspective. Given that's also true of some of the leaders of the denomination then perhaps the future is one of a continuing shift.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
1. However, all BU churches have at the heart of their ecclesiology the autonomy of the local church and it was ever so slightly hypocritical to boast about this and then say apart from one issue.
2. In addition if ministers go back into the settlement process I could see questions about this matter deciding whether a minister should be called to a specific church or not.
1. It is VERY hypocritical. Why did BUGB wait so long to decide this? It does seem like the BU Council found itself on a no win platform (with key figures in Ministry Dept known to be affirming of SSM privately, if not publicly), so they reverted it to churches where it should be all along.
2. That's very true and it will therefore build a divided BU with the two "halves" finding less and less common ground.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It will therefore build a divided BU with the two "halves" finding less and less common ground.
I think that you may be both unnecessarily pessimistic and overly optimistic, as I think that there are actually more constituencies than two but that this need not inevitably lead to a loss of common ground.
For instance I can see at least the following "groupings" within the BU: those (few) churches which call themselves "liberal"; the charismatics (many now lost to other groupings although they may retain a legal link to the BU for Trust purposes); the more "reformed" type although, as you say, we lost many of them in the 70s and 80s; and then the broader centre ground of "Broad Evangelical" and informal "modern-ish" worship, possibly becoming less conservative although I'm really not sure about that. There are also the African etc. churches to take into account, which often operate in rather different ways to traditional "English" BU churches.
Clearly these are very different; however I think that they can hold together if the desire is there. However I'm not sure that it is: many churches seem more "congregation-centred" and less likely to look to the wider denomination than was the case when I started in the 1980s. But I think that is part of a wider trend affecting many denominations.
FWIW, when I was last hunting for a church in 2005, it soon became clear that I would only fit into a handful of congregations. The fact that my present Pastorate has a strong URC emphasis is not a coincidence, although I remain a BU minister.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
...many churches seem more "congregation-centred" and less likely to look to the wider denomination than was the case when I started in the 1980s. But I think that is part of a wider trend affecting many denominations....
Yes, I think it is. Certainly something similar has happened in the CofE's appointment of Bishops.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]
1. Clearly these are very different; however I think that they can hold together if the desire is there. However I'm not sure that it is: many churches seem more "congregation-centred" and less likely to look to the wider denomination than was the case when I started in the 1980s. But I think that is part of a wider trend affecting many denominations.
2. FWIW, when I was last hunting for a church in 2005, it soon became clear that I would only fit into a handful of congregations. The fact that my present Pastorate has a strong URC emphasis is not a coincidence, although I remain a BU minister.
Thanks Trainfan. As for the BME churches they are far more conservative theologically and possibly most likely at the moment to jump ship if BUGB moves to a more liberal position.
A few churches self describe as liberal but considerably more are not con evo in theology.
1. I agree that most Baptist churches in BUGB are less likely to look to the wider denomination than they once were. There's a number of reasons for that - their focus lies in developing local relationships across like minded churches, as well as national neglect and presumption over a number of years.
You and I will both know that local clusters aren't the force they were and associations struggle to get people to fill posts. The only exception to that is possibly London.
2. The same was/is true for me but perhaps for quite different reasons. A significant number of churches (esp the larger ones) don't bother with the settlement system anyway and there's fewer churches looking for someone with the preaching/pastor skills I have to offer. Most want someone rather younger anyway.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There's fewer churches looking for someone with the preaching/pastor skills I have to offer.
That's an interesting point. What, would you say, are churches looking for? Management ability or "Pioneer" skills, perhaps? That question, in turn, then makes one asks just what is the nature of the "Minister's" job today.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There's fewer churches looking for someone with the preaching/pastor skills I have to offer.
That's an interesting point. What, would you say, are churches looking for? Management ability or "Pioneer" skills, perhaps? That question, in turn, then makes one asks just what is the nature of the "Minister's" job today.
Pioneer and youth work mainly I guess. Being "missional," "incarnational" and "intentional" as well. Like you I do all 3 but wouldn't use the "in" jargon .... I prefer to let actions speak for themselves.
The management/leadership bit I can handle as it's been part of life for over 35 years now ... in fact there are those who say that the church here is now working more like a Baptist church should as a result of my "approach" to meetings and involving everyone.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Very historically many of the "hard line" BU churches left in the 1970's (e.g. Penzance and Redruth I think) in protest over liberalising trends. Some joined FIEC, many remain totally independent. It may be one of those your family attend - such churches are very unlikely to be members of any ecumenical groups, probably non charismatic and 100% likely to be anti SSM.
This may well continue as the BU is (and is becoming) more liberal on many issues (not just DH ones). The con evos are still in a majority but it's a declining one. Most of the students coming out of college now, although they may self describe as "evangelical," would not be so classed by those taking longer (historical) perspective. Given that's also true of some of the leaders of the denomination then perhaps the future is one of a continuing shift.
Hmm. Thanks.
I'm fascinated by how the Baptists have to a large extent been able to maintain (or revive?) a form of evangelicalism over such a long period of time, while other historical denominations such as the Congregationalists/URC and the Methodists mostly retreated from theirs at an earlier stage.
The interesting question now is whether British Baptists will be able to align themselves gradually with a less evangelical perspective while also avoiding the steep decline that has faced other historical Protestant churches. I think it's remarkable (though rarely discussed publicly) how the British Baptists in recent times have been able to buck this trend. Churches can sometimes become victims of their own success, though.
These must be awkward times for the EA. Maybe it'll end up with a fancy new name and a new identity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]Hmm. Thanks.
I'm fascinated by how the Baptists have to a large extent been able to maintain (or revive?) a form of evangelicalism over such a long period of time, while other historical denominations such as the Congregationalists/URC and the Methodists mostly retreated from theirs at an earlier stage.
The interesting question now is whether British Baptists will be able to align themselves gradually with a less evangelical perspective while also avoiding the steep decline that has faced other historical Protestant churches. I think it's remarkable (though rarely discussed publicly) how the British Baptists in recent times have been able to buck this trend. Churches can sometimes become victims of their own success, though.
These must be awkward times for the EA. Maybe it'll end up with a fancy new name and a new identity.
BUGB has remained largely evangelical as a result of its (historical) theology. It has a niche in uk church life that, to many across the broad band of evangelicalism is attractive owing to its stated ecclesiology focussing on the priesthood of all believers. Admittedly much of the growth BUGB sees is by transfer - churches transfer in (and a few new ones are planted) and new adherents move in from other churches/denominations where they no longer feel at home esp with the liberalising trends you mention.
There are few "typical" Baptist churches these days but in many you will find people from all sorts of Christian and non Christian backgrounds, perhaps more so than any other church or grouping.
With BUGB being a loose association rather than a denomination, churches can easily break the link if they feel the nature of the movement is changing. They remain Baptist in theology and government but become unaligned and independent. I suspect that this will become a little more common. I think that there will be a more of a polarisation as the environment becomes less evangelical - whether this will lead to any division remains to be seen.
The EA is in a tough place - like most parachurch organisations. At least it still contending for the truth, albeit in a rather unpopular fashion for some. I'd be concerned if it now bows to some of the criticism and loses what remains of its evangelical voice.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
An excellent post.
Just one comment about the Baptists and being Evangelical! You will know that the E-word is not used in the "Declaration of Principle", however those of us engaged in revising the Model Trust Deeds for churches about 15 years ago spent a great amount of time deliberating over it, even to the extent of taking it to BU Council.
The point was that the earlier 1951 Trusts (which define the beliefs and activities of the church which meets within the building held under Trust) say that "Persons may become or remain members of the Church if they profess their faith in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and hold to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the authority of the Holy Scriptures and that interpretation of them usually called evangelical ..." Similar strictures apply to Ministers.
We were left with three problems. One was that this statement did not accurately reflect the Statement of Principle. Second, we found ourselves running into problems defining "Evangelical"; to do so was beyond our remit. Finally, we believed that Charity Law did not permit us to change this section anyway!
Hence, any Baptist Church whose buildings are held under these Trust Deeds (which is most of them) should legally maintain an "Evangelical" approach to Scripture. The problem lies - as the EA are finding out! - in defining exactly what that word means and where its boundaries lie.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Sitvlana
It is not as simple as that. I think you mentioned FIEC, they basically originate in the Evangelical wing of the Congregational Church pre-1972!
Independant = Congregational (yes the spelling of the first word is correct).
Also Conservative - Liberal does not easily fit onto Historic Non-Conformist stands. It is rather to talk of Magisterial and Radical. The thing is that Radical involves both Evangelicals and Quakers. Go Figure!
Jengie
[ 27. May 2014, 08:45: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The problem lies - as the EA are finding out! - in defining exactly what that word means and where its boundaries lie.
Precisely - it's like nailing jelly to a wall with 6 inch nails. That's why it is actually rather meaningless as it is often taken to mean whatever you want it to mean.
I no longer describe or define my beliefs in that way, for that very reason.
[ 27. May 2014, 11:48: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The problem lies - as the EA are finding out! - in defining exactly what that word means and where its boundaries lie.
Precisely - it's like nailing jelly to a wall with 6 inch nails. That's why it is actually rather meaningless as it is often taken to mean whatever you want it to mean.
I no longer describe or define my beliefs in that way, for that very reason.
I disagree as there is no problem with how 'Evangelical' is defined.
Bebbington and McGrath are recognised as giving this a lot of clarity.
The problem is that for some evangelicals they want to add to this definition in a way that says, "if you don't subscribe to my understanding then you are to be excluded."
This is what has happened with the EA and certain circles within evangelicals.
The EA tried to re-define evangelical identity before when Steve Chalke question penal atonement theory and couldn't exclude him then because the definition Bebbington et al gave as well as the EA website makes no mention of penal atonement neither does it speak of subscribing to a particular theory of sexuality.
The litmus test for faith must always be (IMHO) whether we have a Christ Centred, Cross centred faith rooted in scripture that requires us to demonstrate our beliefs in word and deeds.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Fair points all, although they do not (and cannot) define the particular "feel" and culture of Evangelicalism.
I note that McGrath says, "Evangelicals are Bible people. They don't all agree on exactly what the Bible is, other than the inspired, written Word of God or on what it says (or even on the Rules for interpreting it) but what it say is of utmost importance to them".
I think that this breadth lies at the heart of the Steve Chalke debate: I'm sure that Steve is not suggesting that folk abandon the Bible, rather that they accept an interpretation of it which has hitherto not been regarded as orthodox.
(FWIW, there are certainly some Liberals who take the Bible seriously, albeit via a much more critical engagement with its text and a denial of any notion of divine inspiration).
[ 28. May 2014, 13:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A Sojourner:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
To go back a little to the EA's efforts to define evangelicalism, 'conservative' is very much in the eye of the beholder. There's a very substantial evangelical constituency to the right of the EA, largely represented by the Federation of Independent Evangelical Churches. FIEC churches tend not to pop up on people's radars because they keep themselves to themselves at local level, but quite a few of them are big thriving congregations with very healthy age profiles. Total membership in FIEC churches has grown by 15% in ten years (and churches in the FIEC are pretty restrictive about who they let into membership). If current trends continue the FIEC will have overtaken the main historic non-conformist denominations in several decades. And then there are the more-Reformed-than-thou types who think the FIEC isn't quite conservative enough! The EA's stance on issues as ecumenism and the role of women is positively liberal by con evo standards. The same is broadly true of the Baptists. There is a quite substantial Baptist constituency to the right of the BU. For example when I lived in Oxford the second biggest Baptist church in the city was non-BU, and I think that would be fairly typical.
I would suggest though that many FIEC are doing OK at the moment as they are acting as gather churches, hoovering up much of the remaining vitality of the smaller Brethren Halls. I know many a Brethren Hall that has lost its remaining families to the bigger FIEC aligned church as they offer greater options for the families etc. without anything remotely charismatic. The question is whether these groupings can retain their children once their older... I would suggest that in many cases they are just making the same mistakes as the Brethren have done, expect that they have gained an extra twenty plus years to their lifespan due to removing the remaining vitality of the Brethren...
This is purely my experience though, so if anyone with greater knowledge wishes to say otherwise I will happily bow to their greater knowledge...
That's very different from the impression I get (my other half is the black sheep in a family very active in FIEC circles - his father is a pastor and his brother is training to be one). The FIEC churches I know of draw in people from all sorts of backgrounds, including unchurched and liberalish Christian. Anecdotally I would say that the independent evangelical subculture has pretty good retention rates in terms of children, better than the historic churches anyway. The point I was making (not very well) is that there is a big constituency to the right of the EA who would argue that THEY are the True Evangelicals, and would claim that the EA's openness to ecumenism / the charismatic movement / women in leadership places it on the slippery slope to heresy. I'm guessing the EA leadership is not unaware of this constituency and the need to assert its evangelical credentials in response.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I'm guessing the EA leadership is not unaware of this constituency and the need to assert its evangelical credentials in response.
Indeed, I think that this need to "prove credentials", not perhaps with the FIEC and Grace Baptists but to the EA's own constituency, lies at the heart of the debate.
But it is caught in a cleft stick: either it puts down a marker in the sand and alienates its more "progressive" (and possibly younger) members, or else it goes with the flow and thus demonstrates itself to be irredeemably worldly and spineless to its more conservative supporters.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
@ Baptist Trainfan
I liked the McGrath quote and I think it highlights the problem evangelicals have.
There are some who want a more detailed defined definition but by doing that it excludes more and more people.
My preference is to have a broader definition that is more inclusive.
I wonder if we will ever get there??
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I'm guessing the EA leadership is not unaware of this constituency and the need to assert its evangelical credentials in response.
I think if the EA were interested in courting that constituency they would have drawn the line on the penal substitution issue. That's when the people in those circles "said goodbye" to Steve Chalke. I am guessing that this move has much more to so with the BME majority churches, which are much more in the EA 's target audience. It would, for example, be relatively unusual for an FIEC church to be an EA member.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Red-face Department ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) :
I've just realised that my quote isn't actually by McGrath but comes from this article by someone called Calvin Fox which comments on his definitions of Evangelicalism.
Sorry about that ... but I do agree with the quote!
[ 28. May 2014, 19:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
There is a big constituency to the right of the EA who would argue that THEY are the True Evangelicals, and would claim that the EA's openness to ecumenism / the charismatic movement / women in leadership places it on the slippery slope to heresy. I'm guessing the EA leadership is not unaware of this constituency and the need to assert its evangelical credentials in response.
It's interesting that this term is now something for people to fight over. Is there any other word or phrase in British Christianity quite like it? No one argues about who has the theological right to be called MOTR, liberal, Catholic, etc.!
The very struggle to establish boundaries in evangelicalism must be part of its strength. It suggests engagement, if nothing else.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's interesting that this term is now something for people to fight over. Is there any other word or phrase in British Christianity quite like it? No one argues about who has the theological right to be called MOTR, liberal, Catholic, etc.!
No, I think people argue over who gets to be called Anglo-Catholic, with the conservatives arguing that you can only be Anglo-Catholic if you hate women and gays and that other Anglo-Catholics are just liberals who like dressing up.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@ Baptist Trainfan
I liked the McGrath quote and I think it highlights the problem evangelicals have.
There are some who want a more detailed defined definition but by doing that it excludes more and more people.
My preference is to have a broader definition that is more inclusive.
I wonder if we will ever get there??
We won't - at least in the BU and EA. The stakes might be considered to be too high: too much movement and both might be fatally fractured.
Any definition will draw a line at some point which leads to inclusion and exclusion. It's a fact of life, sadly.
I suppose we could come at it from another direction and reflect on what beliefs (or non beliefs) might preclude us from considering others as "Evangelical."
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I suppose we could come at it from another direction and reflect on what beliefs (or non beliefs) might preclude us from considering others as "Evangelical." [/QB]
Isn't this what has happened with Steve Chalke?
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's interesting that this term is now something for people to fight over. Is there any other word or phrase in British Christianity quite like it? No one argues about who has the theological right to be called MOTR, liberal, Catholic, etc.!
No, I think people argue over who gets to be called Anglo-Catholic, with the conservatives arguing that you can only be Anglo-Catholic if you hate women and gays and that other Anglo-Catholics are just liberals who like dressing up.
I suppose the reason why this doesn't register to the same extent is that there are fewer self-proclaimed Anglo-Catholics than there are self-proclaimed evangelicals.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I suppose we could come at it from another direction and reflect on what beliefs (or non beliefs) might preclude us from considering others as "Evangelical."
Isn't this what has happened with Steve Chalke? [/QB]
Sort of but I do feel that there's a element here of Steve Chalke almost teasing the EA - and this time they've bitten big time. It's interesting that they have and BUGB has done - nothing.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Maybe it's a sign that the EA are becoming less and less Baptist and have other fish to fry. But as for the BUGB, are they likely to want to eject the country's most famous living Baptist minister and/or his church? As a non-Baptist with a MOTR church history, I can definitely say I've heard about him. I'm sure there are other high-achieving Baptist ministers who get around a bit, but how many have had the sort of public platform that Steve's had?
(Funnily enough, today at the charity shop where I work I saw a photo of Steve on one of the books that came in. I think it was about teaching kids to read or do maths, something of that sort. He obviously has a wide range of interests!)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe it's a sign that the EA are becoming less and less Baptist and have other fish to fry. But as for the BUGB, are they likely to want to eject the country's most famous living Baptist minister and/or his church? As a non-Baptist with a MOTR church history, I can definitely say I've heard about him. I'm sure there are other high-achieving Baptist ministers who get around a bit, but how many have had the sort of public platform that Steve's had?
(Funnily enough, today at the charity shop where I work I saw a photo of Steve on one of the books that came in. I think it was about teaching kids to read or do maths, something of that sort. He obviously has a wide range of interests!)
Yes Steve Chalke ticked a lot of boxes for BUGB a few years ago. He was undoubtedly set for high office but had a certain amount of naivete in (effectively) taking on BUGB when he assumed that they would do their usual nothing.
He's been on a downwards roll in BUGB ever since "The Lost Message of Jesus" and within BUGB very little is said about him these days - rather different from when he was on TV AM.
[ 30. May 2014, 08:40: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That's all true; but I also think his main "axis" has become Oasis rather than BUGB.
BTW, we here are all assuming that BUGB has said nothing to Steve ... but AFAIK none of us actually knows that to be the case.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The very struggle to establish boundaries in evangelicalism must be part of its strength. It suggests engagement, if nothing else.
I'd suggest the opposite. Vicious struggles over identity usually occur at the extremes. Politically, the far left and far right have a long and undistinguished history of splits, schisms, factions and so on. Fractures occur on both sides of the spectrum, a massive amount of time is spent navel-gazing about identity and purity, dissent makes you a splitter, and The Life of Brian is a documentary.
To me, vicious arguments over who's in and who's out tend to signal that a group's in danger of spiralling into fragmented oblivion.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Yes, that's one possibility. But not the only one.
It's been said that Methodism ultimately suffered from its arguments and splits, whereas Pentecostalism has grown and spread as a result of the energy they've generated. As for the Baptists, I don't get the impression that 'unity' has ever been their big catchword, but that hasn't necessarily hindered their mission, AFAIK. I suppose there are certain variables that make either a positive or a negative difference in each case.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's all true; but I also think his main "axis" has become Oasis rather than BUGB.
BTW, we here are all assuming that BUGB has said nothing to Steve ... but AFAIK none of us actually knows that to be the case.
Well I have asked a question and got a reply ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Now you're just tEAsing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's all true; but I also think his main "axis" has become Oasis rather than BUGB.
BTW, we here are all assuming that BUGB has said nothing to Steve ... but AFAIK none of us actually knows that to be the case.
Well I have asked a question and got a reply ....
Was it more than the proverbial 'go away'?
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Oh yes - BUGB have long learned that lesson that on being told that I never do. It's a bit like "you wouldn't dare ..." which I consider a challenge and an invitation not an admonition.
[ 01. June 2014, 06:45: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Re: the splits at the extreme edge: Why do I here "The People's Front for Judea"?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Re: the splits at the extreme edge: Why do I hear "The People's Front for Judea"?
Oh, I'm sure we could all name a few schismatic groups that now seem irrelevant and eventually fizzled out. But many others left their mark, and some grew and became respectable in their turn, only to face possible extinction as secularisation set in. This is a real possibility for a number of British denominations over the next 30-odd years.
I think increasing localisation is likely in British churches. I've been told on the Ship that the CofE is becoming congregational in practice; and on this thread, we see that the congregational Baptists are even chafing against the theological strictures of central bodies like the BUGB or the EA. But Christians hardly care what's happening at 'HQ', and churches that are thriving in Hertfordshire are going to have little in common with churches that are shutting up shop all over Lancashire, for example. Their theology (as well as their social make-up) is probably different too, even if they belong to the same denomination.
The only reason for sticking together will be administrative, and perhaps for positive PR.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Re: the splits at the extreme edge: Why do I here "The People's Front for Judea"?
Perhaps because you'd read this post?
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Sorry about that. Here is where I hear you.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] 1.
I've been told on the Ship that the CofE is becoming congregational in practice;
2. and on this thread, we see that the congregational Baptists are even chafing against the theological strictures of central bodies like the BUGB or the EA.
3. But Christians hardly care what's happening at 'HQ', and churches that are thriving in Hertfordshire are going to have little in common with churches that are shutting up shop all over Lancashire, for example. Their theology (as well as their social make-up) is probably different too, even if they belong to the same denomination.
4. The only reason for sticking together will be administrative, and perhaps for positive PR.
1. So they are finally seeing the One True Light to Church Governance (joke!). I think it represents a shift in culture where people not longer are prepared to believe or accept that "Father knows best"
2. True but its only a stronger flow to a trickle of dissent that's existed for years. The bigger Baptist churches have always been pretty much outside the "system," now it's spreading. It does though reflect a natural outworking of our theology that holds the local church meeting as the place to seek the will of God and mind of Christ. It's that at the moment that drive is a bit our of synch with our other core belief about interdependence. The pendulum swings - after a time of centralising, its now moving to the churches more.
3. True but we surely want local churches which reflect their local areas/local cultures not imposed models as in the past. Perhaps we need to celebrate difference more and not expect everyone to be clones of some mythical church congregation somewhere in Hertfordshire. No names mentioned to slander the living and the dead but I have a couple in mind ....
4. Oh, I don't know. There's always the Kingdom of God
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] I've been told on the Ship that the CofE is becoming congregational in practice
So they are finally seeing the One True Light to Church Governance (joke!).
Just as some Baptists are moving away from it:
read this.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
