|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Has the Evangelical Alliance shot itself in the foot?
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Today we saw two statements, one from the Evangelical Alliance and one from Oasis UK about the EA unceremonially booting out Oasis from their EA membership.
Reading both statements, it seems that the views expressed by Steve Chalke have been taken as a proxy for the views of the whole Oasis organisation and that the EA board & council have tried to bully Oasis into issuing statements distancing themselves from the views (effectively asking them to alienate Steve).
As an evangelical who affirms same-sex couples, I find this deeply worrying. Have the EA gone too far in allowing the conservative elements within in to be the sole voice and authority and have now started to kick out the liberals?
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Yes and no.
The EA is perfectly within its rights to hold whatever views it wishes, and therefore exclude any organisation with which it disagrees, or any organisation whose Chair makes statements with which it disagrees.
That said, if affirming same-sex relationships with the context of life-long monogamy makes the EA squirm, they're going to start shrinking themselves into oblivion.
People - such as me, and most of those younger than me - who would consent to a broadly evangelical expression of faith - have come to the conclusion that there's very little to get fussed about, and it's certainly not a deal breaker (not like voting UKIP would be... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
They're going to end up as a very small club indeed. I'm over 60, and most of my contemporary Christian friends (mostly evos) see SSM as either nothing to get worked up about, or as something to be affirmed, as it works towards the biblical trajectories of faithfulness and commitment in relationships. Hardly anyone below their forties thinks there is anything odd or sinful about men loving men or women loving women.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think the EA has long since lost it's status as an alliance of all evangelicals in the UK - if it ever had that status. It has become progressively more conservative, increasingly alienating those evangelicals who do not accept the strongly conservative line. I stopped my personal membership of EA about 10 years ago, though I would still wholeheartedly agree with the doctrinal statements of the EA (and, UCCF as well).
I suppose the EA leadership need to make a decision - do they want to represent all UK evangelicals, or just conservative evangelicals?
If they want to represent all evangelicals then they need to acknowledge that on issues such as sexuality many evangelicals, in good faith and after careful study, do not consider Scripture to be as clear as those with a more conservative interpretation. And, therefore, membership of the EA is not to be judged on issues that evangelicals disagree over but on our common doctrinal heritage.
If they want to represent just conservative evangelicals then that needs to be clearly communicated, and those members who do not hold conservative views can decide whether or not they want to be part of an organisation that does not represent their views. Whether or not an evangelical organisation is then formed to represent the non-conservative sector of UK evangelicalism (or to be open to all parts of evangelicalism) is upto those who might leave in those circumstances.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose the EA leadership need to make a decision - do they want to represent all UK evangelicals, or just conservative evangelicals?
If they want to represent all evangelicals then they need to acknowledge that on issues such as sexuality many evangelicals, in good faith and after careful study, do not consider Scripture to be as clear as those with a more conservative interpretation. And, therefore, membership of the EA is not to be judged on issues that evangelicals disagree over but on our common doctrinal heritage.
My italics - to highlight what I see as the key point. When pretty much any Christian who affirmed or accepted same-sex marriage did so from a position of holding loosely to the Biblical instructions, I suppose the EA's stance was fairly clear and easy to hold.
But now there are an increasing number (ISTM) of self-identifying evangelicals with doubts and questions over the traditional Biblical interpretation, the EA faces the uncomfortable dilemma Alan has set out above...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But now there are an increasing number (ISTM) of self-identifying evangelicals with doubts and questions over the traditional Biblical interpretation, the EA faces the uncomfortable dilemma Alan has set out above...
The great irony is that modern evangelicalism is a post-reformation movement. To stand in the evangelical tradition is to be a part of the reformed (small r) tradition which itself was born out of questioning traditional interpretations.
500 years after having broken away from dogmatism, we just seem to be coming back full circle just with a fresh set of topics for discussion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Nonconformists pressuring others to conform?
Leaving aside from the prominent exploratory types like Steve Chalke, Rob Bell. Brian McLaren, who seem to produce polarisation by questioning the status quo, I suspect JJ has it right. In the UK there is a change under way at grassroots level. Opinions have been changing about what is both fair and loving. What is undermining the traditional evo position is a gradually increasing embarrassment over those factors. The centre of gravity over what is 'sound' is shifting.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I am deeply saddened by the EA's decision.
I wonder if their decision has been influenced by the changing locus and increasing polarisation of British Evangelicals? It seems to me that the recent rise of large African and Caribbean churches, which usually hold to a much more conservative position than many of the older-established churches, has substantially changed the "balance" of the EA's membership and (presumably) its Council. David Coffey wrote yeas ago of the different "tribes" of Evangelicalism and it seems to me that some of those are waxing while others are waning.
How will this play out in those denominations, such as my own (and, incidentally, Steve Chalke's too), which would broadly consider themselves as "Evangelical"?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
That's a very interesting point.
I've read in Peter Brierley's work that 'open evangelicals' have declined more than other types of evangelical, so they're naturally going to be in a weaker position in any evangelical union.
Maybe the time is coming to create a new paring of open evangelicals and moderately orthodox Christians who don't use the term evangelical. They might have more in common with each other at this stage.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
And whatever happened to "the Lord hath yet more life and truth to break forth from his Word"?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
If I were a betting man I would wager heavily on some kind of conversation along the lines of "either they go or we do" from some group or other which would have gravely affected the revenue stream.
To pre-empt the obvious objections can I quote Sir Humphrey and remind people that a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If I were a betting man I would wager heavily on some kind of conversation along the lines of "either they go or we do" from some group or other which would have gravely affected the revenue stream.
I'm afraid my thoughts ran along the same lines.
Many years ago (late 70s) I had a friend who was a member of an American Evangelical missionary society. This was at the time that lines were being drawn in the "charismatic gifts" debate. Churches were telling them, "we will not support you unless you publicly declare that you will have nothing to do with the charismatic renewal".
As it happens there weren't any charismatic Christians in the society! But their Directors felt, as a matter of principle, that they should not delineate their beliefs so strictly. They refused to put the clause into their Statement of Faith, lost quite a lot of support, but survived with their integrity intact.
Was the EA under similar pressure? Who knows? - not me; but money has a nasty habit of talking.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I should think that all institutional church leaders are mindful of their 'revenue stream' and of how upsetting generous givers risks the financial security of the church. It would be unsurprising if an ecumenical organisation were any different.
[ 02. May 2014, 15:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I wonder how +Justin will react, bearing in mind he's been very pro EA up until now...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
1. I am deeply saddened by the EA's decision.
2. How will this play out in those denominations, such as my own (and, incidentally, Steve Chalke's too), which would broadly consider themselves as "Evangelical"?
1. The EA's rules are known: the EA have done what the BUGB failed to do in response to Steve's persistence in seeking to move goalposts (and not just in matters of human sexuality)
2. Evangelicalism as a descriptor is dead - as everyone wants to use it in whatever way they wish. Our own denomination is on the starting blocks for schism along the lines of 1971
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
1. The EA's rules are known:
As far as I know they only consist of affirming the basis of faith statement and abide by the relational commitment. I don't think that contains anything other than this.
Nothing in the basis of faith about sexuality.
I'm not sure who would be on the good side of
quote:
We respect the diversity of culture, experience and doctrinal understanding that God grants to His people, and acknowledge that some differences over issues not essential to salvation may well remain until the end of time.
Is excluding those who hold particular views which are not essential to salvation from the EA a sign of respecting those differences?
--------------------
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
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
We respect the diversity of culture, experience and doctrinal understanding that God grants to His people, and acknowledge that some differences over issues not essential to salvation may well remain until the end of time.
Is excluding those who hold particular views which are not essential to salvation from the EA a sign of respecting those differences?
I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that as a majority (though, knowing a few of the council members, I can't imagine them being happy with what's happened) they made a mistake. I wonder if their thinking may have been tied in with the slippery slope argument.
What seems to further exacerbate the problem is that I've seen a few individuals now say that they will resign their membership of the EA in protest. Personally, I think that only deepens the rift rather than bringing people back to unity. It's essentially saying "you must believe exactly what I believe or else I will have no fellowship with you" which is exactly what the EA did to Oasis.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
What seems to further exacerbate the problem is that I've seen a few individuals now say that they will resign their membership of the EA in protest. Personally, I think that only deepens the rift rather than bringing people back to unity. It's essentially saying "you must believe exactly what I believe or else I will have no fellowship with you" which is exactly what the EA did to Oasis.
The flipside - which I've suffered - is "because you continue with the EA, you will therefore be counted as wholeheartedly supporting our stand."
There is no nuance, and worse, no forum to discuss nuances.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
It's essentially saying "you must believe exactly what I believe or else I will have no fellowship with you" which is exactly what the EA did to Oasis.
I'm not an evangelical, but I think it's rather saying, if you won't have fellowship with everyone I have fellowship with, then I can't have fellowship with you.
If Auntie Angie won't be in the same room as Auntie Beth, then you can only be in the room with one of them. And if the objection is all on Auntie Angie's side, then there's no effective difference between not taking sides and siding with Beth.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
We respect the diversity of culture, experience and doctrinal understanding that God grants to His people, and acknowledge that some differences over issues not essential to salvation may well remain until the end of time.
Part of the problem, of course, is that there is a sizeable body of evangelical opinion that maintains that it is a salvation issue and, therefore, a deal breaker. The only morally decent homophobes, for want of a better expression, are the people who think that people will go to hell for having sexual relations with people of the same sex. I think they are wrong, but I can see that if one held this it might be somewhat urgent. It puts the matter in a different category to, say, candles on altars or sanctuary bells.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
What seems to further exacerbate the problem is that I've seen a few individuals now say that they will resign their membership of the EA in protest. Personally, I think that only deepens the rift rather than bringing people back to unity. It's essentially saying "you must believe exactly what I believe or else I will have no fellowship with you" which is exactly what the EA did to Oasis.
But what's the point of having an 'Evangelical Alliance' if they don't agree on what constitutes evangelicalism? It seems a bit pointless, really.
Fellowship doesn't require that they all believe the same things about evangelicalism, of course. They might still attend each other's jumble sales, etc....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And whatever happened to "the Lord hath yet more life and truth to break forth from his Word"?
Not much!
For those who want to know that is a quote from the paraphrase of the speech by John Robinson to the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth/Bristol* (I can not quite remember which) written about 150 years ago into a hymn. The person who did it was the son of former minister of the congregation I attended as a teenager.
It remains a key point within American churches (far wider than in the UK) but within the UK it is largely confined to historical English dissent** particularly those with tendencies towards the Radical Reformation. The result is that most of Evangelicalism never seem to have heard of it.
Jengie
*What this implies is the actual text was around for quite sometime. I have traced people who have clearly seen it. What I have not managed to do is trace an existent copy although there are three libraries where I suspect a copy may be held.
**I think I can miss the orthodox part of it, as I suspect many Unitarians quite like it.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Was the EA under similar pressure? Who knows? - not me; but money has a nasty habit of talking.
I'm afraid I tend to agree with Gildas and Baptist Trainfan.
I once got thrown out of a denomination, ostensibly due to doctrinal issues, but they let slip along the way that if we didn't go the Swiss were threatening to turn off the tap.
I'm pretty sure Steve Clifford will have agonised over this though.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
1. I am deeply saddened by the EA's decision.
2. How will this play out in those denominations, such as my own (and, incidentally, Steve Chalke's too), which would broadly consider themselves as "Evangelical"?
1. The EA's rules are known: the EA have done what the BUGB failed to do in response to Steve's persistence in seeking to move goalposts (and not just in matters of human sexuality)
2. Evangelicalism as a descriptor is dead - as everyone wants to use it in whatever way they wish. Our own denomination is on the starting blocks for schism along the lines of 1971
I'm sure that everyone at BUGB HQ is thrilled that the EA has stirred up this particular hornet's nest
IMO, the EA has made a mistake ... If you're marketing yourself as an alliance of Christians within the evangelical realm, then you have to be willing to tolerate some differences of opinion on non-core issues. (And SSM, to me, is one). The EA leadership need to get out more. There's a huge range of opinions on this issue. And many are tired of church leaders making this a thing.
Tubbs
[ 02. May 2014, 19:33: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
(slight tangent)
The French baptist union has an incredible straddling position in which they have managed to be part of both the broader Protestant federation (which is not gay-unfriendly on paper) and the more conservative evangelical one (which is), as well as have a charismatic and a non-charismatic wing. I'm not quite sure whether this is the best or the worst of all worlds...
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
For those who want to know that is a quote from the paraphrase of the speech by John Robinson to the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth/Bristol* (I can not quite remember which) written about 150 years ago into a hymn. The person who did it was the son of former minister of the congregation I attended as a teenager.
It remains a key point within American churches (far wider than in the UK) but within the UK it is largely confined to historical English dissent** particularly those with tendencies towards the Radical Reformation. The result is that most of Evangelicalism never seem to have heard of it.
The one occasion it was brought to my attention was a (very good) sermon by a Methodist.
I must say I was a bit thrown by the image of John Robinson addressing the Pilgrim Fathers and had a momentary image of a bunch of puritans arguing as to what the devil he meant by "the ground of our being" whilst the future Bishop of Woolwich twirled through the Stuart era with a two-edged sword in his hand and the praises of God in his mouth with "Give Me The Prize!" banging out in the background.
Brain rotted by popular culture, Moi? There can be only one!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I presume you're referring to the debate over Christology precipitated by Michael Taylor's comments. That was truly a difficult time, not that I was aware of it as I was only just coming into Baptist life.
I have no idea if the BU is on the verge of schism at the present time, over sexuality, Christology or anything else. But I can see that "Evangelical identity" is again at stake.
My understanding is that most people in the BU are hoping the whole thing will go away if they ignore it for long enough. They could be right, if Rev T's group at college are typical, none of them wanted the BU to experience the kind of in-fighting other churches had gone through.
Thinking about it, part of me wonders if this is an attempt by the EA to fix evangelical identity and increase their membership. When I became a Christian in 199-mumble, any evangelical church worth it's salt was a member of the EA. Looking now, there are very few locally, and some of the medium to large, independent, conservative evangelicals are conspicuous by their absence.
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Thinking about it, part of me wonders if this is an attempt by the EA to fix evangelical identity and increase their membership.
Um... you think being openly anti-gay will increase membership? I can't think of any way to get the under 40s running for the hills faster...
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Thinking about it, part of me wonders if this is an attempt by the EA to fix evangelical identity and increase their membership.
Um... you think being openly anti-gay will increase membership? I can't think of any way to get the under 40s running for the hills faster...
Most CE outfits aren't run by under 40s, but by old men.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Conservative evangelical Anglican churches, particularly in the South East, have lots of young clergy.
I hope this is related enough to only be a slight tangent - what about Vicky Beeching's endorsement of SSM? Will others follow in her footsteps?
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If they want to represent all evangelicals then they need to acknowledge that on issues such as sexuality many evangelicals, in good faith and after careful study, do not consider Scripture to be as clear as those with a more conservative interpretation.
Your phrasing here makes me laugh a bit, because I always considered scripture to be very clear that supporting homosexual people and equal rights for them was the Christian thing to do. So it was never that I thought that scripture was "less clear" than the conservatives think it is, it's just that the conservatives are totally and completely wrong in their interpretation of scripture. So I find it kindof strange when you speak of, as a lot of people seem to, of a choice between accepting that scripture has a clear (negative) teaching on homosexuality versus thinking it's "less clear". I guess part of the reason I personally was so totally horrified/outraged last year upon learning the full extent of anti-homosexual sentiment within the Christian church internationally was that I simply took it for granted that Christians were all/mostly pro-homosexual because of the bible.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Part of the problem, of course, is that there is a sizeable body of evangelical opinion that maintains that it is a salvation issue and, therefore, a deal breaker. The only morally decent homophobes, for want of a better expression, are the people who think that people will go to hell for having sexual relations with people of the same sex.
But just how many "morally decent homophobes" can there be? You don't hear many of them arguing that slander, greed, or adultery (1 Cor 6:9-10) take you straight to hell too.
I think the trouble with federative bodies in general is that they often get their priorities wrong in the things they speak out on, and in the EA's case in the UK, they tend to behave as a political lobby rather than being truly representative of the grass roots.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Conservative evangelical Anglican churches, particularly in the South East, have lots of young clergy.
I hope this is related enough to only be a slight tangent - what about Vicky Beeching's endorsement of SSM? Will others follow in her footsteps?
Yes, I was just looking at the local scene, which is wrong of me.
Is there any mileage in saying that the younger clergy are looking for affirmation from the old guard, so that they're still regarded as 'sound'?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And whatever happened to "the Lord hath yet more life and truth to break forth from his Word"?
Not much!
For those who want to know that is a quote from the paraphrase of the speech by John Robinson to the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth/Bristol* (I can not quite remember which) written about 150 years ago into a hymn. The person who did it was the son of former minister of the congregation I attended as a teenager.
It remains a key point within American churches (far wider than in the UK) but within the UK it is largely confined to historical English dissent** particularly those with tendencies towards the Radical Reformation. The result is that most of Evangelicalism never seem to have heard of it.
This is the hymn - or, at least, part of it! It is still in the current Baptist hymnbook and I have been known to choose it, usually to "Ellacombe".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Thinking about it, part of me wonders if this is an attempt by the EA to fix evangelical identity and increase their membership.
Um... you think being openly anti-gay will increase membership? I can't think of any way to get the under 40s running for the hills faster...
Most CE outfits aren't run by under 40s, but by old men.
Depends who they're trying to win over. Most of the evangelical churches locally who aren't members are likely to be against SSM. The EA "taking a stand" might encourage them to sign up. If the same applies nationally and these churches do rejoin, then the EA gets an increased footprint amongst it's target audience.
It's going to make no difference to the churches that wouldn't join the EA regardless - but it may confirm to them they've made the right choice.
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.
Going back to the events EM referenced and Trainfan linked too, the interesting thing was the conference endorsed the right for Taylor (?) to ask the questions and for people to have the discussion. One of the cornerstones of the dissenter movement. Chalke is part of the same honourable tradition. The difference now seems to be that questions and discussions aren't allowed unless you come up with the right answer at the end of them.
Tubbs
[ 03. May 2014, 07:50: 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
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan
You are part of English Historical Dissent, I use that to characterise those traditions that stem from Sepratist and Non-Conforming congregations of the Tudor and Stuart era.
So?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
Is that a variant of Cresswell's law?! Quotes file I think!
Less of a discussion and more of an affirmation that we're right, ours are the only voices worth listening too and everyone else is wrong and not worth bothering with.
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Going back to the events EM referenced and Trainfan linked too, the interesting thing was the conference endorsed the right for Taylor (?) to ask the questions and for people to have the discussion. One of the cornerstones of the dissenter movement. Chalke is part of the same honourable tradition. The difference now seems to be that questions and discussions aren't allowed unless you come up with the right answer at the end of them.
Exactly (and thanks, too, Jengie). This whole idea of "Open Dissent" has largely disappeared - many Baptists do not understand it and like to elaborate carefully-worded doctrinal statements to "fence" their position. I suspect that URC folk are more aware of where they're coming from.
But a lot of "newer Dissent" is about defining boundaries and the issue in hand seems to highlight this. (And yes, I do realise that many EA members are Anglicans anyway with a very different tradition - 39 Articles indeed!)
Many people feel safer in an environment where any question already has its predetermined answer.
[ 03. May 2014, 08:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The one thing the Church has never been able to do is to trust God to keep his promise that the powers of Hell will not prevail against it. This is as true of Catholics and Liberals as anybody else. Should we be surprised that Evangelicals do it as well?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
The EA's press release emphasises the need for a member organisation to "profile equally the maintain the traditional Christian view*" in the interests of maintaining good fellowship.
I wonder if other member organisations will be expected to equally profile the non-traditional view" in the interests of good fellowship? Or now that Oasis is no longer a member of EA is that balance no longer felt necessary?
*I did have the idea that the EA and its members didn't go a whole bundle on "tradition". Ho hum, you learn something every day.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The problem with EA press releases, and I speak here from extensive knowledge of the circumstances behind one (not this one!), is that they are so carefully worded as to become vapid.
The EA won't say what it really thinks, probably in a misguided attempt not to further upset some constituency or other or in order not to create a scandal, but by not being clearer it actually perpetuates the controversy.
A friend used to dealing with the EA in a media capacity also told me that their attitude to press releases is to hope they are as little-noticed as possible. In that respect, the timing of this one - right before a bank holiday weekend in the UK - appears typical, too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Conservative evangelical Anglican churches, particularly in the South East, have lots of young clergy.
I hope this is related enough to only be a slight tangent - what about Vicky Beeching's endorsement of SSM? Will others follow in her footsteps?
Yes, I was just looking at the local scene, which is wrong of me.
Is there any mileage in saying that the younger clergy are looking for affirmation from the old guard, so that they're still regarded as 'sound'?
IME a little, but it's not the whole picture - but my experience is almost entirely of Anglican conservative evangelicalism, which is different anyway. Anglican con-evos (in the CoE) almost all train at the same place, Oak Hill. Everyone knows each other, plus some con-evos outside of the CoE. It's a very small world and they want to keep it that way. Strong links between Anglican con-evos in the CoE and Sydney Anglicans are part of this.
Obviously, though, conservative evangelicalism in the CoE is only a small part of churches involved in the EA.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.
Is that a variant of Cresswell's law?! Quotes file I think!
Less of a discussion and more of an affirmation that we're right, ours are the only voices worth listening too and everyone else is wrong and not worth bothering with.
Tubbs
Yep that's certainly true of some voices on both sides in the SSM debate in BUGB.
I suppose it's better than it once was: then it was "What does BA think" and ran from there
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE]Your phrasing here makes me laugh a bit, because I always considered scripture to be very clear that supporting homosexual people and equal rights for them was the Christian thing to do. So it was never that I thought that scripture was "less clear" than the conservatives think it is, it's just that the conservatives are totally and completely wrong in their interpretation of scripture. So I find it kindof strange when you speak of, as a lot of people seem to, of a choice between accepting that scripture has a clear (negative) teaching on homosexuality versus thinking it's "less clear". I guess part of the reason I personally was so totally horrified/outraged last year upon learning the full extent of anti-homosexual sentiment within the Christian church internationally was that I simply took it for granted that Christians were all/mostly pro-homosexual because of the bible.
You will appreciate that, after careful study, other Christians will see your views as wrong as you see theirs.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]
1. I'm sure that everyone at BUGB HQ is thrilled that the EA has stirred up this particular hornet's nest
2. then you have to be willing to tolerate some differences of opinion on non-core issues. (And SSM, to me, is one). Tubbs
1. Yes - esp since BUGB went public on saying that they would do something - which they haven't.
2. 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. Hence the latest furore over Steve Chalke's seminars on the bible
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
[QUOTE]My understanding is that most people in the BU are hoping the whole thing will go away if they ignore it for long enough. They could be right, if Rev T's group at college are typical, none of them wanted the BU to experience the kind of in-fighting other churches had gone through.
Tubbs
Again, my understanding and experience differ from yours although your experience is the classic Baptist response to a crisis (potential or real). Things don't just go away and tbh we can dialogue for ever but unless we make a decision (any of which will be unpalatable to some), then we'll simply remain figures of contempt.
No one wants the in fighting but we have to face facts. Baptist are experts at trying to avoid an issue that is out there. It's probably here already anyway at all sorts of levels in BUGB. There are mixed views even in Ministry Dept. - some of which would've got you deaccredited 3 years ago. In this Regional Grouping there is strong opposition.
I may be geographical thing. I'm not exactly in a south eastern metropolitan area having worked in many rural ones - in those places, views are very conservative on this issue as they are in most of the churches of this pretty big city.
If we don't want the fight let's make the decision and get it over with. I think we all know that it will change anyway - the amendments to a number of things have, for the first time, allowed for the possibility of it happening.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
