quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I think it is safe to say that the evangelicalism that he is dealing with is the rather odd version that he helped to found, and that he has come to regret being associated with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squirrel:
They still preach things like biblical inherency,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squirrel:
They still preach things like biblical inherency,

---

Is that the dogma that you should inherit a Bible rather than buy one for yourself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squirrel:
They still preach things like biblical inherency,

---

Is that the dogma that you should inherit a Bible rather than buy one for yourself?

---

No, no you're thinking of biblical inheritancy. Biblical inherency is the belief that whatever I believe is inherently present in the Bible (even if it's not obvious to anyone else) because my beliefs are inerrant and cannot be contradicted by the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squirrel:
They still preach things like biblical inherency,

---

Is that the dogma that you should inherit a Bible rather than buy one for yourself?

---

No, no you're thinking of biblical inheritancy. Biblical inherency is the belief that whatever I believe is inherently present in the Bible (even if it's not obvious to anyone else) because my beliefs are inerrant and cannot be contradicted by the Bible.

---

Quotes file
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Post-evangelicalism is quite old now. Progressive Christians might be a more hopeful understanding (not defining itself by what it isn't).

But this is all just labels. They don't really mean anything. We need a change of attitude, of understanding, not just of label.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think I'm post-post evangelical.

It's been quoted before, but at Greenbelt a few years ago a speaker apparently said, 'Don't call yourself post-evangelical but pre-catholic ...'



Post-evangelicalism isn't the same as anti-evangelicalism or ex-evangelicalism ... it's still quite 'evangelical' in many ways - that is, if we define evangelicalism in its broadest sense as being concerned with the 'evangel'.

My nearest Orthodox parish describes Orthodoxy as 'evangelical but not Protestant'.

All these terms are a bit slippery.

I tend to find the Emergent crowd to be too slippery for me, I must admit.

My concerns about evangelicalism per se aren't so much with the content but the presentation ... although I would suggest that some of the content (as well as the style of presentation) does need re-examining.

I was talking to some Anglican clergy about this issue the other day - and these were people who would certainly accept the label 'evangelical' - and they observed that a great deal of the apparent growth and success of evangelicalism has been down to sociological reasons ... and this has caused some evangelicals to become smug and to look down their noses on everyone else.

'Nuh-na nah nah nah - we're evangelicals and we haven't been caught up in the same spiral of decline as you nasty lib'ruls and catholics ...'

Now there's been a shift and the evangelicals have been caught up in the way things are going more generally and they don't know how to deal with it ...

I don't think evangelicalism is finished, though. It's far too robust for that. What I think'll happen is that some sectors will become even more hard-line and return to what they consider to be core distinctives - whereas others will morph and develop with variations on an overall pietistic theme.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
You could argue that what Bebbington points out is that Evangelicalism morphs with it's context: Puritanism, Methodism, Keswick and so on in their historical prime all look rather differant from the modern flavours of pop protestantism but at the same time resonate with their cultural context and share his much quoted quadrilateral (Bible, Cross, Conversion and Doing).
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
We'll know that evangelicalism is in its death throes when it incites as little comment and interest as modern Methodism....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's got a way to go before that happens, SvitlanaV2.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I think Bebbington's Quadrilaterals do allow for that degree of flexibility, Twangist.

However, I'm always struck that when evangelicals make presentations about how impactful Christianity has been and can be, they almost invariably draw from non-evangelical traditions and examples.

I've recently seen evangelicals cite Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Solzhynitsyn and all manner of other people as role models ... seemingly oblivious to the fact that none of these people were in fact evangelical.

Ok, that's fair enough if they are thinking of Christianity in wider terms - of which evangelicalism is simply a subset.

But it does make me wonder about the spiritual capital of a movement when it has to draw reference points from outside itself ...
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I try hard to understand and appreciate evangelicalism.

I hope that it will not die out as far as its emphasis on:

personal conversion
discipline of daily scripture reading
social justuce
go.

But I pray for it to die as far as:

casual attitude towards sacraments and liturgy
homophobia
self-righteous smugness
belief that nobody but them are 'saved'
conservative politics
go.

While they claim to have lots of young people, some research suggests that they grow out of it and that when they reject Christianity it is because they think that this is the only form of Christianity. Very few move on to more liberal or catholic churches.

One formerly huge congregation near me is losing numbers at an alarming rate and is running on a deficit budget for the first time ever and with a protracted larger deficit next year.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think Bebbington's Quadrilaterals do allow for that degree of flexibility, Twangist.

However, I'm always struck that when evangelicals make presentations about how impactful Christianity has been and can be, they almost invariably draw from non-evangelical traditions and examples.

I've recently seen evangelicals cite Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Solzhynitsyn and all manner of other people as role models ... seemingly oblivious to the fact that none of these people were in fact evangelical.

Ok, that's fair enough if they are thinking of Christianity in wider terms - of which evangelicalism is simply a subset.

But it does make me wonder about the spiritual capital of a movement when it has to draw reference points from outside itself ...

---

Maybe a good sign, that they can see the impact from all sorts of traditions. Maybe they were catering to an audience that would recognise these people. I would treat MLK as a role model, in at least some ways. It doesn't mean that I have to accept his entire theology - any more than if I were to cite Prof Alice Roberts as a role model (she has an admirable desire to find the truth).

So for me, that is a good sign.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think it's a good sign too, Schroedinger's Cat but at the same time consider that evangelicalism HAS to look beyond its own borders if it is not to disappear up its own bottom.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Do you know what I sincerely believe?

Accepting that in many ways evangelicalism grew out of revivalism and fundamentalism grew out of a desire to 'protect' the fundamentals from people seen as 'liberals', I believe that evangelicalism and indeed the entire church will go on reacting to external influence.

What I see is that the last 100 years has seen churches revelling in the luxury of being ignored by the world and spending lots of time talking to itself. We've talked ecumenically, we've talked evangelically, radically, liberationally, liberally, Vatican II-ally, now we are shouting at each other over gender and sexuality. And in some ways it's all theological and ecclesiastical masturbation because it satisfies no one else except ourselves.

Something however has changed.
The world has started to change its apathetic view of the church and for some reason Islam and atheism has begun to 'attack' - or at the very least, suggest that we are worthy of 'pressure'.

Knowing therefore that Christianity is good at writng creeds in response to heresy, laws in response to free-thinking, and militancy when under threat, etc, etc, I think that as we are attacked more and more, as we are called into account more and more, as we are ridiculed and legislated against more and more, the Church is suddenly going to assert itself as a defense mechanism. And because we are under threat the luxury of liberalism will be seen as just that - a luxury that cannot be afforded because it is a weak point when we are under attack.

In these situations that the west, so far, has avoided and thus wallows in self introspection, the Evangelicals will get more evangelical, the Catholics will get more catholic, the Orthodox will get more orthodox, the Anglicans will come up with a modern-day Oxford Movement.

In other words, the Church will strike back and those who are liberal or agnostic or too broad in their theology and churchmanship will not have a leg to stand on when they are faced with the onslaught of Islam and secularism. Only the churches, of whatever doctrinal persuasion, that are convinced and assertive in their beliefs and practices will continue.

Evangelicalism will not die.
Catholicism will not die.
Orthodoxy will not die.

I can't speak for United Methodists, United Reformed, Presbyterians, the ECUSA and the Church of England, however.

Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
@leo some very fair points.
I imagine it might the task of some of the other "sectors" of the church to show us a more excellent way in regard to the weaknesses which you identify.
In the past I got the impression that many folk in the more liberal and sacramental wings had either grown up or been converted as evangelicals and then had "graduated" to other views. Would this be less the case now?

@Gamaliel
I can see 2 not mutally exclusive reasons: pragmatism (one of evangelicalisms besetting sins) and maturity - seeing ourselves as a part of the whole Christian tradition (maybe a little paleo-orthodoxy if that's not over egging ).
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
I think evangelicalism is mostly healthy at it's core - but has developed a fair amount of fluff and excess around the edges as the result of various sociological trends.

As such, I fully expect that a large amount of it will waste away - due to the time limited nature of it (a large number of mega churches which are based on particular demographics).

However, as an essentially populist movement, I think most if it won't - even if it develops sometimes in rather unhelpful ways. I think it'll be interesting how the shift in geography affects it - as the dominant voices become less American over time.

For all that, I think Rodney Stark's ideas have perhaps less value than some evangelicals have claimed, and they will remain at their core a group that develops along sociological rather than theological lines.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I think there are, essentially, three types of evangelicalism.

There is the reformed, Calvinistic, cessationist variety - the Free Presbyterianism, hats in church, don't smile on Sunday 'we hate the Pope' type.

There's the Salvation Army/Primitive Methodist/Moody & Sankey/now Spring harvest/Graham Kendrick type

Then there is the the snake oil salesman wild West camp meeting stuff that has grown into the Todd bentley miracle-spring-water, green prayer handkerchief 'God TV' type of stuff.
If that dies, I'll go to the funeral.

It ain't real evangelicalism.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Mudfrog - I agree with you insofar as Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Evangelicalism will be the strongest out of Christian denominations, though I think that's for sociological reasons (particlarly the first two) as much as anything else. Evangelicalism is particularly suited to Western capitalist societies due to its individualism.

However, while obviously none of us can make a statement on the precise future of non-evangelical Protestant denominations, I certainly think they will shrink. I don't think that's necessarily bad. IME those churches and the new emergent churches springing up alongside them are particularly suited for the wanderer, the outcast, those who feel left out by the strongest denominations. Yes, we may grow weaker and weaker but I do believe that Christ's strength being made perfect in weakness applies here. I don't think we will die, I think our purpose is different. I identify as Anglo-Catholic and not especially Protestant, but I know that I would go with the traditional Nonconformists over the RCs.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's got a way to go before that happens, SvitlanaV2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
@leo some very fair points.
I imagine it might the task of some of the other "sectors" of the church to show us a more excellent way in regard to the weaknesses which you identify.
In the past I got the impression that many folk in the more liberal and sacramental wings had either grown up or been converted as evangelicals and then had "graduated" to other views. Would this be less the case now?

@Gamaliel
I can see 2 not mutally exclusive reasons: pragmatism (one of evangelicalisms besetting sins) and maturity - seeing ourselves as a part of the whole Christian tradition (maybe a little paleo-orthodoxy if that's not over egging ).

---

I agree with you on both these scores - your response to leo and your response to my post - Twangist.

I also think that leo's comment about evangelicals 'falling away' in droves is over-egged.



Certainly a lot of new converts quickly fall away in evangelicalism - and I'd suggest that some of these were never properly 'converted' in the first place but simply brow-beaten into an emotional response of some kind ... but that doesn't apply in all cases of course.

For those who stay the course, I've been surprised how remarkably resilient they are. They stick at things through thick and thin.

Scratch below the surface of many Anglo-Catholic and liberal clergy and you'll find an evangelical underneath. I used to have an Anglo-Catholic spiritual director (I might still have but we haven't met for a while) and he had an evangelical conversion at the age of 14 and certainly doesn't disparage that nor the reality of evangelical spirituality in general ...

Where I think there is a falling away is in the area that Mudfrog has identified - the kind of dumbed-down snake-oil version. If Mudfrog attends its funeral I'd attend with him and blow a trumpet. carry a banner or bang a Salvation Army drum ...

Mudfrog may or may not be surprised to hear me say this but in essence I agree with him - but perhaps in less strident or militant terms (but then, he is an Army 'officer' after all so some militancy is appropriate) ...



The unifying factor I'd see in those parts of the Venn Diagram which overlap across all traditions - Protestant, Orthodox and RC - is what C S Lewis called 'Deep Church'.

Deep calls to deep.

That's the bit that excites me and floats my boat. It's the aspect I'd rally round and the aspect I'd go to the stake over.

I've certainly 'moved on' from aspects of popular or contemporary evangelicalism but the heart of it - the concern for the Evangel - is something that will always remain with me I think.

As Dr Andrew Walker once put it, 'Nobody is going to die for one of Don Cupitt's stories ...'
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Back in the day, I remember someone identifying - rather conveniently - Twelve Tribes of evangelicalism.

If I sat down and thought about it I could probably remember most of them.

I suspect that most of them were variations on the three broad themes that Mudfrog has identified though.

I'm sure Mudfrog would be the first to acknowledge, though, that within the three categories he has identified there are variations, nuances and subdivisions.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Derek Tidball had (has) a rubicks cube analogy. Which covered Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Missiology and various other bits and bobs on a number of axis.
To be uncharitable to Muddies 3 tribes the more grumpy Reformed types would view his 3rd grouping as the logical outworking of the 2nd
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Back in the day, I remember someone identifying - rather conveniently - Twelve Tribes of evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand that American evangelicals only became associated with rightwing political activism from about the '70s onwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's been quoted before, but at Greenbelt a few years ago a speaker apparently said, 'Don't call yourself post-evangelical but pre-catholic ...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Mudfrog - I agree with you insofar as Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Evangelicalism will be the strongest out of Christian denominations, though I think that's for sociological reasons (particlarly the first two) as much as anything else. Evangelicalism is particularly suited to Western capitalist societies due to its individualism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's been quoted before, but at Greenbelt a few years ago a speaker apparently said, 'Don't call yourself post-evangelical but pre-catholic ...'

---

I remember Dave Tomlinson speaking at Greenbelt, and subsequently I read the Post Evangelical. My over-riding impression was the evangelicalism he was post was almost completely alien to my evangelical experience. And, where he was describing himself as having reached as a post-evangelical wasn't really all that different from the evangelicalism I knew. As has been said, post-evangelical isn't ex-evangelical; it seemed to me that Tomlinson hadn't left evangelicalism just shifted position on the broad spectrum of evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think there are, essentially, three types of evangelicalism.

There is the reformed, Calvinistic, cessationist variety - the Free Presbyterianism, hats in church, don't smile on Sunday 'we hate the Pope' type.

There's the Salvation Army/Primitive Methodist/Moody & Sankey/now Spring harvest/Graham Kendrick type

Then there is the the snake oil salesman wild West camp meeting stuff that has grown into the Todd bentley miracle-spring-water, green prayer handkerchief 'God TV' type of stuff.
If that dies, I'll go to the funeral.

It ain't real evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Free Presbyterian' refers not only to Paisley's lot but also to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and possibly others - FPCS is a secessionist group from the national CofS.

? Did the original posting mean 'secessionist' rather than whatever 'cessationist' is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The answer would appear to be "yes", if you read Frank Schaeffer's latest screed.

I think it is safe to say that the evangelicalism that he is dealing with is the rather odd version that he helped to found, and that he has come to regret being associated with.

A more useful form of the question would be "Is the form of evangelicalism associated with right-wing politics going into a death spiral?" or some such. The visible extreme example would be Franklin Graham, the guy who persuaded Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch and Oliver North to come to Billy Graham's 90th birthday, in an attempt to completely destroy Billy G's reputation.

Or is this question just an example of the fervour of the convert, F. S. being said convert?

---

Franklin probably thought he was enhancing his dad's reputation by showcasing his right on evangelical friends. All he needed was Ted Cruz to complete the set. Billy did look suitably thrilled at the guest list.

The brand of right wing, Tea Party voting, Fox News watching probably is on the wane. Given that the majority are over 50 and they've not managed to convince a new generation, then time is going to achieve everything that reasoned argument never did. That said, a beast is at it's most dangerous when it's in it's death throes so I wouldn't count them out quite yet.

There isn't a direct equivilent in the UK, but I have heard mutterings of Christians voting for UKIP as they were the "Christian alternative". WTF?

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Mudfrog, I think that Jade Constable is right, that evangelicalism appeals to a Western consumerist mindset - but I think it goes further than that. Essentially, evangelicalism is a product of Modernism, so it has a kind of Enlightenment/Post-Enlightenment appeal too.

As regards its appeal in other cultures and societies - Communist China, sub-Saharan Africa - well, there will be other elements within evangelicalism's DNA that would apply and appeal in those cases.

Because evangelical has appealed to a Western post-18th century mindset doesn't mean that other aspects of it aren't going to appeal in other contexts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
There isn't a direct equivilent in the UK, but I have heard mutterings of Christians voting for UKIP as they were the "Christian alternative". WTF?

---

Yeah, one of my best mates voted UKIP recently on exactly this basis. He usually votes Conservative but doesn't like the socially liberal (at least when it comes to sexuality issues) turn taken under Cameron's leadership. I don't think my friend liked Cameron saying he supports same-sex marriage because he's a Conservative rather than despite being a Conservative...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The point I'm trying to make, Mudfrog is that evangelicalism HAS been popular and successful to an extent in the West due to the way it accords with particular post-Enlightenment values - including individualism.

Hence the growth in churches with a baptistic rather than paedo-baptist polity in recent years - it ties in with the zeitgeist to a certain extent.

I'd also argue that the period when evangelicalism was going to exert its greatest appeal here in the West is probably over - although things could change.

I'm not at all surprised at the growth of evangelicalism in Sub-saharan Africa - and for different - but entirely dissimilar reasons - for its growth in Latin America.

In Sub-Saharan Africa it won't be the individualism aspect that strikes a chord - although there will be an element of that and I do believe that aspects of evangelicalism are certainly empowering both for individuals and communities - but other aspects. It has a direct appeal and offers a 'direct' experience and engagement with God - in a way that is certainly going to appeal in an African context. There isn't a single sociological reason for this, but sociology and culture is part of it.

In South America, I would argue that the appeal lies in the sense of community - the sense of belonging to something bigger than oneself.

There are clear socio-cultural reasons why, for instance, Methodism was going to appeal to people in early industrial-revolution England but why it is going to have less appeal in a post-industrial context.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, I meant 'not entirely dissimilar reasons' ...


 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think it was Meic Stephens (and I can't remember his sidekick and collaborator) who said that disaffected evangelicals largely move in one of three directions.

They either go:

- Liberal
- Mystic or
- High

A lot, unfortunately, do drop out of church life altogether. I'm not convinced, though, that they tend to lose their faith.

I know plenty of ex-restorationist 'new church' types who have - for whatever reason - found it difficult to settle anywhere else and who have essentially a developed a 'churchless faith' - but they still believe. I'll be catching up with one of them in a few week's time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
There isn't a direct equivilent in the UK, but I have heard mutterings of Christians voting for UKIP as they were the "Christian alternative". WTF?

---

Yeah, one of my best mates voted UKIP recently on exactly this basis. He usually votes Conservative but doesn't like the socially liberal (at least when it comes to sexuality issues) turn taken under Cameron's leadership. I don't think my friend liked Cameron saying he supports same-sex marriage because he's a Conservative rather than despite being a Conservative...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Mudfrog, I think that Jade Constable is right, that evangelicalism appeals to a Western consumerist mindset - but I think it goes further than that. Essentially, evangelicalism is a product of Modernism, so it has a kind of Enlightenment/Post-Enlightenment appeal too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Mudfrog, I think that Jade Constable is right, that evangelicalism appeals to a Western consumerist mindset - but I think it goes further than that. Essentially, evangelicalism is a product of Modernism, so it has a kind of Enlightenment/Post-Enlightenment appeal too.

---

A short reading list: Max Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. R H Tawney Religion and the Rise of Capitalism

Both support your contention - Weber links Calvinism to industrialisation.

---

quote:

---

There was a passing reference to UKIP as the Christian alternative in the letters page of Christianity a few months ago. The writer supported them because of their anti-European stance - as they felt that was the source of much of the anti-Biblical legislation that needed putting a stop to.

How you square that with their unBiblical racism, hatred of the poor, etc. is a bit of a mystery. Actually, there's a thread in here that I'll try and start.

Tubbs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Abortion as a choice, for instance, was allowed for by the evangelicals of the '70s, on the grounds that making abortion a crime was pointlessly counterproductive. But now the evangelicals say they have ALWAYS been against any form of abortion, even those forms that do not cause abortion (morning-after pills, etc.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A short reading list: Max Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. R H Tawney Religion and the Rise of Capitalism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
@no prophet - what's wrong with having both the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes? Christ endorsed both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
@no prophet - what's wrong with having both the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes? Christ endorsed both.

---

Except this thread is about evangelicalism's death and not Jesus' various endorsements. My post was about what evangelicals emphasize and I think they generally have it wrong, and not just about their emphasis of some aspects of the bible and neglect of others..

I have yet to hear about a group of evangelicals campaigning to have the Beatitudes inscribed on a public building or displayed in a court of law. If you know of such an instance, I'd be pleased to hear about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The identification of evangelicalism with a certain political position, and with preoccupations with homosexual practice and abortion, is quite false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A short reading list: Max Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. R H Tawney Religion and the Rise of Capitalism

---

A short reminder: Weber's book was written in 1920 and Tawney's in 1926.

You might be pushing to find any historian today who would unqualifiedly support their theses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
There isn't a direct equivilent in the UK, but I have heard mutterings of Christians voting for UKIP as they were the "Christian alternative". WTF?

---

Yeah, one of my best mates voted UKIP recently on exactly this basis. He usually votes Conservative but doesn't like the socially liberal (at least when it comes to sexuality issues) turn taken under Cameron's leadership. I don't think my friend liked Cameron saying he supports same-sex marriage because he's a Conservative rather than despite being a Conservative...

---

There was a passing reference to UKIP as the Christian alternative in the letters page of Christianity a few months ago. The writer supported them because of their anti-European stance - as they felt that was the source of much of the anti-Biblical legislation that needed putting a stop to.

How you square that with their unBiblical racism, hatred of the poor etc is a bit of a mystery. Actually, there's a thread in here that I'll try and start.

Tubbs

---

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'racism'.
Farage may be a clown but something in UKIP is attracting a lot of the British public and they certainly do not see it as racist. One of the problems is that until the recent successes UKIP was indeed seen as a fringe party with little support; what is evident now is that more and more people areinterested in what it stands for and it's a reckless politician from any other party who uses words like 'racist' in relation to Farage's party because in doing so s/he will insult the many people now voting UKIP. I would dare to suggest that this party, once a 'loony party' is going to gather a lot more supporters who, having seen its recent growth and success, will now dare to openly support them. Their share of the vote will go up now that that in the eyes of the public UKIP is no longer seen to be in the same stable as the BNP or the EDL!

Oh, and I do not vote UKIP - if you were wondering!


 

---

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The identification of evangelicalism with a certain political position, and with preoccupations with homosexual practice and abortion, is quite false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Their share of the vote will go up now that that in the eyes of the public UKIP is no longer seen to be in the same stable as the BNP or the EDL!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The identification of evangelicalism with a certain political position, and with preoccupations with homosexual practice and abortion, is quite false.

---

Amen. Yet I doubt that will be believed by the anti-evangelical crowd that swamp these boards.

---

Yes, it is false.

Yet it is the thing that conservative evangelicals are best known for, and indeed outside of the church, the only thing it is known for.

And somehow that's not your fault.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I wouldn't say that these boards are swamped by anti-evangelicals either ...

I think it's more a case of people being opposed to certain aspects of the more vocal or more publicly visible aspects of evangelicalism.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
.... attempt to be accepted by left-wing secularists whose approval it so much craves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't say that these boards are swamped by anti-evangelicals either ...

I think it's more a case of people being opposed to certain aspects of the more vocal or more publicly visible aspects of evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The identification of evangelicalism with a certain political position, and with preoccupations with homosexual practice and abortion, is quite false.

---

quote:

---

In my middle-of –the –road evangelical church, of about 300 members, politics is never mentioned, and homosexual practice and abortion rarely – and with an unhysterical understanding and compassion, despite the belief that each is unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

I would say that this is fairly typical of evangelical churches across the board, even in the US, despite the gift-to-the-media footage of the occasional preacher in a white suit and ten-gallon hat with a “Faggots will burn in hell” sign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't say that these boards are swamped by anti-evangelicals either ...

I think it's more a case of people being opposed to certain aspects of the more vocal or more publicly visible aspects of evangelicalism.

---

Is it just evangelicalism? I hear a lot on the TV about Anglicans and same sex marriage; i hear a lot on the TV about Catholics and abortion.

I've yet to hear any evangelicals making News at Ten about their attitude to SSM and Pro-Choice issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The identification of evangelicalism with a certain political position, and with preoccupations with homosexual practice and abortion, is quite false.

---

Amen. Yet I doubt that will be believed by the anti-evangelical crowd that swamp these boards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The identification of evangelicalism with a certain political position, and with preoccupations with homosexual practice and abortion, is quite false.

---

Amen. Yet I doubt that will be believed by the anti-evangelical crowd that swamp these boards.

---

Evangelicals stopping overwhelmingly identifying with those things might help. Just a thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Can you be accepted as an Evangelical Christian and not be at least accepting of homophobia?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The identification of evangelicalism with a certain political position, and with preoccupations with homosexual practice and abortion, is quite false.

In my middle-of –the –road evangelical church, of about 300 members, politics is never mentioned, and homosexual practice and abortion rarely – and with an unhysterical understanding and compassion, despite the belief that each is unacceptable.

I would say that this is fairly typical of evangelical churches across the board, even in the US, despite the gift-to-the-media footage of the occasional preacher in a white suit and ten-gallon hat with a “Faggots will burn in hell” sign.

C.S. Lewis wrote that “it is part of our spiritual law never to put survival first” and “mere longevity is a contemptible ideal”, so all that matters is that evangelicals proclaim what they believe to be scripturally true and let the chips fall where they may, without worrying about surveys and growth strategies.

I suspect that it will survive, even if in an attenuated and modified form, but if it doesn’t, then so be it.

And sure, evangelicalism has changed over the years, has been affected by cultural factors, and contains its factions and parties, but that is not saying anything very startling, because it is true of all traditions within Christianity.

It is liberal Protestantism, not evangelicalism, which is facing a survival crisis.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, hardly an evangelical, has prophesied that it will not survive the twenty-first century – admittedly hardly a tight prediction for a man born in 1928, about something that has 86 years still to run, but credible nonetheless, because liberalism hitched its star to the zeitgeist (the Enlightenment enterprise) to a degree that evangelicalism never even approached, and is now ageing, shrinking, irrelevant and moribund, jumping on trendy bandwagons in a pathetically desperate attempt to be accepted by left-wing secularists whose approval it so much craves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Liberalism lacks principle and direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Liberalism lacks principle and direction.

---

Go on, then. Define this Liberalism that everyone despises so thoroughly.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was thinking about Mudfrog's line, 'what does change the world is passion and conviction'. I suppose this might be true, but it also reminds me of Yeats' prophetic line, 'the best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity'.

So it's not clear that passion and conviction are on the side of the angels at all. There's also the old idea that it's the idealists who are most dangerous, and tend to start wars, as they find it unbearable that others do not share their convictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The identification of evangelicalism with a certain political position, and with preoccupations with homosexual practice and abortion, is quite false.

In my middle-of –the –road evangelical church, of about 300 members, politics is never mentioned, and homosexual practice and abortion rarely – and with an unhysterical understanding and compassion, despite the belief that each is unacceptable.

I would say that this is fairly typical of evangelical churches across the board, even in the US, despite the gift-to-the-media footage of the occasional preacher in a white suit and ten-gallon hat with a “Faggots will burn in hell” sign.

C.S. Lewis wrote that “it is part of our spiritual law never to put survival first” and “mere longevity is a contemptible ideal”, so all that matters is that evangelicals proclaim what they believe to be scripturally true and let the chips fall where they may, without worrying about surveys and growth strategies.

I suspect that it will survive, even if in an attenuated and modified form, but if it doesn’t, then so be it.

And sure, evangelicalism has changed over the years, has been affected by cultural factors, and contains its factions and parties, but that is not saying anything very startling, because it is true of all traditions within Christianity.

It is liberal Protestantism, not evangelicalism, which is facing a survival crisis.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, hardly an evangelical, has prophesied that it will not survive the twenty-first century – admittedly hardly a tight prediction for a man born in 1928, about something that has 86 years still to run, but credible nonetheless, because liberalism hitched its star to the zeitgeist (the Enlightenment enterprise) to a degree that evangelicalism never even approached, and is now ageing, shrinking, irrelevant and moribund, jumping on trendy bandwagons in a pathetically desperate attempt to be accepted by left-wing secularists whose approval it so much craves.

---

I agree with that entirely.
Liberalism lacks principle and direction. It has no purpose, no passion and no integrity. Atheism sees right through it, secularism believes it to be irrelevant and it has no positive contribution to make to the world.

What does change the world, however, is passion and conviction. "I believe" is a powerful foundation for positive work and service. Evangelical churches and Catholic Churches are not going anywhere - certainly not while their deep convictions open their churches for 6 other days in the week and actually do stuff for the local community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was thinking about Mudfrog's line, 'what does change the world is passion and conviction'. I suppose this might be true, but it also reminds me of Yeats' prophetic line, 'the best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity'.

So it's not clear that passion and conviction are on the side of the angels at all. There's also the old idea that it's the idealists who are most dangerous, and tend to start wars, as they find it unbearable that others do not share their convictions.

---

But surely the point of those lines of the poem is that it's a bad thing that the "best" lack that passion and intensity. That's the reason why "the centre cannot hold". It leaves the field clear for the rabble-rousers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just a reminder that any further discussion of homophobia and its relationship to evangelicalism should be conducted in Dead Horses.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

People are now split down the middle over whether UKIP are racist or not – 41% think they are, 40% think they are not. On balance people do, however, think UKIP are deliberately trying to appeal to racist voters – 46% say they are, 30% don’t agree. UKIP’s supporters themselves overwhelmingly reject the charge – 93% of UKIP voters think the party are not racist, presumably explaining why the attacks aren’t damaging UKIP more: the people being convinced that UKIP are racist aren’t the sort of people who were voting for them anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Re whether UKIPers are racist further up the page - or at least whether some of their support comes from a racist constituency. Here is some evidence from COMRES

quote:

---

People are now split down the middle over whether UKIP are racist or not – 41% think they are, 40% think they are not. On balance people do, however, think UKIP are deliberately trying to appeal to racist voters – 46% say they are, 30% don’t agree. UKIP’s supporters themselves overwhelmingly reject the charge – 93% of UKIP voters think the party are not racist, presumably explaining why the attacks aren’t damaging UKIP more: the people being convinced that UKIP are racist aren’t the sort of people who were voting for them anyway.

---

18th May '14

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
If one seeks to condemn the UKIP for racism, one should look at the actions of the party itself. It is unfair to create guilt by association and label the UKIP racist merely because some of their supporters may be so.

---

quote:

---

If one seeks to condemn the UKIP for racism, one should look at the actions of the party itself. It is unfair to create guilt by association and label the UKIP racist merely because some of their supporters may be so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
If one seeks to condemn the UKIP for racism, one should look at the actions of the party itself. It is unfair to create guilt by association and label the UKIP racist merely because some of their supporters may be so.

---

Pfft.

I'm absolutely certain Farage is sitting there thinking "How might I change our policies to make them less attractive to racists?"

Not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Quoth GCabot:

quote:

---

If one seeks to condemn the UKIP for racism, one should look at the actions of the party itself. It is unfair to create guilt by association and label the UKIP racist merely because some of their supporters may be so.

---

On that basis the Republican Party in the US has no racist intent, despite the Southern Strategy, and the Southern Baptist Conference had no racist intent despite being founded specifically to disenfranchise blacks.

Hiding one's racism behind a smokescreen of immigration laws, "take back our cities" events and dog-whistles about "single welfare mums" doesn't make it any less racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the art of dog-whistling. UKIP know damn well that they don't need to be explicitly racist, in order to attract racists. Being anti-immigration will do the trick, plus other subtle and not so subtle hints. Would you want to live next door to a Romanian? I suppose when I was a kid, it was 'would you want to live next door to black people?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
The isolated fact, however, that some racists vote for a party, is insufficient to say that the party itself is racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
The isolated fact, however, that some racists vote for a party, is insufficient to say that the party itself is racist.

---

So what do you call it when all the racists vote for one party? A coincidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[...] As Dr Andrew Walker once put it, 'Nobody is going to die for one of Don Cupitt's stories ...'

---

I doubt that many will be martyred for postlapsarianism, either.

A nuanced faith like non-realism, depending as it does on academic and spiritual reflection, is unlikely to develop in an environment in which people are murdered for their beliefs. People want certainty in a land of extremes.

If non-realism were popularized and evangelized, it people might be dying for it. In the Revolutionary War, after all, Americans ultimately died for deism!
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
The more whitewash accusations of racism/fascism are thrown, the more radicalised moderates become & you have your self-fulfilling prophecy.

Evangelicalism is too amorphous to die.

---

I agree that the death of evangelicalism is unlikely.

But it's not that evangelicalism is too amorphous. I think it's that evangelicalism is able to easily (and in some cases, shamelessly) change itself to fit the zeitgeist of the time, whilst all the time still claiming to be the one, TRUE, presentation of the Faith.

Evangelicalism WILL change, as it always has. Before long, homosexuality etc will be a non-issue (except among the freaks and extremists, who will be shrugged off with a roll of the eyes). Just as significant parts of Biblical criticism, which were once regarded as hopelessly liberal, are now taken for granted.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ha ha ...

And there was thinking they died for the right to pay as little tax as possible, to carry as many guns and nukes as they wanted, to oppress as many slaves and Native Americans as they could and then turn round and hector the rest of us as to how 'free' and enlightened they are ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Perhaps those elements of Biblical criticism are taken for granted where you are, Oscar the Grouch, but they certainly aren't all over the evangelical world.

I get bashed on other boards for being some kind of wicked liberal and regularly come across 6 Day Creationist and similar views online from our friends across the Pond - and not just Protestants either.
 

---

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Before long, homosexuality etc will be a non-issue (except among the freaks and extremists, who will be shrugged off with a roll of the eyes). Just as significant parts of Biblical criticism, which were once regarded as hopelessly liberal, are now taken for granted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
Any assumption of a monolithic entity is demonstrably false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
Look, I have no opinion on whether the UKIP espouses racist policies. I am not well-versed enough in their platform to make an informed judgment. I would say that the FN and BNP clearly espoused racist policies. As I have said before, if the UKIP has racist intent veiled as neutral policy, then they deserve to be called racist as well regardless of appearances of respectability. My only assertion was that one cannot judge a party based solely on its followers; its actions have to be taken into account.

Let us imagine that there were only two viable political parties in the UK: the Labour Party and the Communist Party. In all likelihood, most of the racists would vote Labour. Would this suddenly make the Labour Party racist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ha ha ...

And there was thinking they died for the right to pay as little tax as possible, to carry as many guns and nukes as they wanted, to oppress as many slaves and Native Americans as they could and then turn round and hector the rest of us as to how 'free' and enlightened they are ...

---

# You can't fool the children of the revolution ...

The American Colonies' tax bill was puny (& lowered still further by the Westminster Parliament after protests). The Revolution was over issues of authority, fueled by rhetoric (in the best sense of the word) about unalienable rights, rights that, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, are "endowed by [our] Creator."

As the colonists were fighting for their rights as "freeborn Englishmen," the source of that thinking goes a lot closer to home than some may like!
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Please stop discussing the relationship between evangelicalism and negative attitudes towards homosexuality. You know it's a Dead Horse. And Justinan created a perfectly viable thread here. If you want to bring in the relationship to other earlier beliefs now seen as prejudice, use the Dead Horse thread.

And there's already a thread in the Styx if you want to discuss current boundaries on this issue.

So play nicely in accordance with the current extremely well known demarcation guidelines.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

[ 03. July 2014, 16:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Peter Leithart, Carl Trueman, and Fred Sanders sat down to discuss this issue (well, the future of Protestantism, but all three are broadly speaking evangelical) recently. The entire 2.5 hour conversation can be viewed here. Interesting, if you have the patience to take it all in.

Personally, I'm with Mudfrog; mainline Protestantism is much more likely to go the way of all flesh than evangelicalism is.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


It's been quoted before, but at Greenbelt a few years ago a speaker apparently said, 'Don't call yourself post-evangelical but pre-catholic ...'

---

quote:

---

although there is constant tension between its faith-based origins and a more exploratory attitude to engaging with the world, the perspective of the festival remains one rooted in the Christian tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Peter Leithart, Carl Trueman, and Fred Sanders sat down to discuss this issue (well, the future of Protestantism, but all three are broadly speaking evangelical) recently. The entire 2.5 hour conversation can be viewed here. Interesting, if you have the patience to take it all in.

Personally, I'm with Mudfrog; mainline Protestantism is much more likely to go the way of all flesh than evangelicalism is.

---

About half way through it. Interesting link, thanks.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Byron, of course the Colonists were banging on about the 'rights of freeborn Englishmen' because that's how they regarded themselves - and to that extent they were simply echoing rhetoric that could be found at that time on this side of the Atlantic too.

It's not that this is 'too close to home', it's also something I use as a stick to beat particular types of American 'Patriot' over the head with ... because I like to remind them that we got there first and they didn't invent any of these concepts ...

Originality is an over-rated virtue ...

In fairness, many Americans who've actually looked into the history are happy to agree that the US Revolution was essentially the English Civil War Round 3 (there'd been 2 Civil Wars in the mid-17th century of course).

Some would even say that the US Civil War was a continuation of all that to some extent ...

@SvitlanaV2 - does Greenbelt need evangelicalism?

Well, yes it does. Just like everyone else does.

Evangelicalism isn't the only game in town, of course, but I'm always fascinated by how many former evangelicals I come across in High Church, Liberal and more whishty-whishty mystical type circles ...

Dyfrig, who used to post here regularly at one time (where is Dyfrig by the way?) once said how he'd observed to the late John Stott (an evangelical elder statesman par excellence) that 'evangelicalism is a good place to start, but not necessarily to end up.'


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In a sense, though, the lower the supply of evangelicals into other traditions then the worse for those other traditions it is ...

Liberalism for instance - and I'm about to sound as illiberal as Mudfrog here - it seems to me is patently unable to reproduce itself - it's like a mule, it's neutered.

Consequently, it can only sustain itself by 'leeching' off the more conservative traditions.

I think that the various forms of High Church or more Catholic expressions can and do reproduce themselves - they aren't neutered in the sense that full-on theological liberalism is - but they also depend on an influx to some extent from disaffected members from other traditions.

It's often observed about Orthodoxy in the US - and I would say the same here to a lesser extent and on a smaller scale - that the only converts it's picking up are those from fundamentalist or conservative Protestant backgrounds. If you've ever come across what's now jokingly called 'Southern Orthodoxy' you'll know what I mean ... neo-confederate types turning to Orthodoxy because everything else is too liberal for them ...

Some Orthodox have a genuine concern about this.

Coming back to the OP and the question, though, I think we do need evangelicalism - and indeed its equivalents within the older traditions.

Greenbelt is a good example of something that initially 'fed-off' evangelicalism and then headed off in other directions.
 

---

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Would you say that the majority of attendees there are now post-evangelical/'never-were-evangelical'? Or does Greenbelt still rely on plenty of evangelicals to turn up, ready and willing to try 'something a bit different'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Peter Leithart, Carl Trueman, and Fred Sanders sat down to discuss this issue (well, the future of Protestantism, but all three are broadly speaking evangelical) recently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the validity of other religions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
When I encountered Hinduism for the first time, I became aware of the 'personal relationship with God' aspect in some traditions of hinduism.

This led me to question the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the validity of other religions?

---

I think that's a good one.

When I encountered Hinduism for the first time, I became aware of the 'personal relationship with God' aspect in some traditions of hinduism.

This led me to question the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In a sense, though, the lower the supply of evangelicals into other traditions then the worse for those other traditions it is ...

Liberalism for instance - and I'm about to sound as illiberal as Mudfrog here - it seems to me is patently unable to reproduce itself - it's like a mule, it's neutered.

Consequently, it can only sustain itself by 'leeching' off the more conservative traditions. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In a sense, though, the lower the supply of evangelicals into other traditions then the worse for those other traditions it is ...

Liberalism for instance - and I'm about to sound as illiberal as Mudfrog here - it seems to me is patently unable to reproduce itself - it's like a mule, it's neutered.

Consequently, it can only sustain itself by 'leeching' off the more conservative traditions. [...]

---

Liberalism's failure to reproduce itself is easily explained: its marketing and presentation suck.*

Evangelical churches are culturally accessible: modern music, audio-visual, the ubiquitous smoothie. Evangelicalism also sells itself via Alpha.

Liberalism seems to use traditional style to compensate for its theological radicalism. Not that it need bother, since it appears to be incapable of stepping into a pulpit and saying what it means.

Which type of evangelicalism triumphs? Not huddled huts of exclusive brethren debating the finer points predestination, but the charismatic kind, that taps emotions. Self-help and razzle-dazzle are the secrets of its success, & that's not a criticism.

* Generalization, natch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
When I encountered Hinduism for the first time, I became aware of the 'personal relationship with God' aspect in some traditions of hinduism.

This led me to question the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible.

---

Why? I truly fail to see the logical connection between "There are non-Christians who believe [some tenet of Christianity]" and "the Bible is not authoritative." Can you unpack whatever enthymemes led you from the one to the other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
When I encountered Hinduism for the first time, I became aware of the 'personal relationship with God' aspect in some traditions of hinduism.

This led me to question the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible.

---

Why? I truly fail to see the logical connection between "There are non-Christians who believe [some tenet of Christianity]" and "the Bible is not authoritative." Can you unpack whatever enthymemes led you from the one to the other?

---

Most of my thinking on this is summarised here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In a sense, though, the lower the supply of evangelicals into other traditions then the worse for those other traditions it is ...

Liberalism for instance - and I'm about to sound as illiberal as Mudfrog here - it seems to me is patently unable to reproduce itself - it's like a mule, it's neutered.

Consequently, it can only sustain itself by 'leeching' off the more conservative traditions. [...]

---

Liberalism's failure to reproduce itself is easily explained: its marketing and presentation suck.*

Evangelical churches are culturally accessible: modern music, audio-visual, the ubiquitous smoothie. Evangelicalism also sells itself via Alpha.

Liberalism seems to use traditional style to compensate for its theological radicalism. Not that it need bother, since it appears to be incapable of stepping into a pulpit and saying what it means.

* Generalization, natch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Perhaps those elements of Biblical criticism are taken for granted where you are, Oscar the Grouch, but they certainly aren't all over the evangelical world.

I get bashed on other boards for being some kind of wicked liberal and regularly come across 6 Day Creationist and similar views online from our friends across the Pond - and not just Protestants either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the validity of other religions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
When I encountered Hinduism for the first time, I became aware of the 'personal relationship with God' aspect in some traditions of hinduism.

This led me to question the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Bible.

---

Why? I truly fail to see the logical connection between "There are non-Christians who believe [some tenet of Christianity]" and "the Bible is not authoritative." Can you unpack whatever enthymemes led you from the one to the other?

---

Most of my thinking on this is summarised here.

---

I don't see where in there you conclude, let alone argue for, the non-authoritativeness of the Bible. All of the things in that article can be true, and yet the Bible also be authoritative.

Also, that sermon accepts that Jesus can be unique, and yet all of those other religions contain deep truths it would do us well to hear.

In short, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises or from the argument you present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the validity of other religions?

---

Interesting you should say that. I was thinking the same thing the other day. I think it is very possible that we could see a shift among (some or even most??) evangelicals in this area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the validity of other religions?

---

Interesting you should say that. I was thinking the same thing the other day. I think it is very possible that we could see a shift among (some or even most??) evangelicals in this area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
At the moment, the Maginot Line for most evangelicals is SSM. But as we are already seeing, that line is gradually being abandoned.

Although "the uniqueness of Christ" is often held as a key evangelical belief, I have seen enough shift in evangelical thinking in this area to suggest that it may not be so impossible to change views.

Thoughtful evangelicals who are increasingly encountering thoughtful Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs etc are inevitably going to start chewing on the problem of "these people share much in common with me and their sincerity and piety put me to shame; do I REALLY have to hold to the idea that unless they "turn to Christ" they are doomed for all eternity?"

Add to that the pressure from the world around who are tired of religiously motivated conflict and expect "people of faith" to start acting in love and not hate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
To put it in a nutshell:

Jesus need not be unique. Similar revelation cam to other people through Krishna etc.

The Bible isn't the only authority. Its experience can also be found in the Gita etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The Bible isn't the only authority. Its experience can also be found in the Gita etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Although "the uniqueness of Christ" is often held as a key evangelical belief, I have seen enough shift in evangelical thinking in this area to suggest that it may not be so impossible to change views.

Thoughtful evangelicals who are increasingly encountering thoughtful Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs etc are inevitably going to start chewing on the problem of "these people share much in common with me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Jesus need not be unique. Similar revelation cam to other people through Krishna etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Jesus need not be unique. Similar revelation cam to other people through Krishna etc.

---

The uniqueness of Christ does not lie in what he revealed, but who he was: God incarnate. I think if you abandon "Jesus, and Jesus only, is God incarnate," you have not just abandoned Evangelicalism, but you're on sketchy grounds as concerns Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Evangelicals tend to rate experience higher than doctrine.

So if they find that others have had a similar experience, then it follows that the Bible and Jesus aren't the only way - to that experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Ah, the definition tangle. What is incarnation? Is God's Logos synonymous with God? If Jesus of Nazareth had a unique "God-presence" that is, in theory, open to anyone, is that incarnation?

Part of evangelicalism's problem is that words are only signifiers. Words can merely point to something outside themselves, they can't control it, like a Victorian naturalist pegging a butterfly. When their target is something as intangible and indefinable as God, the problem grows out of all hope of a solution.

A desire for control and certainty fuels evangelicalism, but they're forever outside its gasp.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The Incarnation does not belong to Evangelicalism. It is part and parcel of historic Christianity going right back to the beginning. And, no, something that is open to everyone is not what Jesus had. He was unique and unrepeatable. This is Christianity 101. Hell, this is Christianity 1.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If some of the 20th century's front-rank theologians are unchurched, the flaw lies not with them, but the definition at work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If some of the 20th century's front-rank theologians are unchurched, the flaw lies not with them, but the definition at work.

---

If they are considered "front-rank" Christian thelologians who deny Christ's Divinity, then the flaw might be in those who have classified them as "front-rank."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Evangelicals tend to rate experience higher than doctrine.

So if they find that others have had a similar experience, then it follows that the Bible and Jesus aren't the only way - to that experience.

---

Charismatic evangelicals might rate experience higher than doctrine, I would say, but certainly not all evangelicals. Is it not a key tenet of evangelicalism that doctrine - right belief - is of paramount importance?

---

quote:

---

When and where was Christ's uniqueness decided? Ecumenical councils, drawing on centuries of reflection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
...whenever i hear evangelicals preach or testify it is all about thw warm experience of having Jesus in their heart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Byron;

quote:

---

When and where was Christ's uniqueness decided? Ecumenical councils, drawing on centuries of reflection.

---

I have always thought that the Resurrection was rather 'decisive'; especially for the disciples and NT writers!!

The 'ecumenical councils' were trying to describe that uniqueness, rather than decide it in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
I said nothing about denying Christ's divinity, rather, theologians (i.e., Tillich) who raised the possibility of others achieving his closeness to God.

---

Um... if we're talking about the divinity of Christ, how could anyone "achieve" being the only-begotten Son and Second Person of the Trinity?

quote:

---

Responses like that do illustrate why so many liberals equivocate!

---

Sorry! In all seriousness, yes, I did mean what I said, but I'm not sure how else to express it simply.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The evangelicalism I was converted into just looks like a completely different form of faith than what Frank Schaeffer has left. Evangelicalism as I have known it didn't really have a defined political position. I've known some individuals who would probably vote Conservative, some who would be closer to the small socialist parties, but the mean political position would probably be left of centre LibDem or Green. The extent to which I experienced organised evangelical political campaigns these were relating to campaigning against poverty, injustice, for fair trade and the like - almost always in association with other Christian groups.

---

quote:

---

I don't know the extent to which the far-right evangelicalism dominates the US scene.

---

quote:

---

I can see how a largely exclusive identification of "evangelical" with one narrow portion of the evangelical spectrum might make it hard for members on other parts of that spectrum to adopt the evangelical label, or for those who are rejecting parts of the package of the narrow evangelical churches to consider other evangelical churches as a place where they could fit in.

---

quote:

---

But, perhaps the losses from that narrow section of evangelicalism might allow the rest of the spectrum to step out from the shadows and be seen. Instead of the death of evangelicalism this might result in a rebalancing of evangelicalism and a renewal of evangelical faith on a broad foundation rather than lifted high on a thin pedestal.

---

May it be so. I'm an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian, but I would so, so, so welcome the idea that fellow Christians of an evangelical bent would be something ... not extremely right-wing.

I used to welcome seeing fish-symbols and crosses on cars ("Ah! A fellow believer! How wonderful!"), but over the last few decades they cause me some tension more often than not--and, alas, are often conjoined with some really truly mean bumper stickers.

I honestly believe that the linking of "a strong belief in some form of Christianity" with extreme right-wing politics is a literally unholy alliance that has been dominating US discourse more and more since around 1980 with Falwell, Ralph Reed, and the Moral Majority, Dobson and Focus on the Family, etc.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I hope that it will not die out as far as its emphasis on: . . . social justuce

---

Yes, definitely different than here in the US.

Glenn Beck in 2010: "I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site," he said. "If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. ..."

Beck was recently named in Forbes magazine as the world's 39th most powerful celebrity, so a lot of people--of the kind voting in the scariest US politicians--are paying attention to this guy.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Then it would behoove evangelicals to be a little more vocal about distancing themselves from the political positions and culture war preoccupations. Because that is the message that we are bombarded with. We need some prominent evangelicals to speak up more loudly about how that's not the way y'all are, or the rest of society is going to go on making that identification.

---

There are groups like Sojourners and Faithful America, which at least include Evangelicals of non-right-wing politics, but they just don't seem to get listened to a whole lot.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Now that I've finally caught up on the thread, one last wee bit...

I'd never heard of UKIP before till this thread. When I did, I thought, gosh, this sounds a lot like some of the nasty stuff we have here in the US.

Then I thought, I wonder if--like the scary fundamentalist people from the US who have encouraged killing gay people in Uganda--there is a connection with the sort of thing we're dealing with in the US.

So I Googled "UKIP" and the owner of Fox News (which most emphatically is involved in helping encourage popular US evangelicalism to stay fused to the extreme right wing) and the Wall Street Journal, "Rupert Murdoch," and, well, big shock there. Except not a big shock after all.

Please don't let what's been happening here happen there, UK Shippies.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Byron;

quote:

---

When and where was Christ's uniqueness decided? Ecumenical councils, drawing on centuries of reflection.

---

I have always thought that the Resurrection was rather 'decisive'; especially for the disciples and NT writers!!

The 'ecumenical councils' were trying to describe that uniqueness, rather than decide it in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
And in the interest of fairness, liberal theology has the opposite problem: it can take refuge in ambiguity, refusing (in a very real sense) to take a firm position on anything.

---

quote:

---

The Gospel of John came long before the Councils. And he has a pretty darned high Christology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
...whenever i hear evangelicals preach or testify it is all about thw warm experience of having Jesus in their heart.

---

Is this evangelicals on various points of the charismatic spectrum? It's just that I'd be surprised to hear a thoroughly non-charismatic evangelical talk about any warm spiritual experience. Should I not be surprised?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
...whenever i hear evangelicals preach or testify it is all about thw warm experience of having Jesus in their heart.

---

Is this evangelicals on various points of the charismatic spectrum? It's just that I'd be surprised to hear a thoroughly non-charismatic evangelical talk about any warm spiritual experience. Should I not be surprised?

---

John Wesley was no charismatic but his 'heart was strangely warmed.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
That's true, leo, but what about your personal experience? Those evangelicals whom you've heard talking about a 'warm experience of having Jesus in their heart' - would you say they were on various parts of the charismatic spectrum? It's just that I would expect that sort of language mostly to be used by charismatics (inc. evangelical charismatics), not by evangelicals as a whole. But my expectation could well be off-track...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
And in the interest of fairness, liberal theology has the opposite problem: it can take refuge in ambiguity, refusing (in a very real sense) to take a firm position on anything.

---

Given that we can't even know for certain that God exists and there even is a supernatural, it seems eminently sensible to me not to take a firm position on what can only be guesses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Um... if we're talking about the divinity of Christ, how could anyone "achieve" being the only-begotten Son and Second Person of the Trinity?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Responses like that do illustrate why so many liberals equivocate!

---

Sorry! In all seriousness, yes, I did mean what I said, but I'm not sure how else to express it simply.

---

No worries, I see where you're coming from.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Given that we can't even know for certain that God exists and there even is a supernatural, it seems eminently sensible to me not to take a firm position on what can only be guesses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Given that we can't even know for certain that God exists and there even is a supernatural, it seems eminently sensible to me not to take a firm position on what can only be guesses.

---

Couldn't agree more, but it's rarely framed as you've just done. Pastors/priests getting into a pulpit and saying, "God might not exist, and the Bible is a flawed human work than can, and often is, wrong," is not the most common of sights.

---

And I couldn't agree less, but I think I've made my position on such matter clear a lot and I don't want to derail the thread...
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;

quote:

---

The Gospel of John came long before the Councils. And he has a pretty darned high Christology.

---

Indeed he does! I was simply registering the difference between John and the other gospel writers reporting the historical events which they were one way or another close to, and later theologians doing something more academic with that data.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
The creeds and gospels interpret the intersection between Jesus and God in a particular way, shaped by the ideas of the time (three-tiered cosmos, later, a bunch of neo-Platonism). There's no reason that later generations ought, automatically, to be bound by it.

---

Nobody's bound by it; you are quite free to believe whatever you want. A simple look at the panoply of churches, societies, and websites out there confirms this. But that doesn't make what you believe, or what is on one of those websites, Christianity.

There's nothing shameful with not being Christianity, if you're not. At least, it's kind of weird to me to insist on not being something, but to act like you're ashamed of not being that something. If it's shameful to be X, then fergoshsakes, don't be X. And vice versa.

Jews aren't Christians; Theosophists aren't Christians (or weren't; are there any left?); Christian Scientists aren't Christians. I don't see why anyone should lose any sleep over this fact. People decide, for any number of reasons, what seems true to them, and that ends up being what they believe. Don't believe the teachings of the Gospels and the Councils? Well and good. Knock yourself out. I'm certainly not going try to stop you.

I suppose the issue is that you want to not believe in Christianity, but want to call yourself a Christian. Certainly you wouldn't be the first to have this dilemma. The word is getting so stretched out of shape already, it's hard to know if it means anything at all. Certainly some people who DO have a high view of the Gospels and the Councils are distancing themselves from the word because of the evils that have been done in its name. In this atmosphere, people who want to believe something that has never, historically, been Christianity, but call it Christianity, I don't right well understand.

Those of us who accept the high Christology of the Gospels, and believe Jesus was the Son of God Incarnate and the Second Person of the Trinity, will likely go on doing so. If you say we are "bound" by something, and by that you are implying we're not really thinking about what we believe but are blindly following others, well, that's just a gratuitous insult and beneath you. You believe what you want to believe; leave us to believe what the Gospels and the Councils teach, if that's what we have decided makes the most sense to us.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Mousethief, by saying that you consider yourself bound by the decisions of the councils, I was absolutely not implying that your faith is blind, therefore no insult was intended. I was simply drawing a distinction between denominations.

We clearly define Christianity differently. You consider high christology essential. A case could equally be made that obedience to the Pope is essential, likewise autocephaly. Historically, membership of the Catholic Church was essential until the 16th century, so you could argue that protestants aren't Christian.

Personally, I believe that liberal theology has every right to be labeled Christian. If you disagree, fine by me, so long as we can disagree in good cheer.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well I certainly won't be looking for your car with an eye to letting the air out of the tyres. We shall have to disagree to disagree, which is how honorable people have been disagreeing and not killing each other since time immemorial.
 

---

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

Liberalism's failure to reproduce itself is easily explained: its marketing and presentation suck.*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Well I certainly won't be looking for your car with an eye to letting the air out of the tyres. We shall have to disagree to disagree, which is how honorable people have been disagreeing and not killing each other since time immemorial.

---

I am on Mousethief's page here. And I also will add--since I've been nattering on a lot about the evils of a certain type of fundamentalist US evangelicalism here and on the fundie/evo thread--that I would far more want to hang out with someone who doesn't hold a high Christology, but has charity and basic human decency in their heart, than someone whose theology is impeccable but who acts like some of the sorts I've been talking about--and would go so far as to say that from my point of view, the charitable person without the high Christology is closer to Jesus as well.

... I wish :flowerface: were still a smilie here...

Well, will have to do.

PS: Oh, re Theosophists, my mother kind of was one, actually, so some still exist; though she was so obsessive about that, in such a distorted way, that I've come to believe in the paranormal in spite of her, rather than because.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

Liberalism's failure to reproduce itself is easily explained: its marketing and presentation suck.*

---

The bad marketing and presentation is not the cause for liberalism being sterile, but a side effect. Liberals have no reason to want to reproduce their "faith" or make any effort for it. It´s not like they believe the gospel is necessary for salvation, or there even is a "salvation" except as a metaphor for some existentialist concept.

Why would a person who holds "beliefs" like Paul Tillich, for example, who do not even believe in a personal God, want non-believers to become "christian"? There simply is no difference between being and atheist/agnostic and being a liberal christian like Paul Tillich, there is nothing in this version of christianity that is worth "converting" nonbelievers to, cause this type of liberalism is nothing but secular philosophy ilustrated by christian metaphors. Atheists and agnostic simply don´t use the metaphors, but the beliefs are the same.

Hence the reason why 100% of the liberals I know are former "bible-believing" christians. You don´t just become a liberal christian out of being a former agnostic/atheist. There are no "conversions" to christian liberalism, but only to traditional forms of christianity. Liberals are christians who lost their faith trough the years but still feel culturally bound by some form of christianity.

[code]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Given that we can't even know for certain that God exists and there even is a supernatural, it seems eminently sensible to me not to take a firm position on what can only be guesses.

---

Couldn't agree more, but it's rarely framed as you've just done. Pastors/priests getting into a pulpit and saying, "God might not exist, and the Bible is a flawed human work than can, and often is, wrong," is not the most common of sights.

---

And I couldn't agree less, but I think I've made my position on such matter clear a lot and I don't want to derail the thread...

---

What do you disagree with? Do you think you can prove God exists? I thought that the existence of God not being a universally held obviously true statement was non-controversial.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
gorpo wrote:

Hence the reason why 100% of the liberals I know are former "bible-believing" christians. You don´t just become a liberal christian out of being a former agnostic/atheist. There are no "conversions" to christian liberalism, but only to traditional forms of christianity. Liberals are christians who lost their faith trough the years but still feel culturally bound by some form of christianity.

I think that's wrong. I was an atheist, then had a series of religious experiences, and was attracted to liberal Christianity. I also had friends who did likewise.

Maybe you are generalizing from your own acquaintances; this is often fallacious.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What do you disagree with? Do you think you can prove God exists? I thought that the existence of God not being a universally held obviously true statement was non-controversial.

---

Actually, I was thinking of "that there is even a supernatural," in general, in that case, and while I am sure we don't agree on this, I point to Lewis' book Miracles (revised edition, not first edition). But ... I'm quite eager to not get into a big debate about it right now, and definitely not to derail this thread. (I was so worried the other day that a Host was going to come in and tell me off for ranting against US right-wing fundamentalists... ) Lewis argues better than I do, anyway.
 

---

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I love the way some of you evangelicals think you know what liberals think better than we do. Actually, I don't "love it"; it's really starting to hack me off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Given that we can't even know for certain that God exists and there even is a supernatural, it seems eminently sensible to me not to take a firm position on what can only be guesses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I love the way some of you evangelicals think you know what liberals think better than we do. Actually, I don't "love it"; it's really starting to hack me off.

---

I think this just proves my point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Given that we can't even know for certain that God exists and there even is a supernatural, it seems eminently sensible to me not to take a firm position on what can only be guesses.

---

---

quote:

---

The attempt to define the sprawling, elastic term “evangelical” has long frustrated historians and anyone else who studies Protestant Christianity. It’s tricky enough coming up with a theological framework that can include both Jonathan Edwards and Charles Finney, let alone one that can accommodate both Edwards and Aimee Semple McPherson.

So Kidd proposes a Procrustean solution — lopping off anyone who doesn’t fit neatly into his preferred definition. The folks at Christianity Today make the cut (at least some of them, for now), but the folks at Charisma are cast out into the outer darkness with Rob Bell, Bishop Spong, and the rest of the tree-hugging, love-making, pro choicing, gay wedding, bare-footing hippies like me.

---

quote:

---

Horseman Bree: Bumping this up to offer an example of how different American evangelicalism is, compared to British: tip of the hat to Slacktivist who is a recovering former evangelical.

---

No. Fred Clark is still an evangelical.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Some of us are evangelicals, just recovering from over exposure to Evangelicalism.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Charisma Magazine? These people? Seriously? They're... hardly left-wing.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Charisma Magazine? These people? Seriously? They're... hardly left-wing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Charisma Magazine? These people? Seriously? They're... hardly left-wing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Interestingly the founder of Charisma Magazine's son runs his own publication called Relevant Magazine, which is very liberal evangelical

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Interestingly the founder of Charisma Magazine's son runs his own publication called Relevant Magazine, which is very liberal evangelical

---

I wouldn't call them 'very liberal' except perhaps on the American political spectrum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

The dismissive comments I see here indicate more about the poster than they do about the argument. Exactly what Fred C. was fulminating against.

---

quote:

---

chris stiles: Well, except I really don't see what Fred C was taking such great exception to - I mean they are both saying "Evangelicalism is exactly what I say it means, neither more nor less".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I mean with 'both' you mean Clark and Kidd? I don't see Fred Clark saying "Evangelicalism is exactly what I say it means, neither more nor less". He's allowing for a rather broad definition of Evangelicalism, one that includes Kidd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Yeah, but...

You are just trying to avoid dealing with the problem.

---

quote:

---

chris stiles: Yeah, but both of them want to be able to define evangelicalism.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0