Thread: The Evangelical Worldview Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020234
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
To resolve the derailing of another thread, I'm trying to move a discussion here which revolves around various points with regard to Evangelicals.
These include:
- that Evangelicals are a kind of default "bad guy" on these boards
- that Evangelical ideas are not taken seriously by other parts of the church
- that Evangelicals are true inheritors of Luther's ideas
It is a bit of a rag-bag of thoughts, and I've already said what I think on some of them, in particular that I think there is a form of anti-Evangelical bias in the discussions here.
But I'm also interested to continue with this discussion as to what exactly an Evangelical is. I've been living in this worldview for a long time, so it also surprises me to learn that Lutherans, Prebyterians and others do not consider themselves Evangelicals - and it is no surprise to me that Evangelicals might consider them to be Evangelical brethren.
As I've said previously, I think the one defining thing about Evangelical ideas is the way that new terms are invented and old words are reused in different ways. So it isn't any great surprise to me to see that the way that Evangelicals see the world is quite different to everyone else - even those who (maybe naively) one assumes are theologically close.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I could perhaps offer a view from inside and outside the tent!
When I met (mostly free-church) Christian Union students at University nearly 30 years ago, an Evangelical *was* a Christian - formally someone serious about the primacy of scripture, but behind that also someone for whom that primacy had brought them down to a set of beliefs (about conversion, atonement, the role of women etc) which it was assumed the Spirit would bring anyone to, who was serious about the authority of the bible. Other interpretations were 'unsound' (not un-evangelical). As a cradle Methodist I was viewed with some suspicion, despite my denomination's high view of biblical authority - not least because I was assumed to be Arminian, which, once I found out what that was, turned out to be true enough.
Now I hang with RCs sometimes, for whom the term 'evangelical' can sometimes be synonymous with 'schismatic' - someone who has rejected the full revelation (including the authority of the traditions) of the Church. This seems funny to me sometimes, as we meet for bible study and they approach scripture in the same way as those CU people all those years ago, splitting hairs around grammatical points in an English translation, just-really prayers, the lot.
If another Christian says something to me about God with which I disagree, I am likely to think (and probably say) 'what about that bit when it says...' - and go off to read the passage. For me, that makes me evangelical. My RC friends do that too, but their definition of 'unsound' comes from a different place as my reformed student friends.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Legalistic, as close to literal as you can get and as close to now as then as you can get with no tradition beyond that.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
I suspect this will be about as easy as defining what an Anglican is, and hoping to encompass all Anglicans within that simple definition ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think there's certainly a popular perception of Evangelical increasingly meaning a somewhat strident, right-wing, conservative person who believes in the "clear meaning of scripture" (sic). This is in large part fueled by what we see reported in the media, either from the USA or our home-grown variety where to be newsworthy it's either someone in the established church being a bit wet, or it's an 'Evangelical' being a bit mad, shouty, and homophobic (or presented as such).
However, I don't think that's what it means on the inside. It certainly doesn't fit the Evangelical church that I grew up in, or others that I have attended. They would see it more in line with the Bebbington Quadrilateral, and that those elements are in no way incompatible (quite the opposite) with care, compassion, empathy, gentleness, social action, love, acceptance and increasingly an accepting view regarding homosexual relationships etc. etc.
But ... I also know that many who are, effectively, evangelical no longer feel wildly happy with the tag, because of the whole shouty, right-wing, placard-waving, bull-horn using perception.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
But ... I also know that many who are, effectively, evangelical no longer feel wildly happy with the tag, because of the whole shouty, right-wing, placard-waving, bull-horn using perception.
That will be me then.
"I'm not THAT kind of Evangelical".
See also "I'm not THAT kind of Charismatic".
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Indeed. I no longer have the first clue what label to use. Although it can make for some good conversations.
"You're religious aren't you?"
"Probably not in the way you mean ..."
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Far too generalistic a label to answer a question like that about it I'm afraid; rather like asking two Baptists the question "what is a Baptist" and getting three different answers!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Good call, mr cheesy.
I think one of the issues here is that evangelicals assume that theirs is the default NT / biblical position and that it is therefore the normative one from which everyone else has departed at some point or other - be it after Constantine or Theodosius or in the 19th century with higher criticism.
If only everyone else approached the Bible the way they do then everyone else would come to the same conclusions as they do.
Consequently, as a GLE it came as a complete surprise to me to find that whole sections of Christendom didn't accept PSA, for example and that Reformed folk who were still quite conservative theologically, didn't consider themselves as evangelicals in what we might call the modern US sense.
I don't mean this as a side-swipe or to be disrespectful to evangelicals, but it's as if they regard themselves not as a subset or form of wider Protestantism but as somehow its purest and most biblically faithful form.
They may not express it that way it that's effectively where they're at and why they've set themselves up as some kind of unofficial orthodoxy.
Ok, it may well be that other forms of Protestant do the same, but however we cut it that seems to be the default evangelical position however ecumenical and eirenic they might be in practice.
It's by no means a unique position. I'm sure other small t traditions do the same.
Where it can get annoying is when it's allied to a kind of sanctimoniousness, a holier-than-thou attitude and a kind of blind-spot when it comes to acknowledging that their position is as much of a tradition as anyone else's and didn't tumble out of the NT fully formed.
Again, evangelicals aren't unique in that.
On the plus side, evangelicals do of course share the same over-lapping segments of the Venn diagram as all mainstream forms of Christianity and are distinguished by their activism, sense of mission and in getting things done.
Any concerns or misgivings I might otherwise have about evangelicalism as a tradition are balanced out by those caveats.
In essence, I believe the evangelicals do have something 'prophetic' on trust as it were for the rest of Christendom - 'repent and believe the Gospel.'
That's my two penn'orth.
I think mr cheesy's point is pertinent that evangelicals assume that their particular world view is THE one to have - but the devil, as always is in the detail.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
As a cradle Methodist I was viewed with some suspicion, despite my denomination's high view of biblical authority - not least because I was assumed to be Arminian, which, once I found out what that was, turned out to be true enough.
[...]
If another Christian says something to me about God with which I disagree, I am likely to think (and probably say) 'what about that bit when it says...' - and go off to read the passage. For me, that makes me evangelical.
I'm fascinated by this desirability of the term evangelical.
Before coming to the Ship I don't think I'd realised that this was a term to be fought over, a tent under which so many were keen to shelter. It certainly wasn't a label that the Methodists I knew seemed to want. And I never heard the Pentecostals or Seventh Day Adventists in my family calling themselves evangelicals. (In their cultural setting I don't think the word has much meaning.)
My sense is that the decline of Christianity in the white Anglophone world has made most other Protestant identities more or less irrelevant, even more poorly defined, or just marginal. Hence all the clustering around the word evangelical, even among Christians who find it highly problematic.
This being the case, the cynic in me suspects that in the current climate the only thing better than being an evangelical is being a post-evangelical. Largely because it still includes the word evangelical! No other term has the same degree of cultural heft. And the problem appears to be more cultural than theological.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think there's something in that, SvitlanaV2 - plus the sense of a need to define and distinguish / differentiate oneself or one's tradition.
That's been going on since time immemorial. One could argue that Nicea, Chalcedon, Trent, Augsburg, Westminster, Savoy, The Lausanne Covenant and any number of macro and micro initiatives to concur and define are all part of the same kind of process.
A lot of it is to do with feeling threatened. Constantine felt uncomfortable with homogeneity. Quick, let's call a Council ...
Conservative Protestants felt threatened by modernism and liberalism. Quick, let's draw up a laager around 'The Fundamentals' ...
There's nothing wrong in any of that, but it's by the nature of these things to draw the line in ever-decreasing circles.
We're not happy with Inerrancy. Let's have Infallibility.
And on and on it goes.
But yes, I suspect the obsession in some quarters with who is or isn't an evangelical and what evangelicalism actually means / stands for - is predominantly a Western WASP thing ... White US, UK and Antipodean and Canadian evangelicals mostly.
It wouldn't even be as big a thing on the European continent. German and Scandinavian Lutherans, for instance, do seem particularly bothered about these issues.
It's a sectional, Anglophone concern that evangelicals, being evangelicals, are universalising and projecting onto everyone else.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In the US the term 'evangelical' is now a stench in the nostrils. They were happy, nay charmed, to endorse a foul-mouthed pussygrabber for President. All their cries about how character was vital for a chief executive stands unmasked as balderdash, the most barefaced hypocrisy. The only hope for Christianity in this country now is to shed the polluted name and find some other term. I personally would avoid any church with that word in the name. It is the label for a whited sepulcher.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
In Britain, certainly groups like CICCU and the developing Inter-Varsity Fellowship in the 1920s were making a deliberate attempt to differentiate themselves from - and uphold a "more Biblical" approach than - those 'orrrible liberal folks in the Student Christian Movement.
Mind you, the SCM folks quite possibly felt themselves to be a cut superior to those non-rational, literalist and old-fashioned Evangelicals ...
Many years ago I was involved in a national Baptist committee which - for a specific legal reason which I don't need to go into - had to define the term "Evangelical". After several attempts we had still failed, so we took it to the Baptist Union Council. They couldn't come up with an answer either; but I do remember one person, better versed in church history than I, who thought that the use of the term in Baptist circles (i) had traditionally been used to define what it was "not" rather than what it "was"; and (ii) that it first came into use in order to set itself apart from the burgeoning Oxford Movement (though I can't for the life of me see why: the Baptists could never have been mistaken for Anglo-Catholics!)
[ 07. July 2017, 13:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, I meant to type 'don't' in relation to German and Scandinavian Lutherans.
As far as post-evangelicalism goes, I don't think the term holds a great deal of cachet anymore, if it ever did.
I certainly don't hear it as much now as I did 15 or 20 years ago.
The battle lines seem drawn around various Dead Horse issues these days and that applies right across the spectrum.
One could also argue that the word 'evangelical' should be reclaimed from the evangelicals.
Is it significant, I wonder, that my nearest Orthodox parish describes Orthodoxy as 'Catholic without being Roman Catholic, orthodox without being Jewish and evangelical without being Protestant'?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is it significant, I wonder, that my nearest Orthodox parish describes Orthodoxy as 'Catholic without being Roman Catholic, orthodox without being Jewish and evangelical without being Protestant'?
It means they like being cutesy, without being informative.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I suspect the fella in your story had in mind the formation of The Evangelical Alliance in the 1840s which arose in response to RC expansion following Catholic Emancipation in the late 1820s and also the growing shift towards 'Ritualism' among the Tractarian Anglicans who hadn't started out that way but we're beginning to faff around with lace and frills and with 'Popish' bowing and scraping ...
Don't forget that the large and very influential Brunswick Chapel in Leeds had split when an organ was introduced in the 1840s, the stalwart Wesleyans seeing this as a 'Romish' innovation ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is it significant, I wonder, that my nearest Orthodox parish describes Orthodoxy as 'Catholic without being Roman Catholic, orthodox without being Jewish and evangelical without being Protestant'?
It means they like being cutesy, without being informative.
Ha ha. Informative enough for the priest to refer to me as an 'evangelical schismatic' in a sermon once but not informative enough to acknowledge that it was me that was being referred to when I challenged the priest afterwards - when his parishioners knew darn well that it was ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Well, this was how Bishop Ryle defined evangelicalism - in both positive and negative terms. But his basic tenet comes at the end; evangelicalism was not "Popish"! As Gamaliel has reminded us, the issues against which it defines itself today are likely to be several from the DH stable - although there is no consistency even there.
[ 07. July 2017, 14:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gamaliel
I don't suppose 'post-evangelical' is particularly popular, no, but apart from 'ex-evangelical' what other desirable alternatives are there? The word 'evangelical' has to be in there because that's what so many American and British (etc.) Protestants want to hold on to, apparently.
Your Orthodox parish just sounds as if it wants to have its cake and eat it. It imagines it can appeal to everyone by claiming every label for itself. But I don't suppose many people are convinced. Well, I wouldn't be. However, I'm sure they're doing their best.
As for DH issues, some of them represent a big challenge in some congregations, and some don't. I should think many Christians are too busy keeping their churches ticking over, or managing their own spiritual lives, to worry about SSM, or what sex their clergy are, or other people's abortions, etc.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The Salvation Army is a self-proclaimed evangelical movement.
quote:
The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by love for God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and meet human needs in his name without discrimination.
This is taken from a book by Former General, Shaw Clifton LLB, BDiv, AKC, PhD, entitled Who Are These Salvationists? - An Analysis for the 21st Century:
quote:
...(evangelicals) are united in the grand concepts of biblicism, conversionism, activism and crucicentrism. These four pillars characterise and sustain Salvationist Evangelicalism as we enter the twenty-first century. They will be needed at least as much tomorrow as they are today. Restated these four bastions of the evangelical wing of Christianity are:
- An insistence upon the Bible as the ultimate written authority for Christians.
- An emphasis upon and inner and personal (but never stereotypical) conversion experience.
- An explicit recognition of the need of active involvement in religious duties, in compassionate (but never patronising) social service and in wise social action for the eradication of injustices.
- An unfailing focus upon the redeeming work of Jesus on the cross of Calvary, without which there is no gospel.
[ 07. July 2017, 14:35: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
I'm fascinated by this desirability of the term evangelical.
Amongst my more reformed friends, I think it meant 'Sound Christian' - and hence desirable. I still doubt that such a person would 'pass' me in that regard - but having lost my faith and found it again, slightly to my surprise I find I now have the kind of 'what does the bible say about this (and how on earth shall we interpret it)' impulse which I associated with the word when I first met it. With this in mind, I'm happy to own the term.
(Also I suppose I now have a lot more useful experience with where one can end up when 'let's not worry what the bible might or might not say about this' is the default position).
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on
:
My nearest Christian bookshop is 20 miles away, and says over the shopfront: ‘Christian bookshop’. Nevertheless it’s not the sort of shop where you would find, say, a biography of the Pope: it was a pretty standard Evangelical bookshop in that respect. A few months ago I became increasingly curious about the shelf marked ‘Science’, and discovered that every single book on it was about Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design. When I asked why there were no books reconciling Creationism with Evolution, I was told by the shop assistant that this was shop policy, and she then proceeded to show me all the other materials they had on the subject, and I could see she was intending to convert me to ‘shop policy’. So I explained I had no problem myself with the concept of evolution but I would take the matter up with the shop owner, and added: ‘Well, we still worship the same Lord, don’t me?’ She made no reply but her look suggested she didn’t believe this was the case. I am not so concerned about what ‘Evangelical’ means as I am about our willingness to accept that Christians we disagree with are Christians, and in any case to be respected.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
A few observations ...
@SvitlanaV2, I not sure my nearest Orthodox parish is doing a good job. It's fairly invisible and suffers from acute convertitus.
I agree with Mousethief, it's being cutesy, latching onto a few stock phrases as if that's going to explain things. 'You've heard of Catholics, right? Well, we're sort of like that but not really. You may have heard the term Orthodox in relation to Jews. Well, we're not like that either ... We are evangelical in the sense that we believe in the Gospel and want to see people come to Christ, but not like those evangelical Protestants down the road ...'
To be fair, they have got their work cut out.
Where do you start? You have to use some reference points.
@Mudfrog, I quite like those Salvation Army definitions within their own terms of reference because they strike me as quite holistic.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
This video by David Coffey, describing the "tribes" of evangelicalism, is a bit out of date but still felevant I think. (and yes, I've read the book!)
[ 07. July 2017, 15:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I find I now have the kind of 'what does the bible say about this (and how on earth shall we interpret it)' impulse which I associated with the word when I first met it. With this in mind, I'm happy to own the term.
Of course, many Methodists would say they're also concerned with what the Bible has to say, and with trying to interpret it, without having any use for the term evangelical. Would you agree?
When it comes to those who make their living from religious matters, the label they give themselves must take on a more professional significance. And whole congregations presumably identify as evangelical because that helps them benefit from strong evangelical parachurch or ecumenical networks. Those networks dedicated to moderate or liberal Protestant Christianity are perhaps weaker in various ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I not sure my nearest Orthodox parish is doing a good job. It's fairly invisible and suffers from acute convertitus.
[...]
To be fair, they have got their work cut out.
Where do you start? You have to use some reference points.
I was trying to be polite in that post, but at the back of my mind was the suspicion that if you try to please everyone you risk pleasing noone. So if I were looking for a church I'd be worried that a parish like the one you mentioned would be rather bland. (Although if they have a lot of converts then someone must find their style appealing.)
From my perspective as a complete outsider, 'Orthodox' is itself a reference point, but perhaps the fear is that the term is mostly unfamiliar to outsiders, and therefore needs to be attached to something that people will understand. Unfortunately, just picking a bunch of religious labels from other traditions looks derivative rather than comprehensive.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I remember that. I still think it's broadly relevant but there have been some shifts and realignments.
The issue though, is the evangelical world-view. I'd suggest that there are swings and roundabouts and pros and cons with the world-view itself ... That's if we can even agree on what it consists of.
The pros, I'd suggest, are a commitment to the Gospel and to evangelism and activism as well as, in theory at least, serious engagement with scripture.
The cons?
Well, at the risk of being accepted of gratuitous side-swipes, I'd suggest a tendency to fundamentalism - hence the example of the reaction to evolution in the Christian bookshop cited here - an assumption that everyone should march to the same drum, sanctimoniousness, judgementalism and the inhabiting of an evangelical bubble.
Other traditions have their own equivalents of all of that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I find I now have the kind of 'what does the bible say about this (and how on earth shall we interpret it)' impulse which I associated with the word when I first met it. With this in mind, I'm happy to own the term.
Of course, many Methodists would say they're also concerned with what the Bible has to say, and with trying to interpret it, without having any use for the term evangelical. Would you agree?
When it comes to those who make their living from religious matters, the label they give themselves must take on a more professional significance. And whole congregations presumably identify as evangelical because that helps them benefit from strong evangelical parachurch or ecumenical networks. Those networks dedicated to moderate or liberal Protestant Christianity are perhaps weaker in various ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I not sure my nearest Orthodox parish is doing a good job. It's fairly invisible and suffers from acute convertitus.
[...]
To be fair, they have got their work cut out.
Where do you start? You have to use some reference points.
I was trying to be polite in that post, but at the back of my mind was the suspicion that if you try to please everyone you risk pleasing noone. So if I were looking for a church I'd be worried that a parish like the one you mentioned would be rather bland. (Although if they have a lot of converts then someone must find their style appealing.)
From my perspective as a complete outsider, 'Orthodox' is itself a reference point, but perhaps the fear is that the term is mostly unfamiliar to outsiders, and therefore needs to be attached to something that people will understand. Unfortunately, just picking a bunch of religious labels from other traditions looks derivative rather than comprehensive.
Sure.
No, they aren't bland. They wear their Orthodoxy on their sleeves. They are mostly British converts plus Eastern European cradle Orthodox.
They haven't grown in terms of numbers a great deal over the last 20 years.
I'd apply some of the cons I applied to evangelicalism to convert Orthodox and convert RCs too. Convertitis.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This video by David Coffey, describing the "tribes" of evangelicalism, is a bit out of date but still felevant I think. (and yes, I've read the book!)
I think Evangelicalism basically doesn't exist as a thing in the UK, with the various participants closer to others outside of it than with other Evangelicals.
The most conservative Evangelicals probably have the most consistency and internal consistency - but that's basically because they don't recognise others as proper Evangelicals, never mind Christian.
Incidentally, the best Christian bookshop I ever went to was in a RC abbey. Even when I was much more of an Evangelical, I used to go there in preference to the standard Evangelical "Christian bookshops"
[ 07. July 2017, 15:35: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
From my experience of those who identify themselves in such terms, the two elements which I find hardest to deal with or get over are these two charges: tone-deafness to biblical text on any level other than grinding literalism, and obsession with ecclesial necromancy. From my observation, the epistles and especially Acts are read as recommendations as to how the "authentic" church should behave, rather than records of how the church made it out of nappies. No sane human being goes around trying to recreate the attitudes and behaviours of their earliest years, and I find this attitude to these writings incomprehensible and utterly maddening.
[ 07. July 2017, 15:42: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
From my experience of those who identify themselves in such terms, the two elements which I find hardest to deal with or get over are these two charges: tone-deafness to biblical text on any level other than grinding literalism, and obsession with ecclesial necromancy. From my observation, the epistles and especially Acts are read as recommendations as to how the "authentic" church should behave, rather than records of how the church made it out of nappies. No sane human being goes around trying to recreate the attitudes and behaviours of their earliest years, and I find this attitude to these writings incomprehensible and utterly maddening.
I think it is an exaggeration to say that Evangelicals are literalists. I'm not even sure that literalism really exists.
And of course this is part of the problem with those Evangelicals who claim that they are literalists; objectively they're obviously not, but the worldview is so strong that they really can't appreciate that what they've signed up for is in fact a complex interpretation rather than simple literalism.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
From my experience of those who identify themselves in such terms, the two elements which I find hardest to deal with or get over are these two charges: tone-deafness to biblical text on any level other than grinding literalism, and obsession with ecclesial necromancy. From my observation, the epistles and especially Acts are read as recommendations as to how the "authentic" church should behave, rather than records of how the church made it out of nappies. No sane human being goes around trying to recreate the attitudes and behaviours of their earliest years, and I find this attitude to these writings incomprehensible and utterly maddening.
Excuse me whilst I laugh in a hearty yet charitable and brotherly manner.
Ecclesial necromancy?
This from a church where the ministers wear a version of the Roman toga and keep reciting stuff, even if only occasionally, in a dead language?
(I say that as someone who does like the sound of Latin words being said.)
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
During the Reformation, the group that eventually became Lutheran started out calling themselves Evangelical, meaning bearers of the Good News. They saw themselves as a movement within the Roman Catholic Church. It was not until the Council of Trent that the term Lutheran was coined by the RC as a way of accusing Luther of forming his own church.
To this day the term Evangelische Kirche refers to the Lutheran Church in Germany.
But in no way are we connected with the "Evangelical" movement in the US. While that movement started out with a fundamentalist bent that developed in reaction to the scientific movement in the mid-1800s (already mentioned), it really did not take off until the 1950's when the US Supreme Court started integrating public schools. All of the sudden white families started pulling their children out of public schools and enrolling them in religious schools set up by conservative churches. When the Internal Revenue Service threatened to revoke their tax exempt status in the 60's I think, the National Evangelical Association was formed to counter the IRS threat.
In 1973 when the Supreme Court allowed women the right of reproductive choice, the National Evangelical Association latched on to the abortion issue, claiming it was pro life (it really isn't--but that is discussed on the dead horse board) With every societal change now it seems the NEA is against it.
The problem I see with the Evangelical movement in the US is they have painted themselves into a corner. They seem to be against progress. I think that is way millennials and Gen Z's are being turned off by them.
But the problem is many churches who are quite open and affirming and progressive also getting tainted by how the millennials are looking at the church. The millennials see the evangelicals being against everything they are comfortable with, and they think all churches are that way.
There is one moderate sized group in the Lutheran Church in America that comes close to being "evangelical or fundamental" That would be the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church and a few small Synods, through those bodies are quick to point out they are separated from the National Evangelical Association. The difference would be in the sacramental views.
[ 07. July 2017, 16:02: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@SvitlanaV2, if you were looking for a church, I don't think you'd look at an Orthodox Church unless you were particularly interested in Orthodoxy.
In the same way that if I moved somewhere else and was looking for a church I wouldn't look in at the RC parish unless I felt particularly drawn to Roman Catholicism.
The Orthodox and RCs don't operate like the URCs and Methodists.
Besides, cutesy as the Orthodox self-description is in this instance, they would argue that they aren't appropriating terms from other traditions - 'evangel' comes from a Greek word of course and predates evangelicalism - but simply deploying terms people might have encountered elsewhere in order to provide some kind of reference point.
How 'successful' this is would be a moot point. Not very.
Most people who have sought them put have done so because they have become interested in Orthodoxy for whatever reason and want to check it out.
Casual visitors don't hang around very long, they tell me. Presumably because they find the whole thing an acquired taste, off-putting or unintelligible.
Whatever tradition we're from, people are acclimatised and socialised into the Kingdom and into our congratulations. That's a lengthy process.
Tangent over ...
Back to the evangelical thing ...
In some ways one could argue that evangelicals are victims of their own success. They've tended to grow in university cities and among transient or marginal groups.
They are great at getting people through the door, less successful at keeping them.
I would suggest that evangelicalism can only maintain its spiritual health by drawing on wider and broader traditions - but this brings the related 'danger' that they dilute their evangelicalism.
Hence the evangelical concern about too much 'social gospel' and, until comparatively recently, more contemplative or older forms of worship. They worry that the Gospel will be compromised or the fire extinguished.
I understand that and can see the cause for concern. For whatever reason, evangelicals have been weak on ecclesiology and weak on 'spiritual formation' for all the emphasis on personal and corporate Bible study and prayer.
That doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I see no reason why evangelicalism can't sustain that - although I do think it has to draw on a wider frame of reference and wider material than its customary canon of hymns and favourite proof-texts.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... the "Evangelical" movement in the US. While that movement started out with a fundamentalist bent that developed in reaction to the scientific movement in the mid-1800s (already mentioned), it really did not take off until the 1950's when the US Supreme Court started integrating public schools. All of the sudden white families started pulling their children out of public schools and enrolling them in religious schools set up by conservative churches. When the Internal Revenue Service threatened to revoke their tax exempt status in the 60's I think, the National Evangelical Association was formed to counter the IRS threat.
In 1973 when the Supreme Court allowed women the right of reproductive choice, the National Evangelical Association latched on to the abortion issue, claiming it was pro life (it really isn't--but that is discussed on the dead horse board) With every societal change now it seems the NEA is against it.
The problem I see with the Evangelical movement in the US is they have painted themselves into a corner. They seem to be against progress. I think that is way millennials and Gen Z's are being turned off by them.
But the problem is many churches who are quite open and affirming and progressive also getting tainted by how the millennials are looking at the church. The millennials see the evangelicals being against everything they are comfortable with, and they think all churches are that way.
There is one moderate sized group in the Lutheran Church in America that comes close to being "evangelical or fundamental" That would be the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church and a few small Synods, through those bodies are quick to point out they are separated from the National Evangelical Association. The difference would be in the sacramental views.
That seems to ignore entirely the fact that the Evangelical 'Movement' as you call it, actually came from the evangelical awakenings of the Nineteenth Century which, inspired by German Pietists was actually brought to the world by Wesley and Whitefield.
They gt a ship and shared kt with the Americans but it's essentially, originally, a European phenomenon.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The cons [of evangelicalism]?
Well, at the risk of being accepted of gratuitous side-swipes, I'd suggest a tendency to fundamentalism - hence the example of the reaction to evolution in the Christian bookshop cited here - an assumption that everyone should march to the same drum, sanctimoniousness, judgementalism and the inhabiting of an evangelical bubble.
The problem is, once you agree that everyone should march to their own drum, you're becoming less evangelical, because you're embarking upon religious relativism.
Evangelism is already difficult; but it's much more difficult if you believe it's perfectly reasonable for everyone to do their own thing. Why commit so much time, effort and money to such an embarrassing and risky activity if the alternatives are okay? Especially in a 'Christian country'.
But perhaps you should be grateful that these judgmental and sanctimonious people inhabit their own bubble. That means they're not out offending other Christians somewhere else! Mutual avoidance seems like a good policy for people who don't get on. That's why we tolerate divorce.
quote:
I not sure my nearest Orthodox parish is doing a good job. It's fairly invisible and suffers from acute convertitus.
[...]
No, they aren't bland. They wear their Orthodoxy on their sleeves. They are mostly British converts plus Eastern European cradle Orthodox.
They haven't grown in terms of numbers a great deal over the last 20 years.
I'd apply some of the cons I applied to evangelicalism to convert Orthodox and convert RCs too. Convertitis.
Well, at least they're marching to their own drum....
Poor growth is fairly normal in British Christianity overall, so in that respect this parish is nothing special. The converts themselves will become more 'normal' in a few years' time.
[ 07. July 2017, 16:08: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
You've addressed some of these points in your previous post, so no need to respond if you have other things to say.
I'm particularly interested in your vision of an evangelicalism that draws on a wider frame of reference.
Is there a particular evangelical denomination or movement which you believe is especially good at this? I'm sure you have something in mind.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
From my experience of those who identify themselves in such terms, the two elements which I find hardest to deal with or get over are these two charges: tone-deafness to biblical text on any level other than grinding literalism, and obsession with ecclesial necromancy. From my observation, the epistles and especially Acts are read as recommendations as to how the "authentic" church should behave, rather than records of how the church made it out of nappies. No sane human being goes around trying to recreate the attitudes and behaviours of their earliest years, and I find this attitude to these writings incomprehensible and utterly maddening.
Excuse me whilst I laugh in a hearty yet charitable and brotherly manner.
Ecclesial necromancy?
This from a church where the ministers wear a version of the Roman toga and keep reciting stuff, even if only occasionally, in a dead language?
(I say that as someone who does like the sound of Latin words being said.)
The adoption of the ceremonial garb of Roman judges is one thing. A tendency to say "this is what is recording as happening in one specific circumstance therefore it is how the church must behave for all times" is another. This latter tendency leads, again, to complete tone-deafness to the situation being faced now, and an obsession with shoving people into boxes.
But feel free to patronise. It's not really a problem for me unless and until I'm the person being shoved. I have been, or at least I have been on the sharp end of such attempts, which is what makes me quite as quick to identify this tendency as I am.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Me! Me! Sir, Please Sir, I know. Me! Me!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That seems to ignore entirely the fact that the Evangelical 'Movement' as you call it, actually came from the evangelical awakenings of the Nineteenth Century which, inspired by German Pietists was actually brought to the world by Wesley and Whitefield.
They gt a ship and shared kt with the Americans but it's essentially, originally, a European phenomenon.
Right. The idea that Evangelicals only emerged in the 1950s is quite an odd sounding one to a British Evangelical.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The adoption of the ceremonial garb of Roman judges is one thing. A tendency to say "this is what is recording as happening in one specific circumstance therefore it is how the church must behave for all times" is another.
Is it? What's the difference?
quote:
This latter tendency leads, again, to complete tone-deafness to the situation being faced now, and an obsession with shoving people into boxes.
I see. So it is fair enough to shove all Evangelicals into a box, even though some of us have consistently said that this isn't credible, but unreasonable to make factual statements about another church where there is far more consistency of practice. Oookay then.
quote:
But feel free to patronise. It's not really a problem for me unless and until I'm the person being shoved. I have been, or at least I have been on the sharp end of such attempts, which is what makes me quite as quick to identify this tendency as I am.
Who is patronising? What exactly is wrong with making factual statements about your church to compare with the generalisations you're making about Evangelicals?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I personally would avoid any church with that word in the name. It is the label for a whited sepulcher.
The thing is that most churches that have "evangelical" in their name, such as Lutheran churches, would not be evangelical in the sense you're talking about, while at least in my experience the churches that are evangelical in the sense you're talking about would not have "evangelical" in the church name.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for DH issues, some of them represent a big challenge in some congregations, and some don't. I should think many Christians are too busy keeping their churches ticking over, or managing their own spiritual lives, to worry about SSM, or what sex their clergy are, or other people's abortions, etc.
Unfortunately, some time in the American Bible Belt might have you reconsidering that. A "correct" position on DH issues, and a conservative political outlook generally, in the midst of an American society viewed as increasingly Godless seems to have become the sine qua non of much of American Evangelicalism.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Good question but it's not an issue that can easily be resolved because:
- Not all evangelicals are in hermetically sealed evangelical denominations. Much as figures like Dr Martin Lloyd Jones would have liked them to be.
- Evangelicalism is pan-denominational and, on one level is quite ecumenical insofar as they tend to hob-nob with evangelicals in other churches rather than non-evangelicals within their own denominations.
Equally, I don't think that ALL evangelicals are sanctimonious and judgemental, but it can be the shadow-side of their verve and fervour - just as wishy-washiness can be the price to pay for bring MoTR.
In practice, whether they are aware of it or not, I'd suggest that most evangelicals draw on a wider frame of reference.
It's a bit like mr cheesy's point about evangelical interpretations of scripture being more than simple reactions to an agreed corpus of texts. Rather, it's a cm web of interpretative frameworks and assumptions.
So, at any one time evangelicalism s going to be subject to the tug and pull of internal and external forces - just as any other tradition is.
I would argue that it is possible for evangelicalism to take on board practices and influences from other traditions - contemplative prayer, charismatic or Pentecostal influences etc - but at some point a tipping point is reached.
It's a bit like the old fellas in Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman who ride around on bikes so often that their molecules and the bikes' merge to the extent that they sleep by leaning their elbows against a wall ...
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That seems to ignore entirely the fact that the Evangelical 'Movement' as you call it, actually came from the evangelical awakenings of the Nineteenth Century which, inspired by German Pietists was actually brought to the world by Wesley and Whitefield.
They gt a ship and shared kt with the Americans but it's essentially, originally, a European phenomenon.
Right. The idea that Evangelicals only emerged in the 1950s is quite an odd sounding one to a British Evangelical.
Well, he did begin by saying "the Evangelical Movement in the US."
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The adoption of the ceremonial garb of Roman judges is one thing. A tendency to say "this is what is recording as happening in one specific circumstance therefore it is how the church must behave for all times" is another.
Is it? What's the difference?
quote:
This latter tendency leads, again, to complete tone-deafness to the situation being faced now, and an obsession with shoving people into boxes.
I see. So it is fair enough to shove all Evangelicals into a box, even though some of us have consistently said that this isn't credible, but unreasonable to make factual statements about another church where there is far more consistency of practice. Oookay then.
quote:
But feel free to patronise. It's not really a problem for me unless and until I'm the person being shoved. I have been, or at least I have been on the sharp end of such attempts, which is what makes me quite as quick to identify this tendency as I am.
Who is patronising? What exactly is wrong with making factual statements about your church to compare with the generalisations you're making about Evangelicals?
Factual statements? Oh, is that what you are calling them this season? How silly of me.
Anyway, setting the obvious difference between clothing and actions aside (and I'm not sure why a version of nineteenth-century military uniform or indeed twentieth-century business attire is so much more suited to leading Christian worship, but moving on...), the nature of anamnesis should serve to make my point. The central point of anamnesis is bringing an historical event into the present and into relationship with the circumstances of the present. The circumstances of the present are therefore free to remain as they are, and the power of that event, of the death and resurrection of Christ is enacted in the present and brought into relationship with that present.
The repeated evangelical reflex is to adopt the external attributes of contemporary culture whilst dealing with actual people as if they were still in first-century Palestine. Attitudes to mental health are a very good example of this, where deliverance ministry is fastened on as a result of the biblical record, with no interrogation of its effectiveness or its potential to do harm in the twenty-first century.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Factual statements? Oh, is that what you are calling them this season? How silly of me.
Explain to me how the comments about dress and language in your church are not factual statements.
quote:
Anyway, setting the obvious difference between clothing and actions aside (and I'm not sure why a version of nineteenth-century military uniform or indeed twentieth-century business attire is so much more suited to leading Christian worship, but moving on...),
Agree with this.
quote:
the nature of anamnesis should serve to make my point. The central point of anamnesis is bringing an historical event into the present and into relationship with the circumstances of the present. The circumstances of the present are therefore free to remain as they are, and the power of that event, of the death and resurrection of Christ is enacted in the present and brought into relationship with that present.
Don't understand the relevance of this para.
quote:
The repeated evangelical reflex is to adopt the external attributes of contemporary culture whilst dealing with actual people as if they were still in first-century Palestine.
Mmm. that's an interesting way to put it.
quote:
Attitudes to mental health are a very good example of this, where deliverance ministry is fastened on as a result of the biblical record, with no interrogation of its effectiveness or its potential to do harm in the twenty-first century.
Right, but once again you're using a broad brush to paint all Evangelicals in a particular way, when in fact this specific issue is only one for a relatively small subset of Evangelicals.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
It's quite possible that I am describing a subset of evangelicals, but it's the subset I've seen in action and the damage I've seen as a result. At one stage, I was nearly a casualty.
As far as the relevance of anamnesis is concerned, I was using it to demonstrate the difference between celebrating the Eucharist wearing the vestments deemed appropriate to the action and carrying out a form of deliverance ministry in a business suit (or for that matter a t shirt and shorts, depending on temperature). Different elements travelling in different directions along the time line, in response to a historical precedent differently understood.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That seems to ignore entirely the fact that the Evangelical 'Movement' as you call it, actually came from the evangelical awakenings of the Nineteenth Century which, inspired by German Pietists was actually brought to the world by Wesley and Whitefield.
They gt a ship and shared kt with the Americans but it's essentially, originally, a European phenomenon.
Right. The idea that Evangelicals only emerged in the 1950s is quite an odd sounding one to a British Evangelical.
Well, he did begin by saying "the Evangelical Movement in the US."
Which really got going with the Great Awakening in the 1730s. It was originally a British import, spurred on as it was by revival meetings at which George Whitefield preached, but evangelicalism went on to be the strongest of any religious influence in American culture throughout its history. There was another Great Awakening in the 19th century, and the temperance movement was always an evangelical one, as was abolition. Evangelicalism lost some of its steam in the US in the late 19th/early 20th century. Evangelical Christians in the US essentially split at that point -- some became modernists and took over the mainline Protestant churches, and the rest regrouped as fundamentalists. Mainline Protestantism was the bigger force in the North, and fundamentalism was stronger in the South. Some say fundamentalists were culturally marginalized, but I think that overstates the case -- they simply were in cultural second place overall. This changed in the second half of the twentieth century, when fundamentalists got better at organizing themselves as political actors.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
All very true, RuthW.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Indeed.
Is it time to distinguish, though, between an evangelical world-view and a fundamentalist one?
The two are not coterminous.
Meanwhile, hopefully without pouring oil on the emerging spat between Thunder unknown, Mr cheesy and Mudfrog, my observations would be that:
- Dress code in the SA is far more flexible than ThunderBunk suggests and it's musical offerings tend to he wider than the oompah stereotype too. In many ways the SA is a lot more holistic than some predominantly evangelical groups and denominations.
- As mr cheesy says, the 'deliverance' thing isn't that widespread within evangelicalism per se but that doesn't diminish the harm it can cause.
- The sacramental / amenensis aspect is obviously played down within evangelicalism but I wouldn't say it was eradicated entirely - they simply 'sacralise' other aspects of praxis - be it Bible study, sermons,the 'worship time' or - tongue firmly in cheek now - the 'church meeting' if you're a Baptist ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Who is patronising? What exactly is wrong with making factual statements about your church to compare with the generalisations you're making about Evangelicals?
Surely you are not as tone-deaf as all that. One can be perfectly patronizing while stating nothing but the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
A "correct" position on DH issues, and a conservative political outlook generally, in the midst of an American society viewed as increasingly Godless seems to have become the sine qua non of much of American Evangelicalism.
This has been my experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- Evangelicalism is pan-denominational and, on one level is quite ecumenical insofar as they tend to hob-nob with evangelicals in other churches rather than non-evangelicals within their own denominations.
In this country, the "Evangelical" ranks are predominantly filled by non-affiliated individual (single-building, if you will) churches, or tiny or started-tiny 20th- or 21st-century denominations such as Foursquare.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
"the Evangelical Movement in the US."
Which really got going with the Great Awakening in the 1730s.
Thank you. I couldn't remember the details, just the name "Great Awakening."
[ 07. July 2017, 18:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the US the term 'evangelical' is now a stench in the nostrils. They were happy, nay charmed, to endorse a foul-mouthed pussygrabber for President. All their cries about how character was vital for a chief executive stands unmasked as balderdash, the most barefaced hypocrisy.
Evangelicals in the US are rapidly resembling Milwall supporters in the UK. "Nobody likes us, we don't care"
[ 07. July 2017, 18:36: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for DH issues, some of them represent a big challenge in some congregations, and some don't. I should think many Christians are too busy keeping their churches ticking over, or managing their own spiritual lives, to worry about SSM, or what sex their clergy are, or other people's abortions, etc.
Unfortunately, some time in the American Bible Belt might have you reconsidering that. A "correct" position on DH issues, and a conservative political outlook generally, in the midst of an American society viewed as increasingly Godless seems to have become the sine qua non of much of American Evangelicalism.
Fred Clark, himself a product of American Evangelicalism who still considers himself one of the tribe, has come to much the same conclusion.
quote:
Or, to put it another way: Here is Jason Micheli’s response to the Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality. Here is James Dobson’s response. One of those men is an evangelical icon, was the subject of a hagiographic Christianity Today cover story, and his books can be found in the homes of millions of white evangelicals. The other is not regarded as an evangelical at all, even though he’d fit any Bebbington-style theological definition anyone would care to use.
Such theological definitions don’t matter. You will never be branded as “controversial” or banished from the evangelical tribe for insufficient biblicism. Or because your enthusiasm for crucicentrism, conversionism or missional activism is regarded as suspect. But if you’re feminist or pro-gay, you’re out. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Bebbington, schmebbington. The tribe defines itself: An evangelical is a white Protestant who opposes legal abortion and homosexuality. Period.
More recently Clark expanded on his analysis in a three part essay on the boundaries of the evangelical identity, at least as it exists among American whites. The last installment focuses on white evangelical's support for Donald Trump and was written about one week prior to Election Day 2016.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely you are not as tone-deaf as all that. One can be perfectly patronizing while stating nothing but the truth.
T made some statements about Evangelicals, M replied with some statements.
Who is being patronising?
It isn't about being "tone-deaf", it is a genuine question, because at times it seems that it is open season to criticise Evangelicals (even though the criticisms are clearly about a section, probably a minority) of Evangelicals, but it is "patronising" to reply with criticisms of another church.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Unfortunately, some time in the American Bible Belt might have you reconsidering that. [qb]A "correct" position on DH issues, and a conservative political outlook generally, in the midst of an American society viewed as increasingly Godless seems to have become the sine qua non of much of American Evangelicalism.
The thing that I don't really understand about the USA is how scorn is particularly directed at Evangelicals when there must be other powerful groups with similar positions on DH issues. Mormons and the RCC for example.
Why are the Evangelicals considered so dangerous when these other groups are not?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Evangelicals in the US are rapidly resembling Milwall supporters in the UK. "Nobody likes us, we don't care"
And looking to the state to enforce their worldview and morality on the masses. Markers of a dying tradition. Once they lose the political battle, which they must eventually since they are intent on contracting toward implosion, they will become a tiny gated community either not interacting with the outside world, or throwing barbed comments over the wall.
At least a significant subset of Evangelicals are working hard on achieving this end. Will they become the majority? Are they already the majority? I do not know.
There are Orthodox who feel much the same way. One of our number has published a book that basically says, since we lost the culture war, we might as well circle the wagons, turn inward, and work on creating small enclaves of likeminded people with their backs to the world. He is getting a lot of attention from primarily new converts, who rode the culture wars into the Orthodox Church as "the most conservative game in town." In fact they brought the culture wars with them. 20, maybe 30 years ago the Orthodox in this country weren't trying to fight the culture wars of the conservative Protestants and the Catholics. It was too good to last.
ETA:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why are the Evangelicals considered so dangerous when these other groups are not?
They are the only religious group that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
[ 07. July 2017, 18:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They are the only religious group that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
I'm no expert so take this with a pinch of whatever, but it is said that he won the Roman Catholic vote with support at more than 50% and Mormons with more than 60%.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One of our number has published a book that basically says, since we lost the culture war, we might as well circle the wagons, turn inward, and work on creating small enclaves of likeminded people with their backs to the world. He is getting a lot of attention from primarily new converts, who rode the culture wars into the Orthodox Church as "the most conservative game in town."
I presume you are talking about Rod Dreher and his book "The Benedict Option" ? As I'm sure you know he himself is a convert from Protestantism via the RCC (who he found to be too liberal for his tastes). The book has actually gained quite an audience in certain evangelical circles.
Given the particular concerns of the book, and its grounding less in religious thought than a particular set of economic and political ideas, I'm sure that won't be a surprise.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- The sacramental / amenensis aspect is obviously played down within evangelicalism but I wouldn't say it was eradicated entirely - they simply 'sacralise' other aspects of praxis - be it Bible study, sermons,the 'worship time' or - tongue firmly in cheek now - the 'church meeting' if you're a Baptist ...
I would add the altar call in those congregations that practice it or something like it to the list of quasi sacramental practices that some evangelicals have.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Unfortunately, some time in the American Bible Belt might have you reconsidering that. A "correct" position on DH issues, and a conservative political outlook generally, in the midst of an American society viewed as increasingly Godless seems to have become the sine qua non of much of American Evangelicalism.
The thing that I don't really understand about the USA is how scorn is particularly directed at Evangelicals when there must be other powerful groups with similar positions on DH issues. Mormons and the RCC for example.
Why are the Evangelicals considered so dangerous when these other groups are not?
American evangelicals are associated with bombings and assassinations to a degree neither American Catholics nor Mormons are. This goes back to their full-bore support of American Apartheid during Jim Crow, including tacit support for the terrorism that maintained that system.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That seems to ignore entirely the fact that the Evangelical 'Movement' as you call it, actually came from the evangelical awakenings of the Nineteenth Century which, inspired by German Pietists was actually brought to the world by Wesley and Whitefield.
They gt a ship and shared kt with the Americans but it's essentially, originally, a European phenomenon.
Right. The idea that Evangelicals only emerged in the 1950s is quite an odd sounding one to a British Evangelical.
Indeed, especially when there were famous evangelicals there in the 19th century, the SA started there in the 1880s and the Ontecostal movements started prior to, and were accelerated by, the events of Azusa Street in 1907(?)
It would be like suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church started at the Council of Trent.
[ 07. July 2017, 19:05: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for DH issues, some of them represent a big challenge in some congregations, and some don't. I should think many Christians are too busy keeping their churches ticking over, or managing their own spiritual lives, to worry about SSM, or what sex their clergy are, or other people's abortions, etc.
Unfortunately, some time in the American Bible Belt might have you reconsidering that. A "correct" position on DH issues, and a conservative political outlook generally, in the midst of an American society viewed as increasingly Godless seems to have become the sine qua non of much of American Evangelicalism.
Ah yes. American evangelicals (the white ones, as Croesos says) can be very particular about these things.
In this video (and also part 2) an evangelical pastor in the USA, quoting a secular book called 'The Death of Christian Britain', highlights the fact that British evangelicals were largely silent over the legal changes that (IMO) both contributed to and were caused by the hastening of secularising tendencies in British culture in the 60s and 70s.
Considering how vocal American evangelicals are said to be on these social matters, it's fascinating that British ones have had relatively little to say in the public square. Rev Martyn Lloyd Jones, the influential British evangelical leader mentioned by Gamaliel above and also in my first link, apparently said nothing publicly about the changing legal realities regarding personal morality and the family.
I think the main factor here is that evangelicals in Britain have been held back by an awareness of their weakness and marginal status for a relatively long time. Indeed, I think that partly explains why, according to Gamaliel, Rev Martyn Lloyd Jones wanted them to retreat to
quote:
hermetically sealed evangelical denominations.
It was a way of preventing their fragile evangelical strength from being dissipated.
This brings us to ecumenism and denominational allegiance. I'm assuming that the USA's conservative churches aren't much interested in ecumenism unless it helps them to achieve their conservative political goals. Maybe I've got that wrong, though.
It's different in Britain. The evangelicals still have no political power, and the ongoing weakness of British Nonconformity and the fragility of independent congregations have moved things on from Martyn Lloyd Jones. Now, the decline of Nonconformity and the fragility and invisibility of independent churches has led many British evangelicals to set up shop in the CofE, which enjoys relative financial stability, public visibility, job security for the clergy and far less fragility for congregations of at least a modest size.
But the Ship reveals an ambivalence about evangelical ecumenical involvement in the English setting. On the one hand there's anxiety about the increasing percentage and influence of practising CofE members who are evangelical, but on the other, the denomination benefits from their money, their relative dynamism and youth, and their simple presence as bums on pews. It's difficult to know what the outcome will be.
Perhaps occasional ecumenical connectedness for groups that remain in their own denominations is the best middle way for personal satisfaction yet mutual benefit.
However, ecumenism tends to be adopted enthusiastically by the most liberal Christians and denominations. Any involvement of evangelicals means that aspects of liberalism will be transmitted to them, especially if the evangelicals concerned are of lower social status, or aiming to improve their intellectual standing.
As a result, it's hard not to see increasing ecumenism as a mixed blessing from an evangelical POVs. Other Christians, however, no doubt see it as an excellent way of spreading their own influence. I've seen it happening.
[ 07. July 2017, 19:08: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The adoption of the ceremonial garb of Roman judges is one thing. A tendency to say "this is what is recording as happening in one specific circumstance therefore it is how the church must behave for all times" is another.
Is it? What's the difference?
quote:
This latter tendency leads, again, to complete tone-deafness to the situation being faced now, and an obsession with shoving people into boxes.
I see. So it is fair enough to shove all Evangelicals into a box, even though some of us have consistently said that this isn't credible, but unreasonable to make factual statements about another church where there is far more consistency of practice. Oookay then.
quote:
But feel free to patronise. It's not really a problem for me unless and until I'm the person being shoved. I have been, or at least I have been on the sharp end of such attempts, which is what makes me quite as quick to identify this tendency as I am.
Who is patronising? What exactly is wrong with making factual statements about your church to compare with the generalisations you're making about Evangelicals?
Mr cheesy, you are my new best friend
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That seems to ignore entirely the fact that the Evangelical 'Movement' as you call it, actually came from the evangelical awakenings of the Nineteenth Century which, inspired by German Pietists was actually brought to the world by Wesley and Whitefield.
They gt a ship and shared kt with the Americans but it's essentially, originally, a European phenomenon.
Right. The idea that Evangelicals only emerged in the 1950s is quite an odd sounding one to a British Evangelical.
Well, he did begin by saying "the Evangelical Movement in the US."
And I say that this is historically incorrect.
There were many evangelicals in the US in the nineteenth century. William Booth was influenced by people like Phoebe Palmer and William Caughey.
And what about DL Moody, Sankey and Finney?
The SA was there in the 1880s - I think I'm repeating myself now.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Oh enjoy your love in. Just don't expect to be talking to anyone other than yourselves. The thunder of feet fleeing from your Procrustean charms has started, and will grow.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The repeated evangelical reflex is to adopt the external attributes of contemporary culture whilst dealing with actual people as if they were still in first-century Palestine. Attitudes to mental health are a very good example of this, where deliverance ministry is fastened on as a result of the biblical record, with no interrogation of its effectiveness or its potential to do harm in the twenty-first century.
You are aware, are you not, that every Anglican diocese has a licensed exorcist who is trained to recognise the difference between mental illness and cases of possession and then deal accordingly?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You are aware, are you not, that every Anglican diocese has a licensed exorcist who is trained to recognise the difference between mental illness and cases of possession and then deal accordingly?
To a point - coverage is somewhat more spotty than you assume. Secondly, these teams are never called in to divine a first opinion on mental health cases. Finally, it's very rare any exorcism is carried, and is usually only done after the go ahead of a number of folk (including a trained doctor/psychiatrist)
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I'm perfectly well aware of that. I'm also aware of the potential for appeal to biblical precedent to overcome such scruples. We're all disciples, so we're all called to cast out demons - aren't we???
Well done, like all healing, it's a wonderful thing and a genuine expression of God's love. Poorly done, for the benefit of the practitioner or another audience rather than the person in need of healing, it goes in an altogether darker direction.
[ 07. July 2017, 19:48: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... It would be like suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church started at the Council of Trent.
There are quite good arguments for saying exactly that. The RCC as we now know it, is largely a creation of the Council of Trent. It was the response to the Reformation of those who didn't become Protestants. There's almost as big a disjunct between the RCC post Trent and the Western Church of say 1520 as the more obvious disjunct between the church of 1520 and the various successor Protestant communions. I'm not even sure that the term 'Roman Catholic' would have meant anything before Trent.
Incidentally, and changing the subject, Thunderbunk have you any evidence that there are CofE clergy or lay persons regularly carrying out DIY exorcisms? I'm under the impression that they're not only not supposed to, but it would be taken very seriously these days if it were to be found out that this was happening.
[ 07. July 2017, 20:42: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is an exaggeration to say that Evangelicals are literalists. I'm not even sure that literalism really exists.
Amen.
"Literalism" is an unhelpful, not to say meaningless term except when applied in specific circumstances, such as YEC, which is by no means universal in evangelicalism.
No Christian is, or can be, a consistent literalist.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The thing that I don't really understand about the USA is how scorn is particularly directed at Evangelicals when there must be other powerful groups with similar positions on DH issues. Mormons and the RCC for example.
One, politicians of the evangelical sort tend to be very vocal on these issues.
Two, The RCC, and Morman church i believe, received heat for their stance on DOMA, Prop 8* and similar.
But they tend to be more low key most of the time.
IME.
*Defense of Marriage Act
Prop 8 - California's similar attempt.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, and changing the subject, Thunderbunk have you any evidence that there are CofE clergy or lay persons regularly carrying out DIY exorcisms? I'm under the impression that they're not only not supposed to, but it would be taken very seriously these days if it were to be found out that this was happening.
I was thinking of something I have read in the last few days, which I have now identified to be this report. On re-reading, it's not quite as clear as I remember it on which denominations are involved, but it describes itself as a scoping piece rather than the final work, and it remains to be seen what will be brought to light by more detailed work.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... It would be like suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church started at the Council of Trent.
There are quite good arguments for saying exactly that.
Knew a Baptist fellow who claimed his church started with John the. Quite ludicrous, of course.
No current Christian sect goes back to Jesus, they all can trace their origins to somewhere later. Most of those have points further along the trail than some would like to admit.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Knew a Baptist fellow who claimed his church started with John the. Quite ludicrous, of course.
A slight exaggeration, but similar theories have long circulated within Fundmentalist Baptist circles in the US.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Due to retirement and a cross country move we may be ISO a new church in the not-too-distant future. I should start a list of churches I definitely do not want to become involved in. These Baptists will make a fine start.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That seems to ignore entirely the fact that the Evangelical 'Movement' as you call it, actually came from the evangelical awakenings of the Nineteenth Century which, inspired by German Pietists was actually brought to the world by Wesley and Whitefield.
They gt a ship and shared kt with the Americans but it's essentially, originally, a European phenomenon.
Right. The idea that Evangelicals only emerged in the 1950s is quite an odd sounding one to a British Evangelical.
Well, he did begin by saying "the Evangelical Movement in the US."
And I say that this is historically incorrect.
There were many evangelicals in the US in the nineteenth century. William Booth was influenced by people like Phoebe Palmer and William Caughey.
And what about DL Moody, Sankey and Finney?
The SA was there in the 1880s - I think I'm repeating myself now.
As I said to RuthW, all very true.
But I think we're talking about two different kinds of Evangelicals. I took Gramps49 to be talking about the Evangelical Movement as it exists now in the US. He is, I think, right that something different from early Evangelicalism appeared in the mid-Twentieth Century in the US. It started earlier as a response to the theory of evolution and to modernism, but it really was fueled by the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements, the Sexual Revolution and Supreme Court decisions on things like prayer in schools. It had some continuity with earlier forms of Evangelicalism, but not total continuity. Some old-style Evangelicals survived without moving into the new form, and the new form of Evangelicalism attracted many who had not been the part of the earlier form. But the result is that when one talks about "Evangelicals" without qualification or context, most Americans will, I think, assume the new form of Evangelicalism that has been a major political force here.
Meanwhile, with regard to Mormons and the RCC (in particular), while they do share an approach to some DH or related issues (you likely won't see Catholics worrying about teaching evolution or prayer in public schools, for instance), the approach tends to be more one that focuses on official teaching. For example, the average Catholic doesn't seem too bound by the Church's teachings on sexuality. And Evangelicals seem much more intent on getting their stands on DH issues reflected in state and federal laws than do the RCC or Mormons (Utah notwithstanding).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They are the only religious group that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
I'm no expert so take this with a pinch of whatever, but it is said that he won the Roman Catholic vote with support at more than 50% and Mormons with more than 60%.
I wouldn't say 50% is "overwhelmingly." YMMV. 60% one could argue; I would argue against.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I presume you are talking about Rod Dreher and his book "The Benedict Option"?
Yes, that's the one! I had forgotten his name. Now I'll have to work hard to forget it again. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
As I'm sure you know he himself is a convert from Protestantism via the RCC (who he found to be too liberal for his tastes).
I knew the convert thing.
quote:
The book has actually gained quite an audience in certain evangelical circles. Given the particular concerns of the book, and its grounding less in religious thought than a particular set of economic and political ideas, I'm sure that won't be a surprise.
I'm not surprised it's popular in certain Evangelical circles because it's certainly Evangelical. Its economic and political ideas have been common coin in Evangelical circles since Reagan.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It would be like suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church started at the Council of Trent.
When we all know it started in 1054 with Cardinal Humbert's desecration of the altar of Hagia Sophia with a technically invalid* bull of excommunication. People who place the birth of the RCC centuries later at Trent just don't know their history. Oh. Wait.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No Christian is, or can be, a consistent literalist.
Of course not. But many think that they can, and that they are. And many of these are Evangelicals.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Knew a Baptist fellow who claimed his church started with John the.
John the what? Baptist? XXIII? Beloved? Evangelist?
___________________
*because the Pope who signed it was dead
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is interesting, from the Washington Post: a book by one of Pat Robertson's intimates. Robertson's all-around awfulness has undermined the guys faith majorly. Of significance, because when you say 'evangelical' in the US it's Robertson's nuttiness that instantly comes to mind, along with love bugs like the Westboro Baptist people and the despicable Franklin Graham.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
That's kind of unfair -- Westboro is far from Evangelical. They're far from Christian really. But they certainly aren't evangelical. No evangelical would hold a sign saying God Hates You. I hope.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Robertson, Falwell and Graham have certainly fomented hate. Sometimes I am amazed that there are any young Christians at all. Certainly we've lost the millennials.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Robertson, Falwell and Graham have certainly fomented hate.
Absolutely. Graham is a blight on his father's name.
quote:
Sometimes I am amazed that there are any young Christians at all. Certainly we've lost the millennials.
The church won over the people of the Roman Empire by its love, and is going to finally lose the people of the world by its hate.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In the linked article, the author of the memoir watched Robertson go onto his TV show and assure gullible viewers that Obama was a secret Muslim and about to impose sharia law. He must have known it wasn't true, but he spread the lie. (And I am still waiting for that Muslim caliphate, haven't seen any sign of it. Nor those prison camps in WalMart parking lots. Bitterly disappointed.) And we know who is the Father of Lies.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Robertson, Falwell and Graham have certainly fomented hate. Sometimes I am amazed that there are any young Christians at all. Certainly we've lost the millennials.
Millennials are in their twenties and thirties (I am a 28yo millennial - millennials are born from 1982 to 2004). You haven't lost the millennials. I don't think that kind of fatalism really helps either - if everyone thought like that then nobody would bother trying.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Christ still calls people in spite of us. They said they were losing my generation (X) too, but here we are. As long as Christ continues to call, so long the Church will endure. (not saying anything about particular churches enduring, mind)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@SvitlanaV2, whilst not disagreeing with the broad thrust of your argument, I think it's simplistic to say that 'now' the evangelicals have set up shop in the Church of England. They've been operating within the CofE for donkeys' years.
Think Keswick. Think Muscular Christianity.
Anglican evangelicalism gained momentum after the land-mark conference at Keele in the 1960s and despite Dr Martin Lloyd Jones's famous call to 'come out from among them and be separate' during the same decade.
Charismatic Anglican evangelicalism received a boost from unexpected quarters - the Californian charismatic influence of John Wimber - and also the plateauing out of the growth of the 'new churches'.
I was seriously expecting charismatic Anglicanism to implode during the early to mid '80s and was somewhat taken aback by its recovery, albeit in a somewhat different form and flavour to what I'd initially seen of it.
For the time being, New Wine seems to be one of the main games in town when it comes to charismatic influence.
Yes, the charismatic evangelicals draw on the position and prestige of the CofE Establishment but it would be cynical to suggest that this is the only reason they've remained Anglican.
I think it's more complex than that.
If you're out to develop a charismatic evangelical sub-culture it's easier to do so from within an existing religious sub-culture than to start completely from scratch.
You could draw a parallel with the growth of the JWs in Poland. It's a lot easier to convert people with some kind of religious background - in that case an RC one - than it is within a largely secularised society.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the main factor here is that evangelicals in Britain have been held back by an awareness of their weakness and marginal status for a relatively long time. Indeed, I think that partly explains why, according to Gamaliel, Rev Martyn Lloyd Jones wanted them to retreat to
quote:
hermetically sealed evangelical denominations.
It was a way of preventing their fragile evangelical strength from being dissipated.
Yes and (mostly) no. I agree that (a) ML-J wanted Evangelicals - at that time a weak force in most Mainline denominations - to cluster together for strength; and (b) that Evangelicals were saying little about changing social conditions, partly because of excessive pietism and a fear of being contaminated by the liberal "social gospel".
However I think that ML-J's point was that the Mainline denominations had, in his view, become heretical and liberally compromised beyond redemption and that it would be not only pointless but sinful for Evangelicals to remain within them (remember that this is the era of "Honest to God", "South Bank Christianity" and, a bit later admittedly, Don Cupitt). Similar sentiments were uttered a few years later by Arthur Wallis - who had, of course, come from a Brethren background - in his book "The Radical Christian", in which he wrote, "The axe is laid to the root of the tree"; although here he was referring to "refreshed" charismatic Christians coming out of spiritually-dead denominations which, he believed, God had finished with.
So, while both ML-J and Wallis may have been saying that Evangelicals and, later, Charismatics ought to form their own groupings, the motive was in my view less to do with gaining influence and more to do with maintaining doctrinal purity. John Stott of course argued against ML-J, believing that Evangelicals would have more influence if they stayed within the denominations. History has, I think, proved him right.
Posted by whitebait (# 7740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... I think there is a form of anti-Evangelical bias in the discussions here.
But I'm also interested to continue with this discussion as to what exactly an Evangelical is...
I considered myself an evangelical for over thirty years. My Christian journey was initially through Scripture Union camps, SU bible reading notes, University Christian Union, and a self-describing 'Conservative Evangelical' Anglican church.
Strong threads through all of these were: the importance of the bible; a 'proper' way to interpret the bible; and the importance of sharing faith to help bring others to their salvation (that 'salvation' being of the type I'd been brought up with).
University was one of the first places I had this world view challenged, partly by higher church Anglicans (who I probably didn't consider 'proper' Christians at the time), and partly by godly Roman Catholics whose theology my protestant evangelical groups may have disagreed with, but whose faith was startlingly real, and who took the social gospel seriously.
In following years my evangelical faith deviated little, becoming strongly influenced by the charismatic evangelicals (and a couple of years at HTB). Where there were questions on difficult issues, the emphasis was to turn to 'proper'/sound sources for answers, Christian books, and authors like John Stott.
Many of my friends were not Christians of this flavour, and I learned how to temper my viewpoints so as not to offend them, in the hope that eventually they would see the light and become fully fledged Christians like me. Where there were strong views to the contrary (on various Dead Horse issues from baptism, to sex before marriage, women's ministry, divorce, abortion) my default was to keep within the evangelical bubble, and defend my arguments for the status quo from 'good evangelical' sources.
My viewpoint was finally softened in a town centre Anglican church with a very broad congregation, still broadly evangelical, but where differing viewpoints seemed to be accommodated. The Anglican fudge, where hard lines were less readily drawn, no doubt partly to help keep church numbers up - even if some of the more strident evangelicals found that objectionable, and moved away.
My own faith was beginning to waver, along with an enormous skeleton in the cupboard (The Dead Horse issue I'd succeeded in restraining in the closet for virtually all my life).
I resolved to look wider afield for answers, and Ship of Fools was one of the places where I looked. As Mr Cheesy points out, the differing viewpoints on these boards (this was the early noughties) would have been seen as dangerous stuff to many in my evangelical church. I found it refreshing that others could read the bible with different eyes, come to different conclusions, and share Christian histories from outside the bubble I'd kept myself in.
I also ended up going to GreenBelt festival, where both evangelical and alternative viewpoints seemed to mingle. The bubble had burst.
Looking from the outside now, Evangelicals of the type I had been can seem overly defensive. Many seem more comfortable not to engage with me any longer, perhaps because my viewpoints are no longer 'proper', or perhaps because I can defend my arguments using broader sources of information from outside 'the bubble'.
My journey out of the church has been a parallel one with a personal journey. I moved from evangelical, to post-evangelical, post-Anglican and post-faith. My sexuality from the way those in my bubble dealt with it ("you can be cured of that"), to the way gay (evangelical) Christian friends dealt with it, and finally just plain gay.
A few of my old evangelical friends assume I've been deceived by the devil, and that my loss of faith is down to my acceptance of being gay. On the contrary, my journey out involved me looking into the bible in even greater depth, studying bits of Hebrew and realising that some translations had distinct bias (and not just on the DH issues). Even the way that the bible had been put together, a loose leaf binder with bits added and others kept out, and a 'do not change' tagged on the last page. I could never again take "What the bible says" in the evangelical way I had been brought up to.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Thank you whitebait
I found that very moving-it has also made me return to the the idea that we can really help one another (both within and without church) by authentically speaking about our faith/spiritual/life journeys and remaining open to one another.
I've had a really tough week full of "whys" and "whatifs" and what you said has given me hope. Nothing is wasted. Life springs from death.
Thank you
P.S. Fellow shipmates I am reading this thread with high octane interest. I'm from a catholic background and married into an evangelical family many, many years ago. The intervening years have been interesting to put it mildly. If I can get my head clear I might write more. Suffice to say I am just grateful for where I am now, beyond those circles but with the legacy of a few precious gems mined during the evangelical years.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There are certainly gems there.
If I ever get accused of gratuitous side-swipes at evangelicalism again, let it never be said that I have never acknowledged the gems.
I treasure them.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
In no way am I an expert on the European Evangelical Model. I am only speaking of the United States Evangelical Movement as I see it.
Yes there are some common grounds between the two
A strong pietistic movement.
The Acceptance of the Primacy of the Bible as the Inerrant and Infallible Word of God (at least more so in the American movement)
A more literalist and eisegetic interpretation of the Bible.
But there differences as well. I like the analogy someone mentioned above that said the Evangelical movement has taken on a circle your wagons approach to the world. The problem with that is without contact and interaction, the movement will eventually shrink, becoming more irrelevant and eventually dying off.
I just don't want people to think those of the Evangelical movement are the only Christians out there. There are many progressive churches that do have a clear message of engagement and affirmation.
A point about when the Roman Catholic Church began, it would have been at the point of the great schism between the Western Church and the Eastern Church. The Western Church insisted that the Bishop of Rome was the leader of the church on earth, Christ's Vicar; but the Eastern Church could only accept the pope as a bishop among bishops (yes, there were other doctrinal issues involved, but for the purposes of this discussion, I just wanted to mention the one poing)
[ 08. July 2017, 19:21: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
From a U.K. perspective it may be fruitful to look at, for example, the basis of faith of the Evangelical Alliance and the Church of England Evangelical Council. Both steer a careful course around the twin shibboleths of "inerrant" and "infallible" over which much ink has ben spilt
Instead they go for formulations such as "fully trustworthy for faith and conduct" and "wholly reliable revelation and record of God's grace… the true word of God written… given to lead us to salvation, to be the ultimate rule for Christian faith and conduct, and the supreme authority by which the Church must ever reform itself and judge its traditions".
While evangelicalism may be no more immune than any other tradition from eisegesis, and the consequences are more serious because of the high place given to scripture, it is also the home at its best of some of the most nuanced and self critical biblical scholarship there is.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I just don't want people to think those of the Evangelical movement are the only Christians out there. There are many progressive churches that do have a clear message of engagement and affirmation.
The only hope for Christianity in the US today is to truly follow Christ. At the moment 'Evangelical' is the default, when you ask the man in the street what a Christian is. If we let this stand we are deader than the dodo.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
From a U.K. perspective it may be fruitful to look at, for example, the basis of faith of the Evangelical Alliance and the Church of England Evangelical Council. Both steer a careful course around the twin shibboleths of "inerrant" and "infallible" over which much ink has ben spilt
While I appreciate the language; I personally am of the opinion that quite often these kinds of statements have serve as a means of unity via obscuring differences, rather than active acceptance of a range of opinions.
I certainly think that this is the way the EA statement applied in the past - even if it may not in the present (the Chicago Statement does similar work in increasingly smaller parts US protestantism).
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- Evangelicalism is pan-denominational and, on one level is quite ecumenical insofar as they tend to hob-nob with evangelicals in other churches rather than non-evangelicals within their own denominations.
In this country, the "Evangelical" ranks are predominantly filled by non-affiliated individual (single-building, if you will) churches, or tiny or started-tiny 20th- or 21st-century denominations such as Foursquare.
The exception to that, at least in my part of the country, are the (historically white) Baptist groups in general and the Southern Baptists in particular. They're the largest Protestant denomination in the US and around here, and while not all SBC congregations fit the Evangelical mold we've been describing, I'd say that the SBC as a whole does, or comes pretty close. Ditto the Free Will Baptists.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
whitebait, thanks.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The church won over the people of the Roman Empire by its love, and is going to finally lose the people of the world by its hate.
That spells out the danger of the Gospel of Self. The ears become deaf to the call of Christ to follow the way of unselfish sacrificial love of God and people. And the effect on the heart and mind is the release, not of humility, but of superiority. Hatred of others is a consequence of pride.
It's over 30 years since Campolo stated that the rightward politicisation of the evangelical movement seemed likely to set back the cause of Christ for at least half a century. Well, he's now persona non grata with most of that movement, and no longer wishes to be known as evangelical. He thinks the very word has become poisoned by this baleful politicisation. In the UK, I'm still hanging on to the identification; it's where I come from and I still see the gems. But it's getting more difficult.
I find it heartbreaking, the way people have exchanged truth for a lie and are rushing headlong towards moral bankruptcy. And cannot see it. It may be that the church will need to go into exile before the damage is reversed.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
I have been thinking about what constitutes an Evangelical worldview for years, from both direct and observed experience. Staying general rather than examining details I would say:
1. Evangelicalism exists within whatever cultural setting it finds itself. So politics, cultural practices, language will all be things which are included or rejected both deliberately and unthinkingly.Here in the UK one of my daughters attends an evangelical church where most of the members are politically soft Tories- she comes from a much more radical viewpoint and it does her head in as she cannot see how they can justify some of what they say....but she loves some of the people and the style of worship so she stays.
2. Evangelicalism is not only about core doctrines. It is also about core attitudes which is where I struggled. There is such a culture that "What we believe and what we are doing is right" (which in my experience spans the conservative through to the charismatic)that it often comes across as either smug, dismissive or judgemental. Sometimes this can be personality as well as belief driven but ISTM that it is impossible to hold deontological views without creating in-groups and out-groups no matter how hard we try.
Needless to say both of the above could be applied to any or all of us from the broad spectrum of Christianity but I would say that Evangelicalism fosters a specific style of being and doing and above all seldom (for obvious reasons) encourages people to question why and what they believe which I have discovered although scary is where faith rather than belief can grow and deepen
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
So politics, cultural practices, language will all be things which are included or rejected both deliberately and unthinkingly.Here in the UK one of my daughters attends an evangelical church where most of the members are politically soft Tories- she comes from a much more radical viewpoint and it does her head in as she cannot see how they can justify some of what they say....but she loves some of the people and the style of worship so she stays.
And I think this is becoming more pronounced over time - ISTM that a couple of decades ago the balance in evangelical circles was a little bit more even.
In the last election the town I live in has seen a fairly pronounced shift towards Labour - with one MP losing their seat, and the other having their 10K majority reduced to just over 2K. To a large extent this shift is not reflected within the church - or at least people don't really feel comfortable with stating their opinions if they have shifted.
Additionally, I think there's long been an understanding within evangelical circles that there's only one model of interacting with 'the world' - a kind of erastian seeking of laws that reflect 'our' values, especially when coupled with the idea that a particular country was once 'christian', leading to a combined 'christ over culture' approach.
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on
:
This morning my sermon was much aided by reference to Martyn Lloyd Jones, John Stott, Michael Green, and Tom Wright . Yes, I know there are other commentaries. I have spent the last 50 years as an Evangelical within the Church of England, and the last 40 in the same fairly isolated village, a double bubble. My own experience of escaping from spiritual oppression has been, as a newbie churchwarden, dealing with a vicar who tried to set up a church within a church - by blowing the whistle in defence of good governance, and calling in the bishop. Later, as a Reader, I had to deal with a vicar who tried to impose his own rules with regard to Christian giving: my response was to plan to move myself, and my family to worship at the (Evangelical) Baptist Church down the road - but the vicar decided to leave just in time. Since then my diocese has adopted a policy of recruiting much better vicars.
I would guess Anglican Evangelicalism is very different in a village to Evangelicalism in a town. Our present vicar is very inclusive (and loving) in his language, and since this is now more or less the only church in the village, he needs to be. Although I believe he probably inhabits the Pre-Cambrian era in relation to several Dead Horses issues, it never shows, and I have given up my plan of asking for the church noticeboard to be painted in rainbow stripes.
Our parish is surrounded by middle-of-the road C of E and a couple of very High C of E parishes. Our new Rural Dean apparently began his reign with numerous references to the BVM, but we’ve heard nothing about her (the BVM that is) since.
It does occur to me that there is one aspect of Evangelicalism I can think of which we haven’t covered: it’s The Testimony. I’m sure SOF used to have a video explaining how to polish up your testimony, but I can’t find it … It also occurs to me that SOF actually encourages, and rightly so, the testimony of many of you who have escaped from Evangelicalism. Obviously I find it sad there are so many such stories. I hate Spiritual oppression in any form. To be honest I have an anti-clerical streak and hate it most of all in vicars!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Robertson, Falwell and Graham have certainly fomented hate.
Absolutely. Graham is a blight on his father's name.
quote:
Sometimes I am amazed that there are any young Christians at all. Certainly we've lost the millennials.
The church won over the people of the Roman Empire by its love, and is going to finally lose the people of the world by its hate.
Dear God. That's how it feels here too. With quiet hate, quiet phobia, quiet fear. Fear: the root of hate. I find this eye warmingly upsetting right now. Where is the incarnation? In me? For me? I can't do it alone. I can do my 2% thanks to my church doing the same, with it's quiet damnationism. Is that it?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thing is, are we talking about 'the evangelical mind-set' here or a fundamentalist one?
Surely the same sorts of things be said about ultramontane RCs or Orthodox 'zealots' and the 'hyperdox'?
Or political fundies and zealots of various kinds?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, are we talking about 'the evangelical mind-set' here or a fundamentalist one?
I think because of a number of things (prime among them the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy and the ensuing activities of the various protagnists for ill or better), these things are seen somewhat differently in the US and UK - see also the evangelical 'resurgence' in the late 70s/early 80s.
I think broadly that US evangelicals are probably more sympathetic to their fundamentalist counterparts than their UK equivalents.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I just don't want people to think those of the Evangelical movement are the only Christians out there. There are many progressive churches that do have a clear message of engagement and affirmation.
The only hope for Christianity in the US today is to truly follow Christ. At the moment 'Evangelical' is the default, when you ask the man in the street what a Christian is. If we let this stand we are deader than the dodo.
I'm intrigued by Brenda's observation here, and it may tie in with Chris Stiles's latest post about US evangelicals being more sympathetic towards fundamentalists than UK evangelicals tend to be ...
(Although I do worry that there is an encroaching, incipient fundamentalism at play within previously more nuanced UK evangelical quarters ... but that's another issue)
But let's step back a bit ... and at the risk of taking a leaf out of SvitlanaV2's book.
SvitlanaV2 often appears to defend more full-on fundagelical approaches on the grounds that the alternatives - MoTR and liberal congregations primarily - are in melt-down.
I sometimes cross swords with her over that observation, but I think she has highlighted something that we do need to take seriously.
In a town not far from here the Anglican team parish arrangement has all but imploded with the result that there's only a single, viable congregation left - the evangelical one - plus a handful of Anglo-Catholics who didn't want to play ball with the team-parish arrangement when it was mooted a good few years ago now.
The MoTR and liberal Anglican congregations no longer exist to all intents and purposes.
This is not inner-city London or Birmingham. We are talking a fairly standard middle-England market-town.
Here, where I live, there are concerns about the future of the more liberal of the two Anglican parishes. Will the evangelical one be the only viable one in a few years time? If so, where does that leave those who don't want to do the evangelical thing?
I can certainly see Brenda's point about evangelicalism imploding if it laagers itself itself into some kind of impenetrable compound.
But in some places it does seem that the only viable congregations - like it or not - are the evangelical ones.
What happens if the evangelical option is the only game left in town?
I may start a new thread on this in due course ... about 'intentionality' and what alternatives there might be to evangelicalism for those who - for whatever reason - don't want to go along with the 'evangelical mindset' and subculture yet who do want a faith that takes mission and evangelism (and evangelisation) seriously.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
he probably inhabits the Pre-Cambrian era in relation to several Dead Horses issues
It makes my hair boil when people mix metaphors.
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
he probably inhabits the Pre-Cambrian era in relation to several Dead Horses issues
It makes my hair boil when people mix metaphors.
Perhaps I got this wrong. He apparently got his information from a geologist friend, at the mention of which my heart sank, if you'll pardon the expression, Kaplan Corday. But come to think of it he could have said 'several dead horses in the Pre-Cambrian era'.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Just had a dia ja vu experience with the above post. I have seen this one before.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Following Christ IS the only option, though I have a rather different opinion of evangelicalism (and yes, though I'm pissed at the political bedfellow they've largely taken in, but never mind for the moment).
This came up for me in a rather different situation today when I was considering what remains to the more "out there" Christians--you know, the not-nice ones? The ones who swear, who have quirky interests, who are either over- or under-educated, who don't wear the right things on Sunday, who have all the wrong friends, who upset gender expectations by helping in the kitchen (if male) as Mr. Lamb did today during doughnut time, or by writing theological stuff (if female) as I do now for a living. The ones who are macaws among the doves, and will never fit in no matter how they bleach their feathers and attempt to coo. The ones from a different ethnicity to the rest of everybody at the churches they nevertheless insist on attending. The weirdos like me.
As long as there is a church which follows Christ first and foremost, I will have a place to go (even if I pain many of the people around me). They will put up with me despite my (fill in the blank) because Christ does. And I will put up with them.
That makes me feel better on the days when I look around me and realize just how poorly I blend in.
(In other news, I sent an old thread on the theology of divorce to a coworker despite the fact that I swore like a sailor on said thread. I'm apparently getting over the PTSD from my last job, and starting to think they might really be able to cope with me here.)
[ 10. July 2017, 03:40: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Again, I'm not sure that we are dealing with specifically evangelical issues here - I've come across very conservative RC and Orthodox people online who gave thrown their lot in behind Trump and the US 'culture wars' just as much as many evangelicals over there have.
The issue of people not fitting in or conforming to expectations isn't a specifically evangelical issue either - and I'm not suggesting Lamb Chopped is saying that it is.
It strikes me that the generic 'mindset' issues we're identifying or struggling with here have their equivalents and parallels in any group or society we could possibly mention - whether political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, religious or whatever else.
What is 'specific' to the 'evangelical mindset' that we don't find in other mindsets?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That is to ask what is evangelicalism.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
From my experience of those who identify themselves in such terms, the two elements which I find hardest to deal with or get over are these two charges: tone-deafness to biblical text on any level other than grinding literalism, and obsession with ecclesial necromancy. From my observation, the epistles and especially Acts are read as recommendations as to how the "authentic" church should behave, rather than records of how the church made it out of nappies. No sane human being goes around trying to recreate the attitudes and behaviours of their earliest years, and I find this attitude to these writings incomprehensible and utterly maddening.
I think it is an exaggeration to say that Evangelicals are literalists. I'm not even sure that literalism really exists.
And of course this is part of the problem with those Evangelicals who claim that they are literalists; objectively they're obviously not, but the worldview is so strong that they really can't appreciate that what they've signed up for is in fact a complex interpretation rather than simple literalism.
Bingo. Evangelicals hold to a particular historically conditioned range of interpretations of Scripture but, aside from the more theologically sophisticated among them, assume their view is the plain meaning of Scripture.
I haven't identified as Evangelical in well over 30 years. I have respect for the tradition, especially its focus on a personal, living relationship with God and the desire to be faithful to Scripture. But at least in North America the term "Evangelical" is irretrievably ruined by vocal right-wing demagogues who have dragged it through the mud. Not to mention the 80% or so of self-identified white Evangelicals who voted for Trump.
As to the point about ecclesial necromancy: Fair enough, and I love that term, although I think it's a bit different from trying to recover how we acted/thought as children because the 1st century church was closer in time to Jesus. In that sense I think the desire to recover 1st century Christianity is understandable, even though it's not really possible.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
At the moment 'Evangelical' is the default, when you ask the man in the street what a Christian is. If we let this stand we are deader than the dodo. [/QB]
I have a co-worker who was telling me about a wedding she attended which was co-officiated by a RC priest and a "Christian" pastor. She was genuinely unaware that Catholics are also Christians.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In a town not far from here the Anglican team parish arrangement has all but imploded with the result that there's only a single, viable congregation left - the evangelical one - plus a handful of Anglo-Catholics who didn't want to play ball with the team-parish arrangement when it was mooted a good few years ago now.
The MoTR and liberal Anglican congregations no longer exist to all intents and purposes.
Which suggests, at the very least, that Evangelicalism has a greater appeal to the current Zeitgeist while the other forms of Christianity seem to be culturally irrelevant to most folk.
Or it suggests - and this may be more true - that Evangelicalism has been more shaped by, and accommodated itself to, contemporary culture - possibly just as much as (say) "liberal" churches seemed to fit into and were shaped by 1960s culture; and Anglo-catholicism in an earlier era.
Unless you are an Old Order Amish or a Mount Athos Orthodox, your Christianity will, I suggest, inevitably be formed by its cultural context ... as, I believe, it was in the New Testament era.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I just don't want people to think those of the Evangelical movement are the only Christians out there. There are many progressive churches that do have a clear message of engagement and affirmation.
The only hope for Christianity in the US today is to truly follow Christ. At the moment 'Evangelical' is the default, when you ask the man in the street what a Christian is. If we let this stand we are deader than the dodo.
I'm intrigued by Brenda's observation here, and it may tie in with Chris Stiles's latest post about US evangelicals being more sympathetic towards fundamentalists than UK evangelicals tend to be ...
(Although I do worry that there is an encroaching, incipient fundamentalism at play within previously more nuanced UK evangelical quarters ... but that's another issue)
But let's step back a bit ... and at the risk of taking a leaf out of SvitlanaV2's book.
SvitlanaV2 often appears to defend more full-on fundagelical approaches on the grounds that the alternatives - MoTR and liberal congregations primarily - are in melt-down.
I sometimes cross swords with her over that observation, but I think she has highlighted something that we do need to take seriously.
In a town not far from here the Anglican team parish arrangement has all but imploded with the result that there's only a single, viable congregation left - the evangelical one - plus a handful of Anglo-Catholics who didn't want to play ball with the team-parish arrangement when it was mooted a good few years ago now.
The MoTR and liberal Anglican congregations no longer exist to all intents and purposes.
This is not inner-city London or Birmingham. We are talking a fairly standard middle-England market-town.
Here, where I live, there are concerns about the future of the more liberal of the two Anglican parishes. Will the evangelical one be the only viable one in a few years time? If so, where does that leave those who don't want to do the evangelical thing?
What happens if the evangelical option is the only game left in town?
I'll tell you what will happen, because it's what is already happening. Evangelicals have a talent for convincing people that they're the only Christians around, or the only real Christians. Once people try them and lose their taste for Evangelicalism, they find themselves trying to follow Christ but outside the church - and I don't mean house groups etc. here - I mean entirely outside religious structures.
If Evangelicals manage to entirely colonise the Church of England (and see the Keele gathering for confirmation that this was John Stott's intention), I'll be with the "spiritual but not religious". I could no more join the Roman Catholic church than I could fly to the moon unaided, because I dislike its teaching on human sexuality, and by extension human personhood, deeply and intensely. I am too much of a sacramentalist to fit in with 90% of Protestant denominations. The only alternative might be one of the Orthodox denominations that has set up in this country, though the phyletism of the Russian Orthodox church makes me extremely uncomfortable. Either way, if the Evangelicals become the only voice it town, it will be because they have turned the Church of England into an exercise in booming at themselves. At that point, the only witness against this move will be the countless masses outside the Church altogether, which will have no voice at all.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Addendum: the alternative would be to be an unquiet Quaker (though I do actually do contemplative silence - days of it at a time, sometimes)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thunderbunk
Do you mean 'many of the evangelicals I've met have a talent for convincing people they are the only Christians around'.
I've met them too, having spent over 40 years in the same evo congo. But it's just a silly viewpoint. In scriptural terms it is a denial of the sovereignty of God, a point anyone can make to anyone else who claims to rely on the truth of scripture.
My local congo was privileged yesterday to hear a talk from the leader of a Pentecostal city church who is actively and ecumenically engaged with over 50 local church communities, including Catholics, Quakers and most other colours of the Christian rainbow. We're not all narrow obscurantists. Some of us are quite reasonable, really. Though, like you, I get a bit bothered when the narrow obscurantists get too much influence in any local congo.
BTW, IME narrow obscurantism is not confined to evangelicals either. Some folks find a strange security in such viewpoints. It can be hard to cope with diversity, easy to revert to a preference for a community of the like-minded.
[ 10. July 2017, 08:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
But at least in North America the term "Evangelical" is irretrievably ruined by vocal right-wing demagogues who have dragged it through the mud.
ISTM that much of the time the problem is that the "vocal right-wing demagogues" within evangelicalism (and, we have them on this side of the Pond as well, just currently not as vocal or numerous) spot what they perceive to be tares among the wheat field and proceed to rip them up. Of course, as the parable warns us, in so doing they pull out a lot of the wheat as well.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Unless you are an Old Order Amish or a Mount Athos Orthodox, your Christianity will, I suggest, inevitably be formed by its cultural context ... as, I believe, it was in the New Testament era.
Aren't Old Order Amish and Mount Athos Orthodox also shaped by their culture? Albeit a radically different culture from the surrounding cultures, and one in part formed by their beliefs (which, in turn, had been shaped by the prevailing culture centuries before).
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Barnabas62, I mean the Evangelicals I've come across, and the position I see most frequently put across as Evangelical. I mean the worldview that produced the Alpha course, which is remarkably effective in making its graduates convinced that they have experienced Christianity in its entirety, for better or for worse. I mean the mindset which I met in university Christian unions, which had the same effect, and drove people away from Christianity in greater droves than they drew in. Over and over again, only those drawn in have a voice; the repelled are simultaneously silenced.
ETA: I'm not talking about individual Evangelicals here; I'm talking about the effect of the worldview that has the loudest voice, and is definitely identified with both Christianity and Evangelicalism. Nuances exist at a smaller scale, but in terms of a unified worldview, the slick extremist viewpoint is the one that is most visible and has therefore the greatest effect.
[ 10. July 2017, 08:41: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which suggests, at the very least, that Evangelicalism has a greater appeal to the current Zeitgeist while the other forms of Christianity seem to be culturally irrelevant to most folk.
Or it suggests - and this may be more true - that Evangelicalism has been more shaped by, and accommodated itself to, contemporary culture - possibly just as much as (say) "liberal" churches seemed to fit into and were shaped by 1960s culture; and Anglo-catholicism in an earlier era.
I'm not sure this is really true - the Evangelical subculture (really subcultures) are quite different to the culture of wider society and at times are at odds.
I think it is more to do with accessibility and stickiness. Many forms of Evangelicalism are increasingly accessible to outsiders so that they can quickly feel like they belong and there are reduced barriers.
But I think many large congregations find that they've got a high level of churn, that people often leave for various reasons and don't come back and that it is hard to get people to commit via the traditional routes (either via baptism or church membership).
Other forms of church (including many forms of Evangelicals) have higher barriers to entry so that new-comers find it hard to understand what is going on. But the churn is far lower and people tend to stay.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I'm sure you're right about the "churn" - although I think a high turnover rate is inevitably among younger people in urban areas (i.e. where most of the big churches are situated), due to employment, housing and relationship issues. Also I remember my experience pastoring a small church in London, we had quite a number of folk who came through the doors but didn't stay as they had been "expecting a larger church". Not only did I want to say, "If all you folk stayed, we would be a larger church" but, more importantly, "You can have an authentic Christian experience in a small group without all the razzmattazz".
Going back to my earlier point, I still think that Liberalism hit a highpoint during the sceptical 60s, while much contemporary Evangelicalism (by no means all!) has fitted in well with experience-centred post-modernity.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which suggests, at the very least, that Evangelicalism has a greater appeal to the current Zeitgeist while the other forms of Christianity seem to be culturally irrelevant to most folk.
Though an alternate explanation would be that Evangelicalism appeals to a particular niche and that they have been more successful at identifying that niche.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We're a conservative monkey.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Interesting reflections, folks ...
I certainly agree with much / most of what Baptist Trainfan and Barnabas62 are saying ...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
However, there is a kind of evangelical triumphalism detectable even among some of the more nuanced evangelicals, that it's only a matter of time before the liberals and the High Church brigade (whom they are somewhat more tolerant towards because 'at least they believe something') die out and the floor is left to them ...
This may not be said explicitly, but there's an undercurrent of it there with several evangelical Anglican clergy I know.
I also think Thunderbunk is onto something with his observation that many disillusioned or revolving-door evangelicals don't end up in liberal, MoTR or more sacramental settings (although some do) - but they end up either unchurched or in 'ghost church' informal gatherings of the disillusioned where they spend their time slagging off their former churches without actually finding new ones to engage with ...
I've seen that happen a few times here in the UK and understand from US friends that it's an even bigger phenomenon over there.
On one level, being 'spiritual but not religious' is fair enough - but it doesn't bode well in terms of creating what sociologists call 'plausibility structures'.
I suspect that flexibility is where we're all headed though ... but we need some kind of skeletal structure and 'organisation' ...
I can't remember the sociologist's name, but the professor from Lancaster University who carried out some interesting studies into religious trends in Kendal and other towns in the North West of England made a rather telling point on a BBC documentary I saw about the possible future shape of Christianity in the UK.
She observed that the evangelicals had shot themselves in the foot to a certain extent by convincing everyone that to be a Christian one has to be extrovert, prepared to do 'out there' things - speaking in tongues, accosting people on the street etc - and that whilst this serves as a draw to people who want that level of commitment / engagement - it's a complete turn-off to anyone who doesn't ...
A lot of unchurched evangelicals and charismatics I know still retain the mind-set that the MoTR, liberal and more sacramental churches aren't worth bothering with ...
Having fallen out with their former affiliations and not prepared to give any of the alternatives a try, they end up in an echo-chamber of disillusionment, harping on and on and on about how things might have been different if only X, Y, Z and yadda yadda yadda ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I'm not pointing the finger. I've acted like that here aboard Ship at times.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
ETA: I'm not talking about individual Evangelicals here; I'm talking about the effect of the worldview that has the loudest voice, and is definitely identified with both Christianity and Evangelicalism. Nuances exist at a smaller scale, but in terms of a unified worldview, the slick extremist viewpoint is the one that is most visible and has therefore the greatest effect.
My guess it that we share at the least a scepticism about the strident extremist voice. But I think I'm with mr cheesy about its lasting impact, certainly in the UK. Wild enthusiasm is often followed by confusion, then disillusionment.
As you've probably gathered from my other stuff, I don't think much of consumerist churches who present salvation as a matter of personal self-interest. That's the gospel of self, and seems miles away from mainstream Christian belief and practice. But I guess you can see the appeal in our current culture. Get your eternal insurance here, folks. And insofar as there are aspects of current evangelicalism who have latched on to this as a kind of "success strategy", they are barking up the wrong tree. It may make sense in the short to medium term as a business model, I suppose, but Christianity is a higher calling than that. Recognising the casualties through disillusionment (and I've met more than a few), it remains true that some people who come in via that door do manage to cut through the chaff to a more genuine expression of faith.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Thunderbunk: quote:
The repeated evangelical reflex is to adopt the external attributes of contemporary culture whilst dealing with actual people as if they were still in first-century Palestine.
To be fair to the Evangelicals, this is a trap that many other Christians also fall into.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't remember the sociologist's name, but the professor from Lancaster University who carried out some interesting studies into religious trends in Kendal and other towns in the North West of England made a rather telling point on a BBC documentary I saw about the possible future shape of Christianity in the UK.
Linda Woodhead.
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on
:
Evangelical, High Church and Liberal Anglicanism are interlinked within the Church of England as I understand it. Critical comments about extreme evangelicalism illustrate exactly why Evangelicalism within the Church of England needs a counter-weight. Incidentally, I have heard very apparently convincing arguments, from a non-believer who successfully raises money for a church, that it will be the more traditional C of E that survives. I was struck dumb trying to envisage that scenario. The perfect answer for him would I think have been ‘That depends whether my Friend is imaginary or not’, but I didn’t think of it at the time.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Not as interlinked as we might think ... at least, that's not what I'm told by clergy at various ends of the spectrum ...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Indeed not. When I was at an Evangelical Anglican church in Leeds we were more likely to do things with other Evangelicals in the area rather than the other "high and dead" Anglican (i.e. not Charismatic Evangelical) churches. There was a general assumption that most people in them were "nominal Christians". We were the real deal.
[ 11. July 2017, 08:27: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
My experience is that you are far more likely to have a visiting Baptist, independent Evangelical, house church, Methodist or Vinyard preacher at an Evangelical Anglican gaff than a liberal Anglican.
And a Liberal Anglican is far more likely to have a shared event with RC, liberal Methodist or Quaker than an evangelical Anglican.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't think any of these things are incorrect, but it does come down to what one means by "interlinked". It is certainly true that being part of the Church of England means that individual congregations are connected in a way that independent Evangelical or Baptist churches would not be.
[ 11. July 2017, 08:56: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That isn't just an Anglican phenomenon. Liberal Baptists for example are more likely to associate IME with similarly-minded Methodists, Anglicans and URC - even possibly with those of other faiths - than with some of their more "upbeat" brethren and sistren.
The dividing lines today are often more theological (including some Extinct Equus issues) and stylistic than denominational.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That isn't just an Anglican phenomenon. Liberal Baptists for example are more likely to associate IME with similarly-minded Methodists, Anglicans and URC - even possibly with those of other faiths - than with some of their more "upbeat" brethren and sistren.
The dividing lines today are often more theological (including some Extinct Equus issues) and stylistic than denominational.
True, but this does come down to something about church governance. Having an episcopal governance is different to having a voluntary membership of (essentially) congregationist churches.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Of course I agree ...though I sometimes wonder if certain Anglican Evangelical churches behave as if they were congregationalists and only pay lipservice (or less) to the idea of episcopacy and being part of their diocese.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Of course I agree ...though I sometimes wonder if certain Anglican Evangelical churches behave as if they were congregationalists and only pay lipservice (or less) to the idea of episcopacy and being part of their diocese.
Well, evangelicals have their own peculiar problems with the episcopacy and can adopt a particular schizophrenic attitude towards the whole idea.
OTOH the other wings have similar tensions, they just tend to play out differently.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
IME an independent attitude towards local church governance and an inclination to resist any form of outside interference can be found in just about any local congo, whatever the formal position may be.
When things go seriously wrong, the mood changes!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, evangelicals have their own peculiar problems with the episcopacy and can adopt a particular schizophrenic attitude towards the whole idea.
OTOH the other wings have similar tensions, they just tend to play out differently.
I appreciate the sentiment but would appreciate if you wouldn't use mental illness in this way. I think this is one of the phrases that belongs in the bin.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Of course I agree ...though I sometimes wonder if certain Anglican Evangelical churches behave as if they were congregationalists and only pay lipservice (or less) to the idea of episcopacy and being part of their diocese.
In the CofE there are different strands of evangelicalism. The rough groupings of 'Conservative', 'Open' and 'Charismatic' can serve to illustrate this. In my experience, the latter two groups have no issue with episcopy and being involved with the wider CofE. One sign of this is the number of people with roots in these groups ('traditions'?) who have become bishops over the last few years. Justin Welby is the obvious example.
One might also cite how the Alpha course has spread beyond its roots. There are Catholic churchs in different parts of the world using this material.
It is the Conservatives who seem to have the most problems with the hierarchy. For example, there is a group of congregations in SW London, many non-parochial, which sits uneasily at best with the diocese. There was a distinct row over ordinations a few years back. Ordinary evangelical churchs in the area have complained of their 'invasion'.
However, I would hestitate to call the polity of such churches 'congregational'. There is quite a tight-knit group of leaders, who make the decisions. If they look anywhere for overall leadership, it tends to be abroad. The big fracture with others came in the early '90s. At this time, Sydney Anglicans were a strong influence. Now, I would say that the ilk of John Piper is regarded as in charge of their 'magisterium'.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
It is the Conservatives who seem to have the most problems with the hierarchy.
Which is intensely ironic, because you just try challenging them in their own bailiwick... they have no problems at all with hierarchy then.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
It is the Conservatives who seem to have the most problems with the hierarchy.
Which is intensely ironic, because you just try challenging them in their own bailiwick... they have no problems at all with hierarchy then.
This was a huge issue in the Southern Baptist Convention a few years back. The central authority moved to basically draw a line in the sand and say "nobody on the other side of this line can call themselves Southern Baptists." This threw over hundreds of years of tradition of "soul competency" -- that the Christian filled with the Holy Ghost and using the Bible could determine truth. Instead, now truth was what the SBC said it was. They had become a de facto synod of bishops, despite claiming to be congregationalist.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
People like this is why the term 'evangelical' is toxic. I read this and Buddhism sounds really attractive.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
People like this is why the term 'evangelical' is toxic. I read this and Buddhism sounds really attractive.
But why allow people like that to define it, rather than someone like John Stott, for example?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Is Stott still alive? I haven't seen him commenting on American politics in 2017. It only takes one rotten egg to spoil the entire omelette.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Is Stott still alive? I haven't seen him commenting on American politics in 2017. It only takes one rotten egg to spoil the entire omelette.
He died on 27 July 2011, which could explain why we haven't read any of his comments for a while.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I knew there must be a reasonable explanation!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, evangelicals have their own peculiar problems with the episcopacy and can adopt a particular schizophrenic attitude towards the whole idea.
I attended one evangelical Anglican service where the vicar described his bishop as "an antichrist" based on his dead horse statements. I was quite shocked - and in fairness since I've been in Anglican evangelical circles a lot that implies it's an extreme example - but I doubt you'd hear something like that from many other wings of the church.
(I later met the bishop at a service elsewhere in the diocese. It seemed a very tame encounter considering.)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is free, a long article about far-right Evangelicals in the US. Don't read this just before you go to bed, it'll give you nightmares.
The money quote: "Evangelical conservatives are convinced that their agenda will save the country from God-ordained death. Pat Robertson and many others believe that natural disasters are sent from God specifically to punish America for letting marginalized people have rights and be alive. This motivates them to do everything in their power to “save” the country from the ungodly – even, maybe especially – if it involves stripping others of the freedoms they deem to be against God’s wishes. They don’t care if their war for Christ hurts humans they see as living wrongfully, because they are capital “R” Right and that’s what matters. Their Rightness, they believe, comes from God Himself. Their beliefs are callous and without empathy, prioritizing dogma over people."
Or, to say it more briefly, it's not about God. It's about power. It is this hypocrisy that has ruined the word in this country.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, evangelicals have their own peculiar problems with the episcopacy and can adopt a particular schizophrenic attitude towards the whole idea.
I attended one evangelical Anglican service where the vicar described his bishop as "an antichrist" based on his dead horse statements. I was quite shocked - and in fairness since I've been in Anglican evangelical circles a lot that implies it's an extreme example - but I doubt you'd hear something like that from many other wings of the church.
I've heard an anglo-catholic say much the same thing - beause the bishop ordained women.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Brenda Clough quoted:- quote:
... They don’t care if their war for Christ hurts humans they see as living wrongfully, because they are capital “R” Right and that’s what matters. Their Rightness, they believe, comes from God Himself. Their beliefs are callous and without empathy, prioritizing dogma over people."
That's a fairly stark assessment. It may apply to some but I doubt it applies to all. However, it's useful as it draws attention to a defective ethic. Though to explain why it's defective (it kind of obviously is) it may be helpful to quote an earlier post by Mrs Beaky -
quote:
Evangelicalism is not only about core doctrines. It is also about core attitudes which is where I struggled. There is such a culture that "What we believe and what we are doing is right" (which in my experience spans the conservative through to the charismatic)that it often comes across as either smug, dismissive or judgemental. Sometimes this can be personality as well as belief driven but ISTM that it is impossible to hold deontological views without creating in-groups and out-groups no matter how hard we try.
That seems a great insight to me. Deontological ethics is all about how I may be an ethical person through the following of rules, obligations etc. That seems to be a very conspicuous thing in evangelical interpretation about following the Word of God. As against say other forms of ethics such as virtue ethics etc.
Not that these are intended as anything but analytical tools for getting a handle on an important area of human concern and flourishing, but the comment you quote above does draw attention to the deontological aspect at the expense of others such as virtue and consequential ethics. The way that some see Trump is pretty indicative of that. Virtue ethics would deplore Trump for an entire raft of reasons concerning his life. Consequential ethics would deplore Trump on account of the way many will suffer from his dismantling of healthcare. But this all requires a balanced view of ethics.
Ethics is only one way of looking at this issue of course, but I think it may be helpful. It's also helpful in explaining the difference between American puritanism and the English form of puritanism, which are early antecedents to today's evangelicalism.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
SvitlanaV2 often appears to defend more full-on fundagelical approaches on the grounds that the alternatives - MoTR and liberal congregations primarily - are in melt-down.
I sometimes cross swords with her over that observation, but I think she has highlighted something that we do need to take seriously.
In a town not far from here the Anglican team parish arrangement has all but imploded with the result that there's only a single, viable congregation left - the evangelical one - plus a handful of Anglo-Catholics who didn't want to play ball with the team-parish arrangement when it was mooted a good few years ago now.
The MoTR and liberal Anglican congregations no longer exist to all intents and purposes.
[...]
[Linda Woodhead] observed that the evangelicals had shot themselves in the foot to a certain extent by convincing everyone that to be a Christian one has to be extrovert, prepared to do 'out there' things - speaking in tongues, accosting people on the street etc - and that whilst this serves as a draw to people who want that level of commitment / engagement - it's a complete turn-off to anyone who doesn't ...
A lot of unchurched evangelicals and charismatics I know still retain the mind-set that the MoTR, liberal and more sacramental churches aren't worth bothering with ...
I think what we agree on is that evangelicalism has always existed in the CofE, but is now taking an ever larger share of the CofE pie - and a greater share than in any of the other historical English churches apart from the Baptists, and perhaps a few of the small groups such as the remaining Congregationalists.
The problem with this increase seems to be two-fold. Some like Linda Woodhead state that the growing separation between the expanding conservative CofE faithful and the nominally CofE English public is bad news for the Church's moderate, inclusive image.
Then there's your claim that ex-evangelicals these days are reluctant to turn to tolerant religion because their former churches have poisoned their minds against non-evangelicalism.
I'm not entirely convinced by either argument. Firstly, in the British case, only a small number of people are likely to have any but the vaguest awareness of evangelical 'prominence', because organised Christianity has such a fragile presence in the public square. The new focus on Islamic extremism has probably also diverted attention away from conservative Christianity. (Even the DUP's conservative Christianity won't hold the nation's horrified attention for long, I feel.)
Secondly, regarding ex-evangelicals, if you've walked out on your church in a dramatic volte face why would you remain obedient to its diktats about other Christians? Isn't it at least equally likely that many of the people who are initially attracted to evangelical churches just wouldn't find the alternatives very engaging?
David Voas says it's community not theology that attracts people to church life. Unfortunately, many local, ordinary, moderate churches fail to offer distinctively appealing forms of community. This is unsurprising, because uncertainty, tolerance and individualistic approaches towards doctrines, biblical interpretation and lifestyle - which all have their advantages - don't automatically help to foster close-knit religious communities. Especially not in a demoralised or beleaguered church setting.
Yes, there are churches that can provide a strong and lively community, tolerance, a sacramental approach, etc., in one attractive package, but that seems to rely very much on quite a specific surrounding environment, and on exceptional church leadership. Both are rare.
Rather, ISTM that the moderate and liberal constituencies drifted towards marginality a long time ago as a result of their own decisions and lack of vision. Strident evangelicalism then increased in prominence in reaction against that, and sought to fill the vacuum that was left, for better or worse.
Of course, secularisation means that most people now don't know what's available to them and aren't bothered to look, so any Christian movement that promotes itself assertively has a good chance of creating the narrative. In that sense, I agree that self-promoting evangelicalism is a PR problem for the moderate, invisible mainstream. More of a problem in the USA than in England, though. If the English seriously thought the CofE was being taken over by 'fundagelical approaches' they'd turn disestablishmentarian, I'm sure. But how many of them give a toss?
Solutions for the non-evangelical British mainstream are difficult to agree upon. (Should the CofE as a whole to be more like the Church of Denmark?) It's easier to dream of reforming evangelical churches than of breathing life into what in many cases are the moribund, moderate alternatives. Indeed, I suspect that bad evangelicalism is a useful fall guy for Christians who find the problems of other church constituencies too painful to talk about for any length of time. But maybe I'm mistaken.
The American 'disenfranchised evangelical' Rachel Held Evans has talked about how the moderate, sacramental churches might welcome others like herself, or even learn from some of evangelicalism's good points. Some of her advice will be suitable for British churches.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Brenda Clough quoted:- quote:
... They don’t care if their war for Christ hurts humans they see as living wrongfully, because they are capital “R” Right and that’s what matters. Their Rightness, they believe, comes from God Himself. Their beliefs are callous and without empathy, prioritizing dogma over people."
That's a fairly stark assessment. It may apply to some but I doubt it applies to all.
I think the point is that it applies to enough to "ruin the word in this country". I'm sure many, probably the majority, of Pharisees were decent human beings. But, there were enough that demonstrated a very similar attitude of prioritizing dogma over people, believing in their God-given Rightness, that the entire name "Pharisee" is a by-word for self-righteous hypocrite. I'm sure the majority of Pharisees would also say that their name had been ruined.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which suggests, at the very least, that Evangelicalism has a greater appeal to the current Zeitgeist while the other forms of Christianity seem to be culturally irrelevant to most folk.
Or it suggests - and this may be more true - that Evangelicalism has been more shaped by, and accommodated itself to, contemporary culture - possibly just as much as (say) "liberal" churches seemed to fit into and were shaped by 1960s culture; and Anglo-catholicism in an earlier era.
Our experience here is that events within churches which are not doctrinaire are popular. If the music is good, if the thrust of a special service is topical and not about tradition nor liturgy, people fill it up and the under 40s show up. Reconciliation re indigenous peoples, classical mass settings with choir and small orchestra - at opposite ends of the music spectrum - are standing room only. Whereas Sunday mornings are extra room if you wish to lie full length on a pew.
I think it appeals to a wish for transcendence and some sort of "feeling moved". This may then draw some people in, but they aren't going to attend a "Jesus in your face" type of service, nor that which appeals to traditions. Without words and doctrine, but an experience. Very "Millennial" (i.e. the age group).
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Just in case we were in danger of thinking that Evangelicals per se were totally immovable- here is an interesting article which suggests otherwise.....
Dead Horse Alert!
[fixed URL]
[ 12. July 2017, 18:53: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
That link isn't working for me.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Brenda Clough quoted:- quote:
... They don’t care if their war for Christ hurts humans they see as living wrongfully, because they are capital “R” Right and that’s what matters. Their Rightness, they believe, comes from God Himself. Their beliefs are callous and without empathy, prioritizing dogma over people."
That's a fairly stark assessment. It may apply to some but I doubt it applies to all.
I think the point is that it applies to enough to "ruin the word in this country". I'm sure many, probably the majority, of Pharisees were decent human beings. But, there were enough that demonstrated a very similar attitude of prioritizing dogma over people, believing in their God-given Rightness, that the entire name "Pharisee" is a by-word for self-righteous hypocrite. I'm sure the majority of Pharisees would also say that their name had been ruined.
I don't disagree at all, Alan. But I was responding to the article quoted by Brenda Clough.
I'm not sure how best to put this, but that article is very much itself a product of binary culture wars thinking (as I think its author suggests). She has crossed the lines and now fights for the other side. Who is not for us is against us, etc. If there is to be any pushback against the extremes, it must surely involve rejecting the extremes rather than forcing the less extreme into their maw.
In fact, my suggestion would be to reject the whole paradigm which I consider hopelessly simplistic and compromised. But that's a tangent, and as I said, I do think that placing things in more extreme terms for the sake of the argument can be helpful, provided one does not demonise people by forcing them into such extreme categories.
[ 12. July 2017, 18:51: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Our experience here is that events within churches which are not doctrinaire are popular. If the music is good, if the thrust of a special service is topical and not about tradition nor liturgy, people fill it up and the under 40s show up. Reconciliation re indigenous peoples, classical mass settings with choir and small orchestra - at opposite ends of the music spectrum - are standing room only. Whereas Sunday mornings are extra room if you wish to lie full length on a pew. ...
That may be the case in Buffalo, but it ain't here.
To put it a different way. The sort of religion Professor Woodhead advocates wouldn't frighten the horses, but it doesn't interest them either. It has about as much appeal as an empty nosebag or a dry drinking trough.
Enthusiasm, of whatever variety may put people off, but the natural, reasonable and almost universal response to unenthusiasm and blandness, is 'why bother?'.
[ 12. July 2017, 19:22: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Just in case we were in danger of thinking that Evangelicals per se were totally immovable- here is an interesting article which suggests otherwise.....
Dead Horse Alert!
[fixed URL]
Thank you for fixing the link- I thought I'd done it properly but obviously not! Apologies
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
SvitlanaV2 wrote:
quote:
David Voas says it's community not theology that attracts people to church life. Unfortunately, many local, ordinary, moderate churches fail to offer distinctively appealing forms of community. This is unsurprising, because uncertainty, tolerance and individualistic approaches towards doctrines, biblical interpretation and lifestyle - which all have their advantages - don't automatically help to foster close-knit religious communities. Especially not in a demoralised or beleaguered church setting.
Perhaps our shared denominational background makes it unsurprising that SV2s posts make a lot of sense to me. This quote in particular struck me as explaining me somewhat to myself, in terms of what I get from hanging out with a bunch of RCs whose views I often don't share, and to whose positions I don't wish to gravitate, yet around whom I feel an odd sense of something like security. Dead horsemen, here I am, an open goal for accusations of hypocrisy.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I also thought the other points SvitlanaV2 made were good ones too. One of her best recent posts I think.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I've never been to a service that's "about" liturgy. What exactly does that mean?
On the other hand, we bow to no church when it comes to liturgy, and our nave is filled with young families with little children. The under-40s are not staying away.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
David Voas says it's community not theology that attracts people to church life. Unfortunately, many local, ordinary, moderate churches fail to offer distinctively appealing forms of community. This is unsurprising, because uncertainty, tolerance and individualistic approaches towards doctrines, biblical interpretation and lifestyle - which all have their advantages - don't automatically help to foster close-knit religious communities.
My church fosters community by potluck suppers and coffee hour after church. Various members also volunteer at the interfaith food pantry. Many of us who can't volunteer donate money. After a funeral, if the family wants it, the church hosts a reception, and many people contribute food or labor to this. Most of us are indifferent to others' approaches to doctrine and Biblical interpretations unless we are in a group that is studying these matters.
Moo
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Reconciliation re indigenous peoples, classical mass settings with choir and small orchestra - at opposite ends of the music spectrum - are standing room only. Whereas Sunday mornings are extra room if you wish to lie full length on a pew.
It sounds more like you're saying that people are open to going to a "special event", but not so interested in regular worship (of any style) (or possibly getting out of bed at the weekend).
Or do you have examples of churches with high-quality music getting people in for services every week?
'cause there's something of a difference between going to listen to a performance of a renaissance mass setting and going to worship.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My church fosters community by potluck suppers and coffee hour after church. [..]
We do a load of that stuff - breakfasts, coffee, various social gatherings not attached to the normal service slots - and I'm in two minds about them.
Basically, because they're "OK". We'll do potluck meals at which the food will be, well, OK. We'll be sitting around in the church hall, which is, well, OK. We'll have a perfectly pleasant chat with some perfectly nice people with whom we have little in common beyond worshiping together, and it's all fine.
But it's really quite a lot of effort to get everyone out of the house for an evening for "OK". I can have "OK" at home on the sofa.
I go to these things out of some kind of sense that I ought to take part, but I always find myself wondering why I bother.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I find that with church social events, too. Whereas eating together at a 'men's event' (not everyone's cup of tea, but something I have recent experience of) which includes prayer and bible study - is often somehow more than OK. Perhaps it is that otherwise boring men (i include myself) can sometimes come out with something really startling when the focus is 'religious' - which is, after all, all we really have in common.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I find that with church social events, too. Whereas eating together at a 'men's event' (not everyone's cup of tea, but something I have recent experience of) which includes prayer and bible study - is often somehow more than OK.
Actually, our annual "men's night" is the one thing that's better than OK. Not because there's much prayer or bible study - it's a social thing - but because it involves good food and good beer, and because the fact that everyone comes alone (or maybe brings a friend) means that it's easier to mingle than if everyone is in couples and family groups.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Is Stott still alive? I haven't seen him commenting on American politics in 2017. It only takes one rotten egg to spoil the entire omelette.
That he is dead is besides the point. There are many reasonable and moderate Evangelicals in his mould, and it is surely very unfair to ignore them. Evangelicals that comment on American politics in 2017 are not the only ones in existence. American Evangelicals are not the only ones in existence.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
American Evangelicals are not the only ones in existence.
Of course not. But when the average American—particularly the average non-Evangelical American—thinks of Evangelicalism they're most likely going to think of the American form of Evangelicalism that Brenda and others of us have described. Only those who really pay attention or frequent places like the ship are going to be familiar with, say, the kind of CofE Evangelicalism some have described here. My guess is something similar would be seen in any culture—we're all likely to be more aware of the local expression of something.
Which is part of what makes discussing something like Evangelicalism challenging; we all have different frames of reference.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
American Evangelicals are not the only ones in existence.
Of course not. But when the average American—particularly the average non-Evangelical American—thinks of Evangelicalism they're most likely going to think of the American form of Evangelicalism that Brenda and others of us have described. Only those who really pay attention or frequent places like the ship are going to be familiar with, say, the kind of CofE Evangelicalism some have described here. My guess is something similar would be seen in any culture—we're all likely to be more aware of the local expression of something.
Which is part of what makes discussing something like Evangelicalism challenging; we all have different frames of reference.
I think that has more to do with American exceptionalism more than anything else.
The average person in the rest of the world is only too aware of the particular issues of American Evangelicalism, along with Evangelicalism in their own country (aside from countries where Evangelicalism is particularly uncommon). We don't really have a choice there.
Aside from anything else, even within the US, Evangelicalism has nuance and Evangelicals do not all look or sound the same.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I attended one evangelical Anglican service where the vicar described his bishop as "an antichrist" based on his dead horse statements. I was quite shocked... but I doubt you'd hear something like that from many other wings of the church.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I've heard an anglo-catholic say much the same thing - beause the bishop ordained women.
Wow. So there we go, it isn't just evangelicals.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think secretly a lot of Anglicans are not too fussed with their bishop. Many, it seems, simply put up with him/her because they rarely have to interact with him/her.
But, of course, the episcopy is more than just the bishop - and one can have a dim view of the person sitting on the throne whilst getting on with the rest of the structure that one has to interact with on a more regular basis.
With regard to Evangelicals, I think that there is something about that they often consider themselves to be the only "orthodox" Christians in the room. So we have this phenomena where they believe that they are somehow the remnant in a sea of unbelievers and in a lukewarm church. But instead of leaving a wider church like the Church of England, they persist - because of a combination of believing that they're somehow entitled to use whatever resources are available and because they maybe think that they're eventually going to take it over anyway.
Of course, this attitude becomes pretty awkward when two or more Evangelicals disagree - when it often ends up with each claiming to be on God's side in a theological battle with the other.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I have close connection with CofE evangelicals about whom that comment rings true, Mr Cheesy. I'm sometimes a bit shocked by the way I the folks I know use resources (perhaps along the lines of 'if I don't spend it on whizzy AV gear, someone in the diocese will buy a stained glass window or something).
Family life is hard; brotherhood-in-Christ no easier.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... Of course, this attitude becomes pretty awkward when two or more Evangelicals disagree - when it often ends up with each claiming to be on God's side in a theological battle with the other.
So different, so very different, from the way some Roman Catholics, over the centuries and sometimes even now, argue with the rest of us.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ever seen an Orthodox spat?
From a distance they look bloody awful. Up close they must be truly horrendous ...
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
A free click, an outline of the extent of evangelical buy-in to the current regime. The population is not stupid; they can see the hypocrisy of these people. That entire end of American Christianity is gone. I only hope the rest of the church can survive.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
This, written by associates of the Pope, and believed vetted by the Vatican, pulls no punches.
It amounts to trash talking US evangelicalism (and puts Steve Bannon - a Catholic - within the same milieu as Islamic fundamentalism). Long read, but a fascinating insight into what Francis thinks of the White House.
tl;dr Heretics. Dangerous heretics.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
That's interesting - thanks, DT.
Some of the RCs on the street who I know (and the odd priest) lean towards the integralism mentioned in the article - one or two bemoaning the loss of links between church and state in the Irish Republic, for instance, or in favour of an RC-flavoured nationalism in Poland. Their loyalty to this pope is instinctive but sometimes under visible strain. In my view he's a great man - may God preserve him.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
American Evangelicals are not the only ones in existence.
Of course not. But when the average American—particularly the average non-Evangelical American—thinks of Evangelicalism they're most likely going to think of the American form of Evangelicalism that Brenda and others of us have described. Only those who really pay attention or frequent places like the ship are going to be familiar with, say, the kind of CofE Evangelicalism some have described here. My guess is something similar would be seen in any culture—we're all likely to be more aware of the local expression of something.
Which is part of what makes discussing something like Evangelicalism challenging; we all have different frames of reference.
I think that has more to do with American exceptionalism more than anything else.
Fair enough, up to a point. But . . .
quote:
The average person in the rest of the world is only too aware of the particular issues of American Evangelicalism, along with Evangelicalism in their own country (aside from countries where Evangelicalism is particularly uncommon). We don't really have a choice there.
I'll readily admit that some, maybe many people in the rest of the world who pay attention to such things are only too aware of the particular issues of American Evangelicalism. But if nothing else, numerous posts on the Ship over the years lead me to conclude that saying the "average" person in the rest of the world has that kind of awareness might be overstating it. At the least, and if the Ship is any indication, there seem to be a number of generally well-informed people elsewhere who either do not seem to be aware of or really understand the dynamics of American Evangelicalism.
quote:
Aside from anything else, even within the US, Evangelicalism has nuance and Evangelicals do not all look or sound the same.
Again, unquestionably true. But as has been noted repeatedly in this thread and other threads on the topic, one particular brand of American Evangelicals has ruined the name for all American Evangelicals in the minds of the average American—including many average American Evangelicals.
You are talking about what the total group of Evangelicals—American and otherwise—looks like, and about the diversity of that group. I am talking about what the average American thinks of when hearing the words "Evangelical" or "Evangelicalism." That's two different things.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I wish horrible examples would not turn up daily, of evangelical pastors saying things that make you cringe. Maybe I should become a Unitarian.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wish horrible examples would not turn up daily, of evangelical pastors saying things that make you cringe. Maybe I should become a Unitarian.
Oh I don't know, it is quite cartoonish. I love this quote:
quote:
“It is safe to say that God is a Capitalist [not a Communist"
As with many of these things, they're only saying this crap to get a response.* The one thing that the fascists and fundamentalists really want is legitimacy and being taken seriously, so that's the one thing we should make every effort to refuse to give them. Point and laugh, point and laugh at the silly man talking rubbish.
* and I think there is a good chance that they don't even really believe it
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wish horrible examples would not turn up daily, of evangelical pastors saying things that make you cringe. Maybe I should become a Unitarian.
I'm sure there would be Unitarian ministers who would say things that would also make you cringe. The difference being that Unitarians are a lot less likely to let a self-appointed leader of a ministry to politicians be seen as a spokesperson for the entire church. Evangelicalism generally lacks a decent mechanism for granting people the authority to speak for evangelicals, usually relying on "success" (size of congregation, number of book sales, TV appearances) to make that judgement.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Evangelicalism generally lacks a decent mechanism for granting people the authority to speak for evangelicals, usually relying on "success" (size of congregation, number of book sales, TV appearances) to make that judgement.
This is one of the things I find it hardest to deal with about the evangelicals who have appointed themselves as saviours of the Church of England, with Svitlana's apparent approval. They such a strong, self-validating sense of calling that they simply steamroller through everything, casting everyone they encounter either under their own wheels or beyond their purview. This is why they look successful: nothing survives contact with them that is not of them. They have a certain capacity to multiply themselves as well, but this will run out, and in my judgement it will do so pretty soon in this country. Once it does so, the church will have no other resources to draw on, because it will have made itself toxic to anything and everything else.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
mr cheesy
My charitable guess. He meant it. Otherwise he's a complete scoundrel, rather than just a fool.
Alternative facts again. That's the problem with self-enclosing ideologies.
ETA for Thunderbunk. Your post also spells out the danger of self-enclosing ideologies.
[ 14. July 2017, 08:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
mr cheesy
My charitable guess. He meant it. Otherwise he's a complete scoundrel, rather than just a fool.
Alternative facts again. That's the problem with self-enclosing ideologies.
Oh I don't know, I'm not sure it quite puts him in scoundrel territory. It seems that there are a fair number of people who have read Machiavelli and seem to think it is the right thing to do whatever they have to do to get their way.
I'm not sure if it is something in the water, but in particular religious conservatives seem to have taken on this ethic in a big way. I was listening yesterday to the description of someone in a podcast who reveled in winding up opponents by strongly pushing a debating point that he didn't believe in. I think it is about power and showing oneself (and an audience) that one can destroy an opponent even with a weak or untrue hand.
Again, maybe I'm just too jaded, but I find it easier to believe that they're playing power games than that they believe this crap.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Of course I also appreciate that some think Machiavelli = scoundrel. I think it is both simpler and more complicated than that.
I don't think Machiavelli is utterly immoral, it is more that the ethic thinks that it is possible to be amoral - because the greater good is gained by getting subjects to do what you want, even if getting to that stage requires questionable behaviour.
In practice, I'm not sure this is really much worse than the way most people behave anyway.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wish horrible examples would not turn up daily, of evangelical pastors saying things that make you cringe. Maybe I should become a Unitarian.
That man's theology is so odd that it's difficult to tell whether the website is quoting him with approval or as 'is this man genuine?'. "Right Wing Watch - a Project of People for the American Way" at the top of the webpage implies approval, but the quotations sound like spoofs.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Point taken, mr cheesy. Reminds me of the "will to power' arguments.
A relative scoundrel?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
"Right Wing Watch - a Project of People for the American Way" at the top of the webpage implies approval, but the quotations sound like spoofs.
No, the source "People for the American Way" suggests major disapproval.
The Wiki on People for the American Way.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
As I understand it Right Wing Watch seeks out the nuttier of righty pronunciations and links to them so that we may know what they're saying today.
If it were just a gang of loons howling in the back woods nobody would care. But real legislation is being passed that will damage Christianity. A Christian friend of mine sent me this link with the comment, "It really burns me that some of the best comments on abusive religion come from atheists. Where are the Christian leaders?"
Buddhism. Perhaps I should consider it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
SvitlanaV2 wrote:
quote:
David Voas says it's community not theology that attracts people to church life. Unfortunately, many local, ordinary, moderate churches fail to offer distinctively appealing forms of community. This is unsurprising, because uncertainty, tolerance and individualistic approaches towards doctrines, biblical interpretation and lifestyle - which all have their advantages - don't automatically help to foster close-knit religious communities. Especially not in a demoralised or beleaguered church setting.
Perhaps our shared denominational background makes it unsurprising that SV2s posts make a lot of sense to me. This quote in particular struck me as explaining me somewhat to myself, in terms of what I get from hanging out with a bunch of RCs whose views I often don't share, and to whose positions I don't wish to gravitate, yet around whom I feel an odd sense of something like security. Dead horsemen, here I am, an open goal for accusations of hypocrisy.
To be fair, Methodists and RCs do seem to get on fairly well in general, so I wouldn't call it hypocrisy!
It occurs to me that from a moderate Protestant perspective the the RC 'loses' in terms of its DH stances, but 'gains' in terms of its age, cultural heritage, status, and legacy of numinous and sacramental spirituality. Evangelicalism is far less tolerable because it has many of the same losses but none of the gains.
OTOH, I think there are quite a few theologically moderate Shippies who seem to enjoy hanging out with evangelicals. Perhaps it's similarly a case of seeking security. Perhaps demographics count as well. If a young or even middle aged Methodist wants to meet other Christians of the same age he or she well probably have to mix with evangelicals from another denomination.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Evangelicalism generally lacks a decent mechanism for granting people the authority to speak for evangelicals, usually relying on "success" (size of congregation, number of book sales, TV appearances) to make that judgement.
This is one of the things I find it hardest to deal with about the evangelicals who have appointed themselves as saviours of the Church of England, with Svitlana's apparent approval. They such a strong, self-validating sense of calling that they simply steamroller through everything, casting everyone they encounter either under their own wheels or beyond their purview.
Oh, I don't approve, necessarily. I've suggested before that the CofE would be more at peace with itself and with the surrounding society if it had a more consistent liberal or moderate identity, i.e. if the evangelicals left. But despite the unease caused by evangelicalism there seems to be some ambivalence about this solution.
I'm sure there's a genuine commitment to the broad church model, but it also seems that many in the CofE want to have their cake and eat it, extracting whatever might be useful from the evangelical presence, while wishing that evangelicals would fade into the background somehow. I suppose this works in areas where evangelicals are a small, weak constituency, but not where they're growing in numbers and/or self-confidence.
One solution is presented by Linda Woodhead in one of my links above. She says that the CofE should be more like the Lutheran Church of Denmark, which benefits from a church tax levied upon willing members of the population. This gives ordinary Danes a sense of ownership, and large numbers still identify with Christian rituals and festivals, even though weekly church attendance rates are very low. Since the Church is financially secure there's no need to tolerate evangelical 'steamrolling' just because evangelicals have money, or because they keep attendance figures up. High attendance isn't important for the mission or identity of the Church in Danish society.
There are apparently evangelicals in the Danish Lutheran Church, but I assume that the cultural and financial situation discourages them from becoming too pushy.
English society is surely too pluralistic now for a church tax, but the public might be willing to pay a tax towards the upkeep of important historical buildings.
Another much predicted outcome is that the CofE will split. It could be a blessing in disguise. Swap the home-grown evangelicals for the Methodists (whose evangelicals don't 'steamroller' anything) and all the bad PR might be kept to a minimum!
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
As I understand it Right Wing Watch seeks out the nuttier of righty pronunciations and links to them so that we may know what they're saying today.
If it were just a gang of loons howling in the back woods nobody would care. But real legislation is being passed that will damage Christianity. A Christian friend of mine sent me this link with the comment, "It really burns me that some of the best comments on abusive religion come from atheists. Where are the Christian leaders?"
Buddhism. Perhaps I should consider it.
The Pope's robust criticism has been widely-reported - surely your friend has heard of the Pope?? I have never read a comment on abusive religion by an atheist that was particularly insightful - there are people like Rachel Held Evans doing a better job.
Buddhism is not just a bit of yoga and chanting, it's a real religion with its own problems - including fundamentalism. Buddhist sectarian fighters in Sri Lanka have killed thousands. All religions except small indigenous religions have problems with fundamentalism. Equally, all religions have non-fundamentalism and those trying to fight fundamentalism. Rather than just complaining about how terrible things are in American Christianity, why not do something about it? Donate to a progressive Christian campaign. Read Sojourners. Get involved in any campaigns being done by your denomination. Donate to the ACLU. Abandoning Christianity to the far right is by far the easiest and quickest way to make everyone else suffer.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
As I understand it Right Wing Watch seeks out the nuttier of righty pronunciations and links to them so that we may know what they're saying today.
I suspect that you mean pronouncements.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
@Pomona.
I'm glad that someone has mentioned Sojourners, sad that it had to be a fellow Brit.
When I read what they are saying I end up thinking, "This is what is being said by Evangelicals in the UK, why is this such a shocking thing for Americans?" It seems there are three very different strands of Evangelical, one of them seems more prominent in the UK. the other in the US. Historically speaking I'd class then this way:
1, Lutherans who use the term Evangelical in their church names.
2, What I'd call the Wesley/Whitefield Evangelical - People had an experience of God, some responded by spreading the word, becoming evangelists, but others did social action: The campaigned against child labour in factories and against the slave trade. They built orphanages and built social housing.
3, Edwards Evangelical - It was been mentioned upthread that Wesley and Whitefield were involved to some extent in the US Great Awakening. More influential IMO was Jonathan Edwards, which has led to a contrary idea that somehow the "social gospel" is not part of the Gospel.
Evangelicalism 2 and 3 have been in conflict from the beginning, which in the 20th Century was epitomised by the disagreements over the so social gospel between John Stott and Billy Graham following the Lausanne Evangelical Congress. But despite their differences Stott and Graham supported each other's ministry.
The sad thing is from the late 1990s and through the 21st Century so far is that these two positions are becoming polarised. There is no longer the same acceptance of one side by the other. This has not been helped by the sloppy use of the tern fundamentalist to refer to people who do not hold to the fundamentals of conservative evangelicalism, as set down in tracts from the 1910s and 20s, (strictly speaking you cannot have a fundamentalist Muslim) and people are using the term evangelical to mean fundamentalist.
Although fundamentalists are evangelicals, all evangelicals are not fundamentalists. (Most in the UK).
What I have said about acceptance pulls both ways. If I am to be consistent then I have to accept people like Frankin Graham as a fellow Christian and fellow Evangelical, despite our very big differences of, well, just about everything. This is not easy.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Except Whitefield didn't oppose slavery. He was rather in favour of it. Unlike Wesley.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's the historical-grammatical method for you.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except Whitefield didn't oppose slavery. He was rather in favour of it. Unlike Wesley.
I never said he did, I said "but others did social action: The(y) campaigned against child labour in factories and against the slave trade."
Note the word "others".
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, fair enough.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I wonder the extent to which the various forms of Evangelical fed off and were influenced by other movements of the time.
To what extent were social actions a response to the actions of the Quakers, for example? We know that there was a lot of direct links between Evangelicals and other Evangelicals - and other Christian groups cf Salvation Army and Church Army - but I wonder the extent to which the development of various kinds of Evangelical was a response, even a competition with, other groups.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As far as I know, evangelical collaboration on a more organised level dates from around the 1790s, when Anglicans and Dissenters began working together on missionary efforts in the Pacific and the West Indies.
I think it's also the case that Wesleyan influence spilled over into 'Old Dissent' from its Anglican base.
I suspect most influences were informal rather than systematic.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As far as I know, evangelical collaboration on a more organised level dates from around the 1790s, when Anglicans and Dissenters began working together on missionary efforts in the Pacific and the West Indies.
I think it's also the case that Wesleyan influence spilled over into 'Old Dissent' from its Anglican base.
I suspect most influences were informal rather than systematic.
When would historians say that "Evangelicals" as scholars would define first arose? Is it correct to speak of "Evangelicals" among Puritans and Separatists of the early 1600s? What about among Dissenters and Nonconformists in the late 1600s? Do the first Quakers count or were they too different in doctrine from the Evangelicals of the past couple of centuries? Did the phenomenon called Evangelicalism that we recognize today only emerge post-Wesley and post-First Great Awakening?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think this has come up before. I've certainly put a date to it on some of my previous posts - whether on this or other threads I can't remember ...
But I'd date evangelicalism in its recognisably modern-ish form from around the 1730s, with anticipatory antecedents in English and Scottish Puritanism and German Pietism.
Henry D Rack in his impressive biography of John Wesley, 'Rational Enthusiast' dates it from around then, with a trail leading back to Puritan New England and the 2nd and 3rd generations of Reformed Protestants in Scotland.
The early Reformers tended to regard their 'conversion' as a change/move from Romanism. By the 1590s, some of the Reformed believers were beginning to worry about their offspring, particularly their teenagers. So 'preaching for conversion' starts around that time but doesn't become fully developed until the early to mid 1700s.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Evangelicalism generally lacks a decent mechanism for granting people the authority to speak for evangelicals, usually relying on "success" (size of congregation, number of book sales, TV appearances) to make that judgement.
I don't know about that. Just because they don't have a formal structure for enforcing conformity doesn't mean that there aren't Evangelical gatekeepers. For example, let's check in on what Eugene Peterson, mentioned earlier by MrsBeaky, is up to since his recent statement.
quote:
Eugene Peterson backtracks on same-sex marriage
“The Message” author Eugene Peterson says he regrets telling me he would officiate a same-sex wedding if asked to do so today by a gay couple who were “Christians of good faith.”
“On further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that,” the evangelical author said in a statement.
This article provides some further context.
quote:
Eugene Peterson discovered painfully that the evangelical establishment will immediately seek to destroy anyone who breaks with their understanding of orthodoxy on LGBTQ issues.
Nothing he did before mattered. Nothing else he believes mattered.
The guns were turned on him, posthaste, in a choreography of rejection as public and painful as possible.
This has happened so many times before that the real wonder of events last week was that Rev. Peterson somehow did not anticipate that it would happen to him:
This is evangelical nuclear deterrence, and it works very well most of the time to beat wonderers and wanderers into submission.
Just because the mechanisms of authority are informal doesn't mean those mechanisms aren't there. As they say, read the rest.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Evangelicalism generally lacks a decent mechanism for granting people the authority to speak for evangelicals, usually relying on "success" (size of congregation, number of book sales, TV appearances) to make that judgement.
I don't know about that. Just because they don't have a formal structure for enforcing conformity doesn't mean that there aren't Evangelical gatekeepers. For example, let's check in on what Eugene Peterson, mentioned earlier by MrsBeaky, is up to since his recent statement.
quote:
Eugene Peterson backtracks on same-sex marriage
“The Message” author Eugene Peterson says he regrets telling me he would officiate a same-sex wedding if asked to do so today by a gay couple who were “Christians of good faith.”
“On further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that,” the evangelical author said in a statement.
This article provides some further context.
quote:
Eugene Peterson discovered painfully that the evangelical establishment will immediately seek to destroy anyone who breaks with their understanding of orthodoxy on LGBTQ issues.
Nothing he did before mattered. Nothing else he believes mattered.
The guns were turned on him, posthaste, in a choreography of rejection as public and painful as possible.
This has happened so many times before that the real wonder of events last week was that Rev. Peterson somehow did not anticipate that it would happen to him:
This is evangelical nuclear deterrence, and it works very well most of the time to beat wonderers and wanderers into submission.
Just because the mechanisms of authority are informal doesn't mean those mechanisms aren't there. As they say, read the rest.
Just pointing out Crœsos, that the (heart-breaking for me) Peterson case seems to exemplify rather than refute Alan's point that evangelicals lack a "decent (i.e. official) mechanism for granting people the authority to speak for evangelicals, usually relying on "success" (size of congregation, number of book sales, TV appearances) to make that judgement." To my knowledge, Peterson has not been rebuked by any official body (NEA being about the only real possibility of such for a PCUSA pastor, and nobody pays much attn to what they say anyway)-- it appears it was in fact the threat of lost book sales that was the decisive factor (to my great dismay-- see thread in hell on the subject).
[ 19. July 2017, 15:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Added to which, Petersen is in a position where he gets interviewed and his statements taken as speaking for evangelicals (until he says something a vocal group within evangelicalism take issue with) by exactly the sort of informal process I mentioned - specifically because of the success of The Message. Without that he'd just be one pastor among many, and probably very few beyond his own congregation would have heard of him (especially since he didn't use email, let alone Twitter, Facebook or other social media).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That LifeWay Christian Stores would immediately add him to their ever-growing banned authors list
I'll just add that to my bucket list...
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Oh for fecks sake.....the current wave of nauseating pronouncements, from both sides of the pond, are enough to put anyone off exploring a Christian faith.
Why on earth do evangelicals have to be so rude?
( yeah, right, i go to an evangelical church......sigh...)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Another Shibboleth seems to be arising on my FB (mostly friends of friends) - unconditional support of Israel. Often hedged with spiritual threats by proof-texting "I will curse those who curse you" implying at includes any criticism of the Israeli State. I find it particularly bizarre how these are often people who insist anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God is toast (Muslims and atheists particularly) yet your get a pass if you're Jewish, where rejection of Jesus' divinity and Messiahship are defining - if you accepted them, you'd be a Christian. It's really odd.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Another Shibboleth seems to be arising on my FB (mostly friends of friends) - unconditional support of Israel. Often hedged with spiritual threats by proof-texting "I will curse those who curse you" implying at includes any criticism of the Israeli State. I find it particularly bizarre how these are often people who insist anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God is toast (Muslims and atheists particularly) yet your get a pass if you're Jewish, where rejection of Jesus' divinity and Messiahship are defining - if you accepted them, you'd be a Christian. It's really odd.
Yeah, this is because so much of Evangelical Christianity is closely linked to Christian Zionism - which incidentally even increasing numbers of Zionists think is toxic.
I suppose the whole theology of the land is something that one might think would be completely against the Evangelical worldview. The idea that there are a particular group of people for whom normal rules do not apply based only on geography would seem to be against the notion that most Evangelicals hold that it doesn't matter who you are before you were saved.
But then I suppose it is a human trait to hold two opposite ideas at the same time.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Also, it boils down to literalism.
To be fair, there are large swathes of evangelicalism that don't go down the Zionist route but it seems to have made a come-back in some quarters here in UK.
My perceptions is that it eased off to some extent in the 1980s and '90s but came back with a vengeance following upheavals in the Middle East over the last few decades.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, this is because so much of Evangelical Christianity is closely linked to Christian Zionism - which incidentally even increasing numbers of Zionists think is toxic.
I'm not sure most Jewish Zionists are comfortable with Christian Zionism, which in effect "uses" the Jews for its own ends. Although to be sure Israel is happy to take money from the USA, which money keeps flowing in part due to Christian Zionism.
quote:
I suppose the whole theology of the land is something that one might think would be completely against the Evangelical worldview. The idea that there are a particular group of people for whom normal rules do not apply based only on geography would seem to be against the notion that most Evangelicals hold that it doesn't matter who you are before you were saved.
But then they have that bifurcated view of Jews as being special ("all Israel will be saved" Paul said, and they take that a certain way). And yet many or most are replacementists, IIRC.
[ 22. July 2017, 19:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
...and the existence and plight of Arab Christians blows their mind, or would if it existed, so they choose to ignore it.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, there are large swathes of evangelicalism that don't go down the Zionist route but it seems to have made a come-back in some quarters here in UK.
My impression is that it never really went away, and remained strong in certain parts of Pentecostalism and other denominations (Brethrens for example) which heavily seeded newer movements, and so entire thing came back into prominence.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
...and the existence and plight of Arab Christians blows their mind, or would if it existed, so they choose to ignore it.
Having personal friends among those numbers (a family from our church is from Betjala in the occupied territories), this really chaps my ass/arse.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which, Petersen is in a position where he gets interviewed and his statements taken as speaking for evangelicals (until he says something a vocal group within evangelicalism take issue with) by exactly the sort of informal process I mentioned - specifically because of the success of The Message. Without that he'd just be one pastor among many, and probably very few beyond his own congregation would have heard of him (especially since he didn't use email, let alone Twitter, Facebook or other social media).
fyi: Peterson also had a very distinguished academic career
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, Chris Stiles. Perhaps the 'restorationist' house churches were an exception to the rule being fairly anti-Zionist. My dotty charismatic evangelical mother-in-law was always mad on Israel (and mad in lots of other ways), in a way that seemed more Brethren or Pentie than anything else.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
in a way that seemed more Brethren or Pentie than anything else.
My impression is that the restorationist movements had a core of people from this background, and over time this increased (as average age went up) with the result that there was a reversion to mean
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which, Petersen is in a position where he gets interviewed and his statements taken as speaking for evangelicals (until he says something a vocal group within evangelicalism take issue with) by exactly the sort of informal process I mentioned - specifically because of the success of The Message. Without that he'd just be one pastor among many, and probably very few beyond his own congregation would have heard of him (especially since he didn't use email, let alone Twitter, Facebook or other social media).
fyi: Peterson also had a very distinguished academic career
Yes, but academics are also, generally, not well known unless they write some popular books. I would still expect that if he hadn't written The Message he would still only be known by a relatively small number of people, wouldn't be getting interviewed and what he said causing a shit storm - because without the popularity of that one book he wouldn't have been put in the position of a spokesperson & leader of Evangelicalism (rather than just for his congregation and a small number of academics).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
His popularity was well established before The Message, but to your point, it was thru his other (extensive) writing.
(fun fact: my husband called my doctoral thesis an "homage to Peterson" since I quoted just about every one of his many, many books)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's very, very sad. But to me it implies he hadn't actually moved without reservation. His feet are enmired, his identity is "evangelical" and under pressure he's retreated. Poor guy, despite pushing out the envelope of the text, he's snapped back to a reading of the it as homophobic. Which it isn't. As I have JUST realised. Yesterday. And he couldn't embrace postmodernism and say so what if it were.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, this is because so much of Evangelical Christianity is closely linked to Christian Zionism - which incidentally even increasing numbers of Zionists think is toxic.
I'm not sure most Jewish Zionists are comfortable with Christian Zionism, which in effect "uses" the Jews for its own ends. Although to be sure Israel is happy to take money from the USA, which money keeps flowing in part due to Christian Zionism.
quote:
I suppose the whole theology of the land is something that one might think would be completely against the Evangelical worldview. The idea that there are a particular group of people for whom normal rules do not apply based only on geography would seem to be against the notion that most Evangelicals hold that it doesn't matter who you are before you were saved.
But then they have that bifurcated view of Jews as being special ("all Israel will be saved" Paul said, and they take that a certain way). And yet many or most are replacementists, IIRC.
We've seen it here; posters explaining why Muslims rejecting Jesus as divine and the Messiah means that Allah is not the same as God, whilst Judaism gets a pass for saying exactly the same thing
I have no dog in that fight, as it were, since I don't tie salvation (whatever that might be) to theology and don't take the view that being right about this is an essential, but the point is that evangelicals do, and do make it matter. It seems to me that Evangelicalism, especially of the more conservative variety, has to be supercessionist to be consistent - God sends His Messiah, His own Son, who is Himself God, and those who accept Him are saved. Judaism rejects the divinity and Messiahship of Jesus. I don't get how they square that circle.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
His popularity was well established before The Message, but to your point, it was thru his other (extensive) writing.
Possibly just my UK perspective - that it was after The Message became popular that his other writing became widely known. Most (UK) evangelicals only started taking notice of what he'd written, ie: started to consider him an Evangelical Leader/Spokesperson, because of The Message.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On a tangent: Yes, I think that's true, Chris Stiles. My dotty mum-in-law is Anglican but her approach is quite Pentie / independent evangelical.
So yes, that kind of note is very prominent in popular evangelicalism.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Having personal friends among those numbers (a family from our church is from Betjala in the occupied territories), this really chaps my ass/arse.
The reason that arab (and other ME) Christians are undermined is more-than-slightly tinged with racism. It's relatively easy to understand overwhelmingly white religious settlers in the occupied territories. Their houses look American, they are interested in things Americans are interested in and they very often speak with American accents.
In contrast Arab Christians speak a funny language, write from the wrong side of the page and believe in that weird new fangled Orthodox malarky. So not really Christians at all.
Never underestimate the stupidity of groups of wealthy Christians when they put their minds to it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
OTOH, perhaps Arab Christians should be grateful that white fundies aren't interested in them!
The Anglicans and their sister churches might be a better fit.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Anglicans and their sister churches might be a better fit.
Anglicanism is small beer in the ME, Egypt and northern Africa - having said that, when I visited the Anglican cathedral in Cairo it was filled with people - mostly refugees from Sudan and elsewhere.
I'm not sure what the whole "better fit" thing means anyway, but it sounds like gibberish.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Would you really want the 'stupidity' that you mentioned being spread by 'white' Christians across the Middle East? Wouldn't you rather that sensible, rational denominations were offering their assistance?
American evangelicals are often criticised for their attitudes and behaviour in certain sensitive parts of the world. I'm surprised, therefore, that people here would want them to be more involved than they are.
I suppose it's all about the money. If American evangelicals could offer their money but leave their attitudes at home that would be preferable. Unlikely, though.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
From what my real-life Orthodox contacts tell me, Arab Christians get it in the neck from both sides.
They are disenfranchised by the Greeks who keep clerical power to themselves, they get a raw deal from the Israelis and also have to put up with umpteen shades of shit from US Evangelicals. They get it all round.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Would you really want the 'stupidity' that you mentioned being spread by 'white' Christians across the Middle East? Wouldn't you rather that sensible, rational denominations were offering their assistance?
I'm not sure you've got much knowledge of the Anglican churches in the ME if you think they're sensible and rational. In fact they're riven by in-fighting and corruption. The Anglican primate from Egypt is the most sensible in the region, and he's a big cheese in GAFCON. They might be largely untouched by Christian zionism, but they're clearly making a pig ear of things in various other ways.
quote:
American evangelicals are often criticised for their attitudes and behaviour in certain sensitive parts of the world. I'm surprised, therefore, that people here would want them to be more involved than they are.
I suppose it's all about the money. If American evangelicals could offer their money but leave their attitudes at home that would be preferable. Unlikely, though.
Hard to know how to respond to this. Not all Americans in the ME are Evangelicals, of those not all are zionist. Some ME churches welcome American involvement, some don't.
It's a pretty mixed place with various different people and churches.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I was once at a meeting where an American Christian asked an Arab when he had converted. He replied he'd been born into a Christian family. So he was asked if he knew how his parents had converted. After Grandparents were briefly mentioned, they asked when the first Christian in his family might have been. He hazarded at guess at some time around 600-700 AD.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Pity he couldn't claim direct descent from people who had actually met Jesus in the flesh.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Apropros of nothing very much, it is maybe worth remembering that the Sunni Muslim Nusaybah family have held the keys of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre since the 7 century.
It is probably a good thing; that place is a stain on all of Christianity.
[ 23. July 2017, 21:20: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Another Shibboleth seems to be arising on my FB (mostly friends of friends) - unconditional support of Israel. Often hedged with spiritual threats by proof-texting "I will curse those who curse you" implying at includes any criticism of the Israeli State. I find it particularly bizarre how these are often people who insist anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God is toast (Muslims and atheists particularly) yet your get a pass if you're Jewish, where rejection of Jesus' divinity and Messiahship are defining - if you accepted them, you'd be a Christian. It's really odd.
Yeah, this is because so much of Evangelical Christianity is closely linked to Christian Zionism - which incidentally even increasing numbers of Zionists think is toxic.
I suppose the whole theology of the land is something that one might think would be completely against the Evangelical worldview. The idea that there are a particular group of people for whom normal rules do not apply based only on geography would seem to be against the notion that most Evangelicals hold that it doesn't matter who you are before you were saved.
But then I suppose it is a human trait to hold two opposite ideas at the same time.
And also that Israel has the most liberal abortion laws in the Middle East (and probably most of Europe), - permissable up to 40 weeks and a 'rubber stamp' approach to the process.
The very sort of thing which got Evangelicals very upset with one Hillary Clinton last year. Althought here was no indication Hillary wanted to change existing law , she was , reportedly , in favour of 'Full Term Abortion' (no sources cited obviously).
Since Abortion was the hot button issue which secured Evangelical support for Trump, and hence the Presidency , it seems like Cognitive Dissenence on a mind boggling scale.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Fortunately for the Christian Right (at least in the US), they now can obviate cognitive dissonance by simply dismissing evidence that contradicts their desired conclusions with the sobriquet "fake news."
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure you've got much knowledge of the Anglican churches in the ME if you think they're sensible and rational. In fact they're riven by in-fighting and corruption.
[...]
Not all Americans in the ME are Evangelicals, of those not all are zionist. Some ME churches welcome American involvement, some don't.
It's a pretty mixed place with various different people and churches.
I thought your original criticism was of foreign Christians who were too focused on Israel to be interested in helping Arab Christians. I presume this doesn't include Christians who are actually based in Arab-speaking countries and regions.
Re overseas 'Anglicans and their sister churches', I was thinking of the kind who are heavily into social justice. Perhaps, say, Canadian Anglicans and Norwegian Lutherans.
I'm well aware that there are different kinds of American evangelical, but your post referred to the 'stupidity of groups of wealthy Christians' who identified with Americanised Israelis. I'm just saying you should be glad if American evangelicals of this type stay away from Arab Christians. As you say, the latter have plenty of their own problems!
Finally, your mention of the GAFCON man in Egypt is interesting. My view is that our theology is based to a large extent on our circumstances and environment, and ISTM that in a country where a strict and assertive Islam is the norm, local Christian groups may compete by offering their own strong, conservative voice. The niche for a moderate or theologically liberal Anglicanism in such environments is probably quite small. But I'd be keen to learn more about that, as I'm sure the situation is quite complex.
[ 25. July 2017, 12:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is an article from the Washington POST. Their top conservative columnist calls out evangelicals on their hypocrisy, supporting the current president. She rightly points out that his behavior is spectacularly unlike that of Christ, diametrically opposite in fact.
She concludes: "Was this trashing of the White House, assault on civil language and conduct and contempt for the Constitution (the one the religious right thinks is so important that the new Supreme Court justice must protect it) worth it? And if it gets worse, is there any point at which the religious might put country above tribe, morality above partisanship? No, I don’t think it will do so ever."
People can recognize whited sepulchers.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0