quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
These don't resemble any evangelicals I know! Are you picking up your impressions from US media or something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You see, that's my problem. I was born in CA (LA county, where a lot of megachurches started?)

---

You put in that question mark, and I TOTALLY read that in 'valley girl'.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
no prophet's flag is set so...

I've heard that not all evangelicals in the USA are well off. Do the poorer ones prefer not to receive assistance from the state?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You see, that's my problem. I was born in CA (LA county, where a lot of megachurches started?)

---

You put in that question mark, and I TOTALLY read that in 'valley girl'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I was surprised by the Calvinist thingy too. Many of the evangelicals I knew (well, most of them!) are Arminians by theology, not Calvinists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
no prophet's flag is set so...

I've heard that not all evangelicals in the USA are well off. Do the poorer ones prefer not to receive assistance from the state?

---

I know one, at least, who spends hundreds of dollars a month to purchase health insurance without ACA subsidies because he feels he needs to comply with the law requiring he have heath insurance, but he believes that accepting subsidies is immoral. He's not really making enough money to afford to do this, so he must really believe his actions are righteous in order to persevere.

OTOH, I know a good number of conservative Evangelicals who will admit that they love their 'Obamacare'... just not the rich ones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But as for Jesus' basic focus on peace, social justice, kindness and charity, most evangelicals reject all of that, as they build their church campuses within a closed network of the like-minded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
no prophet's flag is set so...

I've heard that not all evangelicals in the USA are well off. Do the poorer ones prefer not to receive assistance from the state?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The main fallacy I find in Evangelicalism is the way that it seems to have taken sola scriptura to the extreme and all but made the Scriptures worthless through so many different exegesis and 'interpretations'. Basically, if you don't like what your church believe 'based on the Bible' then you can easily find another church that believes like you 'based on the Bible' or you can start your own Evangelical church 'based on the Bible.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I was surprised by the Calvinist thingy too. Many of the evangelicals I knew (well, most of them!) are Arminians by theology, not Calvinists.

---

I'd say the opposite in my experience... which I think illustrates one of the reasons I departed Evangelicalism and one of the many problems with the OP: trying to determine 'what evangelicals believe' is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

---

The famous Bebbington quadrilateral is what most scholars use to define "evangelical" and holds pretty well. Evangelicals are:
• bibliocentric
• Christocentric
• decisionist
• activist*

Beyond that, all bets are off. Like Christianity as a whole, what unites us is those few essentials and not a whole lot else. So, as has been noted, you get Wesleyan evangelicals and Calvinist evangelicals (although in my doctoral defend I had to spend 2 hrs defending my completely tangental use of the phrase "Reformed evangelical"). You have right-wing (politically) evangelicals and left-wing evangelicals. You get charismatic/Pentecostal evangelicals and emphatically cessationist evangelicals. So yeah, once you stray beyond the four elements of the quadrilateral any generalizations become impossible.

*activist gets parsed differently in different settings and eras. Today it most means verbal evangelism, but in the heyday of the 2nd great awakening it meant mostly progressive social justice. In some circles today it means conservative/ repressive social engineering. ymmv.

-cliffdweller, a real-life American lefty Wesleyan evangelical
 

---

Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
I am certainly ready to believe--I want to believe--that there are many evangelicals who care about social justice.

But my actual experience has been the opposite of LC's. My undergraduate schools were full of evangelicals who made a major production of praying in public (for example, in the University cafeteria) and who made asses of themselves by clumsy proselytizing ("What do you think would happen to you if you died tonight?). (Campus Crusade for Christ , I'm looking at you.) Evangelicals who thought it was spiritually dangerous to study Islamic history or anthropology of witchcraft, courses that I used to satisfy requirements for a religious studies minor. Evangelicals who would actually move away from me at the bus stop when they saw I (a biology major) was carrying a copy of The Origin of Species --as though they thought Satan himself was hiding behind the cover. Evangelicals who were such thorough-going bigots that they didn't believe anyone from a historically-recognized denomination (Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists) could possibly be a real Christian. Some displayed such naivete and social awkwardness that I'm still appalled, years later: the guy who came up to me, a complete stranger, and told me that he used to be a black magician, but now he'd been born again, the young woman who stopped her bicycle in front of me as I was about to cross the street, in order to gush about how much she loved Jesus.

Yes, I had plenty of encounters with evangelicals over the years. The most recent was with a young woman who ran up to me on the street near my home to ask me if I believed in God, then asked if I went to church. I sighed and said yes, I go to that church right now the street. "But is it a Christian church?" I pointed out that most churches are indeed Christian, and that my church is named after a Christian saint--but that wasn't good enough for this rude little twit. In all those encounters with alleged Christians trying to convert me, I have never heard one of them express any concern for the poor, the sick, the elderly, prisoners. Nor have I ever heard any one of them talk about working for peace or being a good steward by protecting God's creation.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egeria:
I am certainly ready to believe--I want to believe--that there are many evangelicals who care about social justice.

But my actual experience has been the opposite of LC's. My undergraduate schools were full of evangelicals who made a major production of praying in public (for example, in the University cafeteria) and who made asses of themselves by clumsy proselytizing ("What do you think would happen to you if you died tonight?). (Campus Crusade for Christ , I'm looking at you.) Evangelicals who thought it was spiritually dangerous to study Islamic history or anthropology of witchcraft, courses that I used to satisfy requirements for a religious studies minor. Evangelicals who would actually move away from me at the bus stop when they saw I (a biology major) was carrying a copy of The Origin of Species --as though they thought Satan himself was hiding behind the cover. Evangelicals who were such thorough-going bigots that they didn't believe anyone from a historically-recognized denomination (Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists) could possibly be a real Christian. Some displayed such naivete and social awkwardness that I'm still appalled, years later: the guy who came up to me, a complete stranger, and told me that he used to be a black magician, but now he'd been born again, the young woman who stopped her bicycle in front of me as I was about to cross the street, in order to gush about how much she loved Jesus.

Yes, I had plenty of encounters with evangelicals over the years. The most recent was with a young woman who ran up to me on the street near my home to ask me if I believed in God, then asked if I went to church. I sighed and said yes, I go to that church right now the street. "But is it a Christian church?" I pointed out that most churches are indeed Christian, and that my church is named after a Christian saint--but that wasn't good enough for this rude little twit. In all those encounters with alleged Christians trying to convert me, I have never heard one of them express any concern for the poor, the sick, the elderly, prisoners. Nor have I ever heard any one of them talk about working for peace or being a good steward by protecting God's creation.

---

There are some real progressive elements of evangelicalism, although many are now calling themselves post-evangelical or neo-evangelical to disassociate themselves from those folks. The Evangelical Covenant Church in the US is one of the smaller but fastest growing denominations in America, with a very strong commitment to evangelical principles (that quadrilateral above) but a very strong commitment to working for social justice (mostly... frustrations abound re failure to address LGBT issues).

Magnuson demonstrates in his work that progressive social action was a key and defining component of early American (and probably British as well but Magnuson's focus is more on US) evangelicalism, especially during the 2nd great awakening.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I'm going to take that a step further, as a fairly conservative not-quite evangelical . You're talking about Americans here--people whose national culture began with a rejection of political authority, and who have maintained that suspicion for the next 200+ years. (Witness the fact that we still have states as independent and powerful law-making bodies, over against the federal government, for example). We also have a strong heritage of do-it-yourself, homesteading, independent, break-new-ground-and-don't-be-beholden-to-anybody in our culture, and those attitudes are very much alive today.

So when it comes to social justice issues, Americans are on average more likely to think of solutions of the local, do-it-yourself, private-individual/small group type. This includes evangelicals, who are if anything less organized than other mainstream religious groups. Are they likely to think of the government as a trustworthy source of help, guidance, or protection? Well, no. Their first impulse (remember, I'm speaking of general tendencies here, not single individuals or congregations), their first impulse, I say, will be to try to handle the issue locally. Not to appeal to the state or federal government to do something.

Handling things locally can mean anything from organizing a food pantry to taking the youth group to serve in Tijuana. It often means starting a mission society or service group to focus on immigrants, inner city youth, prison ministries, or urban gardening and beehives. It can mean (and has, in my experience) starting tutoring and ESL programs in churches to help those under-served by the public school system. We did that, and it never occurred to us to talk to the local authorities about the issue. After all, they'd been in charge for yonks already, and the problem still existed! So we took matters into our own hands and began after school and evening programs. When the public school district found out and came knocking, we were happy to cooperate as partners--but we did not hand over leadership of the program to them. It never occurred to us to do so. And if it had, we would have dismissed the idea on the grounds that they would doubtless screw it up. Because that's what we expect from our government. Not that we dislike them, we just don't trust them.

And most of this ministry stuff flies under the radar,] in terms of media coverage. We (ordinary American Christians, including evangelicals) don't usually issue press releases about it, because again, most of us just don't think that way. We don't have media skills, most of us, and we think on an individual or small group level. At most we might put up signs in the neighborhood, or write something for the denominational magazine. Though a great many evangelicals have no larger association that publishes such a thing, or maintains regular professional media contact.

The result of all this is that the loudmouth so-called evangelicals who DO make it into the media tend to be the freaks--the reality-show people, the politicians trying to appeal to a larger voting base, the televangelists, the scandal-ridden megapastors and social extremists. And yes, these people seem to be 90% idiots in my oh-so-scientific opinion. But then, extreme sells. Nobody's going to pop down to the nearest evangelical church with a microphone to hear ordinary people talk about their food pantry or the job workshops they are running for long-term unemployed people. That's not exciting or titillating or scandalous. That's just what churches DO. Yawn.

TL;DR version: You're blaming evangelicals for characteristics that are if anything linked to the national culture, not religion.

[ 28. July 2015, 02:31: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Egeria, those are college students. I don't know about you, but I was pretty dumb and callow at that age--certainly lacking in a lot of social graces. has your experience with, say, the 40 yo's been the same?

For what it's worth, I met (and suffered) a lot of those people too, but I think they pretty much grew out of it.

[ 28. July 2015, 02:35: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
Can someone fix the title to this screed? I can't help but wonder why buck evangelicals are being left out.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prester John:
Can someone fix the title to this screed? I can't help but wonder why buck evangelicals are being left out.

---

The bucks are notoriously ambivalent about Jesus. It's only the does that have that love/hate thing going on with our boyfriend Jesus.

 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Yes, I'd be quite happy for an excuse to fix the title, truthfully, so thanks Prester John!
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Thanks, Lamb Chopped. I don't know if our congregation is labelled evangelical or not. Either way, what draws us together is a common faith, not a common ideology. I trust Jesus but not the government. If a fellow christian has a different view, oh well.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egeria:
I am certainly ready to believe--I want to believe--that there are many evangelicals who care about social justice.

But my actual experience has been the opposite of LC's. My undergraduate schools were full of evangelicals who made a major production of praying in public (for example, in the University cafeteria) and who made asses of themselves by clumsy proselytizing ("What do you think would happen to you if you died tonight?). (Campus Crusade for Christ , I'm looking at you.) Evangelicals who thought it was spiritually dangerous to study Islamic history or anthropology of witchcraft, courses that I used to satisfy requirements for a religious studies minor. Evangelicals who would actually move away from me at the bus stop when they saw I (a biology major) was carrying a copy of The Origin of Species --as though they thought Satan himself was hiding behind the cover. Evangelicals who were such thorough-going bigots that they didn't believe anyone from a historically-recognized denomination (Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists) could possibly be a real Christian. Some displayed such naivete and social awkwardness that I'm still appalled, years later: the guy who came up to me, a complete stranger, and told me that he used to be a black magician, but now he'd been born again, the young woman who stopped her bicycle in front of me as I was about to cross the street, in order to gush about how much she loved Jesus.

Yes, I had plenty of encounters with evangelicals over the years. The most recent was with a young woman who ran up to me on the street near my home to ask me if I believed in God, then asked if I went to church. I sighed and said yes, I go to that church right now the street. "But is it a Christian church?" I pointed out that most churches are indeed Christian, and that my church is named after a Christian saint--but that wasn't good enough for this rude little twit. In all those encounters with alleged Christians trying to convert me, I have never heard one of them express any concern for the poor, the sick, the elderly, prisoners. Nor have I ever heard any one of them talk about working for peace or being a good steward by protecting God's creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

but believe poorer people are poor by their own fault of not working hard so deserve to suffer and definitely do not deserve "handouts" like school lunches that they didn't work hard to earn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

I have no idea what Arminian is. When people think that god wants them to be prosperous and successful, the conventional usage where I live is to label this Calvinist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

but believe poorer people are poor by their own fault of not working hard so deserve to suffer and definitely do not deserve "handouts" like school lunches that they didn't work hard to earn.

---

The above is abstracted from a larger post. How much of this is a typical evangelical attitude?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egeria:
I am certainly ready to believe--I want to believe--that there are many evangelicals who care about social justice... Nor have I ever heard any one of them talk about working for peace or being a good steward by protecting God's creation.

---

I've read articles saying evangelical leaders are beginning to talk about the environment. Most of my evangelical friends think social justice and environment irrelevant because the only thing that matters is getting people saved, doesn't matter how many starve to death or die of untreated diseases so long as they die saved.

If you really believe that you really won't put money and time into social justice and environment instead of evangelism. (Although, if you really believed it wouldn't you be out evangelizing instead of watching football?)

As some others have pointed out, some of these churches do under the radar things, including the hard work on taking on a few long term relationships instead of just handing out $20 to someone you see only once a month asking for help with the light bill.

One local "mainliners are all going to hell" church has a trailer housing 4 homeless men, the church helps them get off booze, learn job skills, find a job, become able to move out on their own. A few men a year get their lives turned around. Although my friends in that church don't believe there is such a thing as "deserving poor," it's their church helping a few alcoholic homeless men become reintegrated. They recently added a trailer for homeless women. A few throwaways a year being saved from the streets doesn't get written up in the news.

The new soup kitchen in town is run by mainline churches including Methodist and Baptist; the adult literacy program was started by black churches, the no strings food pantry by the Hispanic Baptist church.

None of these get publicity; and the rare times they get mention no one names any church as being the founding cause and ongoing support of the program.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
This thread, like a number we've had in the past, shows the danger of generalisation. What really matters is having the guts to challenge the specific evils of sectarian attitudes (whether political or religious) which are found in the groups we live with. You know, like Jesus challenged them in the culture into which he was born. Like visceral hatred of all Samaritans for example. Or indifference to the heavy burdens carried by many poor people.

It always seems odd to me when folks claim to love Jesus, to acknowledge him as Lord, yet have blind spots about stuff like that. A strange mixture of ignorance and misplaced superiority seems to get in the way of the challenges of discipleship. Jesus came to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Sometimes it takes a while for people to realise how much their particular comfort zones are precisely the 'deny yourself' territory about which Jesus also spoke.

Where any particular expression of Christianity is blind, or selective, about these kinds of challenges, its leaders and members are missing the mark. That's a different kind of mark-missing to not always living up to the mark. We all fail to some extent at that.

IME you find Christians of all kinds who know this stuff and Christians of all kinds who are still finding it out. Are evangelicals particularly prone to these kinds of social justice ignorances? Not where I live. We've discussed pond differences before, but reading Lamb Chopped and others here seems to take me back to where I started. Beware the generalisations which flow from labelling.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
This.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
No prophet..., I mean this in all Christian love or whatever - I think you need to spend less time with your family.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Evangelical is essentially a meaningless phrase. As an attempt to label particular behaviours, it therefore fails.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The famous Bebbington quadrilateral is what most scholars use to define "evangelical" and holds pretty well. Evangelicals are:
• bibliocentric
• Christocentric
• decisionist
• activist*

Beyond that, all bets are off. Like Christianity as a whole, what unites us is those few essentials and not a whole lot else.
[snip]
-cliffdweller, a real-life American lefty Wesleyan evangelical

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Where any particular expression of Christianity is blind, or selective, about these kinds of challenges, its leaders and members are missing the mark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've not met many evangelicals who wouldn't consider other forms of evangelical as Christian - but some such do exist.

I don't think they are at all common or representative, though.

Heck, most evangelicals I know these days would be happy to acknowledge that even some of those nasty RCs and others from the historic churches could possibly be 'saved' ...

Although some would certainly consider that these 'true believers' shouldn't remain within the RCC ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I've read articles saying evangelical leaders are beginning to talk about the environment. Most of my evangelical friends think social justice and environment irrelevant because the only thing that matters is getting people saved, doesn't matter how many starve to death or die of untreated diseases so long as they die saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Certainly heretical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I need reassurance that it is 'others first', not selfishly 'my salvation first'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the difference in the UK is that for many different kinds of Christians here, evangelicals included, getting into social justice etc. issues issues is viewed as a form of witnessing, as a way of getting Christian voices and efforts into the public sphere where they'll be noticed. The conversions (although not all Christians like this word) may come later.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by IngoB:
No prophet is confusing vaguely centre-left-wing "European" politics with the gospel. And he is pissed off that Evangelicals purportedly confuse vaguely centre-right-wing "American" politics with the gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I am starting to feel somewhat reassured by some of your erudite responses. I cannot abide the disregard for others that I was exposed to so blatantly and strongly. I need reassurance that it is 'others first', not selfishly 'my salvation first'. I also need to figure out how to say something, anything at all with the least amount of politeness, and not just listen, go for very very brisk walks, and find little bits of distracting activity: round 2 starts in 3 weeks when they return for another week.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Certainly heretical.

---

I wish it was hysterical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by IngoB:
No prophet is confusing vaguely centre-left-wing "European" politics with the gospel. And he is pissed off that Evangelicals purportedly confuse vaguely centre-right-wing "American" politics with the gospel.

---

And that is the problem with Christianity in the United States. Our political identities are more important than our identity as Christians. Therefore, the gospel must be synonymous with our political opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Can you explain why political identity is so important to Christians in the USA? In England (if not in the rest of the UK) people are frequently weary of politics and politicians. There's not much expectation from Christians that politicians are going to stand up for any particular religious perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Just to add to the din, this sounds like an American cultural issue. For all my gripes with British evangelicals, social justice is usually top of their agenda—and that is a real strength of theirs. A large number of British evangelicals are lefties and even socialists. I can remember one American woman being taken aback when she saw that the church cafe sold only Fair Trade products: 'isn't that socialist?!', she blurted out. I think there's a nuanced discussion to be had—and I certainly share your outrage—but I think at least some of things you are bringing up are part of right-wing American culture shone through some bizarre evangelical prism.

I'd put it this way: American evangelics will spend lots of money to supply poor people with bibles, whereas most of the evangelicals in the UK would first see that they are fed, have access to housing and education first and foremost. God—I sound like I almost like them!

K.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Can you explain why political identity is so important to Christians in the USA?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, as has been said already, for the majority of American evangelicals, political identity is NOT so important. It is a large, obnoxious minority that makes it seem that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Was Archbishop Camara wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think politics and faith are distinct categories, nor do I think you think that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a point where the exercise of charity will, inevitably, move people into questions normally seen as political.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Echoing Archbishop Camara's well known saying, the radical evangelical Jim Wallis observed that Christians are often very good about rescuing drowning people from rivers; not necessarily so good at asking the question who is pushing them in upstream.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It may of course be that you see faults in the movement known as Catholic Liberation Theology (of which Archbishop Camara was an advocate). So I'm wondering if you could extend your critique in that direction.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by IngoB:
It is hard to imagine a greater corruption of faith than mixing the gospel with Marxism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I am starting to feel somewhat reassured by some of your erudite responses. I cannot abide the disregard for others that I was exposed to so blatantly and strongly. I need reassurance that it is 'others first', not selfishly 'my salvation first'. I also need to figure out how to say something, anything at all with the least amount of politeness, and not just listen, go for very very brisk walks, and find little bits of distracting activity: round 2 starts in 3 weeks when they return for another week.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Certainly heretical.

---

I wish it was hysterical.

---

Well, it's hysterical too (if you mean by that, funny in a despairing sort of way). My late professor of religion used to collect clips of the prosperity "name it and claim it" preachers and show them to our class. Equal parts laughter and wincing.

As for how you can respond to your extended family (much much MUCH sympathy on that one
):

It sucks because no doubt some of your IMMEDIATE family is closely invested in keeping the relationship with these bozos. And you don't need more fights.

If your immediate family connection is okay with it, you can challenge it directly. Or indirectly using one of the methods below.

1) When they start up, get up pointedly and leave the room. Claim an obviously un-necessary to do at that moment errand.

2) Open your eyes wide and with faux ingenuousness, say, "I never heard that. I thought the Bible said X" and let the fur fly.

3) Pre-empt the whole thing by going off on an enthusiastic description of the soup kitchen project (or whatever--fill in as appropriate) you're personally involved in, and how this is really helping you fulfill what Jesus was talking about and giving you growth in your spiritual life. Note: this only works if they have basic "do not interrupt, do not flatly contradict" manners drilled into them.

4) the minute someone starts, forcibly change the topic in a very pointed but polite manner by turning to the nearest sports enthusiast and saying, "Well, how about them Cardinals?" (fill in local team)

5) Tell them that what they said last time really got you thinking and you delved into your Bible, and hey, look at this great passage (pick something out of Amos or Jesus' preaching that totally contradicts their views) and "Thank you so much, my eyes have really been opened!" as if they were entirely in agreement with the passage you just read. Deliberate misunderstanding is a mighty tool for shutting people up.

6) Say, "You know, with your interest in these topics, I thought it would be really great if you got to come with us to our local (soup kitchen, ESL class, house painting project, whatever) and I talked to our (pastor, ministry team) and they are so looking forward to seeing you!" Cultivate a look of bland enthusiasm.

7) If all else fails, write a letter to the chief offender under the principle "speaking the truth in love." Have your nearest and dearest vet it before you send it to be sure you've covered the "in love" bit.

I am sorry to say that I've been forced to use these techniques on my own relatives quite a lot. We've finally reached a state of detente. They don't (yet!) agree with me, but they know better than to hassle me on this stuff.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

As for how you can respond to your extended family (much much MUCH sympathy on that one
):

---

ditto. While (fortunately, I guess) that doesn't describe my immediate family (they're all more of the "spiritual-but-not-religious" variety, for better or worse) it does describe my "tribe"-- my people. As a left wing evangelical, they remind me of the backwards awkward uncle we all have who gets drunk and makes racist jokes but you gotta invite him to Thanksgiving dinner cuz he's family. So in some small way I can share your pain-- and embarrassment.

I love Lamb Chopped's wisdom, there's much there that will be useful-- for me as well as I deal with my fellow evangelicals who dabble in this side of the theological woods.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I'm considering making up something like "but 2nd Fluoridations says .... " or maybe the 13th letter of Judas to the Refrigerators.

As for Marxism etc, the problem is the attachment to any "-ism" I think.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 


In our family, we usually refer to Second [family member's name], chapter 3.

Or First Hezekiah.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
On the Catholic tangent.

IngoB

There is much in what you say with which I agree. But I think your distinction between an individual ant-like pursuit and adherence to grand political plans is too binary.

There are dangers of corruption in political activity, but there are dangers of corruption in just about any walk of life with a social or economic dimension. We try to use our brains wittily, recognising at all times who it is we seek to serve.

Here, from the Wiki article on Oscar Romero, is a summary which illustrates some of the wit involved.

quote:

---

According to Jesús Delgado, his biographer and Postulator of the Cause for his canonization, Romero agreed with the Catholic vision of Liberation Theology and not with the Marxist vision: “A journalist once asked him: ‘Do you agree with Liberation Theology’ And Romero answered: “Yes, of course. However, there are two theologies of liberation. One is that which sees liberation only as material liberation. The other is that of Paul VI. I am with Paul VI.”

[snip]

Romero preached that “The most profound social revolution is the serious, supernatural, interior reform of a Christian.” He also emphasized: "The liberation of Christ and of His Church is not reduced to the dimension of a purely temporal project. It does not reduce its objectives to an anthropocentric perspective: to a material well-being or to initiatives of a political or social, economic or cultural order, only. Much less can it be a liberation that supports or is supported by violence.” Romero expressed several times his disapproval for the Marxist inspired Liberation Theology. On a sermon preached on 11 November 1979, he said: "The other day, one of the persons who proclaims liberation in a political sense was asked: ‘For you, what is the meaning of the Church’?" He said that the activist "answered with these scandalous words: ‘There are two churches, the church of the rich and the church of the poor. We believe in the church of the poor but not in the church of the rich’." Romero declared, "Clearly these words are a form of demagogy and I will never admit a division of the Church."

---

quote:

---

Pope Francis stated during Romero's beatification that "His ministry was distinguished by a particular attention to the most poor and marginalized."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I was surprised by the Calvinist thingy too. Many of the evangelicals I knew (well, most of them!) are Arminians by theology, not Calvinists.

---

quote:

---

On 12 March 1977, Rutilio Grande, a Jesuit priest and personal friend of Romero who had been creating self-reliance groups among the poor, was assassinated. His death had a profound impact on Romero, who later stated, "When I looked at Rutilio lying there dead I thought, 'If they have killed him for doing what he did, then I too have to walk the same path'". Romero urged the government to investigate, but they ignored his request. Furthermore, the censored press remained silent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I was surprised by the Calvinist thingy too. Many of the evangelicals I knew (well, most of them!) are Arminians by theology, not Calvinists.

---

George Whitefield and John Wesley were Arminian. Jonathan Edwards was Calvinist. All three were evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by IngoB:
It is hard to imagine a greater corruption of faith than mixing the gospel with Marxism

---

Mixing the the gospel with Objectivism isn't much better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Jesus protested publicly. He protested about the commercial exploitation in the temple and he protested about religious authorities who laid heavy burdens on folks without lifting a finger to help them. In his time, given the arrangements with Rome, the boundaries between civil and religious authority in Judea were somewhat blurred. So I find it hard to believe that protest should never be the prerogative of a priest. And protest is always a political act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It seemed like a natural progression to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In terms of their particular concern for the poor and the marginalised I don't see as much difference between the two Archbishops as you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To refer back to Jim Wallis's observation (and Archbishop Camara's) his experience taught him that he could not remain silent about the injustices to the poor, and those who wished to serve them. He saw who was pushing them in the river upstream.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jesus protested publicly. He protested about the commercial exploitation in the temple and he protested about religious authorities who laid heavy burdens on folks without lifting a finger to help them. In his time, given the arrangements with Rome, the boundaries between civil and religious authority in Judea were somewhat blurred. So I find it hard to believe that protest should never be the prerogative of a priest. And protest is always a political act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Protest against the actions of any established authority always requires a prior judgment about the rights and wrongs of the actions of that authority. When that judgment is made public, by word or need, it is a challenge to the existing authority. It is a call to wake up and reform. And by normal definition, in line with the behaviour of prophets of old, that is a prophetic act. It challenges the actions of the authority in power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

And the Marxist revolution of a Câmara will colour Christianity rather differently than the Opus Dei way of a Romero. I would rather have the poor follow the latter than the former...

(As an aside: the above tells you why the "professionalisation" of Christian charity in the West - in particular perhaps among Catholics - has basically neutered its contribution to the conversion of the populace.)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To refer back to Jim Wallis's observation (and Archbishop Camara's) his experience taught him that he could not remain silent about the injustices to the poor, and those who wished to serve them. He saw who was pushing them in the river upstream.

---

Was Romero really engaging in politics? His main impact was by truth-telling. He basically listed the transgressions of the state (murder, torture, calumny, ...) on the radio, and then gave a sermon. Thereby he became the only "news source" exposing the dark deeds of the government, which made him so popular. But what exactly is the political agenda in that? This is really more a basic moral agenda, and it become political only in the sense that the immorality is committed by the government. The denouncing of immorality and unfaithfulness is indeed "prophecy", and where this concerns the government it has political impact.

---

quote:

---

Compare this to say a priest standing up and saying that there should be minimum wages of this amount, a benefit structure of this kind, educational reforms along these lines, etc. In general, these kind of questions are reasonably disagreed about by people in the political field. Of course, the opposing sides in a political battle may paint each other as immoral for disagreeing with their own policies. But they are certainly not immoral in the obvious sense of putting bullets through people's heads.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jesus protested publicly. He protested about the commercial exploitation in the temple and he protested about religious authorities who laid heavy burdens on folks without lifting a finger to help them. In his time, given the arrangements with Rome, the boundaries between civil and religious authority in Judea were somewhat blurred. So I find it hard to believe that protest should never be the prerogative of a priest. And protest is always a political act.

---

Your analysis of scripture here rings false. The cleansing of the temple gives succour to those who insist on liturgical purity and respect for the sacred in worship, for that's basically what this was about. Neither the money changing nor the sale of pigeons (for sacrifice) was bad as such. Those were simply necessary to keep the Jewish temple worship running as it was, which is why people set up on temple grounds. The problem Jesus explicitly identifies is that these were businesses, and people were operating them for pecuniary gain. But this was not a critique of all commercial enterprise. What was wrong was to have the commercial activity running in the temple. The temple was supposed to be a sacred space for prayer, dedicated only to the Father alone, not to making money from worshippers. The only time Jesus becomes physically violent Himself is when He protects a good that many modern Protestants reject - sacred "setting apart" of ritualistic and liturgical worship. That tells us something important, but not really about the case at hand.

---

quote:

---

Likewise, Jesus precisely does not call the people to rebel against the Jewish religious authorities.

---

quote:

---

Jesus de facto never attacks the Jewish establishment directly in their power, in particular not in a revolutionary stance. Jesus basically holds them to their own understanding of themselves, he embarrasses them with their own claim of authority in holiness.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Protest against the actions of any established authority always requires a prior judgment about the rights and wrongs of the actions of that authority. When that judgment is made public, by word or need, it is a challenge to the existing authority. It is a call to wake up and reform. And by normal definition, in line with the behaviour of prophets of old, that is a prophetic act. It challenges the actions of the authority in power.

---

Prophecy is not politics.

---

quote:

---

In fact, prophecy loses impact if it becomes politicised. It defangs prophecy if it can be painted as just a political ploy.

---

quote:

---

But the characteristic of regular politics is that it is defensible. That's why there is politicking going on. That's why there are sides, sides that are convinced of their side. You cannot prophecy about what is negotiable and being negotiated. That's not a lone voice in the wilderness, that becomes one voice among so many sophists vying for attention. When claiming the moral high ground is a tactic, it is a ground neither high nor moral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
All of that is well said, and thus being very careful to avoid doing "Christianity and", how is it that Christianity too often supports the status quo, the way things are, the government of the day?

---

Because we're fucked up idiots. Translation: human sin.


Fortunately when the Church is fool enough to get into bed with Caesar, Caesar usually winds up kicking us really hard in painful places and dumping us back on the floor. Which reminds us where our true loyalty lies, and hopefully gets us back heading the right direction.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

originally posted by no prophet:
All of that is well said, and thus being very careful to avoid doing "Christianity and", how is it that Christianity too often supports the status quo, the way things are, the government of the day? How can God save the queen, it be one nation under God, God keep our land glorious and free? Carefully, carefully, indeed I think. It cannot take on the politics or protest nor support of the politics in power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Challenging the exercise of authority by the existing authority is both a moral act and a political act.

---

quote:

---

Oxford English Dictionary on OS X:
politics, plural noun
1. [ usu. treated as sing. ] the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power: the party quickly gained influence in French politics | thereafter he dropped out of active politics.

• the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity.
• the academic study of government and the state: [ as modifier ] : a politics lecturer.
• a particular set of political beliefs or principles: people do not buy their paper purely for its politics.
• (often the politics of) the principles relating to or inherent in a sphere or activity, especially when concerned with power and status: the politics of gender.

2. activities aimed at improving someone's status or increasing power within an organization: yet another discussion of office politics and personalities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not all politics is compromised, morally malleable. The best of it is not, and never was. One of the reasons why politics is in such bad odour these days is because the political calling has lost its way over the importance of moral integrity. As we have daily proof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People of integrity can settle their differences, or learn to live with their differences, without sacrificing their integrity in the process. But it seems you do not believe that is possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
All of that is well said, and thus being very careful to avoid doing "Christianity and", how is it that Christianity too often supports the status quo, the way things are, the government of the day?

---

Because we're fucked up idiots. Translation: human sin.


Fortunately when the Church is fool enough to get into bed with Caesar, Caesar usually winds up kicking us really hard in painful places and dumping us back on the floor. Which reminds us where our true loyalty lies, and hopefully gets us back heading the right direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Anyway, what has this got to do with the OP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So, IngoB, who is wrong in the Vatican allowing the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to give the nihil obstat for the beatification process of Dom Hélder Câmara?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Anyway, what has this got to do with the OP?

---

I said it was a tangent upstream. Feel free to call another Purg Host to the Styx for allowing some space here for this little bit of dialogue between IngoB and me. Personally, I thought it was an OK tangent, and might illustrate some broader principles about Christianity and activism. But YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have spent some time recently with a particular segment of my extended family. I did my best to avoid most of the confrontation, and was mostly successful. Here's what I probably should have said were it possible to be more bluntly honest with family.

It seems obvious that evangelicals love Jesus because of what he did for them. Via Jesus' wondrous grace, by bleeding his precious blood, he saves them from the fires of hell and gives them their ticket to a blissful heaven (along with a Calvinistic wad of cash in this world). For this 'gift' they love him and relentlessly thank him in word, song and dance. But as for Jesus' basic focus on peace, social justice, kindness and charity, most evangelicals reject all of that, as they build their church campuses within a closed network of the like-minded.

Evangelicals reject systematic help to those in poverty, and anything whatsoever that they think sounds like socialism. It's a "no" to food programs, free medical care, free/low cost employment training and education. Against societal institutional help for children. A big "God no" to national daycare programs or head start programs. And we certainly won't feed them school lunches if they haven't had breakfast either. They want punishment for criminals, and don't want to hear about adverse social conditions of whole communities of people that underlie the criminality.

It's all free market, where God shows his pleasure by bestowing success. Thank you God for sending us the right politicians! It's a triumphant 'no' to anything that might address the true needs in society via organized government help (God hates 'big government'!). Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus told people to do. All for the military, while simultaneously worshipping the prince of peace. Yup, they love their Jesus, but not because of what Jesus tried to teach us. Evangelicals have picked the wrong parts of Christianity to emphasize and they haven't earned their happiness by really following their religion's founder, whose core values they violate while saying they don't.

I think evangelicalism needs a major tune-up if not a complete renovation. That's my case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well this evangelical member of the evangelical Salvation Army says a big fat EVANGELICAL yawn to that load of tosh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well this evangelical member of the evangelical Salvation Army says a big fat EVANGELICAL yawn to that load of tosh.

---

Well done on telling np that their experience of their own family is entirely invalid, and you, living a continent away, are much better informed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well this evangelical member of the evangelical Salvation Army says a big fat EVANGELICAL yawn to that load of tosh.

---

Well done on telling np that their experience of their own family is entirely invalid, and you, living a continent away, are much better informed.

---

Well I am certainly better informed about a global evangelical movement that for the last 150 years has combined fervent evangelical beliefs with passionate service for the poor, aid to everyone in need, education, medical care, support to armed services, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, serving the disaster and emergency services and striving for social justice in the name of Christ - in 126 countries (soon to be 127) on every continent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think what Mudfrog's post reveals is that most evangelicals are not the loonies like the ones at Westboro that you think they are!

---

I'm struggling to understand your position here.

I think it's fair to say that no prophet knows their family better than you do, and is not misrepresenting their stated religious affiliation, nor their theology, in any way, shape or form.

np doesn't 'think' their family are straight out of Westboro, rather that they are fairly representative of North American evangelicalism. Why is so difficult for you to believe that this is possible, given that other people on the thread have clearly identified with np's plight.

Or are you getting the No True Scotsman in by the backdoor?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Well I'm sorry, but he talked about a segment of his family and then used them to damn all evangelicals. He didn't say 'Many evangelicals', he didn't say, 'Some evangelicals','a few evangelicals,' 'a minority of evangelicals', 'Extreme evangelicals', 'radical evangelicals'; he just said:

'Evangelicals reject systematic help to those in poverty and anything whatsoever that they think sounds like socialism. It's a "no" to food programs, free medical care, free/low cost employment training and education. Against societal institutional help for children. A big "God no" to national daycare programs or head start programs. And we certainly won't feed them school lunches if they haven't had breakfast either. They want punishment for criminals, and don't want to hear about adverse social conditions of whole communities of people that underlie the criminality. ...'

Do you really think that that is a position that is fairly representative of North American evangelicalism? I only see that kind of stuff in independent groups - groups that i cannot see as being part of the Mainstream of evangelical churches - it is certainly NOT the position of The Salvation Army in the US - which is as conservative an evangelical church as you will get in the Twenty First century.

Now, NP doesn't say what allegiance of background his segment of family belongs to, but if they hold the views he alludes to, they must be pretty odd.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
They may well be odd, Mudfrog, but they may also be very representative of evangelicals in No Prophet's part of North America ... indeed, I would be very surprised if they weren't - even given Cliffdweller's more encyclopaedic knowledge of US evangelicalism in its various facets and forms.

I'd agree that what No Prophet didn't do was to acknowledge that not all evangelicals are like his family - and I have reason to doubt or question his view of what his family are like nor the views they hold.

Sure, I would have preferred No Prophet in the OP to restrict his comments to a particular subset of US evangelicals rather than evangelicals as a whole -- but I don't feel particularly 'defensive' about it on evangelicalism's behalf because I know that as a movement it is far broader than that ...

I'd say similar, of course, if the OP had stated that all RCs were pre-Vatican II types with ultramontane views ... or that all Anglicans were middle-class, drank tea with the vicar and crossed their fingers behind their backs when reciting the Creed ...

Unbelievable as this may sound, I do post on other websites and I've certainly come across the kind of view that No Prophet has expressed about US evangelicalism - I've come across US Episcopalians, RCs and Orthodox as well as mainline Lutherans and others whose only exposure to evangelicalism has been to the kind of groups and views that No Prophet describes - and these people have been surprised - often pleasantly so - when I've directed them to evangelical sites and sources that demonstrate that not all evangelicals come out of that particular mould.

Sadly, however, these other groups are very vocal and tend to have a higher profile in the US than some of the more moderate evangelical groups or the kind of lefty evangelicalism that Cliffdweller espouses and represents.

It's one thing to deplore the rather stereotypical views that a Shipmate may express about a particular group or movement - but we have to understand why that Shipmate has come to that kind of conclusion. I'd suggest that this isn't necessarily the 'fault' of the Shipmate concerned, rather it's the impression they are picking up from the most dominant evangelical group within his/her purlieu.

One could easily pick up stereotypical views of any religious group - whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox if one was only exposed to a particularly variety or expression of that tradition on one's own doorstep.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, that should have said, 'no reason to doubt ...'


 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
That's fair enough, I guess.
I do get a bit cheesed off when evangelicals are all targeted and seen as neanderthals.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do you really think that that is a position that is fairly representative of North American evangelicalism?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well I'm sorry, but he talked about a segment of his family and then used them to damn all evangelicals. He didn't say 'Many evangelicals', he didn't say, 'Some evangelicals','a few evangelicals,' 'a minority of evangelicals', 'Extreme evangelicals', 'radical evangelicals'; he just said:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think what Mudfrog's post reveals is that most evangelicals are not the loonies like the ones at Westboro that you think they are!

---

I'm struggling to understand your position here.

I think it's fair to say that no prophet knows their family better than you do, and is not misrepresenting their stated religious affiliation, nor their theology, in any way, shape or form.

np doesn't 'think' their family are straight out of Westboro, rather that they are fairly representative of North American evangelicalism. Why is so difficult for you to believe that this is possible, given that other people on the thread have clearly identified with np's plight.

Or are you getting the No True Scotsman in by the backdoor?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do you really think that that is a position that is fairly representative of North American evangelicalism?

---

Yes.

You may deplore the signal-to-noise ratio that drowns out people like Tom Sine, Shane Claiborne, and Jim Wallis, but you're simply cherry-picking: no only do people like np's family exist, but they're in the majority of NA evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
In my experience the very conservative evangelicals don't go to university as much as they go to a college that teaches what their brand believes, so if you teach at a university, there is some self-selection going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see any evidence that that is the case

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see any evidence that that is the case

---

You are probably getting a more nuanced signal, being closer to the source. Mudfrog is a near neighbour, and he can't be ignorant of the noise as it is received in the UK.

To answer your unasked question, yes: that is what North American (and US in particular) evangelicals sound like from outside the country.

---

To be fair, that's what we sound like inside the US as well.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Can I ask if there is a problem in translation here?

Could it be that 'evangelical' in the US is actually what we here in the UK would call 'Charismatic' or 'Pentecostal'?

In which case I would look at some of what you're talking about in the US and agree with you; but here in the UK Evangelical is not necessarily either of these two things.

I am a conservative evangelical (being a Salvationist) but I am certainly not pentecostal or charismatic. As far as I am concerned 'evangelical' is a doctrinal position or emphasis, not a style of worship, political opinion or acceptance of creationism.evolutionary theory.

So, for example, I know of evangelical Christians who would worship in the same congregation and who would vote Tory and Labour and disagree totally on politics. I know evangelicals, some of whom believe in 6 day creation, evolution as taught in the most un-religious school, or intelligent design somewhere in the middle. I know evangelicals who speak in tongues and others who have no time for anyone who does.

The Evangelical Church in the UK that might be more reformed than I am would be cessationists and have no agreement with anyone who believes the Holy Spirit gives ministry gifts today. They will be strict Calvinists whilst I am a Wesleyan, and some would be full Arminians.

And yet we are all evangelicals because we believe basic evangelical doctrine.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
.... younger evangelicals in particular are far more apt to be of the Shane Clairborne/Tony Campolo variety ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think in terms of doctrine and worship practice both the UK and US has the same range of views within evangelicalism. Though the proportion of evangelicals within each camp is different. There is also an element of some evangelical groups in the US have a much stronger media and political presence than evangelical groups in the UK, which almost certainly biases impressions of relative strengths of different evangelical groups.

Politically and culturally there are considerable differences between the UK and the US. That's a general statement. Naturally that difference is reflected within evangelicalism as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I think what the rest of us - or most of us - here are trying to say, though, No Prophet is that we've all encountered forms of evangelicalism that are like that ...

However, what we are also saying is that there is more to evangelicalism than that - it's a much wider movement and broader in scope - perhaps not in your immediate vicinity but certainly when you take a wider view ...

...FWIW my own take on these things is that a smidgeon of evangelicalism will take you a fair way - but it needs supplementing with a higher fibre diet.

...It ain't just me staying that - a good many years ago the unimpeachably evangelical Mark Noll wrote in his best-selling book, 'The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind' that evangelicalism as a whole needed to draw on wider sources - Patristic sources, Catholic sources, Orthodox sources, wider Reformed and reformed sources - if it were to develop the life of its collective mind ...

The Shipmate Dyfrig, who used to post regularly on these boards, once observed how he'd said to the late John Stott - a significant Anglican evangelical writer and thinker - how evangelicalism was a good place to start, but not necessarily to end up ...

That might sound patronising to those who remain within the evangelical tradition and work happily within that context - and that's great, good luck to them - but I think there's something in that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Baptists, I'd suggested, are fairly evenly divided on the Arminian/Calvinist issue - often within the same congregation.

---

They might be if most of them knew what you were talking about ... I think this is an issue which is far less prominent than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

(That might not be true of Grace Baptists).
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Of course, there are also streams within evangelicalism. And, one of those streams is intensely intellectual. It's the stream that emphasises personal Bible study supported by a range of commentaries and resources. It's the stream that brought me to Christ, where we were taught to read Scripture in multiple translations since that would give us additional perspective on the text - where going to Bible college and learning Greek and Hebrew to read the Bible in the original languages was something to aspire to. An approach to faith that would use the best of scholarship to understand what the Bible is saying to us.
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;

quote:

---

Methodism in Wales, for instance, was far less 'Wesleyan' in tone - they were Calvinistic Methodists for the most part - and would have probably been called Presbyterians anywhere else ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd love to know what stream TSA is in!

---

TSA? I thought they were more in
THIS stream... (may not be work safe...)

[ 31. July 2015, 19:02: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I would expect that most groups (even individuals) are composed of different streams.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There's nothing surprising about Whitefield being a Calvinist and Anglican at one and the same time, Steve Langton.

Wesley's Arminianism was the exception rather than the rule in 18th century Anglicanism.

And of course J I Packer claimed that Wesley was more Calvinist than Arminian - Calvinists always do that. They can't bear to think that there are any alternative 'takes' on things and so try to appropriate anyone they vaguely approve of into their own schema ...

Heck, they've already done it with John Calvin ...

They'll be trying to do it with the Apostle Paul next ...


 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;

quote:

---

There's nothing surprising about Whitefield being a Calvinist and Anglican at one and the same time, Steve Langton.

---

quote:

---

And of course J I Packer claimed that Wesley was more Calvinist than Arminian - Calvinists always do that. They can't bear to think that there are any alternative 'takes' on things and so try to appropriate anyone they vaguely approve of into their own schema ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

And of course J I Packer claimed that Wesley was more Calvinist than Arminian - Calvinists always do that. They can't bear to think that there are any alternative 'takes' on things and so try to appropriate anyone they vaguely approve of into their own schema ...

---

I can only say I basically agree with Packer on this one. Wesley is far more 'Calvinist' than the typical later American 'evangelist' and he does appear to reject that 'philosophical' Calvinism rather than the warmer and of course more biblical version. In essence he preached biblically and couldn't help preaching the grace of God rather than the proud self-help of sinners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

BTW, there is on record a story about Whitefield which I like. He was once in the company of several American Presbyterian leaders, and he was asked,
"Mr Whitefield, do you think we shall see John Wesley in heaven?"

"Oh no", he replied - and then confounded the expectations of his audience by following up with "for we shall be so far from the throne of God, and Mr Wesley so near...."

---

quote:

---

Of course Wesley didn't preach the proud self-help of sinners. No one does. I think you misunderstand Arminianism if you think it is not, first and foremost, about the grace of God.

---

Arminius, AIUI, thought of himself as a Calvinist.... The point is that wherever people go philosophically about these matters, biblical preachers cannot avoid that point I made earlier of dependence on God and of recognising God's right to choose, in a situation where we cannot earn his mercy or force his hand. There is a way of preaching faith which stresses too much the other way; God may still use it, but it runs a serious risk of producing shallow and shaky conversions because it has focussed too much on the human decision and not enough on that need of mercy.

This is very interesting but I can't help feeling it's a bit outside the OP. A few posts ago I just commented on Whitefield's relationship to the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, and I didn't really mean to start a major tangent
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by cliffdweller;

quote:

---

Of course Wesley didn't preach the proud self-help of sinners. No one does. I think you misunderstand Arminianism if you think it is not, first and foremost, about the grace of God.

---

Arminius, AIUI, thought of himself as a Calvinist.... The point is that wherever people go philosophically about these matters, biblical preachers cannot avoid that point I made earlier of dependence on God and of recognising God's right to choose, in a situation where we cannot earn his mercy or force his hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

This is very interesting but I can't help feeling it's a bit outside the OP. A few posts ago I just commented on Whitefield's relationship to the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, and I didn't really mean to start a major tangent

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
They may well be odd, Mudfrog, but they may also be very representative of evangelicals in No Prophet's part of North America ... indeed, I would be very surprised if they weren't - even given Cliffdweller's more encyclopaedic knowledge of US evangelicalism in its various facets and forms.

I'd agree that what No Prophet didn't do was to acknowledge that not all evangelicals are like his family - and I have reason to doubt or question his view of what his family are like nor the views they hold.

Sure, I would have preferred No Prophet in the OP to restrict his comments to a particular subset of US evangelicals rather than evangelicals as a whole -- but I don't feel particularly 'defensive' about it on evangelicalism's behalf because I know that as a movement it is far broader than that ...

I'd say similar, of course, if the OP had stated that all RCs were pre-Vatican II types with ultramontane views ... or that all Anglicans were middle-class, drank tea with the vicar and crossed their fingers behind their backs when reciting the Creed ...

Unbelievable as this may sound, I do post on other websites and I've certainly come across the kind of view that No Prophet has expressed about US evangelicalism - I've come across US Episcopalians, RCs and Orthodox as well as mainline Lutherans and others whose only exposure to evangelicalism has been to the kind of groups and views that No Prophet describes - and these people have been surprised - often pleasantly so - when I've directed them to evangelical sites and sources that demonstrate that not all evangelicals come out of that particular mould.

Sadly, however, these other groups are very vocal and tend to have a higher profile in the US than some of the more moderate evangelical groups or the kind of lefty evangelicalism that Cliffdweller espouses and represents.

It's one thing to deplore the rather stereotypical views that a Shipmate may express about a particular group or movement - but we have to understand why that Shipmate has come to that kind of conclusion. I'd suggest that this isn't necessarily the 'fault' of the Shipmate concerned, rather it's the impression they are picking up from the most dominant evangelical group within his/her purlieu.

One could easily pick up stereotypical views of any religious group - whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox if one was only exposed to a particularly variety or expression of that tradition on one's own doorstep.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beautiful Dreamer:

I think a lot of the perception some have of US Evangelicalism is because of point #1-that it's gotten into bed with politics so much that it looks more like a political movement than a religion. I think this is where the individualism and (pardon my terms) "screw the poor, they don't deserve crap because they obviously don't care to earn it" attitude BR mentioned comes from. Ditto the "you can't vote Democratic/support LGBT rights/be pro-choice/oppose war/etc" crap. The only explanation I can think of for this is that some conservative politicians (particularly Bush #2, although not only him) have claimed to be Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Arminius, AIUI, thought of himself as a Calvinist....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The connotation in general in Canada I think is that "evangelical" means socially conservative, tendency toward biblical literalism, life centred on personal responsibility, but almost always extended into the desire to re-form society within the 'good news' they fervently believe and follow, and a great desire to foist their ideas on others. They will tell me that Canada is a Christian country, something I had not noticed. They are prepared to sign petitions, donate to organizations aimed at what they term "traditional" things. Their church services feature bands, emotional speechifying, and often calls to the front to give hearts to Jesus (are minds included or excluded?). The whole package appears unthinking and unwilling to really discuss anything. I used to envy their certainty. But I saw that it hurts people.

They've found themselves with political infuecne in both USA and Canada, with Canadian politicians more shy about expressing themselves than Americans. They want tax cuts, reduced public spending, and have a strong focus on prosperity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
The same observations apply here in the USA too. I think it's by and large an accurate perception. It may not describe all evangelicals, as cliffdweller points out, but I think it does describe the largest proportion of them, not merely the loudest. (Cliffdweller, you know I love you, but even Rachel Held Evans no longer finds it possible to define herself as "evangelical".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What we've seen in the US is the Democrats and Republicans effectively doing a 360-degree turn since the middle of the 19th century to the point where they each now occupy the ground that the other used to ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Cliffdweller would know more about that than I do - but as recently as the Presidency of Jimmy Carter - a Southern Baptist I believe - the whole 'born-again' thing in the US wasn't necessarily associated with the Good Old Party.

It isn't now, of course - at least, not completely - but the over-riding impression we get is that US evangelicalism IS the Republican Party at prayer ...

Mind you, from what I've seen on-line the Republicans seem to the party of choice for very conservative RCs and Orthodox too ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What we've seen in the US is the Democrats and Republicans effectively doing a 360-degree turn since the middle of the 19th century to the point where they each now occupy the ground that the other used to ...

---

That's a 180-degree turn. Your sort would have brought them back to where they started.

---

Yes. Like me, Gamaliel's knowledge of theology and church history is better than his math.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
...although maybe it was a word of knowledge? Please, God!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ha ha ... no, I'm not making any more claims towards prophetic anointing than I am about proficiency in maths (or math as you Americans say) ...

But who knows?


 

---

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
The same observations apply here in the USA too. I think it's by and large an accurate perception. It may not describe all evangelicals, as cliffdweller points out, but I think it does describe the largest proportion of them, not merely the loudest. (Cliffdweller, you know I love you, but even Rachel Held Evans no longer finds it possible to define herself as "evangelical".

---

I think this is a bit of reverse "no true Scottsman"-- the name has become so besmirched by this loudly obnoxious contingent that yes, many/most younger believers who meet the Bebbington definition simply don't want to be known by that name anymore. Understandable.

---

quote:

---

You are also way wide of the mark on George Whitefield and his relationship to Anglicanism.

Neither Whitefield nor Wesley would have seen themselves as setting up something that would become an alternative to Anglicanism. They both wished to remain within the framework of the Church of England 'by law established'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

In line with Ship practice, I have removed the rest of the text and substituted a link. For reasons of potential copyright infringement and a focus on user-generated content, please don't post the entire text of anything here. A link is quite sufficient.

/hosting

---

quote:

---

That Whitefield set up a Calvinistic Methodist denomination. That may have been the unintended outcome of his work but it wasn't what he was trying to do.

---

quote:

---

That the Anglican Church had/has 'inbuilt-faults' -- why has it got any more (or less) in-built faults than any other church - including yours?

---

quote:

---

you are operating under the assumption that some kind of Calvinist model or Anabaptist model is THE correct one ... how and why is that any different to any other claim that anyone else might make about their particular model of church?)

---

quote:

---

We don't know whether Whitefield would have inclined towards separation had he lived longer - he may well have done, but we have no way of knowing whether or not this would have been the case.

---

quote:

---

Either way, in and of itself that doesn't tell us anything about the rightness, wrongness or indifferentness of the Anglican system as it existed at that time.

---

quote:

---

whatever 'take' we have on the actions or opinions of people like the Wesleys or Whitefield is going to be coloured by whatever our religious tradition happens to be ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And the faults in question are essentially the faults of an 'established/state church'.

---

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, Steve that you are so wedded to this 'let's hammer away at the Constantinian system' thing that whatever you look at appears like a nail.

I'm not saying that all traditions or movements are equally 'valid' either.

But whichever ones I decide are less valid than others would be based on my own particular 'take' and viewpoint -- which applies to all of us, of course.

One of the interesting things about the Methodist family-tree that mr cheesy provided is how short-lived a lot of the Methodist splinter-groups were and how many of them merged back into the parent body over the course of time. In the UK, the Methodist Church has practically absorbed its various sectarian offshoots back into itself ... there are still some independent Methodist groups and congregations around - but not many.

If it is true that the Anglican system you seem to despise so much was unable to 'contain the revival of biblical preaching' or religion as you see it - then why weren't the newly independent Methodist groups - untrammelled by nefarious 'Constaninian' Anglicanism able to sustain things for longer than they were?

If independence from the State were such a wonderful thing in and of itself - and I'm not arguing FOR Establishment, mind you - then how come the newly dis-established Methodists didn't carry all before them?



Oh - I forgot - perhaps they didn't go far enough and become Anabaptists ...



I don't have an issue with non-conformist or revivalist groups per se - heck, I've been a member of a Baptist church myself and before that was involved with an independent charismatic-evangelical network. There's a lot to be said for that kind of approach - in terms of apparent flexibility and so on -- hence the success of both Baptist and Methodist missions in the Caribbean, parts of the USA and places like the South Pacific during the 19th century.

I'm not knocking any of that.

What I am questioning is the naive notion that if only churches adopted your kind of model then all would be well and we'd see some kind of wonderful revival.
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Gamaliel;

quote:

---

What I am questioning is the naive notion that if only churches adopted your kind of model then all would be well and we'd see some kind of wonderful revival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Wonderful revival' - as an old broadcaster used to say, 'it depends what you mean by "revival"...' Anabaptists don't entirely do the traditional US evangelical revival as per Billy Graham etc; and I'm personally of the opinion that such revivals depended rather on the background of state churches. I think Graham was probably the last major figure who could address mass audiences with a simple "The Bible says...." message and get much response. Somewhat different tactics will be needed in the future..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
The same observations apply here in the USA too. I think it's by and large an accurate perception. It may not describe all evangelicals, as cliffdweller points out, but I think it does describe the largest proportion of them, not merely the loudest. (Cliffdweller, you know I love you, but even Rachel Held Evans no longer finds it possible to define herself as "evangelical".

---

I think this is a bit of reverse "no true Scottsman"-- the name has become so besmirched by this loudly obnoxious contingent that yes, many/most younger believers who meet the Bebbington definition simply don't want to be known by that name anymore. Understandable.

---

You say besmirched; I would say overwhelmed. It appears to me that the so-called "conservative" or "fundamentalist" flavor of evangelicalism is so domainant right now within the broader evangelical movement -- not just in noise level and visibility but also in numbers -- that it has become the de facto center. The same thing happend in the Unitarian churches with "Humanism" in the mid-20th century, such that Humanism supplanted liberal Protestantism as a defining paradigm of what it meant to be Unitarian. (And in many minds too, "Humanism", which once meant celebrating the inherent worth and dignity of the human spirit and was compatible with liberal Protestantism, became instead a euphemism for atheism, which was and is not.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Neither Whitefield nor Wesley would have seen themselves as setting up something that would become an alternative to Anglicanism. They both wished to remain within the framework of the Church of England 'by law established'.

Neither of them would have regarded what they were doing in any way incompatible with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, not doctrinal in the slightest:

There is no doctrine involved in the issue of women's ministry.
No doctrine involved with the discontinuation of the sacraments.
No doctrine regarding the position given to Booth (in the context of his not having a priestly ordination and yet being the leader of a worldwide movement).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, not doctrinal in the slightest:

There is no doctrine involved in the issue of women's ministry.
No doctrine involved with the discontinuation of the sacraments.
No doctrine regarding the position given to Booth (in the context of his not having a priestly ordination and yet being the leader of a worldwide movement).

---

Well, I'm Anglican, and I think these are all doctrinal issues.

---

quote:

---

Steve, can you help please - what background of state churches was there in the 50's US, to form a background for Billy Graham's success?

---

quote:

---

Steve, do you recognise a similarity between the terms in which you describe "constantinianism" and how radical socialists describe "capitalism". I imagine that Anabaptists 4 centuries ago expected much what you expect, just as Marxists a century ago and today expected the proletarian revolution any moment.

---

Interesting and I very much see what you mean!

One way of looking at this is that actually we have got a lot of what those early Anabaptists expected; as someone said a few years ago, in the modern world "We're all Anabaptists now - it's just that some of us haven't fully realised it yet". To take the obvious example, the modern CofE is a long way from the body that used to penalise non-conformists, as for example when Baptist John Bunyan was imprisoned for his faith. Even the 'semper idem' RCC has changed from the days of Crusade and Inquisition.

Of course in some areas there's a long way to go yet....

At least modern Anabaptists know not to do violent revolution. Interestingly Marxism has also attained a lot of its goals in much of the West, while it can be argued that the violent and coercive form as in the Eastern Bloc and China ended up betraying Marx's intentions ('Democratic Republics' which were not at all democratic, for example).
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Not quite sure Marxism has achieved its' aims in any of the West Except maybe Scandinavia, perhaps.
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Revivalism' grew out of 'Christian countries' with state churches - which before Independence included the USA. The US may have rejected having a specific established Church, but in practice still operated largely as a 'Christian country', a state of affairs that the 'Religious Right/Moral Majority' seeks to perpetuate in the style complained of in the OP here.

---

quote:

---

Thus when preachers like Graham came along they could rely on widespread knowledge of the faith even among outright unbelievers; and in practice were mostly 'reviving' the faith of those who were nominal Christians or had grown up in such a background. Note that the very phrase 'revival' means bringing back to life something that already more-or-less existed, rather than starting something new; so in a way that word assumes something like a 'Christian country' starting point, but in which the faith has declined and needs 'revival'.

---

I think you are reading way too much into the use of the word "revival," as well as assuming too much about the religious background of those at whom revivals were aimed. (The accepted historical term for these periods, of course, is "Awakenings.")

I also think you are misunderstanding what Graham—who called what he did "crusades" rather than "revivals"—and others like him saw themselves to be doing. Reviving the faith of nominal Christians was secondary to them. Reaching those who were not Christians was their primary focus.

In any event, I don't think American history will bear out the Constantinian imprint you're trying to impose on the activities of Billy Graham and others.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And there is a distinction to be made between 'revival' and 'revivalism' too.

I can see what Steve is driving at but one could turn it around as an argument FOR Constantinianism rather than against it ie nominally Christian state of affairs is a good thing as this is where the vast majority of converts come from.

Whatever the case, once people who profess a Christian faith reaches some kind of critical-mass then society itself becomes Christianised to some extent

I agree with Steve that revivals - as traditionally understood - happen within predominantly Christianised societies - and that was certainly the case with the First and Second Great Awakenings.

It seems to me that Steve wants to have his cake and eat it - he wants to have 'revival' - or perhaps 'vival' rather - but he doesn't want the kind of Christianised society that provides the necessary conditions to bring this about.

The only exception to this I can think of are the various 'people movements' that missiologists have identified, such as among the Lisu people of Burma/Myanmar.

So what happens when the Lisu nevome - or became - thoroughly Christianised?

It strikes me that Steve's model requires some kind of Pol Pot approach - which is sociologically unfeasible

If my understanding of Steve's own faith journey / testimony is concerned is correct - he himself comes from a 'Constantinian' background. However we cut it we all find faith in some context or other - Steve found the Christian faith in a broadly Christian context - had he grown up in a society shaped by Islamic or Hindu faith he'd more than likely have followed suit.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

Gamaliel, for the nth time, please stop telling everyone what you think another poster thinks. As has been shown many times, this is a sure-fire way of annoying people; repeat offending, of which you are surely guilty, qualifies as a C1 violation.

Either interact by addressing them directly, or tell us your views.

Also, to remind you, Steve Langton has been warned about posting solely on the topic of Constantinianism as this could be interpreted as violating C8 (don't crusade, no pun intended).

By my reading Steve's most recent post manages to engage with the topic without straying into this territory, but yours, Gamaliel, could be seen as an attempt to lure him there.

Tl;dr: the next person to mention Constantinianism gets a referral to admin.

/hosting
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, I was thinking aloud and not trying to lure Steve into anything - but re-reading my post I can certainly see how it could cause annoyance. I do apologise.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Well, the sacramental issue is not a doctrinal one because The Salvation Army fully accepts the doctrines of atonement, resurrection and eschatology that are part of the eucharist. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again is OK with us
We don't dispute any of the doctrinal bases for the Lord's supper. Our non-observance of the eucharist has nothing to do with credal doctrine; it has to do with mission.

It's a theological position, not a doctrinal one.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - so I can see something of a distinction between theology and doctrine - but it's a very fine distinction to make.

I wasn't having a 'go' at the SA's position necessarily but surprised to see issues like views of the sacraments described in a way that seemed to suggest that they had nothing to do with doctrine and purely to do with local custom -say ... such as a dispute about vestments and so on.

I'm sure there'll be High Church Anglicans who'd consider views on the eucharist equally as doctrinal as views on baptism or the relation between faith and works.

At what point does doctrine stop being doctrine and become theology?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Well, the discontinuation of sacraments would have been a doctrinal decision had we decided, for example, that Jesus' death was not at atoning death, thus rendering the Lord's supper without meaning.

We fully accept all doctrinal bases of the Eucharist - the atoning blood, the new covenant, the doctrine of the Body of Christ, the impurtanmce of remembrance, the centrality of the cross, etc, etc, etc, (and we even as far as to say that the bread and wine are means of grace), but we don't practice them because in the days when the decision was made we didn't see ourselves as a church and we found that, much more than today, they were a devisive influence within the church.

The talks with Canterbury foundered because, like Methodists, we hadn't been using fermented wine in our Lord's suppers and that was evidently not acceptable to Anglicans. But that's not a doctrinal issue.
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Nick Tamen;

quote:

---

I also think you are misunderstanding what Graham—who called what he did "crusades" rather than "revivals"—and others like him saw themselves to be doing. Reviving the faith of nominal Christians was secondary to them. Reaching those who were not Christians was their primary focus.

---

quote:

---

And yes, while the religious right seeks to "perpetuate" America's status as a "Christian country," most historians will tell you that they are really re-writing history, and that America never was a Christian country in the sense claimed by the religious right—at least not in the 18th Century. (As for the Moral Majority, they dissolved almost 30 years ago.)

---

quote:

---

that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As in some ways is Gamaliel's distinction between 'revival' and 'revivalism' - the former being something that comes about from basic preaching of the gospel, the latter being a more calculated and intentional thing, a kind of attempt to artificially generate a revival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Having said that, if there is one feature of SOME American evangelicalism which is peculiar to the US, and which evangelicals elsewhere find strange, it is the habit of announcing in advance that a "revival" is going to be "held' at a certain venue on a certain date.

This is attributable to the influence of Charles Finney, who taught that a revival was an assured outcome of meeting prescribed criteria, and was therefore as predictable as the result of a properly conducted scientific procedure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Nick Tamen - I was just watching the weird film "Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter" and it reminded me of this line from the 'Gettysburg Address' which I think makes the point of an at least significantly 'religious' nation at that time....

quote:

---

that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom

---

I don't recall a huge volume of complaint against Lincoln putting it that way...?!

---

quote:

---

from the early 1850s, as well as later during his two presidential campaigns, and in response to Jewish sensitivities, even changed the way he thought and spoke about America. Through his actions and his rhetoric--replacing "Christian nation," for example, with "this nation under God"--he embraced Jews as insiders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

Eutychus - I'm doing my best but if you think about it the kind of evangelicalism mentioned in the OP is VERY close to the kind of issues I have concerns about. It's not easy....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Kaplan but the term 'revival' in the US can have a different meaning to the weight the term carries elsewhere in the Anglophone world. As well as meaning what you mean by the term it can also mean something like 'rally' or 'crusade' - rather in the way that Steve describes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, the discontinuation of sacraments would have been a doctrinal decision had we decided, for example, that Jesus' death was not at atoning death, thus rendering the Lord's supper without meaning.

We fully accept all doctrinal bases of the Eucharist - the atoning blood, the new covenant, the doctrine of the Body of Christ, the impurtanmce of remembrance, the centrality of the cross, etc, etc, etc, (and we even as far as to say that the bread and wine are means of grace), but we don't practice them because in the days when the decision was made we didn't see ourselves as a church and we found that, much more than today, they were a devisive influence within the church.

The talks with Canterbury foundered because, like Methodists, we hadn't been using fermented wine in our Lord's suppers and that was evidently not acceptable to Anglicans. But that's not a doctrinal issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Surely the point to draw is that belief in any of those subsets of revival, doesn't necessarily correlate with being interventionist in social terms (as per the original post), or even how that would be framed politically. And that such things are more coloured by the social context in which those religious movements exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

What I am saying, though, is that whilst, in its typically pragmatic way, the Anglicans would probably have been happy to take on Booth and his holiness views and revivalist fervous - because it would have put bums on seats (or penitent forms) ... not all of them would have been happy with the apparent lack of emphasis on sacraments and orders ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I do think that the old 'Constantinian' model is on its way out and that the churches of the future will follow something like an Anabaptist model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was Mousethief, not Steve Langton, who referred to 'Volklands', SvitlanaV2 - and Mousethief lives in the US.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I do think that the old 'Constantinian' model is on its way out and that the churches of the future will follow something like an Anabaptist model.

---

You mean they'll become a bunch of inward-focused, largely-hereditary, backwards-looking quaint Volkland churches which avoid the stain of involvement in greater society and politics out of regards to their reading of a "New Testament" church that probably never existed and was a product of a completely different world?

---

quote:

---

out of regards to their reading of a "New Testament" church that probably never existed and was a product of a completely different world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
AIUI, the complaint in the OP is precisely about the evangelicals who DO do "involvement in greater society and politics".

---

quote:

---

"Not engaging at all" was not an option envisaged in the OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Kaplan but the term 'revival' in the US can have a different meaning to the weight the term carries elsewhere in the Anglophone world. As well as meaning what you mean by the term it can also mean something like 'rally' or 'crusade' - rather in the way that Steve describes.

---

Right, though unlike a "crusade," a revival is typically sponsored by an individual congregation for the purpose of strengthening the faith of members as well as evangelizing non-members (usually invited by members). A crusade or rally is typically sponsored by some other organization, supported by a number of congregations, primarily for the purpose of evangelization.

In some sense, in the US a revival is to evangelical Protestants as a (Lenten) mission is to Catholics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The church historian Stuart Piggin applied the sort of criteria which Gamaliel quotes from Latham to the 1959 Billy Graham Crusade, arguably the most influential religious event in twentieth century Australian history, and concluded that it was indeed a revival.

However, he also pointed out that the overwhelming majority of "converts" came from a mainstream church background, so a non-evangelical could argue that they had actually experienced a deepening of commitment rather than regeneration.

In other words, revival can be a both/and rather than an either/or (this is spooky, I'm starting to sound like Gamaliel!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'll return to the OP and reconsider before further posting.

---

quote:

---

Meanwhile, however

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Ummm... As Gamaliel pointed out, the first bit of that sounds like a lot of 'ex-patriate' Orthodox bodies.

---

quote:

---

As regards "avoid the stain of involvement in greater society and politics" - do you mean you'd rather we were like that bunch in Munster?

---

quote:

---

(Who in turn had actually much more in common with the Orthodox/RCC/original-style-Anglicans/etc than with modern Anabaptism, of course).

---

quote:

---

No, we're not 'avoiding the stain of involvement' - more avoiding the stain of either innocent blood or the blood of people we should be trying to bring to Christ rather than send into the next world (or hopefully only our prisons). And avoiding the stain of being the coercers, the bullies, in the name of Jesus....

---

quote:

---

Yes - that would be the 'completely different' world before the 'Catholic/Orthodox' church of the Roman Empire changed things by disregarding a lot of the teachings of that 'New Testament' in favour of a 'different' way of doing Christianity.... That's a difference the rights and wrongs of which might be worth considering very seriously....

---

quote:

---

I don't suppose we can simplistically restore the NT church in detail - but we can restore its principles like NOT being a 'kingdom of this world', NOT taking the sword, NOT being 'allotriepiskopoi/managers of other people's affairs', and others.

---

quote:

---

Or indeed, if you think about it, those are the principles of Jesus (the first two) and for RCs, that third one is a principle of the first (alleged) Pope.

---

quote:

---

AIUI, the complaint in the OP is precisely about the evangelicals who DO do "involvement in greater society and politics".

---

quote:

---

You might also bear in mind that Anabaptists would mostly have preferred more (though different) involvement in 'the world' - but it was rather difficult while being persecuted by people who were supposed to be their fellow-Christians... hopefully we won't be having so much of that problem in the future....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

Mousethief, did you miss this host post where I warned about luring Steve into forbidden territory? Because it certainly looks like it.

Also, you cannot have failed to notice that Steve has just been referred to Admin for possible crusading.

We are trying to find the right way to address this issue backstage, and you're stirring the pot instead of giving us space to act. Back off Steve or call him to Hell.

/hosting

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
To be fair, the OP mentioned experiences of evangelicalism that were similarly culture-specific. It may not be the case, for example, that evangelicals in India, Finland, Burkina Faso or Uruguay would uniformly disapprove of the govt helping the poor....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
To be fair, the OP mentioned experiences of evangelicalism that were similarly culture-specific. It may not be the case, for example, that evangelicals in India, Finland, Burkina Faso or Uruguay would uniformly disapprove of the govt helping the poor....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


Nevertheless, the CofE is the 'mother church' of the Anglican Communion, and if its future is precarious (with 'intentional' significance or otherwise) wouldn't this be of interest to Anglicans elsewhere? Maybe not.

---

quote:

---

Regarding intentionality as such, the churches of the Anglican Communion were mostly founded around the British Empire as de facto institutional churches by British colonialists, so if they're now focused on a 'gathered community' this wouldn't always have been the case, in theory. The British colonies in the Caribbean, for example, were assumed from the start to be Anglican, and the successes of the other denominations there were seen as unwelcome challenges to that identity.

---

You mustn't over generalize based on fairly sketchy history. What you say is certainly true about the colonies of the Caribbean. Less true (in that there was no official position, or it was so long ago -- centuries in a couple of cases) or utterly irrelevent in the case of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India and so on -- not to mention the (admittedly very small) churches of the communion in Japan, Hong Kong, Mexico/Central and South America and so on.

John
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, all of that is the case, John.

I was quite surprised when I first encountered hostility towards various Archbishops of Canterbury from Anglicans in other parts of the world ...

I'd just blithely, and naively, assumed that they'd all be quite happy to go along with whatever came out of Canterbury ...



The same thing happens among the Orthodox, it seems, I've been quite shocked at some of the language various canonical Orthodox use when referring to their own Patriarch ...

But yes, guilty as charged - the 'Mother Church' can very often act in a sphincter-tighteningly embarrassing and patronising way towards its daughter (or sister?) Anglican churches in other parts of the world.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
If the Anglican Communion around the world sees itself as sharing very little with the Church of England, whether today or historically, one wonders whether the 'Communion' has much of as future. But then the same could be said of the CofE, whose adherents often appear to have little in common with each other.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
I think the thing that is often missed in the CofE is that the CofE doesn't run the Anglican Communion -- it's an equal partner. The rest of us simply aren't interested in being told what or how to do things by a church which is so solidly based in establishment, Englishness and, for some of us, is so stuck in the past that we've long since ceased even waiting for the CofE to catch up with the present.

50-60 years ago it would have been correct to say that many Anglicans regarded the CofE as the "mother church". Now the communion sees its members as sisters of each other, with no one in a superior position to the others.

The idea that without deference to the CofE, the Communion is meaningless is simply wrong.

John
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
But how is it meaningful?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I didn't say that the CofE's sister Anglican churches should 'defer' to either Englishness, Establishment or Erastianism, John.

I'm not sure anyone else here is saying that either.

It might be how the Church of England 'acts' and comes across at times, though.

Not living in Canada, Australia, the USA, Papua New Guinea, Nigeria or the South Pacific, I have no idea how the CofE comes across to Anglicans in those parts of the world.

Some US Episcopalians strike me as unhealthily interested in the British monarchy and other tokens of Englishness though ...

I have no idea whether that applies to any Anglicans in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else ...

I think SvitlanaV2's question is a valid one - as I've wondered for years how long the CofE can hold itself together as a cohesive unit here in England. Sure, that may or may not have implications for sister Anglican churches overseas, but I can see SvitlanaV2's point ...

Mind you, one might equally ask how Methodists worldwide might benefit from belonging to a worldwide communion or denomination?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
In the context of evangelicanism, The Salvation Army is quite possibly the only church that is solid in its internationalism. In fact, in government, authority and unity, we are probably the only Christian church outside Roman Catholicism that is so centrally unified. Our Soldiers and Junior Soldiers sign exactly the same covenantal promises, whether in the USA or in Eastern Europe, South Africa, or China. Our officers all sign exactly the same Officers' Covenant. The doctrines (expounded in one universally authorised doctrine handbook) are part of these covenants and the English speaking SA even shares exactly the same hymn book, issued on the sole authority of the General.

It is entirely possibly to be perfectly controlled by the centre and yet have local cultural expression.

Actually, our government more or less mirrors Catholic Episcopal ranks - from one General (Pope) down through Commissioners (Cardinals), Divisional Commanders (Bishops) to Commanding Officers (Me, the Parish priest)

[ 06. August 2015, 19:53: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Mind you, one might equally ask how Methodists worldwide might benefit from belonging to a worldwide communion or denomination?

---

quote:

---

What I'm suggesting is that a greater degree of 'intentionality' and the forming of 'opt-in' parishes or congregations - rather than 'assume you are in' - could become more prevalent across all the historic Churches in future ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


generally more liberal

notoriously far more conservative

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Would 'notoriously more liberal ... generally more conservative' suit you?

That way it'd be both/and ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure something similar happens in Methodism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In the context of evangelicanism, The Salvation Army is quite possibly the only church that is solid in its internationalism. In fact, in government, authority and unity, we are probably the only Christian church outside Roman Catholicism that is so centrally unified. Our Soldiers and Junior Soldiers sign exactly the same covenantal promises, whether in the USA or in Eastern Europe, South Africa, or China. Our officers all sign exactly the same Officers' Covenant. The doctrines (expounded in one universally authorised doctrine handbook) are part of these covenants and the English speaking SA even shares exactly the same hymn book, issued on the sole authority of the General.

It is entirely possibly to be perfectly controlled by the centre and yet have local cultural expression.

Actually, our government more or less mirrors Catholic Episcopal ranks - from one General (Pope) down through Commissioners (Cardinals), Divisional Commanders (Bishops) to Commanding Officers (Me, the Parish priest)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Obedience must be a central value; does Jesus command your obedience? Certainly not mine.

---

Some would say that obedience to God is a central facet of Christianity - although, interestingly, it doesn't appear to be the priority that it is in Islam. Rather, the emphasis tends to be on relationship.

This is a significant difference between the two religions, I think. In fact, would an ordinary Muslim ever ask if an Islamic extremist 'loved or hated' the Prophet Mohammed? The question simply sounds strange. The issue for Muslims seems to be whether or not they're obedient (or feel themselves to be obedient) to Mohammed's teachings.

In the long term the Muslim focus on obedience will probably be particularly beneficial for the coherence of the religion. Despite the violent extremism, I feel that Islam will have a better chance of holding together than Christianity. But that's a big tangent that deserves its own thread.

[ 11. August 2015, 00:53: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Okay, this is bizarre to me; why wouldn't Jesus have my obedience? I mean, as my maker and redeemer, surely that makes sense?

Now it's true that I don't go around all day obsessing about obedience or submission or what have you, any more than my son does with regards to his parents; "love" and/or "respect" is the usual way I name it. The motivation, in other words, rather than the outcome.

But yes, it's still obedience. "If you love me, obey me," said Jesus, and that makes sense, given who he is. Even more so, given the fact that he's commanding obedience for our own good, not his.

I could equally well say this to my kid.* "If you love me as your mother, for gosh sakes obey me and don't be skipping school and doing drugs, you're breaking my heart here." "If you really love me, stop beating up your sister and carrying the cat around by the tail; don't give me flowery Mother's day cards and at the same time ignore everything I've been banging on about for the last zillion years!"

* No, LL has more sense (and love for his mother ) than to do drugs or torture cats. Don't worry, these are hypothetical cases.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Trust and obey, for there's no other way?

Lamb Chopped, the issue for obedience is that we kid ourselves sometimes. In the extent to which we trust our consciences, those of others, and the accuracy of our own interpretations.

I think learning who and what to trust is the precursor to obedience. There's a line from a Keith Green song that keeps me on track with the tension of these things.

"'Cause it's dust to dust, until we learn how to trust".

The "yes but how" of trusting is a big deal. We trust those we love, until they let us down. Then "trust but verify" comes into play. We navigate between naivety and paranoia!

[ 11. August 2015, 06:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trust and obey, for there's no other way?

Lamb Chopped, the issue for obedience is that we kid ourselves sometimes. In the extent to which we trust our consciences, those of others, and the accuracy of our own interpretations.

I think learning who and what to trust is the precursor to obedience. There's a line from a Keith Green song that keeps me on track with the tension of these things.

"'Cause it's dust to dust, until we learn how to trust".

The "yes but how" of trusting is a big deal. We trust those we love, until they let us down. Then "trust but verify" comes into play. We navigate between naivety and paranoia!

---

Okay, I must be misunderstanding. When I referred to obedience, I was thinking of the ordinary, everyone-agrees-on-this stuff, such as avoiding backstabbing, hatred, lying, cheating, stealing, greed, etc. etc. etc. Not dead horses, which I'm guessing is in your mind, since you bring up interpretations?

And I was also only referring to obedience to God (that is of course including Christ). Obedience to ordinary human beings is another kettle of fish entirely.

As for trust, I think you can make a case for saying that trust is a form of obedience--or obedience is a form of trust--or both together. They certainly seem to go together in time.

For example, I'm not going to obey God if I don't trust him, why should I? His motives in commanding this or that might be bad ones, or simply harmful to me, regardless of his motives. But if I trust him to a) have my best interests in mind, b) care about me and my best interests, c) be wise enough to know what's best, then obedience is a natural consequence. Or would be, if I weren't a sinner.


Conversely, to trust God is in fact to obey him, as we are commanded to trust him in a bunch of places. "What should we do, to be doing the work of God?" "The work of God is this: to trust in the one he has sent" (John 6).
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This is a significant difference between the two religions, I think. In fact, would an ordinary Muslim ever ask if an Islamic extremist 'loved or hated' the Prophet Mohammed? The question simply sounds strange. The issue for Muslims seems to be whether or not they're obedient (or feel themselves to be obedient) to Mohammed's teachings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, this is bizarre to me; why wouldn't Jesus have my obedience? I mean, as my maker and redeemer, surely that makes sense?

Now it's true that I don't go around all day obsessing about obedience or submission or what have you, any more than my son does with regards to his parents; "love" and/or "respect" is the usual way I name it. The motivation, in other words, rather than the outcome.

But yes, it's still obedience. "If you love me, obey me," said Jesus, and that makes sense, given who he is. Even more so, given the fact that he's commanding obedience for our own good, not his.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Obedience must be a central value; does Jesus command your obedience? Certainly not mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for trust, I think you can make a case for saying that trust is a form of obedience--or obedience is a form of trust--or both together. They certainly seem to go together in time.

---

quote:

---

“A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still” ― Dale Carnegie

"We must alter our lives in order to alter our hearts, for it is impossible to live one way and pray another.

He who has learned to pray has learned the greatest secret of a holy and happy life.

If you have not chosen the Kingdom of God first, it will in the end make no difference what you have chosen instead.

Humility is nothing else but a right judgment of ourselves." - William Law

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Aaaarghhhh. MT, that was with reference to Christ--not to any kind of trust/obedience that ever existed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Heard of analogies before?

---

Yes. And I've also heard of examples. If it's unclear which of the two a writer is presenting, it's seldom the fault of the reader.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
First rule of hermeneutics: If one reading makes the author look like a raving loon, while the other is mildly reasonable, the second is to be preferred. Unless one is point scoring on Ship of Fools, of course.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Or foolishly thinking that maybe somebody hasn't thought out all the implications of their statements. Which never, ever, never happens here.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
But of course!
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Well, they are coming back, these not-so-evangelical rellies of mine. Due in just more than 2 days. I have become convinced from the posts on this thread that I have besmirched the moniker 'evangelical' due to lack of understanding how genial and companionable many of you are. Educational. Sorry for besmirching the moniker 'evangelical'. These are merely my 'godless rellies who are somehow into God'.

To prepare, I have changed the wireless network name to "just say no to stephen", meaning Harper, who besides being the prime minister of Canada and campaigning for re-election on 19 Oct, is their like minded conservative in mind, religion, spirit and neckties. (I will have to clear it with the powers that be in this house to see if I get to leave it.) We have planned some activities and food that hopefully will keep the conversation topical to what we're doing, but we are not going to hide the wine this time.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0