Post-evangelicalism (was Re: Introduction)

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/24/00
to
(David Anderson)
>A post-evangelical in my view is someone who has left behind some of
>the definining beliefs of evangelicalism, but who still wants to hold
>on to what they see as the valuable parts of evangelicalism. They're
>someone who sees their evangelical past as an important and valuable
>part of who they are.


Peter
Yep I can buy into that. It's only a part of the picture though.


Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/24/00
to
Paul Wright
>But a lot of Tomlinson's epistemology is liberalism by another name, I
>think. As you've said above, people who are adopting it may not wish to
>call it that, but reading the "Something quite like truth" chapter of
>the book, that's the impression I get.

Peter
Paul, this post really annoys me but I may be misjudging you.

You seem to be saying that Tomlinson represents, for you, everybody
who has moved to a Post-Evangelical position.
This is would be entirely untrue and about as fair as saying that
Christs Disciple represents all Evangelicals.

Personally I am happy to say that I was once an Evangelical now I am a
Liberal with as much pride as the repentant sinner who says I once was
lost but now I am found, but that is certainly not the position of
most of the other Post-Evangelicals I fellowship with.

I also read a post of yours last year that seemed to assert the idea
that Post-Evangelical and Liberal were synonymous.

If you do genuinely think that then I would challenge you to look and
listen a little closer to what is actually happening at the "back
door" of the vast majority of Evangelical Churches


Paul Wright

unread,
Jul 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/24/00
to
In article <2000072408...@fep4-orange.clear.net.nz>,

Viv, Pete, Geordie <pet...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>Paul Wright
>>But a lot of Tomlinson's epistemology is liberalism by another name, I
>>think. As you've said above, people who are adopting it may not wish to
>>call it that, but reading the "Something quite like truth" chapter of
>>the book, that's the impression I get.
>
>Paul, this post really annoys me but I may be misjudging you.
>
>You seem to be saying that Tomlinson represents, for you, everybody
>who has moved to a Post-Evangelical position.

Tomlinson wrote the book, as it were. If other people who call
themselves post-evangelical think he's wrong, I'd be interested to hear
why. Clearly my criticisms are aimed at what I've read in the book, as I
don't know about any other variants of post-evangelicalism.

>This is would be entirely untrue and about as fair as saying that
>Christs Disciple represents all Evangelicals.

Jeff isn't an evangelical. He's a unitarian, for a start. He doesn't
have an evangelical view of the Bible, either, from what I've seen. Jeff
is in a category of his own, I think.

>Personally I am happy to say that I was once an Evangelical now I am a
>Liberal with as much pride as the repentant sinner who says I once was
>lost but now I am found, but that is certainly not the position of
>most of the other Post-Evangelicals I fellowship with.
>
>I also read a post of yours last year that seemed to assert the idea
>that Post-Evangelical and Liberal were synonymous.

I've had a look at my posts from the last couple of years and I can't
find one which matches that description. I have said:

- Post-evangelicalism seems to be more about what you are not than what
you are.

- No one seems to quite know what it is (this was when I looked it up on
a search engine and came up with loads of quite different things, but
before I'd read Tomlinson's book), except that it's better than
evangelicalism and is a jolly good thing.

- That I agree with some of Tomlinson's comments on the evangelical
sub-culture, but I think his view on knowledge and truth is wrong.

Inasmuch as a post-evangelical goes along with Tomlinson's ideas about
poetic truth and so on (which he puts forward in the chapter of the book
I mentioned), I'm not sure how one would distinguish that person from a
liberal. If a person wants to have such views, that's their choice and I
don't think it means their not saved or whatever, but I'm not sure why
such a person wouldn't just call themselves a liberal. Surely if they've
moved beyond evangelicalism, they should have moved beyond the stigma
that is attached to the word "liberal" in evangelical circles?

On the other hand, I agreed with some of Tomlinson's comments about the
sub-culture, and so on. If someone were to make similar comments, I
would not consider them to a liberal (Pete's not a liberal. I'm sure
he's relieved to hear this). Evangelicalism should not be about the
subculture, and it's a shame that it often seems to be that way.

>If you do genuinely think that then I would challenge you to look and
>listen a little closer to what is actually happening at the "back
>door" of the vast majority of Evangelical Churches

Urm, there's a sort of desk thing there with leaflets on it. This
probably isn't what you mean, but I'm not sure what you do mean. Is the
"back door" an idiomatic phrase that I don't understand?

--
----- Paul Wright ------| "Western civilisation will be nice when it happens."
-paul....@pobox.com--| - Gandhi
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |


John Ross

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
Paul wrote:

>Jeff isn't an evangelical. He's a unitarian, for a start. He doesn't
>have an evangelical view of the Bible, either, from what I've seen. Jeff
>is in a category of his own, I think.

So? Because Jeff is unitarian he can`t be evangelical? Absolute
rubbish. I`d say Jeff is out and out evangelical, in the very truest
sense of the word.

John

Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
Michael J Davis
<snip>
>Why can't we merely be a church that is "one, holy, catholic &
>apostolic" in the words of the apostle's creed?


Peter
We are!
IMO nothing said to date in this thread contradicts that.

Pete

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
In article <d1opns8n1lru11je5...@4ax.com>, John Ross
<Jo...@nospam.co.uk> writes
Because [evangelical] Christianity defines itself as Trinitarian, there
must be certain beliefs that rule those who hold them as outside that
definition! Unitarianism is clearly one such.
--
Pete Broadbent
Archdeacon of Northolt

Pete

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
In article <8li65m$5il$1...@verence.demon.co.uk>, Paul Wright <paul-
wri...@verence.demon.co.uk> writes
I think what is being said is that it's quite hard to express dissent in
some evangelical churches. Therefore you mutter at the back.

I can't recall whether I've posted it before - apologies if I have - but
I wrote an article for the Church of England Newspaper in 1991 which
expresses the concern I have about what happens at the back door:

Can you feel E.W.S. coming on ?

E.W.S. isn't a new condition. But Pete Broadbent detects it appearing in
new forms in many of our churches....

Of late, several of my friends have been undergoing a major change of
direction in their pilgrimage. They've got what I've begun to call
E.W.S. - Evangelical Withdrawal Syndrome. Not that they've stopped
believing in God, in personal conversion, or in the bible. No, they've
just got to the stage where they're completely brassed off with
evangelicalism and all its cultural accretions, and they're going
elsewhere.

Some of them are women, who find the constant patronising and
condescending attitudes of their (male) clergy too much to bear. Not
just conservative evangelicals who are fixated on headship (though
undoubtedly they are the chief offenders), but all those who (perhaps
unwittingly) perpetrate the put-down, the "there there little girl"
approach that demeans and ridicules, or renders women totally invisible
in the public services of the church.

Some are gay or lesbian, struggling with the implications of what that
means for a Christian life-style, and hearing only homophobia and
persecution from the still uncomprehending evangelical head-bangers.

Some are searching for a quieter, contemplative spirituality. They've
found retreats, Iona worship, or Taize helpful. But their church is
still the same wordy, self-assured place of worship it has always been,
and the vicar doesn't understand, and just thinks they're going off the
rails.

Or maybe they've been driven to despair by the "aren't we all a nice
nuclear family" Christianity that excludes one parent families, singles,
and people who are living together and haven't yet sorted out what to do
about getting married. Church is anything but a place where they can
feel welcome. It's smug, cosy, and incredibly alienating.

Some find their vicar totally impossible. He's a member of the Doctrinal
Rectitude Trust, and will only serve in churches which are approved by
the Trust. If you dare to question his preaching, you ain't sound. Or
else he's into Power Manipulation, which means that if you don't buy
into his Holy Spirit ministry you're probably demonised.

A few are politically and socially involved. They'd like a bit of
support from the church, but the leadership team thinks they're beyond
the pale because (a) they use scripture the way they do in Latin
America; (b) they associate with all kinds of weird non-Christian groups
and (c) it's the wrong political party anyway.

Now, if I really believed that evangelical Christianity had to be like
that, I'd stop using the label. But then the forces of reaction would
have won, and all the really important truths that evangelical
Anglicans have stood for over the years would become the property of a
little backward looking sect within Anglicanism, to whom the wider
church will become increasingly deaf. I want to carry on fighting for an
evangelicalism within the Church of England which is biblically radical,
where clergy don't just pay lip service to the ministry of the whole
people of God and then live like little popes, and where the culture is
one in which ordinary human beings don't have to assimilate a load of
unbiblical baggage.

The friends who have developed E.W.S. tell me I'm being naive. The
evangelical monolith hasn't changed since John King wrote his Hodder
book The Evangelicals in 1969. The disease is the same; only the
symptoms change. They could be right. Certainly, if the conservative
evangelicals kill the ordination of women, it'll be a label that'll be
almost unwearable. But the Holy Spirit works with ordinary human beings
in redemption. And if I'm redeemable, redeeming evangelicalism should
be a piece of cake ! But meanwhile, those suffering from E.W.S. are
being lost to our churches. And it's a crying shame.

I think, nine years on, that this still stands...

Edward Green

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
Pete <Pe...@arch-northolt.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FNav0MAN...@arch-northolt.demon.co.uk...

<snip>

> that evangelical
> Anglicans have stood for over the years would become the property of a
> little backward looking sect within Anglicanism, to whom the wider
> church will become increasingly deaf. >

hasn't this happened to liberals?

>, those suffering from E.W.S. are
> being lost to our churches. And it's a crying shame.

or we are going high. :0)

I am given an option, am I Evangelical or Liberal (Post-Evangelical only
meaning what is says, and standing for nothing) ... neither I am a
Christian. When I was an "evangelical" I was taught that only evangelicals
were /really/ Christian. now having abandoned those (what I believe are
damaging) beliefs I see far more Christians out there who believe in the
inspiration of scripture (although not it's inerrancy), the mission of God
and the Church (although not banging down doors) and a relational
Christianity. All of this without E.C.T. or Exclusivism.

Id Evangelical is Clarke Pinnock or Robert Brow, I am (open/liberal/new)
evangelical, if it is not then I can understand why I increasingly see the
label "evangelical" as an insult much as I saw liberal 3 years ago.

> I think, nine years on, that this still stands...

yes. most post-evangelicals have become something else (you cannot remained
defined by what you are not ...). I am now moderately catholic, and still
see myself as open evangelical in fundamental theology. others have shirked
that name entirely.

ed/


Michael J Davis

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
Viv, Pete, Geordie <pet...@clear.net.nz> was inspired to say

<g>

There's always someone who will answer a rhetorical question, isn't
there? :-)

I entirely agree, Peter, and I'm glad!

Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| They showed me to the seats marked "reserved", I said they'd <><
| got it wrong; I should be in those marked "exuberent" <><
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

John Ross

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
On 25 Jul 2000 08:20:07 +0100, Pete <Pe...@arch-northolt.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Thats taking our meaning of evangelical, thereby making it a label.
Evangelical in the truest sense of the word is someone who
evangelises. You can hardly say that Jeff doesn`t evangelise!

Pete

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
In article <7m9rns8ddrlmernn4...@4ax.com>, John Ross

<Jo...@nospam.co.uk> writes
>On 25 Jul 2000 08:20:07 +0100, Pete <Pe...@arch-northolt.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <d1opns8n1lru11je5...@4ax.com>, John Ross
>><Jo...@nospam.co.uk> writes
>>>Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeff isn't an evangelical. He's a unitarian, for a start. He doesn't
>>>>have an evangelical view of the Bible, either, from what I've seen. Jeff
>>>>is in a category of his own, I think.
>>>
>>>So? Because Jeff is unitarian he can`t be evangelical? Absolute
>>>rubbish. I`d say Jeff is out and out evangelical, in the very truest
>>>sense of the word.
>>Because [evangelical] Christianity defines itself as Trinitarian, there
>>must be certain beliefs that rule those who hold them as outside that
>>definition! Unitarianism is clearly one such.
>
>Thats taking our meaning of evangelical, thereby making it a label.
>Evangelical in the truest sense of the word is someone who
>evangelises. You can hardly say that Jeff doesn`t evangelise!
But that is to change the point of the discourse. We were discussing the
sub-culture of evangelicalism, with specific reference to the post-
evangelical movement. Evangelical Christianity is defined, by those who
adhere to it, and by its detractors, as part of the mainstream and
orthodox Christian tradition, which is Trinitarian. End of story.

Kim Tame

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
Paul Wright wrote in message <8li65m$5il$1...@verence.demon.co.uk>...


>Inasmuch as a post-evangelical goes along with Tomlinson's ideas about
>poetic truth and so on (which he puts forward in the chapter of the book
>I mentioned), I'm not sure how one would distinguish that person from a
>liberal. If a person wants to have such views, that's their choice and I
>don't think it means their not saved or whatever, but I'm not sure why
>such a person wouldn't just call themselves a liberal.

Because some of them remain within an evangelical church. They may accept
the concept of liberalism, but wearing the label is apt to get them called
rude names.

>Surely if they've
>moved beyond evangelicalism, they should have moved beyond the stigma
>that is attached to the word "liberal" in evangelical circles?

If one feels one owes a considerable debt to a certain flavour of
Christianity, then one is reluctant to cut all ties - and openly admitting
to being a liberal is likely to provoke someone to cut those ties for you.

There is also the tendency to define by extremes:

If you are in an evangelical church, and they define 'liberal' as throwing
out the authority of the Bible, denying any concept of miracles or
revelation, and compromising with every passing cultural fashion, you
wouldn't call yourself a liberal.

Just as you wouldn't call yourself a fundamentalist if the definition of
fundamentalist was 'person of low intelligence who doesn't think, but
continually parrots a list of doctrinally correct beliefs.'

It's easier to deny all labels, or be relative about them, as in 'I'm not as
fundamentalist/liberal as you on this particular point.'

Kim

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
On 25 Jul 2000 16:20:08 +0100, John Ross put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>Thats taking our meaning of evangelical, thereby making it a label.
>Evangelical in the truest sense of the word is someone who
>evangelises.

You're confusing the terms "evangelical" and "evangelistic". Despite
having a common linguistic root, they have different meanings:

evangelical

* Of, relating to, or in accordance with the
Christian gospel, especially one of the four
gospel books of the New Testament.

* Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church
that founds its teaching on the gospel.

* Of, relating to, or being a Christian church
believing in the sole authority and inerrancy
of the Bible, in salvation only through
regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed
personal life.


evangelism

* Zealous preaching and dissemination of the
gospel, as through missionary work.
* Militant zeal for a cause.

The term "evangelise" is, strictly speaking, related to "evangelical",
and in the root meaning only evangelicals can evangelise. Note that
it's this way round - evangelising is what evangelicals do, so if
you're not an evangelical then you can't evangelise, you simply
preach! However, the term "evangelism" has generally found a more
widespread use than "evangelical", which retains its Christian roots.
Apple have a job title of "Corporate Evangelists", whose role is
simply to spread the "gospel" of how wonderful Apple computers are!
The most common use now of "evangelise" is as a stronger synonym for
"persuade" or "preach".

> You can hardly say that Jeff doesn`t evangelise!

Indeed, in the more general use of the word, but that doesn't make him
evangelical. Liberals can evangelise as well, as can Catholics, JWs,
Mormons, etc, but none of them would claim to be evangelical either!

Mark
--
One-line .sigs are cool.
However, this one isn't.


Paul Wright

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
In article <7m9rns8ddrlmernn4...@4ax.com>,

John Ross <john...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 25 Jul 2000 08:20:07 +0100, Pete <Pe...@arch-northolt.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <d1opns8n1lru11je5...@4ax.com>, John Ross
>><Jo...@nospam.co.uk> writes
>>>Paul wrote:
>>>>Jeff isn't an evangelical. He's a unitarian, for a start. He doesn't
>>>>have an evangelical view of the Bible, either, from what I've seen. Jeff
>>>>is in a category of his own, I think.
>>>
>>>So? Because Jeff is unitarian he can`t be evangelical? Absolute
>>>rubbish. I`d say Jeff is out and out evangelical, in the very truest
>>>sense of the word.
>>Because [evangelical] Christianity defines itself as Trinitarian, there
>>must be certain beliefs that rule those who hold them as outside that
>>definition! Unitarianism is clearly one such.
>
>Thats taking our meaning of evangelical, thereby making it a label.
>Evangelical in the truest sense of the word is someone who
>evangelises. You can hardly say that Jeff doesn`t evangelise!

In this context, evangelical is a theological term applied to a
particular group of beliefs and ways of understanding things. It doesn't
just mean "one who evangelises".

Evangelicals are Trinitarian. The evangelical method of understanding
the Bible recommends more indirection than I've seen Jeff use. So Jeff
is not an evangelical in this sense.

--
----- Paul Wright ------| "This sentence no verb." - Douglas Hofstadter
-paul....@pobox.com--|
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |

Edward Green

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3980dade....@n-news.markshouse.net...

> On 25 Jul 2000 16:20:08 +0100, John Ross put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
> >
> >Thats taking our meaning of evangelical, thereby making it a label.
> >Evangelical in the truest sense of the word is someone who
> >evangelises.
>
> You're confusing the terms "evangelical" and "evangelistic". Despite
> having a common linguistic root, they have different meanings:
>
> evangelical
>
> * Of, relating to, or in accordance with the
> Christian gospel, especially one of the four
> gospel books of the New Testament.
>
> * Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church
> that founds its teaching on the gospel.
>
> * Of, relating to, or being a Christian church
> believing in the sole authority and inerrancy
> of the Bible, in salvation only through
> regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed
> personal life.
>

Well I hate to disagree, but i don't think that makes a cultural or
theological evangelical.

There are plenty within the Evangelical Left who would be excluded by your
third point - or is that your purpose?

I am "Evangelical in the wider sense of wanting to begin with an exploration
of the Good News from God as written in the canonical text of the Old
Testament and New Testament"

Thanks Bob Brow for that one :0

ed/


Christ's Disciple

unread,
Jul 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/26/00
to
----- Original Message -----
From: John Ross <Jo...@nospam.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.religion.christian
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Post-evangelicalism (was Re: Introduction)


> Paul wrote:
>
> >Jeff isn't an evangelical. He's a unitarian, for a start. He doesn't
> >have an evangelical view of the Bible, either, from what I've seen. Jeff
> >is in a category of his own, I think.
>
> So? Because Jeff is unitarian he can`t be evangelical? Absolute
> rubbish. I`d say Jeff is out and out evangelical, in the very truest
> sense of the word.

> John

Thank you young man for those kind words..
My constant intention and striving is to obey the following Scripture:

"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall
judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke,
exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after
their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables.

5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." 2 Tim 4:1-5 (KJV)

Sincerely Jeff...
Christ's Disicple

A final thought: Jesus tells us "He who is faithful in a very little thing
is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing
is unrighteous also in much." Luke 16:10 (NASB)


Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/26/00
to
John Ross
>Evangelical in the truest sense of the word is someone who
>evangelises.

Peter
There is a little esoteric thingy going on here which I will let you
into John so the learned amongst us can stop tut tutting and
sniggering.

In certain circles 'Evangelical' has come to refer to a certain set of
beliefs about God the bible etc and as Pete rightly asserts one of
these beliefs would be in The Trinity.

What *you* are describing is termed by these folk as 'evangelistic'.
But you are as correct as they are of course.

Paul Dean

unread,
Jul 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/26/00
to
"Viv, Pete, Geordie " <pet...@clear.net.nz> wrote:

There is that, but I think Jeff is not evanglical for different
reasons.

For example, on the face of it an Anabaptist is someone who beleives
in full immersion baptism. But the word "anabaptist" came to be used
to refer to a particular set of doctrines, quite apart from baptism.

So it is with "evangelical". Simply, it means that ones biblical
exposition is centred around the good news of the gospel. Nowadays it
has come to mean also a particular set of doctrines (which includes
the Trinity).

Jeff is not evangelical in either sense. One, because he's unitarian
and the other because his message is not one of good news.

Paul.
--
http://www.His-feet.co.uk/

"His cry not Forward, but Follow." - William Gurnall.


David Ould

unread,
Jul 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/26/00
to
Pete, don't need to quote it but, speaking as an evangelical, couldn't find
much that I disagreed with

inHim

David

"Pete" <Pe...@arch-northolt.demon.co.uk> wrote some great stuff


Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/26/00
to
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:37:41 +0100, Edward Green put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3980dade....@n-news.markshouse.net...
>>


>> * Of, relating to, or being a Christian church
>> believing in the sole authority and inerrancy
>> of the Bible, in salvation only through
>> regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed
>> personal life.
>>
>
>Well I hate to disagree, but i don't think that makes a cultural or
>theological evangelical.
>
>There are plenty within the Evangelical Left who would be excluded by your
>third point - or is that your purpose?

That depends on what you mean by the "Evangelical Left". I presume
you're not using the word in the political sense, as I know several
extremely left-wing evangelicals who would fit quite happily in the
third point. So, if you care to explain, I might be able to answer
your question :-)

Mark
--
More pretentious waffle now at http://www.mark.x.tc


Nick Milton

unread,
Jul 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/26/00
to
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:36:57 GMT, ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge)
enhanced the collective wisdom with:


>That depends on what you mean by the "Evangelical Left".

He means the evangelical remaining when all the post-evangelicals have
departed


Edward Green

unread,
Jul 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/26/00
to
Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:398a2f5c.191435221@n-> >

> >There are plenty within the Evangelical Left who would be excluded by
your
> >third point - or is that your purpose?
>
> That depends on what you mean by the "Evangelical Left". I presume
> you're not using the word in the political sense, as I know several
> extremely left-wing evangelicals who would fit quite happily in the
> third point. So, if you care to explain, I might be able to answer
> your question :-)

I mean theologians such as Clark Pinnock, Robert Brow, Richard Rice, John
Sanders, William Hasker, David Basinger, and the churches that support their
theology.

In other words, the openness theologians (see http://www.opentheism.org/)

I'm talking about the non-restrictivists, the anhilationalists, and those
who cannot sign up to the complete inerrancey of scripture, but still hold
it to be the word of God.

ed/


Thomas Thurman

unread,
Jul 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/26/00
to
Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> The term "evangelise" is, strictly speaking, related to "evangelical",
> and in the root meaning only evangelicals can evangelise.

I think you're a little confused on this point. Evangelicalism means a
belief that the Bible is God's word to humans, and that therefore it's the
highest authority for faith and conduct. Evangelism is *spreading* the
good news about Jesus-- any Christian can do this, whether or not their
beliefs are evangelical. Sure, they derive from the same two Greek words,
but that's not terribly important-- you might as well say that only angels
can evangelise.

What's really sad, incidentally, is hearing someone say something like "I
don't consider myself an evangelical, but..." and then go on to explain
their belief that the Bible is the highest authority. Labels have such
power.

Thomas

--
__ (\_ Thomas Thurman ><> tj...@thurman.org.uk
(_ \ ( '> :: "Saint Honko, the patron saint of
) \/_)= :: people who play very odd musical
(_(_ )_ jgs :: instruments..." --- Frobozzica


Andrew Levick

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
"Nick Milton" <nick_...@ktransform.com> wrote in message
news:397f4d8...@news.demon.co.uk...

> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:36:57 GMT, ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge)
> enhanced the collective wisdom with:
>
>
> >That depends on what you mean by the "Evangelical Left".

Related to this:

In my view, one of the more unpalatable aspects of conservative
evangelicalism is that it often tends to be politically right wing
(especially in America). For example some evangelical fundamentalists don't
believe you should help the poor (a communist idea to them and communism is
of the devil!), are racist (e.g Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa) and
believe in an aggressive free market capitalist society.

I can't help but think that they interpret the Bible suit their cultural
paradigms (e.g. modernist/capitalist/Victorian/imperialist).

Often the culture that you live in determines how you interpret the Bible;
culture and interpretation are strongly linked. So if you come from a
different cultural paradigm (e.g. post modern) to evangelicalism (tends to
be modernist) then you are left cold by the movement and its beliefs
(political views at least).


Andy


Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:03:05 +0100, Edward Green put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message

OK, although I think the term "left" is somewhat misleading in this
context.

I was quoting a definitioon, not writing it, and the third point would
exclude non-inerrantists, by some definitions of "inerrant". But I do
think that the "sole authority of the Bible" is a key aspect of
evangelicalism, and that isn't at all inconsistent with accepting that
it can have errors that do not impinge on doctrine.

I wouldn't describe the Bible as "inerrant", either. I'm still
stringly evangelical, though.

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:23:12 +0100, Thomas Thurman put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:


>> The term "evangelise" is, strictly speaking, related to "evangelical",
>> and in the root meaning only evangelicals can evangelise.
>
>I think you're a little confused on this point.

No, it's the word that's confusing. The etymology and original usage
link "evangelise" to "evangelical" in the way that I describe, but
current usage is moving away from that. That's why I said "strictly
speaking", and then went on to say why I'm not that strict when I'm
speaking :-)

>What's really sad, incidentally, is hearing someone say something like "I
>don't consider myself an evangelical, but..." and then go on to explain
>their belief that the Bible is the highest authority. Labels have such
>power.

Indeed.

Edward Green

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
> OK, although I think the term "left" is somewhat misleading in this
> context.

I didn't coin it .. it was the name of a book resisting it ...

> I was quoting a definitioon, not writing it, and the third point would
> exclude non-inerrantists, by some definitions of "inerrant". But I do
> think that the "sole authority of the Bible" is a key aspect of
> evangelicalism,

But what about the traditionally arminian quadralateral approach .. i.e.
Reason, Scripture, Tradition, Practice (although the emphasis would be
Scripture ...). I find this sole authority thing to mean very little.


> and that isn't at all inconsistent with accepting that
> it can have errors that do not impinge on doctrine.

Agreed.

>
> I wouldn't describe the Bible as "inerrant", either. I'm still
> stringly evangelical, though.

Stringly <grin> maybe strangely? or strongly? :0)

So what /makes/ you Evangelical and me not (if i am not)

ed/


Gerald Yuen

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
In message <kbwf5.9969$yE4.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, on 26-Jul-00

>5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
>evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." 2 Tim 4:1-5 (KJV)

Er...he was saying you were not an "evangelical", which was not to be confused
with "evangelist".

Gerald.
--
Gerald Yuen. e-mail: gc....@ukonline.co.uk PGP key on web site.
Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem


Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:53:06 +0100, Edward Green put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>

>> I was quoting a definitioon, not writing it, and the third point would
>> exclude non-inerrantists, by some definitions of "inerrant". But I do
>> think that the "sole authority of the Bible" is a key aspect of
>> evangelicalism,
>
>But what about the traditionally arminian quadralateral approach .. i.e.
>Reason, Scripture, Tradition, Practice (although the emphasis would be
>Scripture ...). I find this sole authority thing to mean very little.

"Sole authority" simply means that you make a choice as to which one
to follow if the sources disagree. In most cases, hopefully, they
won't, but you still need primacy somewhere.

>> I wouldn't describe the Bible as "inerrant", either. I'm still
>> stringly evangelical, though.
>
>Stringly <grin> maybe strangely? or strongly? :0)

Oops :-) "Strongly".

>So what /makes/ you Evangelical and me not (if i am not)

I would say that I am an evangelical because I consider that the Bible
is the ultimate source of authority for doctrine and practice. That
doesn't mean that other sources have no influence, just that (as
stated above) what they have to say has to be seen in the light of
what is written in the Bible.

Note that this doesn't remove the need to understand and interpret the
Bible, and it's no guarantee that we will always (or even mostly) get
it right. There's also the slight inconsistency that my decision to
use the Bible as the ultimate arbiter is a rational choice, which in
some sense means that I could be described as giving primacy to
Reason. But I don't think that's a major problem - we are rational
creatures, and I can't avoid using my brain completely :-)

David Ould

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39857b0a....@n-news.markshouse.net...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:23:12 +0100, Thomas Thurman put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>

> >Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The term "evangelise" is, strictly speaking, related to "evangelical",
> >> and in the root meaning only evangelicals can evangelise.
> >
> >I think you're a little confused on this point.
>
> No, it's the word that's confusing. The etymology and original usage
> link "evangelise" to "evangelical" in the way that I describe, but
> current usage is moving away from that. That's why I said "strictly
> speaking", and then went on to say why I'm not that strict when I'm
> speaking :-)
>
> >What's really sad, incidentally, is hearing someone say something like "I
> >don't consider myself an evangelical, but..." and then go on to explain
> >their belief that the Bible is the highest authority. Labels have such
> >power.
>
> Indeed.

here's how I see it. I don't like the label myself, because it's used
negatively by "liberals" (sic). If someone asks me what sort of Christian I
am I would say something like "bible-believing".
however, it's actually clear that what others understand as "evangelical" is
exactly what I am.
I would say let evangelicals define themselves. People like Stott and Packer
have clearly described what they understand evangelicalism to be and it fits
right in with how I see my faith.

so, in summary.
let evangelicals define themself. a good place to start would be Stott's
"Christ, the controversialist".

in Him

David

Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
Mark

>>That depends on what you mean by the "Evangelical Left".


Nick Milton


>He means the evangelical remaining when all the post-evangelicals have
>departed


Peter
Which will of course be at the rapture:-)


Nick Milton

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:43:40 +0100, "Andrew Levick" <ap...@npl.co.uk>

enhanced the collective wisdom with:


>


>Often the culture that you live in determines how you interpret the Bible

Possibly "always" rather than "often". We come to the Bible with a
preconception, and what we find is influenced by what we expect to
find.


Nick


Nick Milton

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:53:15 +0100, "David Ould"
<ma...@davidould.freeserve.co.uk> enhanced the collective wisdom with:


>I would say something like "bible-believing".

I am sure we would all say we were Bible-believing. There are
different levels of belief though.

I believe God speaks to me through the Bible. I believe He speaks to
me through creation as well, and through the church. Does that make me
"bible believing"? Does that make me "church believing"? Or does it
make me "God believing"?

Nick


Patrick Herring

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
Mark Goodge wrote:
...

> I wouldn't describe the Bible as "inerrant", either. I'm still
> stringly evangelical, though.

Tied up in knots? <g>

How long is a piece of evangelical anyway?

--
Patrick Herring
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/cgi-bin/makeperson?P.Herring

Patrick Herring

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
Pete wrote:
...
> Of late, several of my friends have been undergoing a major change of
> direction in their pilgrimage. They've got what I've begun to call
> E.W.S. - Evangelical Withdrawal Syndrome. Not that they've stopped
> believing in God, in personal conversion, or in the bible. No, they've
> just got to the stage where they're completely brassed off with
> evangelicalism and all its cultural accretions, and they're going
> elsewhere.

[snip list of very recognisable post-evangelical points]

> I think, nine years on, that this still stands...

I agree. The evangelical movement has done wonders at drawing new &
young people into the church, I know because I am one. But now there's a
maturing of said people into the kinds of churchmanship etc they really
want, and I can't see it as anything but positive.

For me the post-evangelical motive (which wasn't in your list) was the
feeling that the evangelical approach seemed to have no value for people
- we're all completely unworthy & incapable of getting anything
worthwhile right. I eventually managed to articulate the thought that
this is not just untrue but headed in the wrong direction.

People are in fact variously worthy & capable, but the evangelical point
seemed to be that there's no real point in anyone being worthy or
capable since the only real salvation from unworthiness etc is after
physical death when we get into heaven through faith in Jesus. This
seems to me to leave Creation as temporary & ultimately worthless - it's
only a proving-ground. But that seems to say the Kindgom of Heaven isn't
meant to exist here, which means the Kingdom of Heaven isn't actually a
general state of being at all, which isn't what I mean by the Kingdom of
Heaven nor what Jesus seems to have meant.

I now see the point of religion as people getting further along the path
from where they are, and people are in fact in various places relative
to the divine. The idea that being in heaven entails perfection still
stands, but the black'and'white "you're either in or out"/"you can't get
in by your own efforts so there's no effectiveness in trying" seems too
coarse. I think the post-evangelical church needs to be able to evaluate
where people are in their path towards
wholeness/holiness/heaven/whatever and to be able to say what they
should do next. This entails accepting that there are some things people
can do to move spiritually, and to be able to distinguish them from
those they can't.

David Anderson

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
In article <39812dad...@news.demon.co.uk>, nick_...@ktransform.com wrote:
>I believe God speaks to me through the Bible. I believe He speaks to
>me through creation as well, and through the church. Does that make me
>"bible believing"? Does that make me "church believing"? Or does it
>make me "God believing"?

This all reminds me of 1 Corinthians. "I believe in the Bible." "I
believe in tradition." "I believe in reason." I believe in Christ.
:)

David Anderson


Annabel Smyth

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
In a message on Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Patrick Herring wrote:

>Mark Goodge wrote:
>...
>> I wouldn't describe the Bible as "inerrant", either. I'm still
>> stringly evangelical, though.
>
>Tied up in knots? <g>
>
>How long is a piece of evangelical anyway?
>

It occurs to me that if Neil reckons he's long and thin, it might be a
good description of him!
--
Annabel Smyth mailto:Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 23 July 2000

Eric Potts

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:13:11 GMT, ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge)
wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:23:12 +0100, Thomas Thurman put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The term "evangelise" is, strictly speaking, related to "evangelical",
>>> and in the root meaning only evangelicals can evangelise.
>>
>>I think you're a little confused on this point.
>
>No, it's the word that's confusing. The etymology and original usage
>link "evangelise" to "evangelical" in the way that I describe, but
>current usage is moving away from that. That's why I said "strictly
>speaking", and then went on to say why I'm not that strict when I'm
>speaking :-)

May I suggest that the noun to go with "evangelise" is "evangelist,"
not "evangelical?"

"Evangelical" is really an adjective that has been pressed into
service as a noun.

As an adjective, "evangelical" is a perfectly proper and unrestrictive
word (except in the sense that it is of the nature of adjectives to be
restrictive.) Thus, a Roman Catholic can talk about its evangelical
doctrines, practices and teaching. Likewise the Methodist key
documents talk about the "evangelical faith" and its "evangelical
doctrines." Methodism itself arose out of the "evangelical" movement.
In none of these usages does "evangelical" have the kind of meaning
often associated with the word nowadays, though some of the uses are
closer than others to the more limited modern word.

"Evangelicalism," as distinct from "evangelism" is the title sometimes
given to a movement more modern than that of the time of Wesley. It
can be seen as, in part, a reaction to the Oxford Movement, and in
part to "modernism" - that early twentieth century movement which is
also difficult to define but which has, I believe, long since run its
course. It is in this sense that the noun "Evangelical" - preferably
written with a capital letter, has come into use.

Thus, I hold to the evangelical doctrines of the Methodist Church. At
times in my ministry I am an evangelist. I am evangelical, but I am
not an Evangelical.

Clear?
:-)

Eric.
--
Eric Potts; Lowestoft, England
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ericpotts


Eric Potts

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:53:06 +0100, "Edward Green"
<ebg...@lineone.net> wrote:


>But what about the traditionally arminian quadralateral approach .. i.e.
>Reason, Scripture, Tradition, Practice (although the emphasis would be
>Scripture ...). I find this sole authority thing to mean very little.
>

Not too pedantic a comment, I hope, but speaking as a Wesleyan and
Arminian, isn't the fourth "leg" Experience, rather than Practice?

Reason, experience and tradition are all fallible of course, but then
so, in my belief, is scripture. We need to let each element be judged
by each of the others, so I'd be reluctant to place any one above the
other three. I don't think this devalues scripture at all; it is, in a
sense, the only "fixed" element, since all the others are by
definition, in a process of flux.

Pa...@his-feet.co.uk

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
eric...@bigfoot.com (Eric Potts) writes:

> "Evangelicalism," as distinct from "evangelism" is the title sometimes
> given to a movement more modern than that of the time of Wesley. It
> can be seen as, in part, a reaction to the Oxford Movement, and in
> part to "modernism" - that early twentieth century movement which is
> also difficult to define but which has, I believe, long since run its
> course. It is in this sense that the noun "Evangelical" - preferably
> written with a capital letter, has come into use.

Therein lies my irk. I'm used to reading 17th Century puritan books,
where the word 'evangelical' is used differently in, what seems to me,
a purer sense. Evangelical used to mean 'centred upon the gospel of
Christ' at a time when many were diverted from it to sundry other
things. I don't think so much has changed as to make the old meaning
of the word redundant.

Andrew Levick

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
"Patrick Herring" <p.he...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:398168BD...@dcs.shef.ac.uk...

Related to this, one theological criticism often addressed at evangelicals
(and also Catholics) is that they emphasize the doctrine of the fall (we are
sinners, the atonement etc) more than the doctrine of creation (we are
created in God likeness to enjoy his creation). This problem tends to
manifest itself in a very negative view of the human condition and a
pre-occupation with the afterlife rather than the here and now.

We need to get the right balance between the doctrines of the fall and
creation.

Andrew

David Ould

unread,
Jul 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/28/00
to
"David Anderson" <d.g.an...@removethis.susx.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8lrqi7$odd$1...@ames.central.susx.ac.uk...

ok, maybe a better way of saying it would be "I believe that the Bible has
the only reliable revelation of Christ".
better?

David

>
> David Anderson
>


Eric Potts

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to


I would agree, and would like to rescue the word from its narrower (in
the linguistic sense) modern interpretation. There is some chance of
success, perhaps, if only because the modern usage is now so loose and
slippery that new terms for current trends may be created.

Eric Potts

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:42:22 +0100, "Andrew Levick" <ap...@npl.co.uk>
wrote:


>Related to this, one theological criticism often addressed at evangelicals
>(and also Catholics) is that they emphasize the doctrine of the fall (we are
>sinners, the atonement etc) more than the doctrine of creation (we are
>created in God likeness to enjoy his creation). This problem tends to
>manifest itself in a very negative view of the human condition and a
>pre-occupation with the afterlife rather than the here and now.
>
>We need to get the right balance between the doctrines of the fall and
>creation.
>

Very well said. If we get "Creation" right, then the rest falls into
place.

A similar contrast to the one you quote is found in the different
attitudes of the Eastern and Western Churches: in the West we tend to
hang everything on the Cross. In the east, the Resurrection and
Consummation are much more centre stage. (It's the old problem of
whether a glass is half empty or half full!)

Edward Green

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
Andrew Levick <ap...@npl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8lrutt$9l4$1...@batman.npl.co.uk...

> "Patrick Herring" <p.he...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote in message

> We need to get the right balance between the doctrines of the fall and
> creation.

What fall? <grin>

ed/


David Anderson

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
In article <8lunkr$knp$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "David Ould" <ma...@davidould.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"David Anderson" <d.g.an...@removethis.susx.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:8lrqi7$odd$1...@ames.central.susx.ac.uk...

>> This all reminds me of 1 Corinthians. "I believe in the Bible." "I


>> believe in tradition." "I believe in reason." I believe in Christ.
>> :)
>
>ok, maybe a better way of saying it would be "I believe that the Bible has
>the only reliable revelation of Christ".
>better?

Not really, if you're still trying to contrast yourself with
Christians who believe otherwise.

David Anderson


Kevin Donnelly

unread,
Jul 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/29/00
to
In article <3984d189...@news.freeserve.net>, Eric Potts
<eric...@bigfoot.com> writes
>"Evangelicalism," as distinct from "evangelism" is the title sometimes
>given to a movement more modern than that of the time of Wesley. It
>can be seen as, in part, a reaction to the Oxford Movement, and in
>part to "modernism" - that early twentieth century movement which is
>also difficult to define but which has, I believe, long since run its
>course. It is in this sense that the noun "Evangelical" - preferably
>written with a capital letter, has come into use.
>
>Thus, I hold to the evangelical doctrines of the Methodist Church. At
>times in my ministry I am an evangelist. I am evangelical, but I am
>not an Evangelical.
>
>Clear?
> :-)
>
>Eric.
>--
>Eric Potts; Lowestoft, England
>http://www.bigfoot.com/~ericpotts
>
I think I am becoming a quasiparaevangelicalisationismister, well, sort
of...
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly


Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
Mark Goodge

>"Sole authority" simply means that you make a choice as to which one
>to follow if the sources disagree.

Peter
In that case 'final authority' would be a far better term no????

Mark


>In most cases, hopefully, they
>won't, but you still need primacy somewhere.


Peter
I would like you to define "need" in this context.

For me this is exactly where the whole thing came unstuck in the days
when I was a strong "evangelical"
It dawned on me one day that what I was saying when I said "we *need*
primacy somewhere" was "It is a whole lot easier if we have primacy in
something that is objective and tangible rather than placing primacy
in God alone".

IMO it has been the history of mankind to seek the tangible as a final
source of authority and though many times God obliges ie the Ten
Commandments, Israel's demand for a King, and in more recent times
Popes & Bibles, it is my impression that S/He does so reluctantly, as
His deepest desire is for us to find Him and His wishes for us at a
personal/intuitive/reasoning level.

For me, one of the most remarkable things about Jesus was that His
"final source" was His Father in Heaven. I think this is one of the
reasons that the religious leaders of the day found Him so offensive,
He exploded the parameters of their authority by appealing directly to
His relationship with God as opposed to their carefully established
boundries.

So in short I no longer think we "need" primacy in the tangible
whether it be the bible, a Pope, or some Guru. He has sent us the Holy
Spirit to lead us into all truth, and that is enough.

Peter R


Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
>>Mark Goodge wrote:
>>...
>>> I wouldn't describe the Bible as "inerrant", either. I'm still
>>> stringly evangelical, though.

Patrick


>>Tied up in knots? <g>
>>
>>How long is a piece of evangelical anyway?

Annabel Smyth


>It occurs to me that if Neil reckons he's long and thin, it might be a
>good description of him!


Peter
So Neil is the only real Evangelical amongst us then or are there
others???

Certainly not me anyway I'm short and stout :-(

It just dawned on me.....maybe that is what is meant by a *Post*
Evangelical, (a short stout evangelical).


Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
David Ould

>ok, maybe a better way of saying it would be "I believe that the Bible has
>the only reliable revelation of Christ".
>better?
>
>David

Peter
So does that make the Holy Spirits revelation of Christ
*unreliable*????


Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
Edward Green

>But what about the traditionally arminian quadralateral approach .. i.e.
>Reason,

Peter
Reason is a tool not a source. And personally I would add 'intuition'
as another tool.

Edward
Scripture, Tradition,

Peter
To which I would add 'creation' and 'others'

Edward
Practice


Peter
Not really sure what is meant by this??

Edward


(although the emphasis would be
>Scripture ...).

Peter
Why? I currently can see no reason why Scripture should be seen as
more important than any of the other things mentioned????

Edward

I find this sole authority thing to mean very little.

Peter
Me2


Eric Potts

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:34:08 +0100, Kevin Donnelly
<ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>I think I am becoming a quasiparaevangelicalisationismister, well, sort
>of...
> KD

:-)
Don't you mean a quasiparaevangelicalisationperson?

Eric Potts

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:18:51 +1200, "Viv, Pete, Geordie "
<pet...@clear.net.nz> wrote:


>IMO it has been the history of mankind to seek the tangible as a final
>source of authority and though many times God obliges ie the Ten
>Commandments, Israel's demand for a King, and in more recent times
>Popes & Bibles, it is my impression that S/He does so reluctantly, as
>His deepest desire is for us to find Him and His wishes for us at a
>personal/intuitive/reasoning level.
>
>For me, one of the most remarkable things about Jesus was that His
>"final source" was His Father in Heaven. I think this is one of the
>reasons that the religious leaders of the day found Him so offensive,
>He exploded the parameters of their authority by appealing directly to
>His relationship with God as opposed to their carefully established
>boundries.
>

Very well said. You have expressed better than I can why I suspect the
whole "infallibility" thing, whether we are referring to the Pope, the
magisterium of the Church, or the Bible.
If I may parody Jesus:
"Why do you call me infallible? There is none infallible but the
Father."

Eric.

Kevin Donnelly

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
In article <3986213c...@news.freeserve.net>, Eric Potts
<eric...@bigfoot.com> writes

>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:34:08 +0100, Kevin Donnelly
><ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>I think I am becoming a quasiparaevangelicalisationismister, well, sort
>>of...
>> KD
>
>:-)
>Don't you mean a quasiparaevangelicalisationperson?
>--
>Eric Potts; Lowestoft, England
>http://www.bigfoot.com/~ericpotts
>
Having see this reply (ho ho ho) I think I was expressing frustration.
First, I suspect that I am an evangelical at heart, in that there is a
gospel to preach, but my incomplete understanding is a long way from the
EA and its attendant ideas. Second, I am also a fundamentalist, in that
believe that the ultimate reality we call God (underneath are the
everlasting arms) is in nature but not confined to nature, in the Bible
but not confined to the Bible. Both of those positions set me apart
from people who call themselves evangelical.

The persistent characteristic of evangelicals seems to be that they are
never wrong, rarely admit mistakes and achieve this euphoric state by
avoiding awkward questions or changing the subject. Other people do
this of course, but where other people claim to seek the truth,
evangelicals claim they've already got it.
For example, a classic non-reply is David's response to my point
in the Marriage after Divorce thread. He ignored the point that
Jonathan Kirsch made, but said simply that Chronicles was written so
that people might trust in God's promises (as though misleading people
about the real King David was OK) implying at the same time that he
would prefer to trust a Christian writer, Kirsch being Jewish (and
unable to tell the truth?). Sure David did use the world "might" and
spoke of "controversial" but what was evaded is Kirsch's suggestion that
according to Chronicles the King David-Bathsheba-Uriah love triangle
never happened. The omission of this story from Chronicles is glaring,
like a biog of Edward VIII without Mrs Simpson.
Quasiparawhat? Just call me a seeker....
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly

Michael J Davis

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
Viv, Pete, Geordie <pet...@clear.net.nz> was inspired to say

>David Ould
>>ok, maybe a better way of saying it would be "I believe that the Bible has
>>the only reliable revelation of Christ".
>>better?
>
>Peter
>So does that make the Holy Spirits revelation of Christ
>*unreliable*????

Coming late to this thread, I wondered if the following would be
regarded as "evangelical"?

'In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him
they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in
them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing
everything and only those things which He wanted.

'Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred
writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that
the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly,
faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the
sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. Therefore "all Scripture
is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting
error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so
that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good
work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).'

:-)

Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| `If it doesn't make us kinder to one another, <><
| it's probably not religion.' -- Dalai Lama <><
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Gerald Yuen

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
In message <aXn5wtAX...@trustsof.demon.co.uk>, on 30-Jul-00 23:20:15,

<mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Viv, Pete, Geordie <pet...@clear.net.nz> was inspired to say
>>David Ould
>>>ok, maybe a better way of saying it would be "I believe that the Bible has
>>>the only reliable revelation of Christ".
>>>better?

>>Peter
>>So does that make the Holy Spirits revelation of Christ
>>*unreliable*????

In answer to Peter - our own desires. Though the Holy Spirit may be dwelling
within us, we are still able to sin. How do we distinguish what is from the
Holy Spirit and what is our own sinful desires? The evangelical answer is to
test it primarily against scripture.

>Coming late to this thread, I wondered if the following would be
>regarded as "evangelical"?

>'In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him
>they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in
>them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing
>everything and only those things which He wanted.

>'Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred
>writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that
>the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly,
>faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the
>sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. Therefore "all Scripture
>is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting
>error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so
>that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good
>work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).'

It would be considered evangelical. Haven't you seen the arguments between the
evangelicals and the non-evangelicals on this group over this very same text?
:)

Ho hum,

Gerald.
--
Gerald Yuen. e-mail: gc....@ukonline.co.uk PGP key on web site.
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
Mahatma Ghandi


David Ould

unread,
Jul 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/30/00
to
"Viv, Pete, Geordie " <pet...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:2000073000...@fep4-orange.clear.net.nz...

> David Ould
> >ok, maybe a better way of saying it would be "I believe that the Bible
has
> >the only reliable revelation of Christ".
> >better?
> >
> >David

>
> Peter
> So does that make the Holy Spirits revelation of Christ
> *unreliable*????

that's sneaky...
how do you know how the Spirit reveals Christ?

David

>


Gerald Yuen

unread,
Jul 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/31/00
to
In message <wOSJsCAH...@kevdon.demon.co.uk>, on 30-Jul-00 18:20:06,

<ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3986213c...@news.freeserve.net>, Eric Potts
><eric...@bigfoot.com> writes
>>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:34:08 +0100, Kevin Donnelly
>><ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think I am becoming a quasiparaevangelicalisationismister, well, sort
>>>of...
>>> KD
>>
>>:-)
>>Don't you mean a quasiparaevangelicalisationperson?

>Having see this reply (ho ho ho) I think I was expressing frustration.


>First, I suspect that I am an evangelical at heart, in that there is a
>gospel to preach, but my incomplete understanding is a long way from the
>EA and its attendant ideas. Second, I am also a fundamentalist, in that
>believe that the ultimate reality we call God (underneath are the
>everlasting arms) is in nature but not confined to nature, in the Bible
>but not confined to the Bible. Both of those positions set me apart
>from people who call themselves evangelical.

I'm not sure about that. The evangelical position does not confide God to
nature, nor does it say that God does not intervene in nature - for he himself
causes nature. Indeed, God is transcendent above nature, yet interacts with
it. (Much like me going up to a goldfish bowl, and causing a few ripples by
moving my finger through the water. I am not contained within the goldfish
bowl, but I can interact with it. Not a perfect analogy though.)

The evangelical position does not confine the revelation of God to the Bible.
All the revelation required for salvation is contained within the Bible, but
general revelation may be found throughout Creation.

The only possible slight discrepancy is God being in nature, but not confined
to nature. What do you mean by "in"? Are we talking semi-pantheism, or what I
described?

>The persistent characteristic of evangelicals seems to be that they are
>never wrong, rarely admit mistakes and achieve this euphoric state by
>avoiding awkward questions or changing the subject. Other people do
>this of course, but where other people claim to seek the truth,
>evangelicals claim they've already got it.

Ahem, according to evangelicals, the only thing within creation which is
infallible is the Bible. This would mean that, by implication, evangelicals
are not infallible.

Of course, this means that evangelicals can still get it wrong, by their own
admission, which includes being proud, avoiding the subject, arrogance and
everything else that all Christians (and non-Christians) are capable of.

> For example, a classic non-reply is David's response to my point
>in the Marriage after Divorce thread. He ignored the point that
>Jonathan Kirsch made, but said simply that Chronicles was written so
>that people might trust in God's promises (as though misleading people
>about the real King David was OK) implying at the same time that he
>would prefer to trust a Christian writer, Kirsch being Jewish (and
>unable to tell the truth?). Sure David did use the world "might" and
>spoke of "controversial" but what was evaded is Kirsch's suggestion that
>according to Chronicles the King David-Bathsheba-Uriah love triangle
>never happened. The omission of this story from Chronicles is glaring,
>like a biog of Edward VIII without Mrs Simpson.

I dunno, Chronicles doesn't really mention any of David's relationships with
the opposite sex. Given that David had many wives, to pick out one particular
relationship would have been remarkable. Edward VIII is a different kettle of
fish, as he had only one wife, and abdicated his throne for her.

What Chronicles does mention is that Solomon is the son of David, by Bathsheba
(or Bathshua, depending on translation), and is quite happy to leave it at
that. After all, we already have the book of Samuel for the gory details.

Anyway, both the Christian and the Jewish writers on the subject are as likely
to come up with a plausible reason as the rest of us. I would hazard a guess
that any implication you picked up is most likely unintended by David.

In any case, it is a response - just not the one you wanted.

> Quasiparawhat? Just call me a seeker....

Ho hum,

Gerald.
--
Gerald Yuen. e-mail: gc....@ukonline.co.uk PGP key on web site.

50, 40, 27, 36, 34, 24, 21, 4, 31, 23, 22, 25, 29, 36, 9, 13, 10,
42, 150, 31, 8, 66, 52, 5, 48, 12, 14, 9, 1, 4, 7, 3, 3, 3, 2, 14, 4


Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/31/00
to

Viv, Pete, Geordie

unread,
Jul 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/31/00
to

Michael J Davis

unread,
Jul 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/31/00