David Pawson
Simon Gray
richard) about him ? Particularly, how 'respectable' is he considered to
be ?
--
"No pleasure is worth giving up for an extra 10 years in the Sunnyview
Home For The Terminally Incontinent" - Horace Rumpole
http://www.star-one.org.uk/ Want a cd of my music ?
Tony Bryer
>
> Anybody know anything (apart from him apparently baptising cliff
> richard) about him ? Particularly, how 'respectable' is he considered > to be ?
about 15 years ago - he falls into that elite group who can speak for an
hour or more and keep me hanging on every word (my attention span is
usually measured in minutes).
I still remember him speaking at one of those meetings on Paul's visit
to Ephesus - this was at the time when an earlier Sunday Trading bill
was under consideration - and him pointing out that the traders in
images were threatened by the people's truning to Christ and consequent
change in behaviour, rather than Paul demanding that their trade should
be outlawed as ungodly. In the modern day context if no one goes to the
shops on Sundays they will no longer open (whether this is would be good
or bad belongs in another thread).
I still do believe that the sale of (for example) hard-core pornography
should be illegal, but ever since I heard that sermon I have been much
more inclined towards a view of reforming society by changing people
what people believe, instead of trying to legislate them into goodness.
I also heard David Pawson speak at last year's Christian Resources
Exhibition - a talk based on his millennium book - it was just as
listenable but I can never get grabbed by end-times speculation.
Tony Bryer
Mark Goodge
<ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In a message on Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Simon Gray wrote:
>
>>Anybody know anything (apart from him apparently baptising cliff
>>richard) about him ? Particularly, how 'respectable' is he considered to
>>be ?
>>
>Thoroughly respectable, I believe. Used to be pastor of a
>Baptist Church in Guildford (where said Cliff Richard
>went/goes). Don't know what he's doing now. Good
>preacher, too, in an Evangelical sort of way. Only he
>doesn't believe in women - thinks you have to own testicles
>and a penis to do anything in the church (but then, we have
>one or two of our own who think the same way, so I suppose
>it's no great failing).
I quite like a lot of what David Pawson has to say, although I
disagree with him on the "leadership is male" issue. I think the thing
I most respect about him is the fact that, even when he's making a
highly controversial point (eg, the leadership thing), his arguments
are rational and deserve attention, even if I ultimately end up
disagreeing. I'd definitely recommend reading his books or hearing him
speak: you may not always find his conclusions to your liking, but he
will certainly make you think.
Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/
Phil Gardner
In article <19990331054535...@ngol01.aol.com>,
sue...@aol.com (SueMale) writes:
> In article <3704cd59...@news.demon.co.uk>, $simon$@star-one.org.uk (Simon
> Gray) writes:
>
>>Anybody know anything (apart from him apparently baptising cliff
>>richard) about him ? Particularly, how 'respectable' is he considered to
>>be ?
My wife & I were members (between 1974 and 1981) of the Baptist Church
where he was senior Pastor...
At that time, his teaching was well-thought out and presented, and
based firmly on Scripture. My only concern at the time was that people
tended to drink it all in and accept it without going back to Scripture
and thinking/praying it through for themselves. Usually, he was good
at saying when he was speculating or just talking about about his
opinion... Quite often, he said startling things, some of which were
easy to take out of context or to misunderstand/misrepresent...
He was at his best in the pulpit - a bit ill at ease with people, e.g.
when shaking hands with folk at the door on the way out :-)
In recent years, I've had the concern that he might be a bit of a
'loner', and not particularly being 'overseen' by any fellow leaders...
I guess he's a bit intinerant, preaching at specific engagements and
writing books and articles.
My wife met him and his wife the other week (after 25 years) - they
remembered us (!), and reminisced about the wonderful healing from
cancer that Enid Pawson received from God over 25 years ago.
Hope that helps!
Phil
bigmax
>>He caused uproar at Spring Harvest in 1994 by suggesting that it was
possible
>>to lose your salvation.( I think that it was that way round)
>It was, and I disagreed with him about it publicly.
Fair enough, I suppose
>> I didn't agree with much else he said
>>though. He spoke at that Spring Harvest for four out of the five
nights though
>>so he must be respected in those circles.
>You may wish to note that he hasn't spoken at SH since.
I must say I find this a bit depressing. I've never been to SH, but I'd
been told that it was not a single party-line event. Apparently this
was incorrect?
>>I also believe he wrote "Leadership is Male".em....you can draw your
own
>>conclusions from that.
>Again, a good reason for being extremely careful to weigh what people
>say against scripture.
Are you suggesting that loss of salvation has no scriptural support?
After all , even though I disagree with Pawson on women's ministry (and
Christian initiation...) it's the presence of his views in scripture
which surely needs to be faced.
--
Marcus Maxwell
Heaton Mersey, Stockport
Inchoate web page at www.zen.co.uk/home/page/max.marc
.
Trevor Jenkins
ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:13:14 +0100, Annabel Smyth
> <ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In a message on Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Simon Gray wrote:
>>
>>>Anybody know anything (apart from him apparently baptising cliff
>>>richard) about him ? Particularly, how 'respectable' is he considered to
>>>be ?
>>>
>>Thoroughly respectable, I believe. Used to be pastor of a
>>Baptist Church in Guildford (where said Cliff Richard
>>went/goes). Don't know what he's doing now. Good
>>preacher, too, in an Evangelical sort of way. Only he
>>doesn't believe in women - thinks you have to own testicles
>>and a penis to do anything in the church (but then, we have
>>one or two of our own who think the same way, so I suppose
>>it's no great failing).
>
> I quite like a lot of what David Pawson has to say, although I
> disagree with him on the "leadership is male" issue. I think the thing
> I most respect about him is the fact that, even when he's making a
> highly controversial point (eg, the leadership thing), his arguments
> are rational and deserve attention, even if I ultimately end up
> disagreeing. I'd definitely recommend reading his books or hearing him
> speak: you may not always find his conclusions to your liking, but he
> will certainly make you think.
>
> Mark
This threads very interesting as we have Pawson coming to speak to us in a
few weeks time. I've know of him for many years but never heard him or read
any of his books.
Whilst I may not agree with his male leadership assumptions I do think that
we (the church) need to be shaken out of our complacency, out of our
comfort zone and into our proper role in/as the Body of Christ.
Regards, Trevor
--
<>< Re: deemed!
Mark Goodge
<bas...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The Bible teaches that the corporate spoken word ministry and
>oversight are vested in the males - this does not exclude the
>valuable ministries (note the lack of capitalisation) that women do.
So how do you account for the daughters of Philp the evangelist, who
prohesied (Acts 21:9), or the fact that a person named Junia (a
feminine name) is called an apostle (Romans 16:7)? Or what about
Priscilla, who taught Apollos (Acts 18:28)?
Mark Goodge
<bas...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>1) Prophesy is not a gender limited gift. But given the exhortation
>of the sisters to remain silent in the corporate activities it would
>seem that the prophetic utterances (which, to avoid ambiguity, I am
>convinced were of God) could have been public, or evangelistic.
1 Corinthians 11:5:
but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head
unveiled disgraces her head - it is one and the same
thing as having her head shaved.
Disregarding, for the moment, the matter of head coverings, it seems
quite clear here that Paul is expecting women to pray and prophesy in
the corporate gathering.
>2) On Junia, the NIV comments on the source text and the use of the
>definite article before "Apostles", which indicates that Junia was
>well regarded in the opinion of the 12.
My NIV doesn't have a footnote to v7, so I don't know what you're
referring to here. There are, of course, more apostles listed in the
New Testament than the original twelve.
>3) With Priscilla, again it is a matter of public and corporate
>contexts. Priscilla and Aquilla's astounding work was home based. It
>was most likely evangelistic work.
The church at the time met primarily in homes (including that of
Priscilla[1]), and the NT doesn't distinguish between "public" and
"corporate" in the way that you seem to be doing. Whatever else
Priscilla did, her role in teaching Apollos was certainly not
evangelistic, as he was already a believer prior to meeting her.
Mark
[1] See 1 Corinthians 16:19, also Colossians 4:15
Mark Goodge
<bas...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <86k8vwi...@g.pet.cam.ac.uk>
> from Gareth McCaughan <gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> contains these words:
>
>
>> Jonathan Stockwell wrote:
>
>> > Headship - biblical headship - is male, however it may grate, and no
>> > amount of crass mistranslation and misinterpretation of scripture
>> > (Paul was a misogynist, it no longer applies culturally etc.) can
>> > obscure this biblical truth, as foundational as Jesus being the Christ.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> May I suggest that if you really think this then something has
>> gone badly amiss?
>
>> --
>> Gareth McCaughan
>
>Sorry Gareth, I don't quite follow your concern (clarification please!).
Gareth is off for a week, but since I had similar thoughts to his I'll
pick up on your response. I'm sure Gareth will give his own answer
when he gets back :-)
Within Christianity, there are some things that are foundational to
the faith, and others that are less so. That doesn't mean that the
less important things are irrelevent, or that they are less clear, but
it does mean that they are not directly relevent to whether someone is
a Christian or not.
I think that the overwhelming majority of Christians would agree that
Jesus being the Christ is a foundational truth of Christianity. In
fact, I would go so far as to suggest that this is one of the defining
characteristics of a Christian. Other foundational truths, for me,
would be the Trinity and the key attributes of God - love, omnipotence
and transcendence. The various creeds summarise the generally accepted
foundational truths, and very few Christians would disagree with
them[1] in any significant measure.
Once you've accepted the foundations of Christianity, then there are
other aspects that need to be considered. Matters of church order, for
example, and the status of the Bible. On these, though, there is much
less consensus. More importantly, they do not define Christianity.
Now, I am a charismatic, evangelical Christian. Other than the
foundational elements of Christianity, some of the things that you
will find in my belief system are:
* That the Bible is the ultimate authority for Christian
doctrine and practice.
* That baptism is commanded for all believers, and believers
alone.
* That the gifts of the Holy Spirit are an integral part
of the normal Christian lifestyle.
These are just a sample, there are plenty of others, and these aren't
necessarily the most important. But I believe them all. More
importantly, I am as fully convinced that I am right on these issues
as I am convinced that Jesus is the Christ. However - and this is the
key element here - I don't think that people who disagree with me on
these issues are not Christians, and if someone wants to baptise
babies or ignore the Bible then that's up to them. They may be[2]
wrong, but they are not putting themselves outside the boundaries of
Christianity.
That's why I'm surprised by your statement that male headship is "as
foundational as Jesus being the Christ". If it is that foundational to
you, then you presumably consider anyone who holds an opposing view
not to be a Christian. Either that, or you don't have a particularly
strong belief in the Christness[3] of Jesus.
So, the question is, do you consider that allowing women to preach,
lead churches, etc is apostasy? If it is not, then do you consider
denying that Jesus is the Christ to be apostasy? You can't answer "no"
to the first, and "yes" to the second, if male headship really is as
foundational as Jesus being the Christ - if the two are equal, then
the answers to the questions must be the same.
As it happens, I would answer "no" and "yes" respectively - and would
do so even if you replaced "allowing women to preach, lead churches,
etc" with "baptising babies" or "denying the validity of the gifts of
the Spirit". But then, I've never claimed that these are foundational
truths along with a belief that Jesus is the Christ.
Mark
[1] There are people here who would argue that we don't
need to have any creeds, but that's not the same as
disagreeing with the wording of the creeds.
[2] s/may be/are/g :-)
[3] I don't know if "Christness" is a word, but it fits
so I've used it!
Rowland Croucher
>
> Anybody know anything (apart from him apparently baptising cliff
> richard) about him ? Particularly, how 'respectable' is he considered to
> be ?
A fascinating thread!
David and I corresponded for years, when we were pastors of
similarly-sized Baptist Churches.
I regard him so highly as a teacher that we got 700 of his tapes and
lent them out to our members. The messages on Deuteronomy I found quite
moving, after I'd heard he preached them after an absence due to illness...
OTOH, David's preaching lacks pastoral content: would others agree?
One issue I don't think has been raised: wouldn't some of you regard his
views on Israel a bit one-eyed? He used to be very pro-Jewish...
BTW our correspondence ceased when he sent me the proofs of Leadership
is Male and I sent him a counter-position :-(
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher (rowl...@mira.net)
JOHN MARK MINISTRIES - resources for pastors/leaders
(Bookroom, library, and worldwide F.W.BOREHAM Trading Post)
WEBSITE (2100+ articles, 1000+ links) - http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm
LIST: email: clergy-...@pastornet.net.au (Subject-line: Subscribe)
Mark Goodge
<bas...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <370c0da6...@bobble.good-stuff.co.uk>
> from ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) contains these words:
>
>> Disregarding, for the moment, the matter of head coverings, it seems
>> quite clear here that Paul is expecting women to pray and prophesy in
>> the corporate gathering.
>
>Yes and no. If we can set aside my earlier remarks about being open
>to re-evaluating my corporate prophecy stance, prayer need not be vocal!
>(I could argue that the corporate context need not apply - for
>example, a prophetess acting as Jonah did is still 100% prophetic yet
>0% corporate. I won't labour this point, as this response seems a
>little strained...
Very strained indeed, IMO. I don't see how you can be prophetic
without being corporate - or else, to whom are you prophesying?
>> My NIV doesn't have a footnote to v7, so I don't know what you're
>> referring to here. There are, of course, more apostles listed in the
>> New Testament than the original twelve.
>
>I'll transcribe the commentary (BTW the NIV has her name as Junias)
>Romans 16:7 -
>
>"...<i>among the apostles</i> Two interpretations are given, (1)
>"Apostles" is used in a wider sense than the Twelve - to include
>preachers of the gospel recognised by the churches..."
>
>(aside: I don't think it's this...it would infer a slack use of
>language by the writer of Romans)
Why slack? If you accept that there were (and are) more apostles than
the original twelve (a view which is, IMO, well supported by
Scripture) then it's a perfectly normal interpretation.
>"...(2) "Apostles" is preceeded by the definite article, which may
>indicate that the Twelve are in view. In this case the meaning would
>be that these two persons were outstanding "in the opinion of" the apostles"
Even if he does mean "the" apostles, it still doesn't have to me the
twelve.
>> >3) With Priscilla, again it is a matter of public and corporate
>> >contexts. Priscilla and Aquilla's astounding work was home based. It
>> >was most likely evangelistic work.
>
>> The church at the time met primarily in homes
>
>...yes-ish, though it seems that the temple courts were a favoured
>meeting place. Depends where the local fellowship was based, geographically.
The temple courts in Jerusalem, yes, but not elsewhere, where there
was no temple. The believers were usually excluded from the local
synagogue.
>> (including that of
>> Priscilla[1]), and the NT doesn't distinguish between "public" and
>> "corporate" in the way that you seem to be doing.
>
>Mmm. Disagree. Public was evangelistic, corporate was ministry.
You may disagree, but what does the Bible have to say on the matter?
Where does it make this distinction between "evangelistic" and
"ministry"?
>> Whatever else
>> Priscilla did, her role in teaching Apollos was certainly not
>> evangelistic, as he was already a believer prior to meeting her.
>
>I'd have to point you to the latter half of verse 25; "...though he
>[Apollos] only knew the baptism of John.". The John-the-Baptistian
>ministry was a ministry of repentance (in the OT sense) and
>preparation for the coming of Messiah. Priscilla and Aquila took him
>home from the synagogue and preached (for want of a better word) the
>"baptism of Christ ressurected". While their home did house the
>Ephesian church, the Apollos narrative does not support any other
>reading that it was a one-to-one (or two-to-one) evangelistic exposition
At what point, then, does one to one, or two to one, become one to to
many?
Mark
Mark Goodge
<bas...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <370b0500...@bobble.good-stuff.co.uk>
> from ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) contains these words:
>
>> Once you've accepted the foundations of Christianity, then there are
>> other aspects that need to be considered. Matters of church order, for
>> example, and the status of the Bible. On these, though, there is much
>> less consensus. More importantly, they do not define Christianity.
>
>Yes - with qualifications. Some aspects of practice are (to be fair)
>are ambiguous, and there is a lot of slack given to the individual
>believer and fellowship. Being dogmatic about these is undesirable.
>Nonetheless, where there is a lack of ambiguity, these are the
>cornerstones of orthodoxy.
OK, let me try an analogy. Suppose one of my friends tells me that, in
his opinion, the law gives him the right to murder his wife. Suppose
that another of my friends tells me that, in his opinion, the speed
limit on UK motorways is 90mph. Both are equally wrong, and
demonstrably so (simply by reference to the statute book). However,
the latter's misbelief is not nearly so serious as the former's - if
someone murders his wife, then not only is a life cut short but the
perpetrator will end up in prison. On the other hand, getting caught
at 90mph on a motorway risks mothing more than a fine and a possible
driving ban.
So it's not merely a question of clarity, but of importance. I would
suggest that to place a certain belief in the relative roles of men
and women on the same level as a certain belief about the person of
Christ is a class mistake along the same lines as considering speeding
to be the same as murder.
Would you agree?
bigmax
Mark Goodge wrote in message
<371053cf...@bobble.good-stuff.co.uk>...
>On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 00:26:01 +0100, Jonathan Stockwell
><bas...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The message <370c0da6...@bobble.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> from ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) contains these words:
[snip]
>>> My NIV doesn't have a footnote to v7, so I don't know what you're
>>> referring to here. There are, of course, more apostles listed in the
>>> New Testament than the original twelve.
>>I'll transcribe the commentary (BTW the NIV has her name as Junias)
This is because the Greek has "Junian" the accusative, which could be
grammatically either Junias (male) or Junia (female). Junia was a
common woman's name, but no one has yet found an extant reference to
anyone called Junias. So it *could* be a man, but only by special
pleading (i.e. it has to be a man 'cos a woman couldn't be an apostle.)
>>Romans 16:7 -
>>"...<i>among the apostles</i> Two interpretations are given, (1)
>>"Apostles" is used in a wider sense than the Twelve - to include
>>preachers of the gospel recognised by the churches..."
>>(aside: I don't think it's this...it would infer a slack use of
>>language by the writer of Romans)
>Why slack? If you accept that there were (and are) more apostles than
>the original twelve (a view which is, IMO, well supported by
>Scripture) then it's a perfectly normal interpretation.
Actually, it's very much supported by the writer of Romans, who is
rather keen on being called an apostle, but certainly wasn't one of the
12:-)
>>"...(2) "Apostles" is preceeded by the definite article, which may
>>indicate that the Twelve are in view. In this case the meaning would
>>be that these two persons were outstanding "in the opinion of" the
apostles"
>
>Even if he does mean "the" apostles, it still doesn't have to me the
>twelve.
This is really just special pleading by NIV (or its annotators) to avoid
upsetting some evangelical readers. Anyway, even if "apostle" here
simply means "missionary" it necessarily gives a teaching role to Junia,
I would think. Unless, if I understand Jonathan's view correctly, she
were to stop teaching as soon as her listeners were converted, which
seems a rather odd approach to Christian nurture....
[snip]
>>> Whatever else
>>> Priscilla did, her role in teaching Apollos was certainly not
>>> evangelistic, as he was already a believer prior to meeting her.
>>
>>I'd have to point you to the latter half of verse 25; "...though he
>>[Apollos] only knew the baptism of John.". The John-the-Baptistian
>>ministry was a ministry of repentance (in the OT sense) and
>>preparation for the coming of Messiah. Priscilla and Aquila took him
>>home from the synagogue and preached (for want of a better word) the
>>"baptism of Christ ressurected". While their home did house the
>>Ephesian church, the Apollos narrative does not support any other
>>reading that it was a one-to-one (or two-to-one) evangelistic
exposition
>
>At what point, then, does one to one, or two to one, become one to to
>many?
An interesting point about Apollos, though, is that he was already
proclaiming Jesus, and was not baptized by A&P, which suggests strongly
that they were not trying to convert him, but offering further
instruction. So I would humbly submit that it certainly does support
another interpretation from Jody's.
bigmax
>In article <rSRO2.4076$iZ1...@news-reader.bt.net>, bigmax
><max....@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> An interesting point about Apollos, though, is that he was already
>> proclaiming Jesus, and was not baptized by A&P, which suggests
strongly
>> that they were not trying to convert him, but offering further
>> instruction. So I would humbly submit that it certainly does support
>> another interpretation from Jody's.
>
the
>Lord, knowing only the baptism of John". He could, therefore, have been
>teaching "Repent and be baptised, for the kingdom of God is at hand"
without
>knowing anything about Jesus.
NRSV has "V. 25: He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he
spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things
concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John." "Jesus" is
the reading opted for by my Bible Soc. Gk NT, but "Lord" is a strongly
attested variant. However, the clincher is "way of the Lord", which for
Luke means the Christian Way.
Trevor Jenkins
Jenkins" <Trevor....@suneidesis.com> wrote:
> This threads very interesting as we have Pawson coming to speak to us in a
> few weeks time. I've know of him for many years but never heard him or read
> any of his books.
Well his talk is now over. It was very well presented, humourous and
provocative---but then given what has been said about him in this thread I
was expecting that. :-) He talked for about 2 hours so any summary I
concote would not do the subject matter justice.
> Whilst I may not agree with his male leadership assumptions I do think that
> we (the church) need to be shaken out of our complacency, out of our
> comfort zone and into our proper role in/as the Body of Christ.
He did not mention the male leadership issue at all. However, he did say
something about whether it is possible to loose one's salvation. His
argument is a little involved and centres around the church's assimilation
into Greek thought forms, which I can not do justice to in this short
reply. (I took 11 A4 pages of notes during his talk.) I shall have to
review my notes later and then listen to the recording of his talk that was
made before I can decide whether I agree with his proposal. I do see merit
in his stance on this issue.
Trevor Jenkins
<rowl...@mira.net> wrote:
> Simon Gray wrote:
>>
>> Anybody know anything (apart from him apparently baptising cliff
>> richard) about him ? Particularly, how 'respectable' is he considered to
>> be ?
>
> A fascinating thread!
>
> ...
>
> One issue I don't think has been raised: wouldn't some of you regard his
> views on Israel a bit one-eyed? He used to be very pro-Jewish...
I woouldn't say "used to be pro-Jewish". Having heard him talk earlier this
week on the topic of "Degreecing the Church" I'm of the opinion that he is
"still very pro-Jewish". As I said in my other posting about his talk the
subject (of the diastorous influence of Greek thought forms) is a little
involved but I was convinced of the need to "degreece" my interpretation of
the scriptures.
Simon Gray
~ However, he did say
~ something about whether it is possible to loose one's salvation.
I would hope that we *all* loose our salvation...
--
"Approved Text - the Holy Grail of Multimedia" - darren wheatley