Maybe instead of left-wing, progressive, I should have said fans of Spong, Borg and Crossan. ;^)
I would say my understanding is informed by Borg, Macrossan, Enns, Jeannine Brown, Jimmy Dunn, Athol Gill, and the popularising by Spong, etc.
Scholarly analysis brings understanding to the texts better than the treatment of them as a collection of passages isolated from the overall themes and progression of the story, as occurs with much lectionary treatment by sermons.
When I started the thread, I was thinking that there were a lot fewer of us (and certainly the minority now) on the Ship nowadays who hold to little-o orthodoxy or even specifically credal doctrinal /dogma orthodoxy.
I’m not at all convinced of the accuracy of the assumption that such people are the minority on the Ship.
Maybe they just don’t pipe up as much as before. On various threads I feel like we’re a tiny minority of the same few people, and that the general assumption on the threads is not believing in traditional/orthodox/credal Christianity, or even the existence of God.
Yes, I know that how you feel. What I’m saying is it’s not the impression I get reading threads.
@Barnabas62 - I don't think we can claim exclusive rights on small o orthodoxy and an emphasis on social justice here in the UK.
I wasn’t intending to do that. (BTW it’s Jim Wallis who founded Sojourners.)
The differences in the Christian cake slices in the UK are more than just of degree but of course they don’t rule out some commonalities. Steve Chalke and Tony Campolo remained good friends until Tony’s death. Jim Wallis has spoken at Greenbelt and also New Wine - and much appreciated.
And I agree about the Black churches.
Latchkey Kid
I don’t read Jimmy Dunn as a demythologiser. “Jesus Remembered” is an exploration of just that, how Jesus was remembered. He worked broadly within the Methodist tradition. A man of lively faith, his aims were always clarification and education. Critical scholarship and demythologising do overlap of course.
Dafyd
We agree that when it came to speaking on and to the media, David Jenkins was his own worst enemy!
I’ve read some of his writing, found it interesting and illuminating.
Didn’t he declare himself agnostic? Personally I’ve found that the writings of those who have journeyed out of Christianity can indeed be illuminating. Certainly not to be dismissed out of hand.
I will also say that there are a lot of black churches in the US which are doctrinally evangelical (and orthodox!) but very much social justice focused, and always have been—they just don’t get mentioned much when people refer to “evangelicals” in the US. The Holy Post has been talking about this on their podcasts when these things come up.
The word 'evangelical' can one of several meanings, depending on context. My observation is that there are broadly 3:
1) There's the classic European sense of being theologically orthodox, nonconformist and with a greater emphasis on looking outwards to share the gospel with the community, with less emphasis on the ritualism foud in more ecclesiastically conservative churches. The range of social views will vary from liberal to conservative, but is a fairly broad church in this respect
2) The modern American version which I would dub as fundamentalism. Very socially conservative, ecclesiastically liberal and would be typified by the Southern Baptist Convention or megachurch pastors.
3) The Anglican usage, which entails the conformism of the CofE, but which emphasises the socially conservative end of the spectrum and which broadly shuns as much of the Oxford Movement as possible. I've also heard reference to a [something] triangle but I forget. I thought it was something like Beddington or Deddington, but can't quickly find the reference online.
So while I would generally refer to myself as a liberal evangelical in sense (1) above while in this country, when in discussion with an American, I would often use the term anabaptist to better convey my theology succinctly.
Of course, such parsing cannot encompass all and is based on my observations. Not are the 3 entirely mutually exclusive, as there tendrils between them.
You are thinking of Bebbington's Quadrilateral @Sipech which has been discussed here several times in the past. The discussion has tended to centre on whether it's still valid as a working definition.
I'd broadly concur with your 3 categories but would say there was a lot more granular detail.
Not all US style conservative evangelicals are fundamentalists.
@Barnabas62, yes, I should have typed Jim Wallis. I'd been talking to someone about Jim Elliott's widow recently so that may have stuck in my mind subconsciously.
I was asked if they could find the bones of Jesus would it challenge my faith. My answer is no. I definitely affirm something happened that Easter morning. What it was is a mystery, but all of the sudden a despondent group we know as the followers of Jesus became energized and firmly believe Jesus rose from the dead. A bunch of bones would not change that belief.
This is the sort of language that saddens many Big O and small o orthodox Christians, of course.
Is nothing sacred?
At what point did Bach's 'O Sacred Head sore wounded,' and the body so carefully and reverently laid in the tomb and tended by 'the Myrrh-bearing women,' become a 'bunch of bones'?
'If Christ be not raised our faith is futile and we are still in our sins.'
'Can these bones live?'
So, something happened that convinced the early disciples that Christ was raised and alive - and physically too - although with the capacity to appear and disappear and to be handled, eat and drink etc.
But it may have involved him leaving his bones behind. And not just his bones but a 'bunch of bones' like so much worthless detritus.
When I visit my wife's grave I know she is there, under the ground. I know her body is decayed. I don’t like to think of that but I know it to be true.
Her bones are not a 'bunch of bones', they belonged to someone I loved - I still love - to someone who bore our children and to whom I owe so much.
How dare you @Gramps49 speak so disrespectfully not only of the dead in general but of Christ's physical body which through the Incarnation was forever united with our humanity?
How dare you dismiss and override the belief held by so many Christians over the centuries that 'there is a man in heaven.'
That the tomb is empty.
That 'something happened' but we don't know what and it galvanised the despondent disciples in some way but couldn't have possibly involved an actual physical resurrection and a 'bunch of bones' were left behind.
As a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy I find relics and some of the more 'physical' expressions of our faith quite difficult.
But if anything makes me want to visit a shrine and venerate a Saint's bones or become as 'maximalist' as can be it's this sort of sloppy, slip-shod and frankly highly irreverent talk.
'Bunch of bones.'
This is the Incarnate Word we are talking about. The Word made Flesh. Pleased as Man with Man to dwell. United with our flesh, with our humanity.
We've had a reference to the 'slippery slope fallacy' on another thread. It's posts like yours that make me think it's not a 'fallacy' but a reality. A slippery slope towards deconstruction and unbelief, towards apostasy.
Now, I'm not saying that you're apostate or a 'heretick' or anything other than a thoroughly decent bloke.
I'm not saying that we should slide a slippery slope in the opposite direction into obscurantism and fundamentalism.
But bunch of bones. Really?!
Is it any wonder that some Big O and small o orthodox Christians are concerned that parts of Christendom are losing a sense of the Incarnation, of the sacred and so on?
Can you imagine the difficulty of proving those bones were Jesus'? I think it might be a bigger step of faith to believe those bones were Jesus' than to believe in the Resurrection. What would you go on? No DNA, Christ by the narrative of the Gospel died childless and the story of his incarnation means that we are not sure he even shared DNA with his mother. We cannot radiocarbon date accurately enough to pinpoint the year of death to a specific year. So it would all have to be circumstantial. Joshua, Joseph and especially Mary were common names in that area of the World in the first century AD. Even an inscription involving all three would not be perfect proof. There were again plenty of Messianic claimants around at the time. Anything too specific would raise suspicions of fraud.
Now, not for one moment do I think the absence of bones after 2000 years justifies belief in the resurrection. Most people who died that long ago do not have a set of bones known to be theirs. It's just the normal state of affairs. The evidence, such as it is, comes from the change in the disciples after the resurrection and the lived experience of the Church. Whether you find that persuasive is a matter of faith.
I will also say that there are a lot of black churches in the US which are doctrinally evangelical (and orthodox!) but very much social justice focused, and always have been—they just don’t get mentioned much when people refer to “evangelicals” in the US. The Holy Post has been talking about this on their podcasts when these things come up.
The word 'evangelical' can one of several meanings, depending on context. My observation is that there are broadly 3:
1) There's the classic European sense of being theologically orthodox, nonconformist and with a greater emphasis on looking outwards to share the gospel with the community, with less emphasis on the ritualism foud in more ecclesiastically conservative churches. . . .
I would say there are broadly at least four meanings of “Evangelical” and I would have thought “the classic European sense” would be simply “Protestant,” and more specifically “Lutheran.” It is still used that way among American Lutherans.
As for a “classic European sense” in which it means “nonconformist,” does that designation have any meaning outside the UK?
Nonconformist UK, simply explained, is not conforming in belief to the authorised understanding of the authorised church. In UK terms that means, (or it used to mean), the Anglican 39 Articles of Faith. Earlier, what Henry VIII said! Earlier, the authorised teaching of the Catholic Church (the various components of Tradition). In historical times it could get you burned as a heretic.
I think it’s a bit vaguer now, but current interpretations derive from those historical roots.
Personally I see it as “dissent as a matter of conscience.” Dissent doesn’t define what we do believe,rather it points to what aspects of the authorised faith we don’t believe.
So in some sense I think
all Christian nonconformists are unorthodox. My unorthodoxy is about the visible church and its claims of authority, also a belief in believers’ baptism. I’m an anabaptist who has moved to a better understanding of infant baptism. Apart from those things I’m orthodox by conviction, not as a matter of obedience to any human authority.
Historically such beliefs could have got me burned.
@Barnabas62 .
I don't think of it as demythologising, more of understanding the truths expressed in mythology.
Jimmy Dunn taught two courses in my theology degree - The Origins of Christianity, and Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Even those titles were objected to by some more traditional leaning Christians. E.g. There's only one origin of Christianity! The NT is a Unity!
He did further my understanding that just using harmonising spectacles meant that you were missing what the individual authors were saying.
@Barnabas62, yes, I know what nonconformist means. My point was that defining “Evangelical” as meaning, at least in part, as “nonconformist” is a UK-centric or UK-specific definition, because the term “nonconformist” isn’t a category outside the UK.
Nonconformist UK, simply explained, is not conforming in belief to the authorised understanding of the authorised church. In UK terms that means, (or it used to mean), the Anglican 39 Articles of Faith. Earlier, what Henry VIII said! Earlier, the authorised teaching of the Catholic Church (the various components of Tradition). In historical times it could get you burned as a heretic.
Not quite. Non-conformism arises from refusal to comply with one or other of the post-reformation Acts of Uniformity, and these are acts covering England & Wales, and in some cases Ireland. Scottish Dissent was unrelated to these acts and non-conformist is not the appropriate term. It also wouldn't (colloquially, at least) apply to Roman Catholic recusants in England. Heresy required going a great deal further than mere non-conformism.
I would count the Lollards as early noncormists . Wycliffe, who they followed, definitely dissented as a matter of conscience and to judge by their martyrdom so did at least some of his followers.
That of course follows my general view of “dissent as a matter of personal conscience”.
Catholic martyrdom in the UK strikes me as rather different since it is as a result of dissent to what they saw as an invalid authority. They chose obedience to the authority they believed in rather than the one in charge.
Whereas the Lollards, following Wycliffe, believed in the supreme authority of scripture rather than what they saw as human authority. They saw Wycliffe as a teacher, rather than an authority.
@Barnabas62 .
I don't think of it as demythologising, more of understanding the truths expressed in mythology.
Jimmy Dunn taught two courses in my theology degree - The Origins of Christianity, and Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Even those titles were objected to by some more traditional leaning Christians. E.g. There's only one origin of Christianity! The NT is a Unity!
He did further my understanding that just using harmonising spectacles meant that you were missing what the individual authors were saying.
Yes. That’s a better way of putting it.
And you were fortunate. I would have thoroughly enjoyed those courses!
What I know of Jimmy Dunn as a teacher increased my respect.
Dunn was a lovely guy. He preached occasionally at North Road Methodist Church in Durham, where I was an infrequent visitor. Even the Anglian bishop was known to slip in occasionally to hear him speak.
@Gamma Gamaliel not everyone has such a "high" view of the sacredness of the deceased physical body in general - it doesn't mean any insult is intended. I'll let @Gramps49 answer for himself but I was surprised by the tone of your response. Your feelings are understandable, but some of us just don't view the deceased body in the same way - and I don't think that makes one guilty of apostasy. I personally interpreted Gramps as suggesting that the bones wouldn't "really" be Jesus, because Jesus would be in Heaven.
For me, when my grandfather was dying of Alzheimer's, it was clear to me that who he was as a person was long gone and that his body was hanging on without him. Those of us who have lost loved ones all experience grief differently, and some of us are just less attached to the physical body. I don't think that's better or worse, just different.
Also just speaking personally - I don't generally ever have the urge to visit the graves of deceased loved ones. That doesn't mean that I don't love or miss them, just that for me the important thing is the memories of them rather than their body or ashes. To me, their bodies aren't "them".
Gamma Gamaliel, I think your response to Gramps49 was over the top, a personal attack and at the very least you owe him an apology. Re-read the context of his comments in context.
Dunn was a lovely guy. He preached occasionally at North Road Methodist Church in Durham, where I was an infrequent visitor. Even the Anglian bishop was known to slip in occasionally to hear him speak.
Gosh! I know that Church, it’s near the bus station! The congregation were fortunate. Mind you, he probably ruffled a few feathers. But he’d have done it in the nicest possible way!
Comments
I would say my understanding is informed by Borg, Macrossan, Enns, Jeannine Brown, Jimmy Dunn, Athol Gill, and the popularising by Spong, etc.
Scholarly analysis brings understanding to the texts better than the treatment of them as a collection of passages isolated from the overall themes and progression of the story, as occurs with much lectionary treatment by sermons.
Thanks, CM. It was a lot of fun while it lasted.
I wasn’t intending to do that. (BTW it’s Jim Wallis who founded Sojourners.)
The differences in the Christian cake slices in the UK are more than just of degree but of course they don’t rule out some commonalities. Steve Chalke and Tony Campolo remained good friends until Tony’s death. Jim Wallis has spoken at Greenbelt and also New Wine - and much appreciated.
And I agree about the Black churches.
Latchkey Kid
I don’t read Jimmy Dunn as a demythologiser. “Jesus Remembered” is an exploration of just that, how Jesus was remembered. He worked broadly within the Methodist tradition. A man of lively faith, his aims were always clarification and education. Critical scholarship and demythologising do overlap of course.
Dafyd
We agree that when it came to speaking on and to the media, David Jenkins was his own worst enemy!
I’ve read some of his writing, found it interesting and illuminating.
Didn’t he declare himself agnostic? Personally I’ve found that the writings of those who have journeyed out of Christianity can indeed be illuminating. Certainly not to be dismissed out of hand.
1) There's the classic European sense of being theologically orthodox, nonconformist and with a greater emphasis on looking outwards to share the gospel with the community, with less emphasis on the ritualism foud in more ecclesiastically conservative churches. The range of social views will vary from liberal to conservative, but is a fairly broad church in this respect
2) The modern American version which I would dub as fundamentalism. Very socially conservative, ecclesiastically liberal and would be typified by the Southern Baptist Convention or megachurch pastors.
3) The Anglican usage, which entails the conformism of the CofE, but which emphasises the socially conservative end of the spectrum and which broadly shuns as much of the Oxford Movement as possible. I've also heard reference to a [something] triangle but I forget. I thought it was something like Beddington or Deddington, but can't quickly find the reference online.
So while I would generally refer to myself as a liberal evangelical in sense (1) above while in this country, when in discussion with an American, I would often use the term anabaptist to better convey my theology succinctly.
Of course, such parsing cannot encompass all and is based on my observations. Not are the 3 entirely mutually exclusive, as there tendrils between them.
I'd broadly concur with your 3 categories but would say there was a lot more granular detail.
Not all US style conservative evangelicals are fundamentalists.
@Barnabas62, yes, I should have typed Jim Wallis. I'd been talking to someone about Jim Elliott's widow recently so that may have stuck in my mind subconsciously.
This is the sort of language that saddens many Big O and small o orthodox Christians, of course.
Is nothing sacred?
At what point did Bach's 'O Sacred Head sore wounded,' and the body so carefully and reverently laid in the tomb and tended by 'the Myrrh-bearing women,' become a 'bunch of bones'?
'If Christ be not raised our faith is futile and we are still in our sins.'
'Can these bones live?'
So, something happened that convinced the early disciples that Christ was raised and alive - and physically too - although with the capacity to appear and disappear and to be handled, eat and drink etc.
But it may have involved him leaving his bones behind. And not just his bones but a 'bunch of bones' like so much worthless detritus.
When I visit my wife's grave I know she is there, under the ground. I know her body is decayed. I don’t like to think of that but I know it to be true.
Her bones are not a 'bunch of bones', they belonged to someone I loved - I still love - to someone who bore our children and to whom I owe so much.
How dare you @Gramps49 speak so disrespectfully not only of the dead in general but of Christ's physical body which through the Incarnation was forever united with our humanity?
How dare you dismiss and override the belief held by so many Christians over the centuries that 'there is a man in heaven.'
That the tomb is empty.
That 'something happened' but we don't know what and it galvanised the despondent disciples in some way but couldn't have possibly involved an actual physical resurrection and a 'bunch of bones' were left behind.
As a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy I find relics and some of the more 'physical' expressions of our faith quite difficult.
But if anything makes me want to visit a shrine and venerate a Saint's bones or become as 'maximalist' as can be it's this sort of sloppy, slip-shod and frankly highly irreverent talk.
'Bunch of bones.'
This is the Incarnate Word we are talking about. The Word made Flesh. Pleased as Man with Man to dwell. United with our flesh, with our humanity.
We've had a reference to the 'slippery slope fallacy' on another thread. It's posts like yours that make me think it's not a 'fallacy' but a reality. A slippery slope towards deconstruction and unbelief, towards apostasy.
Now, I'm not saying that you're apostate or a 'heretick' or anything other than a thoroughly decent bloke.
I'm not saying that we should slide a slippery slope in the opposite direction into obscurantism and fundamentalism.
But bunch of bones. Really?!
Is it any wonder that some Big O and small o orthodox Christians are concerned that parts of Christendom are losing a sense of the Incarnation, of the sacred and so on?
'Bunch of bones' indeed!
Now, not for one moment do I think the absence of bones after 2000 years justifies belief in the resurrection. Most people who died that long ago do not have a set of bones known to be theirs. It's just the normal state of affairs. The evidence, such as it is, comes from the change in the disciples after the resurrection and the lived experience of the Church. Whether you find that persuasive is a matter of faith.
As for a “classic European sense” in which it means “nonconformist,” does that designation have any meaning outside the UK?
I think it’s a bit vaguer now, but current interpretations derive from those historical roots.
Personally I see it as “dissent as a matter of conscience.” Dissent doesn’t define what we do believe,rather it points to what aspects of the authorised faith we don’t believe.
So in some sense I think
all Christian nonconformists are unorthodox. My unorthodoxy is about the visible church and its claims of authority, also a belief in believers’ baptism. I’m an anabaptist who has moved to a better understanding of infant baptism. Apart from those things I’m orthodox by conviction, not as a matter of obedience to any human authority.
Historically such beliefs could have got me burned.
I don't think of it as demythologising, more of understanding the truths expressed in mythology.
Jimmy Dunn taught two courses in my theology degree - The Origins of Christianity, and Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Even those titles were objected to by some more traditional leaning Christians. E.g. There's only one origin of Christianity! The NT is a Unity!
He did further my understanding that just using harmonising spectacles meant that you were missing what the individual authors were saying.
“A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still”.
Not quite. Non-conformism arises from refusal to comply with one or other of the post-reformation Acts of Uniformity, and these are acts covering England & Wales, and in some cases Ireland. Scottish Dissent was unrelated to these acts and non-conformist is not the appropriate term. It also wouldn't (colloquially, at least) apply to Roman Catholic recusants in England. Heresy required going a great deal further than mere non-conformism.
There is probably a misunderstanding over terms. Here’s a test.
Lollardy.
The Lollards Pit.
I would count the Lollards as early noncormists . Wycliffe, who they followed, definitely dissented as a matter of conscience and to judge by their martyrdom so did at least some of his followers.
That of course follows my general view of “dissent as a matter of personal conscience”.
Catholic martyrdom in the UK strikes me as rather different since it is as a result of dissent to what they saw as an invalid authority. They chose obedience to the authority they believed in rather than the one in charge.
Whereas the Lollards, following Wycliffe, believed in the supreme authority of scripture rather than what they saw as human authority. They saw Wycliffe as a teacher, rather than an authority.
Yes. That’s a better way of putting it.
And you were fortunate. I would have thoroughly enjoyed those courses!
What I know of Jimmy Dunn as a teacher increased my respect.
For me, when my grandfather was dying of Alzheimer's, it was clear to me that who he was as a person was long gone and that his body was hanging on without him. Those of us who have lost loved ones all experience grief differently, and some of us are just less attached to the physical body. I don't think that's better or worse, just different.
Gamma Gamaliel, I think your response to Gramps49 was over the top, a personal attack and at the very least you owe him an apology. Re-read the context of his comments in context.
I'd call them early Protestants, but I think calling them non-conformists is anachronistic.
Gosh! I know that Church, it’s near the bus station! The congregation were fortunate. Mind you, he probably ruffled a few feathers. But he’d have done it in the nicest possible way!