Faithworks opposes Lords Protest
The Christian charity has released this statement opposing tonight's Westminster rally. Their director, Rev Malcolm Duncan (pictured) challenges his fellow Christians to follow the example of Jesus, to avoid double standards, and to stand with those who are excluded in society. And the statement asks some basic theological questions, such as:
Would it really be βChristianβ to refuse bereavement counselling to a gay man, or to exclude a gay person and their child from a parent-and-toddler group?
Your thoughts?
Statement from Rev Malcolm Duncan, leader of the Faithworks Movement
8th January 2007
The Sexual Orientation Regulations: an alternative Christian perspective
For all those Christians and churches who are planning to demonstrate their opposition to the proposed Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), to be discussed in the House of Lords tomorrow, we want to voice concerns about this kind of virulent and aggressive approach:
1. There is misunderstanding of the SORs and their application
We are concerned that there is widespread misunderstanding of the SORs. They apply to the delivery of goods, facilities and services, but some Christians have misinterpreted the word βservicesβ to include religious ceremonies and rites such as baptism and blessing of same-sex unions, when this is clearly not the case. Churches will not be forced to βmarryβ gay people. Likewise, youth groups and schools will not be prosecuted for not promoting a homosexual lifestyle.
We welcome the SORS as an attempt to ensure that goods and services are delivered inclusively and in non-discriminatory ways. It is right that any organisation receiving public funding should deliver services to genuine public benefit.
The delivery of goods and services can relate to situations such as hiring out of rooms, something many churches have voiced their concerns over. A commitment to diversity through doing this does not mean losing your faith identity: it actually presents an opportunity to develop a dialogue and put the Gospel into action through demonstrating love and service.
Government ministers have publicly answered questions of concern over the scope of the proposed legislation, and this information is freely available on Hansard, the record of proceedings in Parliament. The Government also made it clear in the consultation period that it would listen to the voices of religious groups. The Northern Ireland regulations already contain exceptions for religious organisations.
It is also important to remember that the measures contained in the SORs will not replace existing legislation on discrimination. Thus the protection from discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief that Christians currently enjoy will continue.
2. Double standards
Many Christians are very clear in their stance on the SORs as they relate to homosexuals. However, they have not articulated themselves so clearly when it comes to heterosexual relationships outside of marriage, which is something on which the Bible also contains clear teaching. Many opponents of the SORs have stated concerns that a Christian hotel owner would be forced to let out rooms to gay couples, but would they be as vociferous about letting out a room to an unmarried heterosexual couple? Why this inconsistency? It brings the Church into grave danger of sounding homophobic.
3. The SORs work both ways
The SORs do not refer exclusively to discrimination against homosexuals but to discrimination against people on the grounds of any sexuality. Just as a heterosexual could not discriminate against a gay person, neither could a gay person discriminate against a heterosexual person on grounds of their sexuality.
4. This legislation is an opportunity to demonstrate grace, inclusiveness and love
Christians are called to follow Jesusβ example, and he says remarkably little about sexuality in scripture. Rather, he treats all people he comes across with love and acceptance, and does not refuse his service to anyone, even if he does not agree with their lifestyle. Would it really be βChristianβ to refuse bereavement counselling to a gay man, or to exclude a gay person and their child from a parent-and-toddler group? We believe that Christian community organisations, and those of other faiths, can maintain their distinctive faith identities while still serving the needs of their whole communities. We do not interpret the new Sexual Orientation Regulations as a threat to that.
The Faithworks Movement is committed to inclusion and transformation. Thousands of members up and down the UK are working to build a better world by delivering services to their communities on this inclusive and non-discriminatory basis. The reality is that on a daily basis millions of Christians across the UK engage holistically, compassionately and inclusively with people in their communities.
The proposed SORs are an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate the love and grace of Christ. However, vociferous opposition, a lack of constructive dialogue, and threats of civil disobedience mean that the Church is in danger of sounding homophobic and is doing little to give itself a credible voice.
Rev Malcolm Duncan
Leader of the Faithworks Movement
Comments
At last a Christian comment that SOUNDS Christian! Well done faithworks. I have given up hoping my church will take a stand against the fundamentalists who are dragging christ's name through the dirt in their anti-gay, homophobic attitudes, rthetoric and behaviour. I'll be making a donation to faithworks and I encourage other Christians to do the same.
"Would it really be "Christian" to refuse bereavement counselling to a gay man, or to exclude a gay person and their child from a parent-and-toddler group?"
Oh would it ever be, oh so very Christian indeed.
(Sorry, it's just been so irresistably easy.)
If the Catholic Church condemned a man to eternity in hell because he removed a breathing tube from his throat after nine years of agony, surely all homosexuals will go to hell for all eternity in the afterlife after we give them a good taste of hell here on earth.
I think Faithworks raises some valid questions, such as, do Christian B&Bs accept unmarried heterosexual couples?
And certainly as Will points out, many Christians have opposed such things with a distinctly un-Christ-like attitude, without doubt.
As I have said before, I have no doubt many Christians - or those claiming the name anyway - may not know how to demonstrate unconditional love to gays without compromising their beliefs.
eg Christ loved and associated with prostitutes and the supposed dregs of society, but his object was always to give them a fresh start, freed from their sins. Often the strenght of his love and holiness in itself was enough to do this, but conversions happened all around him.
But I suppose the difference between offering or refusing your service to a gay or straight unmarried couple is that as far as I know, an unmarried heterosexual couple are not being given the right to sue a Christian B&B family for refusing them service.
Faithworks raise some valid points as far as they go, with grace and unconditional love. But Christ's unconditional love never sanctioned sin, it loved the person despite the sin. Faithworks does not appear to take a stance on whether homosexuality is defined by the bible as a sin or not. This could skew the rest of their reasoning.
The major flaw seen in the NI SORs by the 4 main churches here is that the exemptions only apply to what happens in churches. So it is assumed that Christians do not carry their faith and conscience into the workplace, when in reality of course they do.
Another area of concern is that SORs make harrassment an offence. So even if a religious organisation is allowed to "discriminate" between gay and straight, it is not at all clear whether in doing so they could be found by the law to have engaged in harrassment and therefore still liable.
I dont consider myself any more or less righteous than gay folk, please understand.
Please dont just label me homophobic, bigot etc etc etc. I strongly disagree with pejorative labels for gay people and have liked all of them I have ever met.
But that does not mean that Abrahamic faiths do not have a right to ensure they will not be potentially victimised by new laws;- the same would have to go for laws that would do the same to gays.
After holding the same viewpoint for 6000 years on homosexuality, Abrahamic faiths must sort of legal precedent that protects the rights of their followers???
I hope some accomodtion can be found between the two groups...
sincerely
PB
My comments flow from an inherent understanding of the Gospel and Christian theology which seeks to demonstrate the unconditional love and grace of Christ to all people and to serve people unconditionally. The whole debate around the SOR's is skewed by misunderstanding on both sides.
The issue of the 'morality' of same sex relationships is closely tied to the issue of sexual activity in its fullest sense. For the record, PB, Faithworks view (and mine) is that sexual morality goes way beyond the issue of gender. Our view is that Christian morality and biblical teaching points clearly to the importance of monogomy, faithfulness, trust, integrity and bringing up children in a loving and compassionate way. Within that context I hold a strong and clear view of the importance of marriage - as defined by Scripture not by a quaise political understanding of Christendom and all of the attendant dangers.
I think all people in a democracy have the right to demonstrate and campaign - but I maintain as a Christian I must followthe example of Christ as best I can. He had a view of the dignity of all humanity, not just those who lived within his moral code. He never sought to impose his veiws on others. He never condemned people. He kept his strongest and most vocal criticism for the religious pharisees. He said nothing about homosexuality.
That is not to suggest that the issue of sexuality is one upon which I do not have a view. However I do not have the right to impose my morality on anyone else and I do have a biblical obligation to be fair, gracious and loving.
A better understanding of the SOR's would create a very different debate within a more reasoned context than the one currently taking place. Exemptions, protection and allowancesd have already been made for religious groups.
Perhaps Christians who are so aggresively opposing this legislation would do better to love, serve and listen to people - made in the image of God whatever their life preferences might be - and show unconditional love.
After all if we love someone with an agenda, it isn't really love at all, is it? Not in the way Jesus taught and demonstrated.
Really impressed by malcolm duncan. I despair at how christians have behaved over homosexuality. Let's have more sense from groups like Faithworks to drown out the unChristian abuse from groups like the "Christian" Institute
This preoccupation with homosexuality is an obvious ploy to divert people's attention from the issue of genuine importance, Anglicanism versus Catholicism. Can't we stick to the really important reasons for Christians killing each other please?
Doesn't it just show how useless holy books or gods are as guides to morality?
Belivers in the same god cannot agree on most questions - homosexuality, capital punishment, political system etc
Just apply 'Do unto others as you would want them to do to you, or your friends!'
Sorry for siding with one section of believers!
alan
I agree - this groups sounds really earthed in reality. Theology is a dangerous thing in the hands of a prejudiced Christian! In the hands of a socially engaged Christian with a sense of balance and fairness, it's liberating and empowering. hats off to Duncan
If one takes a look at the early Christian writings especially the Gnostic Gospels and the Nag Hammadi texts one finds "The Secret Gospel of Mark".
I quote from a writer discussing this Gospel:
"This was a fuller version of the conventional Mark gospel. No copy of it has survived although it is referred to in a letter from Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the second century AD. In 1958 Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University discovered in a monastery near Jerusalem a copy of a letter from Clement, one of the most venerated of the Church Fathers. The letter admitted that Mark had written material for his gospel which did not appear in the usual version of it. Clement's correspondent is instructed to lie about the existence of this missing material, even on oath . The letter quotes passages from this lost gospel, including an account of Jesus raising a dead youth.
The youth "loved him and beseeched him that he might be with him". Wearing nothing but a linen cloth, the youth visited Jesus in the evening, and spent the night with him. The letter reveals that there were rumours current at the time that Jesus and the youth had been naked together. It appears that one group of Christians (the Carpocratians - regarded as heretics by Clement) knew about this secret information, and deduced from it that Christians were granted permission to engage liberally in sexual activity.
It is apparent that the canonical Mark gospel is an expurgated version of this longer gospel . It is not difficult to see why people like Clement might want to promote the edited version as the true one: the fuller version was powerful ammunition not only to Carpocratians but also to a range of Gnostics. Whatever the reasons for its exclusion, the fact is that The Secret Gospel of Mark had a strong claim to be in the canon in place of the expurgated version."
Regards,
Michael
Re post 9:
A gay Jesus?
How very dare you Michael!
Personally I think that all these fundamentalists who are obsessed with gay men having sex, so much so that it seems to worringly pre-occupy their every waking moment(and their dreams in all likelihood)need to seriously chill out. I heard that a good "sports massage" works wonders...
Micheal #9, Shhhhhh. I've been trying to keep this a secret for nearly two thousand years, what are you doing to me? Sheeesh, you write down a private thought, confide it in someone you think you can trust, and the next thing you know, they go invent the internet so that they can blab it to the whole world. Is nothing sacred anymore?
So this Faithworks group are pro-gay Christians then? I've looked at their stuff and a google search of the director says Malcolm Duncan is formerly of Evangelical Alliance. Is that right? In which case, is he now disagreeing with his former colleagues?
Overheard this evening on the bus on the way home by someone reading the local paper -
'Just because you are homophobic doesn't necessarily mean you should doubt your own sexuality'
Now that's what I call logic!
me
12#
'Malcolm Duncan is formerly of Evangelical Alliance. Is that right? In which case, is he now disagreeing with his former colleagues?'
Isn't it great when someone sees the error of their ways?
alan
Malcolm
Thanks very much for taking the time to write at such length for us here, and without doubt you raise some important issues.
And I commend the contributors here for focussing on the issues and not personalities.
But may I first state Malcolm that I am still unclear about where you stand on homosexuality and the bible. You have not made this clear.
I agree that sexuality is a much bigger issue than homosexuality and I dont begin to presume I am mainly Christlike in my outlook and attitude on this matter.
I certainly dont judge any gay person as better or worse than myself, with my own fallen sexuality. My righteousness only comes by God's grace, not my own efforts or goodness.
And I appreciate many gay people may see their relationships as their only way to achieve the intimacy they were designed to fulfill.
But to clarify, if you stated where you stood on whether all sex outside heterosexual marriage falls short of God's ideals or whether you have another view, then I think we could understand our respective viewpoints better.
Yes, Jesus did not specifically discuss homosexuality, but he did affirm the historical reality of the judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah. And he did not in any way affirm such relationships.
In fact, the only context in which same sex relationships are mentioned in the bible is negative, and there are numerous references. In the NT Pauls writes to some Christians who had left gay lifestyles and were now in the church.
You say Christ never sought to impose his views on others and that he never condemned anyone.
In John 3:17 Jesus says: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that through him the world might be saved."
SO in this sense I agree, he did not come into the world to condemn people, but that - by his own lips - is only half the story.
He certainly did not come into the world to affirm the status quo or let us sit as we were before we met him. He split history down the middle because of his mission.
He set his face as flint towards Jerusalem for the most horrible death in history to deal with my sexual sin, all my sin; your sexual sin, all your sin.
As John 3:17 says, he came into the world that the world "might be saved".
To the woman caught in adultery (the man should have been there too) he said: "Go and sin no more".
Sin in serious. Sin is death. It is not loving anyone to pretend this is not at the heart of the reason why Christ went to the cross, for my sins, for yours.
The majority of the New Testament is in fact letters written to various churches lovingly cajolling and guiding them out of sinful habits and into fuller Christian living.
In Revelation Christ writes seven uncompromising letters to seven churches in which he tells them in no uncertain terms to sort out their sin.
You know, I can pray to God that his unconditional love be manifest through me to everyone and all that I meet, and this I endeavour to do and am required to do. But the love of the gospel is not needed and of no consquence if there is no sin to be saved from.
And the NT certainly requires the church to share the Good News of Christ's offer of freedom from sin with the world - it would be a crime not to in God's eyes.
So yes, grace and unconditional love are certainly biblical Christianity, but the reality of sin and the preaching of the gospel are no less so. The sacrifice and resurrection of Christ are meaningless without all these realities.
I certainly agree that the church is not called to become the state. But at the same time there are many examples of prophets rebuking the state eg John the Baptist regarding the adultery of the King Herod.
And Christians are certainly called to be salt and light wherever they are.
I'm not contesting you on any specific point Malcolm, but I am reflecting passages of scripture that more fully reflect the mind of God on these issues in the broadest sense.
No doubt you will be able to share some more from your perspective and progress our discussion.
Hope to hear from you again,
sincerely
PB
Thanks Malcolm for presenting such a positive perspective on this. There is so much hysteria and misinformation in the church when the question of gay rights is raised and so little real debate. I understand that people have some deep questions and I have to confess that I often struggle with finding coherent answers that take Biblical truth seriously. However, many Christians seem to take the view that all rights should be withdrawn from gay people and cannot contemplate any possibility that all people should be treated fairly.
Whatever our intended message might be, the Church continually communicates the idea that it and God hates gays. If that is not the message that we want to communicate then we need to rethink our approach. Regardless of our views on these issues, surely the Christian message is about grace and defending the oppressed. That is the message that we should be hitting the headlines with and which would make people sit up and take notice. Of course it is a dangerous message because we would risk communicating the idea that we support those that might we disagree with. But then again that was precisely the problem that Jesus experienced.
Hi
Just as Evangelical Alliance has been mentioned can I direct you to some of the comments that have been made.
This article appeared in a local newspaper before Christmas
and this paper reflected the Alliance's position before the House of Lords debate
Hi Andy
I am not sure what you mean when you say Jesus face a problem in that he communicated the idea that he supported those he disagreed with?
Can you expand a bit on this please?
Cheers
PB
PB- Hypothetically, the following things happen and become proveable beyond any doubt:
------------
1) The Secret Gospel of Mark is discovered.
2) It is found to be the authentic second part of Mark's Gospel.
3) It contains the section described by Michael's post #9 wherein Jesus spends a night with a young man naked.
------------
Do your views on the sinfulness of homosexuality change?
Hi John
1) Colossions 2:1-10 opposes gnosticism explicitly; the rest of the NT focuses on growing in relationship with Jesus Christ; the two are oil and water. Gnosticism is salvation through growing your esoteric knowledge. That is why these gnostic books michael quotes from are not in the canon.
2) IN my understanding scripture is very clear that the Church is the bride of Christ and in Revelation we see the marriage ceremony of Christ and his church.
3) Michael previously tried to tell me that James was the leader of a sect of Christians (Ebionites) who denied the divinity of Christ and brought judiasm into the Church, and that their leader was James. (I think that may be because he is unitarian but he has not confirmed this). if you google this blog you will find he was utterly refuted in black and white. Galations and Hebrews reject judiasm in the church as does James, and James 2:1 speaks of "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory" note the definite article there. So the teachings of James is clearly at odds with Ebionite teaching.
A common theme in the gnostic books is that they deny that Christ was truly man and God, often portraying him as a mere spirit. But after his resurrection he ate fish and Thomas put his fingers in his wounds.
So with all respect to Michael, I will let others decide what value they wish to place on his theology.
4) Christ quotes extensively from other books of the OT and many/most books of the OT condem same sex relations. I would need to check for sure but I would be surprised if he wasnt quoting direclty from books which condemned same sex relations this.
5) You seem to have missed my point above where Christ also confirmed the historical reality of God's judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah.
6) Ref the needs of people with a homosexual identiy. I realise alot of this may appear brusque and harsh, though that is not my aim. In my life the intimate love of a man is the rock on which I seek to anchor my life. That man is Jesus Christ and that is exactly what brought me to him in the first place.
with respect
PB
PB- So in my hypothetical situation you exclude Mark from the canon because it contradicts the rest of Scripture? Or you include it but interpret the part about Jesus having gay relations differently? Or you accept it and reinterpret the other parts which seem to forbid homosexuality?
John
The canon and gnostic gospel issues are well dealt with in post 19.
You appear to have become so hypothetical I cant understand you.
PB
KAREN - evangelical alliance ...
Thanks for the links to ur statements. Hmmm . . . I tried reading the press release (if that's what it is) but I was losing the will to live to be honest. I gave up before I could work out what position EA was taking on the SORs. Sorry to sound so negative, but shouldn't we be able to work out what you think in the first paragraph without having to hire a cryptologist to work out what your view is? Just a thought ;-)
You can read the EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE NI response to the SORs consultation on the site Will told us about a while ago: here's the link to their document ...
Looks to me like EA and faithworks take a very different approach. FW is very supportive of gay people and equality. EA is only interested in protecting special rights and exemptions for churches and other christian groups.
My son is gay and i asked him to read the EA document. He got as far as the phrase "gay and lesbian AGENDA" and threw it down. We don't speak about the "British Asian AGENDA" or the "Black LOBBY". WHen will people like EA realise that this kind of language is nasty and childish? As a Christian, I reject your efforts in this document to defend the indefensible attacks on gay people.
thats weird ... samueltd couldnt understand EA and Jane could ...
which of those two is a MEMBER?!?!?
PB- Apologies if I haven't been clear enough. My point in #21 should have started with: "You didn't answer my question." You talked a lot, but didn't answer. I'm not sure if you simply didn't understand what I was asking in #19 - it was hypothetical. In other words, what would you do if.... [the 3 points in #19 were the case]? As I see it, you have three main choices of answer:
A) "I would exclude Mark from the canon because it contradicts the rest of Scripture."
B) "I would include Mark but interpret the part about Jesus having gay relations differently."
or
C) "I would accept it and reinterpret the other parts of the bible to match my new approach to homosexuality, which is that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible."
So far, I think you've indicated a reluctance to answer the question because you don't think what Michael says about the Secret Gospel of Mark is correct or a valid concern. That's why I'm asking the question purely hypothetically. It's an easy exercise in imagination, PB. What would your answer be if the statements in #19 were undeniably the case?
Also PB- Point 3, #20: "So the teachings of James is clearly at odds with Ebionite teaching."
The Epistle of James you quote from is, according to most scholars, NOT the work of James. It is a psuedepigraph; a work falsely attributed to James but in fact written by someone else entirely.
If you can't guess immediately what I'm pursuing here, I am attempting to get you to think more carefully about why you believe what you believe about the bible. Since I failed miserably in some previous posts, I'm trying a different angle: I'm asking you questions. How you answer my point #26 is crucial, so I eagerly await your response.
John
If you want to be taken seriously on this point you will have to clearly demonstrate who what you mean by "most scholars".
You cant expect to rewrite theological history on a blog and not demonstrate it.
Even Michael didnt contest this point.
John how can the hypothetical position you suggest cannot when because homosexuality is so much discussed in the bible but NEVER mentioned execept in a negative context?
Heterosexuality is God's appointed mode from the institution of marriage in Genesis to the Marriage of Christ and his Bride in Revelations; any book which endorses homosexuality is CLEARLY out of step with the canon and does not fit in with it.
It is because of reasons like this that certain books were not deemed compatabile with the canon.
You need to start further back in your hypothesis and explain how such a book could get into the canon.
Only if you can make a good case for this can I accept that your hypothesis could even arise.
PB
PS Did you ever respond to my posting on your website about the checklist for post-evangelicals? By YOUR standards I tick nearly all the boxes, even though it is not a label I would claim. But even PEs accept the canon; my point is that I am not sure you really have a logical worldview on where you stand with your faith. If you think you are a PE but you reject the idea of a canon then what authority does your faith rest on?
I have asked you this before but I never got an answer. Even the seven secrets from the Gnostic epistle of JW all tally perfectly with my canon.
...perplexing??
PB- Your reluctance to answer my question is intriguing. Either you still do not understand what I'm asking, or you're finding it uncomfortable to be backed into this corner. My hypothesis is very simple, yet you say you need more details? It is not important in a hypothetical question whether or not the premises of the question are likely or not; it is only important to answer the question! I'll try again.
Here is the scenario:
1) Scholars find The Secret Gospel of Mark.
2) They verify that it is the authentic second part of Mark's Gospel.... validated authentically written by Mark.
3) It contains the section described by Michael's post #9 wherein Jesus spends a night with a young man naked.
What is your response with regard to your theology that homosexuality is sinful? I gave you three options in post #21 and again in post #26. Let me reiterate that it is not important in regard to this specific question at this stage whether or not you accept any of the above premises. The question is hypothetical; ie. it is just pretend. It deals with the question 'What If?'
Finally with regard to authorship of James, you say: "If you want to be taken seriously on this point you will have to clearly demonstrate who what you mean by 'most scholars.'" I mean that a majority of expert scholars believe James to be a pseudepigraph. Does that answer your question?
John
You have totally failed to address the points raised in post 28 whic render the rest of your questions clear moot points.
come back to me when you're done.
btw, if sophie's world author had found a real letter of augustine's concubine do you not think it would be publi knowledge by now?
it strikes me as very naive of you to believe he has such a genuine letter and even more so not to have inquired...
pb
PB- If you read what I said about Gaarder, you'd understand that I'm not claiming he found a letter - it's part of the fiction in the book which he's using in a fanciful way to critique Augustine. When he's asked about it, he likes to maintain the mystery, but it's just for the mystery. What problem do you have with THAT now?
PB my question is UNRELATED to ANYTHING you raise in point 28. It's hypothetical, and self-contained. It's a simple multiple-choice answer, or fill in the blank - 'I would do X, Y or Z if this situation were true.' Whether or not it's likely to be true is something else that we can debate in the future, if you ever answer the question.
I can't believe I'm doing this...
Ok John
Have it your way for a laugh....
Yes if someone found a really authentic letter in a really old pot somewhere saying that Jesus was really gay and someone else said it was really genuine then I would say I was really mistaken and then I would really toss my old really bigoted bible away and then I would really order a new liberal truth version and then I would really change all my views on what that nasty old bigoted bible said about sexuality....
It has been nice visiting your world John. I'm a little put off that I must suspend all my critical faculties and allow you to put words in my moutth in response to ridiculous questions that are totally invalid by any standard of logic or reality.
I'm also a little put off that in your world, words mean whatever you want them to mean, and that you dump your belief in the canon of scripture in favour of a man who makes believe he has a letter from Augustine's concubine, and that you suggest that there is some genuine mystery to this.
I'm also a little put off that in your world you can be writing a book about the seven secrets the church does not want you to know about God, and yet you have dumped the canon and can't give any rational explanation as to what the source/authority is for your revelations. Its a funny world, John's world!
I like the crazy mirror nature of your world where one minute you describe yourself as the latest type of evangelical and recommend a book to me about it and then the next minute you distance yourself from one of the core tenets of the book (a canon) but still like to retain the label post-evangelical anyway.
The only thing I really dont like about your world is that I have to answer all your questions - only with answers you like - but that you can just smile and refuse to address mine.
But then, its a funny old world John's world.
Still it has been quite an interesting experience, but I'm heading back off to my home planet now. Do come back and visit sometime John.
As you would say, Love yah ;-)
regards
PB
PB- Thanks for your response.
You say: "...you dump your belief in the canon of scripture in favour of a man who makes believe he has a letter from Augustine's concubine, and that you suggest that there is some genuine mystery to this."
I'm sorry if I haven't been plain enough. The only mystery is for fun, it's not seriously regarded as an authentic letter. It's Gaarder using this form to critique Augustine. And Gaarder had no part in my rejecting belief in a canon- that came totally separately and after years of thought.
"...you have dumped the canon and can't give any rational explanation as to what the source/authority is for your revelations..."
There's a big difference between being unable to give a rational explanation and simply not being willing to devote the amount of time it would take to give a proper answer. But I'm open to the idea of doing that at some point, if only to clarify it in my own head. I'll admit that it is a complex topic, and more complex in my crazy world than in yours, where the bible is all one needs to believe in, neatly ordered by chapter and verse.
"...one minute you describe yourself as the latest type of evangelical and recommend a book to me about it and then the next minute you distance yourself from one of the core tenets of the book (a canon) but still like to retain the label post-evangelical anyway."
You have a valid criticism here, PB. I hadn't re-read Tomlinson's book in quite some time, and when I did pull it out again I found that my views have moved significantly beyond it; they've gotten more liberal with age. I still use the word postevangelical because I think it describes well where I started and where I've come to, but you're right to criticise me for misleading on this point.
I'll be sorry if you do decide not to come by this blog as frequently. I disagree vehemently with you on almost every major religious issue, but I definately enjoy the discussions and think we all have opportunities to refine what we believe; nothing, I would suggest, makes one think as hard as confronting people who can offer rational critiques of your position. The polemics of it all are just a sporty means of conducting it, and serious discourse is made all the more fun for it to boot.
I respect you for coming back to answer this question, and I think, for a deluded religious nut, you are among the nicest I've ever met. ;-) J/K.
John
thanks for your honest response.
I might be encouraged to come back more if people like yourself would give honest answers to those such as in post 20.
I will drop a line in on occasion, but I am taking a break from debates to spend more time with God and my family.
best regards
PB