A Link : Evangelicalism and Steve Chalke

http://www.dyfedwynroberts.org.uk/index/evangelicalism-and-steve-chalke

Evangelicalism and Steve Chalke

Posted by Dyfed Roberts on Monday, January 28, 2013 Under: Post-Christendom

 

In making a public statement on the issue Steve Chalke's desire was to start a conversation within evangelicalism on same sex relationships. He has been partially successful and long may that conversation continue. An unintended consequence of his statement, however, is the fact that he has also shone a light on the current state of the evangelical community. While there is much to laud within the movement this episode has highlighted something that may be of concern.

Bebbington's quad

In 1989 the church historian David Bebbington published his seminal work Evangelicalism in Modern Britain and offered his four characteristics of what makes an evangelical: the necessity of conversion; an emphasis on activism; having the cross at the centre of one's faith; and finally the importance of the Bible and the 'belief that all spiritual truth is to be found within its pages'. These four points have been widely accepted as being the defining characteristics of the movement. 

One key thing about them is that they are quite broad in their scope. For example, both Calvinists and Arminians can be included within the definition despite their differences. So while Whitefield and the Wesleys differed on what the Bible taught about soteriology, they are all considered evangelicals. There seems to be plenty of room within Bebbington's definition for evangelicals to disagree on how the Bible is understood.  While the movement accepted that 'the Bible is inspired by God' Bebbington noticed that there was 'remarkable fluidity in ideas about the effects of inspiration on the text'.

Outside the camp

But has this breadth has been called into question by Steve Clifford, the EA's general secretary, in his response to Chalke? As I said last week Clifford took the opposite view on the subject of same-sex relationships. That in itself is quite uncontroversial - at least within evangelical circles. However, in his response he took his argument one step further and claimed that Chalke's interpretation put him outside evangelicalism. Indeed he even claimed that Chalke's interpretative method would lead people to a false 'god'. As I'm sure you'd agree that's a very strong statement.

In putting Chalke outside the camp, however, is Clifford not insisting on having a far narrower definition of what constitutes an evangelical compared to the accepted classification? It seems that he is not content for Bebbington's classical definition - allowing room for biblical interpretation - to stand. To be an evangelical today one needs not only to have the Bible at the heart of one's spiritual life but also be bound by a particular way of interpreting it.

Does this suggest that the evangelical movement is turning inwards in the face of the many challenges of our post-Christendom times? And isn't this actually a drift towards fundamentalism?

A rant : on christian stupidity in the gay marriage debate

i cant handle when the debate is conducted from such bigoted perspectives on both sides, it is degrading and dehumanising. i thought the guardian was above this news of the world approach to discussion. polarising and ridiculing wont sort out the debate within the church. the a/bish has clearly had to make decisions under pressure from some sources, but just making decisions due to pressure from the press wont make it make anymore wise and just decisions. 

what worries me is not the actual issues, although they have big consequences for a number of people, it's the question of how we as the christian communions of various flavours are handling the debate and it strikes me that we are not acting like grown ups on either side. i want to vomit when i see how the creation-evolution debate has been polarised to such ridiculous extremes. what a stupid way of dealing with things : playing one-upmanship rather than looking into the issues and the scriptures in a loving or wise way. 

for various reasons i ended up cut off from what was going on for a number of years and i have come back to it, and am appalled by some of what i'm seeing. we have at our fingertips the possibility for all sides to read and understand where other sides are coming from and nearly instant access to each other to talk to each other and talk these things through. but instead we are acting like we are waving placards at each other and having to shout and still not be heard. we christians think we're so clever but we cant even talk to each other or agree to differ on some of the non-essentials. i was going to say mercifully christ isnt in his grave or he would be turning in it, but i think he's along side people on both sides of these debates weeping with them. and the reflection he had about the pharisees is still just as appropriate today. i dont think brood of vipers was referring to our expression you poisonous snake, but i think a nest of tiny little snakes is more like you can of worms - twisting around getting in knots with each other. 

what on earth would Jesus do ? 

he would go to lunch with people on both sides i suppose ? he wouldnt compromise his beliefs - one of the principal of which is treating people like human beings even if they have to admit they've been doing things wrong and completely transform their lives. (but haven't all of us had to do that. when meeting with Jesus we want to.) my contact with "gays" has so far been entirely positive but my contact with the "gay scene" has been entirely negative. i cant wholeheartedly agree with either side of the "argument" and i cant condone how many people on each side of the argument are talking about each other. i dont think i expressed that very well in my letter to graham. i think the group who go to gay pride to hug gays and apologise for how they are treated is great. i dont think that is sufficient grounds for changing church policy about marriage tho. it should be the grounds for changing how the church treats people who are gay full stop. as with ALL the other misunderstood and overlooked groups. then a thoughtful debate on both sides about how to deal with certain issues. we dont appear to function like that. 

but i see some of the most thoughtful and kind and open christian leaders being pushed and manipulated into a hole where they end up having to "take a stand" - stupid stupid stupid shit situation. shit shit shit. i sent you my reactions to the debate cos i know you're very involved in showing care and acceptance to the gay community which i am totally in agreement with. it upsets me greatly that people on the extremes will push you and the nice people with you to be for or anti this or that without allowing you the space to have "yes but" opinions and are instrumentalising nice people on both sides of the debate. stupid shit situation. 

i have listened to a lot of radio while i have had to be horizontal and although i have no doubts as to the sincerity of the gay christian community or lots of so called "bible believers" i'm afraid i dont trust the different parties of the homophobic or the gay pride lobby as far as i could throw any of them and they're both trying to draw people in or character assassinate those who they cant get in. i find it very worrying. we are being drawn into traps to serve other people's agendas. do take care. what you're doing is great. just be careful. the way to train a child soldier is to get him to kill his own parents. the way other groups enforce loyalty is to make people take steps they would not want to make against their own kin so they have no choice but to stick with them. however stupid "the church" can be is it's not our real enemy. love from liz x

Rant : Why gay marriage ?

my reaction on the subject of gay marriage on a friend's wall. 

why select gays particularly ? they are looking for the attention but why on earth are we rising to it ?,  as far as i can see God cares about people and ALL promiscuity, casual sex, etc etc is unhealthy in heteros AND homos.

what about drunkenness - here in france there are 70,000 DEATHS a year related to alcohol, let alone all the child abuse, domestic violence, etc etc gay-ness is so not an issue. there are a small number of people who are making a lot of noise. the last statistic i heard is that the proportion of homosexuals in the press and performing arts is something like 10% but in the rest of the population it was under 1% tho it may be more now. do a majority of "gays" want marriage ? or is it a very vocal minority who have their own agendas and not  even the best interests of the gay community (if that even exists) at heart ?

i think one thing that is bothering me is that we're letting that gay lobby set the agenda and we're knee jerk reacting and not choosing our area of acting.

so what concerns me is

a) that we're not being consistent. we are getting uptight about homosexuality, but tolerating more socially acceptable sins. were happy to take the log out of the eye of the homosexuals without dealing with dodgy business practices, or manipulative, slanderous or abusive behaviour, sexual immorality, drunkenness etc within the church and by church members. Paul advised : 1 Corinthians 5v9 - 13 "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—  not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.  But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?  God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]

b) some of us are happy to make a stand about homosexuality as an issue but do not show love or even common politeness to homosexuals themselves.

c) we have done so much damage with homophobia due to our utterly disproportionate reactions to one sin being worse than another, and dealing with it by social ostracism rather than more healthy reaction we are on really dodgy ground trying to claim the moral high ground here.

d) what is the role of the media hyping this all making a mountain out of a mole hill to sell their product and what really is a big issue in society ?

e) honestly what effect would it have on conventional marriage or the church, if the government  allowed civil union between different groups ? the law is there to protect the most vulnerable - the many people who have ended up in an unhealthy situation have no back up from the law to ensure that their partner takes adequate responsibility and gives them some rights. even a business partnership needs that. BUT it  would maybe the thin end of the wedge in giving legitimacy to these types of relationship and letting youngsters think it is a viable alternative.

in fact i think that there is some sort of civil contract available, what many gay people seem to me to be asking for is to have social recognition, and a party. so why dont they have civil contract ceremonies parties and invite the family. do they think they can force families and society to give them recognition and status by making a law about it?  i can tell them it deoesn't work for other issues like attitudes to the unemployed or disabled or racial minorities.

f) so should we sit back and say nothing and do nothing ? i dont think so, but it think we should think a bit and talk together at some sort of national christian case conference to decide some balanced wise approaches. and refuse to allow the divide and rule that is now happening. nice christians are speaking out against the sin, and nice christians are speaking out to protect a very hurt people group. i think both are right and both need to understand and support each other.

what a pickle. what a silly pickle. Lord have mercy on us."


Lu : "I have crossed questioned my Christian friends about this. All have stated the gay thing is before and after Christ's teachings. We all know that Christ taught peace, love and understanding, surely it's Christ's teachings that should be listened too? Why would God teach prejudice? I'm asking cause everyone has a view point and you may be able to point to something my friends have missed. "

Graham reed :"good point well put Lu. The Old Testament makes a clear statement about God's views on homosexual sex. Jesus didn't teach anything specific about it but you are right to say that he promoted the attitudes you listed. I think it is quite wrong of those of us who believe that gay sex offends God to lose sight of those attitudes, which sadly we often do... then we become bigoted! However... there is a journey through the Bible which demonstrates that the way God treats people changes after the life of Christ... but we do not see that God changes his views on what we do. In the OT we gain an understanding of what God sees as right and wrong... in the NT God demonstrates his love and grace to all of us... we all do wrong and right and God has a way to continue loving and living with all of us..."

Liz :the "gay thing" is one small detail in a great big context of teaching at various points in the collection of writings that we call the bible, about how people treat each other. homosexuality is one very small point. compared to the enormous areas of teaching and law in the old testament about how we treat foreigners, fatherless children, business practices, weights and measures, contagious diseases, excess of alcohol,

in our societies we tend to interpret these teachings as principally moral guidelines for individuals compared to which we succeed or fail, we are "good" or "bad", "saints" or "sinners" but as far as i can see they are also given as part of a whole picture of healthy and unhealthy relationships and the wider functioning of societies. the heterosexual community cannot throw any stones when it comes to some very damaging practices in terms of helping people have functional and stable relationships, but that does not mean that we should not be allowed to question some of the very dubious and unhealthy practices accepted, even encouraged in the so called "gay community" (i'm not talking about private couples). for example a boy who was at school with my daughter was very confused about relationships and came out as a gay, and in a hope to find acceptance and "love" left his small country town and went to paris. there his name and phone number were circulated in the gay community and men would turn up at all times of day and night to "initiate" him. he is over 21, but has come out of the experienced emotionally battered. it has been truly and simply abuse. he is not rare, it's a standard practice. another friend from a different school has had a similar experience. the last thing these confused and lonely boys needed was what they got. while i accept that a number of long term stable gay relationships may not be damaging, the promiscuity, exhibitionism and manipulations that are prevalent in big parts of the gay community definitely are and these lads are left with no legal support or protection or even wise guidance about how to handle themselves and others.

in our 20th century desire to free individuals from damaging moral oppression and repression (with many good effects - women should be allowed to have bank accounts, earn equal wages , be allowed to enjoy sex and not feel their bodies are dirty or bad for example). but i feel we have gone into an equally unhealthy pendulum swing. why are some moral and practical restraints necessary ? how should we impose them in healthy ways ? how should we bring our children up ? i think we need to engage in much wider debate rather than limit ourselves to the rather limited and lets face it artificial agenda of gay marriage. shouldn't we be putting our energies into teaching children to use other methods to handle difference and power struggles than bullying or ostracism ? and how to respect and "love" their own bodies and those of others ? ...... i have lots of questions. it's easy to say some thing is wrong, down with that thing. much harder to come up with wise and healthy solutions to these things. of course repression and punishment have to be part of the range of tools to deal with these things, but alone may well not reach and stop the real culprits and may not reach and help the real victims. i hope we can be part of a healthy debate both in the church and in society with a real desire to see healthy outcomes using the teachings and examples in the bible as materiel to foster debate based on the whole breadth of christian values, not just a damaging slanging match about who is "right"."