32 forum messages posted by
John Marshall

A long time ago I was introduced to the gentle art of chicken sexing. We were on a scout camp on a chicken farm in the Dales, and the kindly farmer shared some of the secrets of his trade. From the boxes of newly hatched chicks, we picked up a tiny bird, examined the relvant bit of its anatomy, and then sent it doen the appropriate chute. The females were reared for a life of egg production. What happened to the males was not disclosed.

This instructive episode came to mind as I read Nersen's latest. Nersen, dear friend, you cannot sort out interpreters of the Bible as easily as you can sex chickens. There is no chute for the "sound" leading to a productive life, nor a chute for the "liberals" leading to a lake of fire and brimstone. The criteria for such judgments are many and complex. They are not as straightforward as reading a balance sheet. An apparently liberal interpreter may have, by the grace of God, some powerful insights. Another, "sound" interpreter may have nothing to say.

To sort out Bible teachers, you have to listen to what they say, not examine their credentials or their CV. I fear that this is something you are unwilling to do, in case you catch some dire infection. But if you listen, you might just find that occasionally a liberal has an insight into the Gospel which brings light into your life, and helps you to know Jesus better and to follow him more closely.

I don't contribute a great deal to the Forum though I read it regularly. To contribute to some of the threads would do my blood pressure no good at all.

As I've made clear before, basically I am an AffCath, though I have had very close relations with evangelicals all my life and ministry, and only a handful of very conservative ConsEvo folk have I found difficult. I find the Fulcrum forum to be the sanest discussion board at the present time, though even so there are some contributions (let the reader understand) which I find lack any sense of listening to others.

And whilst sending this - Jeremy Pemberton, would you send me your e-mail address? My address as printed in Crockford is still accessible. If I say I was Nick Thorpe's auxiliary for 12 years, you will know what it's about, and help in isolating which John Marshall I am!

SPREAD, a website much puffed by Anglican Mainstream, does. The E in its title stands for Evangelical.

It might be a matter of cobblers sticking to their own lasts. I don't recall ever being asked to do a "nursing" task in my years as a (part-time) chaplain - though I and my RC colleague suspected that calls to sit beside the dying on Sunday lunchtime often had something to do with low levels of nursing staff at the weekend and the need to ensure those working got their breaks. Not that either of us ever demurred.

Robinson was indeed quite a conservative scholar: it is on record that the editors of Soundings (c.1962) whose contributors included Cupitt, Habgood and Harry Williams, considered Robinson too conservative to be invited to contribute. His reputation of being a liberal was derived from his appearing as a witness for the defence in the Lady Chatterley's Lover case, and his paperback "Honest to God", which I always regarded as being a stage in the rediscovery of a doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

Nersen does so love counting heads! In truth, it seems to me that of the 44 diocesan bishops some 16 or 17 are broadly speaking evangelicals, some more conservative than others indeed but all of them closer to evangelicalism than to any other label.

CEEC really needs someone tough but recognisably evangelical as its chair, and as someone has remarked, preferably a diocesan bishop if one of them can spare the time. It would certainly help those of us who are not claimants of the label "evangelical" in anything other than its most basic sense to take CEEC more seriously. A lot of what is going on at present is reminiscent of members of college OICCU groups arguing whether anyone can be both sound and an attender at St Aldate's, let alone the college chapel.

The church at large and the world for which it exists need grown-up evangelicals.

The liturgy which used to be provided for this day was pretty unChristian in some of its sentiments, too, with its references to "Popish treachery" and, in the 1692 version (which incorporated a memorial of Dutch Billy's landing in Torbay, a prayer thanking God that "on this day didst miraculously preserve our Church and State from the secret contrivance and hellish malice of Popish conspirators, and ... didst begin to give us a mighty Deliverance from the open Tyrrany and Oppression of the same cruel and bloodthirsty Enemies".

On the whole it's better discreetly to allow it to fall into desuetude, I think.

Thank you Nersen.

There have been examples which, shall we say, have caused the odd sharp intake of breath. I don't think it would actually help to cite examples (or should I say chapter and verse?) since we are beginning to come out into a more level place.

As one who does not claim the appellation "evangelical" but shares a high view of scripture, it does rather surprise me that in the matter of atonement so many seem to have a very restricted view. I remember clearly an early exercise in my theological training (almost half a century ago) was to write an essay on the question "In what sense was the death of Jesus a sacrifice?" The reading suggested helped me to recognise that within the NT every kind of sacrifice is seen as fulfilled in Christ (with the possible exception of the cereal offering), and, conversely, the death of Christ is seen as eternally achieving in full what the Temple offerings had only reached after. Perhaps all of us need to remember that He is the peace offering who brings together the conservative evangelical like you and the affirming catholic like me, as well as the One in whom we are both accepted by the Father.

Nersen, you do have a habit of twisting people's words. I did not write what you suggest I meant. I wrote that "bandying verses is all very well, but the understanding/interpretation of them is crucial". And that is what I meant.

Biblical exegesis is not a sort of theological beggar-my-neighbour involving turning up sufficient verses. It involves weighing the contexts of the verses - historical, literary,theological - and understanding them properly (hence the reference to Justin's Dialogue, where the Jewish interlocutor is shown as incapable of understanding his own scriptures).

Very many years ago I had a conversation with a school colleague who attended a Brethren meeting. He objected strongly to a eucharistic interpretation of John 6 and capped his argument by saying "Jesus also said 'I am the door': so perhaps you are getting a mouthful of sawdust". Context IS important.

I agree with Jody absolutely. Bandying verses around is all very well, but the understanding/interpretation of them is crucial - something which Christian apologists have been aware of since at least the 2nd century (see Justin's Dialogue with Trypho).

At last! I have been following this thread for some time, and have been particularly conscious that the term "wrath" hasnot been defined. I have felt that for many it is an analogue of human anger - and I'm pretty sure this isn't quite what we are to understand theologically, not least because human anger is essentailly destructive. So thank you to Celinda for focussing on this term. I hope others will respond constructively.

I wonder whether I am the only one who is both annoyed and offended by the use of "G-d" in posts on this forum. It annoyed me in my days as an A level examiner, when Jewish candidates often wrote it in their scripts: I could understand the use of YHWH unconsonanted, but as far as I am aware, the tradition has not been to avoid the use of elohim. But I can accept it even if reluctantly from an Orthodox Jew.

However, in Christian circles it seems to me to be not only unnecessary but effectively a rejection of the Incarnation. I suspect that here far more are offended by it than would be by the use of the whole word.

John Marshall