Celinda, you have nothing to apologise to me for!  James wrote that

"My own experience (outside the C of E) was of a culture which in a rejection of emotionalism often seemed suspicious of emotion at all. In many ways as it was it spoke to me very deeply and still does, but there were aspects of my God-given humanity which were downplayed or overlooked."

I think that this staetment by James better expresses what I am trying  to say.  It is not that the doctrines of evangelicalism are themselves dry and intellectual  -quite the opposite. It is that the pastoral  and living application of them is very often lacking in evangelical  praxis. They are often presented in a  way that does not engage the emotions or sensitivities of the hearer.   I once knew someone in a evangelical church who got divorced because of an abusive husband. The church's doctrinal position was that divorce was always wrong and that she should stay with her husband  despite the abuse,  as she was 'being obedient to God's Word'.   No real attempt was made to properly support or pastorally aid this woman. When she did finally divorce because she could not stand it any longer, then disapproval was generated among  church members and she ultimately  left as she felt that she was regarded as being 'disobedient'.   I have come across and listened  to too many similar   tales to know that this kind of thing is not uncommon in evangelical  churches.  Sometimes i think that many evangelicals  tend to behave like pastoral bulls in a china shop.

It seems to me that Jesus was 'doctrinely sound' but He was also pastorally sensitive when dealing with people- something I have often found lacking among evangelicals. When the thief on the cross asked Jesus to 'remember him when he came into His Kingdom'  I hardly think that the thief had all his doctrine 'sound' . The thief knew he was a sinner and needed a Saviour, which is I think is the essence of the evangelical message  and where the bottom line is.   

While I closely ally myself with 'classical evangelical doctrine'  I dislike evangelically flavoured liturgy as I find that it does not emotionally   engage  me in worship. In fact I find that litugies  sung in Latin do more for me this respect than any  other for reasons I cannot quite explain. Maybe this is just a personal thing. However, I do not know of any evangelical  churches who regularly  have  liturgies in Latin!

As for N.T Wright , then he is indeed a noted scholar and an articulate one at that. I was disappointed though, with his dismissive critique of the Pierced for our Trangressions' book and I think he  let Steve Chalke off far too lightly.  I don't think that Wright fully engaged with the arguments and I expected better of him, but he does nonetheless communicate well.  Alistair McGrath is another  who is an excellent expositer;  and one  to watch is Peter Enns,  who sadly was booted  out of Westminster  Theological  Seminary and in my view, is a first rate  scholar. Thistleton I have not really read. 

However, it is possible  that the days of a 'King' as it were among Evangelicals of the Stott/Packer variety are over and no longer appropriate . What is important is building  a  robust and  lasting unity among evangelicals as a central objective  however  it is achieved, if indeed it can. I certainly hope so.

WG Grace - again more apologies - none are necessary ! To use the analogy from Set Theory  and without trying to start a new discipline of mathematical theology, the groups I have listed are really subsets of the 'Set of all Those Calling Themselves Evangelicals". However to be a member  of a set you have to obey some  kind of rule that identifies you as a member. This rule applies individually  to the subsets  and according to the rule you could  be members of more than one subset. What we are grappling with here I think, is a definition of the rule that we can all agree about and one that whatever our persuasion keeps us in the Set of all Those Calling Themselves Evangelicals!

James,

You wrote,

The problem then is you end up with an argument about who/which sets are the real evangelicals.

As John Richardson has pointed out on the Standfirm site and on his own blog, I believe the reason we are having these arguments is because Evangelicals lack a shared systematic theology of what Evangelicalism  should contain.  Maybe 40 years ago such a shared systematic  theology might have existed and there  were prominent evangelicals such as Packer and Stott to expound it.   Nowdays that theology is becoming seriously  frayed and unbounded and there are no universally recognised scholar(s) of the Packer/Stott stature.

John Richardson postulates that  the reasons for this are due to the rise of the charismatic movement, the deeper engagement with societal and ethical issues and a post-modern influenced  hermenuetic   which questions the sources of scriptural authority.   I think John is very largely right in his analysis,   but I would want  to add that evanglicalism has not  delivered pastorally by  providing simplistic solutions to very complex human dilemmas. I think also that in many evangelical  settings, people have failed to encounter God except in a very dry and intellectual way.

When people call  themselves  for example 'open evangelicals' or 'post-evangelicals'  then I think they add these  distinctives because somewhere down the line, they have become dissatisfied to a greater or lesser exent with  the 'Standard Evangelical Theological ' This does not necessarily mean  that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the standard but they want to disassociate  themselves from certain  aspects of it.

Often, it is the unpalatable parts of evangelical  theology such as judgment or wrath or anything that is perceived as dogmatic or intolerant  and does not sit well with modern notions of equailty and fairness. These aspects are either  toned down or removed completely from their evangelical praxis.

"Evangelical Statements of Faith" are of course issued, but the difficulty with these as Nerson has pointed out,  is that they can be made sufficiently woolly to be acceptable  to both evangelicals and liberals alike. One of the diifficulties I have with Fulcrum's statement of beliefs  is that it makes no reference to the Judgement of God preferring instead to talk about Christ "Vindicating His Chosen" .   I am not  at all  sure what this statement  is supposed to mean.  Is it a Calvinist  statement?  What happens to those who are not chosen? - we are not told.  How  would a non-christian  enquiring about  his or hers eternal  destiny supposed to understand this? 

The Evangelical Alliance  may arguably come closer to having more boundedness. That it clearly  felt that some boundaries had been crossed was  evident with the Steve Chalke/ penal substitution issue and the parting of ways between the EA  and Jeremy Marks  Courage ministry.   However, unless some kind of agreed  shared systematic theology among evangelicals is reconstucted  then I think the boundaries will continue to be pushed by those who claim the title "Evangelical".   My guess is that the next big area of boundary  pushing will be the uniqueness of Christ as the means of salvation.  Perhaps we might see the rise of "Uni- Evangelicals" - those who will accept that other peoples 'journey to faith'   in their religion  are equally as valid as the evangelical one.  If this arrives then we would have then become liberal by default. 

If evangelicals  cannot reestablish  a shared systematic  theology then it will continue to fragment,  and its ability  to influence  and grow in the Anglican  world and elsewhere, will be limited  and its  future bleak.

WG Grace wrote:

"When we attempt to define evangelicalism, we need to distinguish why we are doing it and  what we are doing so that the various criteria can be properly understood."

Amen to that!

So here is the list of sets so far (in no particular order):

1. Conservative Evangelicals

2  Classical Evangelicals

3. Open Evangelicals

4. Liberal Evangelicals

5. Accepting Evangelicals

8. Mainline Evangelicals (after Bishop Pete)

9 Charismatic Evangelicals

10 Faux Evangelicals  (this is the latest one, after David Ould)

11 Radical Evangelicals (after Jody)

Have I missed any out? Could this list get longer?

(I was going to include "Fulcrumites" but it sounded like something out of Lord of the Rings...)

On the question of sin, is not the real issue here to do with behaviour and practice considered formerly to be 'sin' but now  considered not to be, due to cultural and public acceptance? If for example, polyamory became publiclly acceptable and leglislated for in society ,  wiould we not eventually  see the rise of  "accepting   evangelicals" in the polyamoric sense? Adrian  Plass gives a good illustration of this kind of thinking in the "Chainsaw Fellowship"
see

http://www.adrianplass.com/articles/chainsaw_fellowship.htm

Tony,

In my post I  have made clear how *CE's*  view physical gay relationships. And no,  I  do not think that CE's distinguish between mortal and venial sins. What I was trying to say (however inadequately), is that attempts to cleanse what was formerly regarded  as sin into something which  no longer is , in CE's eyes,  leads directly  to perdition as repentance is not possible  if you believe  you have nothing to repent from.

As for you finding  the fact that there are liberals bigoted, prejudiced and blinkered to be puzzlling -  well  goodness me!   One of the complaints I find from most  conservatives is that many liberals  have this view of themselves  as looking down on CEs as intellectual cretins who are stiill climbing up the theological evolutionary ladder. They need to be educated by liberals to be brought into the modern world.- theological primitives if you like. 

Now I don't think all liberals  think like this  of course, but I've certainly encountered  a fair few  who do. One only has to go across to Thinking Anglicans  to see this  kind of sneering  bigoted attitude.   Fortunately  on Fulcrum it is largly absent and most discussions  between liberals and evanglicals take place in a civilised manner.

For myself,  and as an evangelical  I simply regard liberals as operating  on a different hermenutic to me and one that is by  nature,  mutually irreconcilable, which is why on the whole,  I think there is littlle to be gained by  engagement.  There are many evangelicals on Fulcrum who would disagree with that view though.

'Womens' Bishops' was a typo BTW. Not to worry -nothing Freudian in it!

George,

The single issue you raise is significant in CE's eyes because it is related to issues of salvation and repentance.  If as a CE,  you believe (and clearly accepting evangelical's don't ), that gay physical relationships are intrinsically sinful and condemned as such by God,  then that has a bearing on eternal destinies. I suspect that this was reason why the Evangelical Alliance had to part company with  Jeremy  Marks  Courage  ministries  when Courage made the decision  to affirm full inclusivness in same relationships including ual equivalence.

I don't think it is a question of CE's being obsessed with but with obedience to Scripture. The idea that CE's are closed bigots, not listening  to the experiences of others, prejudiced and blinkered, is simply  not true.  I'm sure there are some like that as there are some liberals, but I do not think this to be generally true of either. The EA listened and considered carefully the assertions made by Courage but in the end found them wanting. But then this also depends on whether  you regard the EA as having any kind of authority  in representing  the evangelical constituency. 

Yet I don't think the test of orthodoxy revolves just around a single issue as much as you imagine. In the case of women's ordination then I do not know of any CE's who would regard this issue  as a salvific one. Most I have met, regard Women's Bishop's as inevitable in the CofE ,  but do not regard it as 'sinful'  or having a  bearing  on a woman's eternal destiny. They are content  to want to ensure that they do not have to receive the ministry of women  bishops and their own  theological integrity  is protected within the CofE.  Most can live with the difference.

One might then ask why can't we who claim the title "evangelical",   simply agree to disagree  on the issue of gay relationships if both claim to have theological integrity?  

The difficulty here, is that if you have one group believing that a a specific action  is mortally sinful  and the other actively endorsing it , then  it really  diifficult to see how they can co-exist within the same evangelical  framework. What do you do to resolve this situation? I don't think it can be.

One can think of the Judasiers faction in the early  church in which Paul castigated in no uncertain terms. Pauls' beef with them was what  they believed  and taught was  detrimental to personal salvation  it affected the eternal destiny of those who followed them . For that reason  he  could not have fellowship with them and actively opposed them. Now  I suppose it was conceivable that the Judaisiers thought they   had "theological integrty" -  but in Pauls 'eyes it was wrong. Could not the early church had come to some  accomodation with them?  After all they may have done their best to read the scriptures carefully ?

At this point you might argue "well if CE's think that gay relationships are sinful then so are plenty of other  things like greed etc - why pick on the gay issue'". The difference is that in our modern culture  we are now taking one action  previously thought by the church as sinful and 'cleansing'  it so that it is no longer considered sinful.  Nobody  thinks that greed is not sinful.  This was one point argued by Robert Gagon on Fulcrum a while ago.

The question then needs to be asked by what  authority can we do this?  Is it the authority based on  so-called modern knowlege, or secular notions of equality and  justice,  including enforcement by the civil law and coupled with a careful reading of Scripture?

But you put your finger right on it when you say what must define  the 'evangelical orthodoxy' . This is the crux of the problem and the key  issue that evangelicals have got to grasp by the neck.

I think Geoge, that within evangelicalism   you would find more than just the single issue of relationships creating  boundary markers. Other areas  for example, might be the virgin birth , the denial  of any kind of judgement or eternal condemnation, the untrustworthinees of the Bible and the non-literalness of the resurrection. You might be surprised to find  the number of people  who claim  the title 'evangelical'  holding to these beliefs.  So I do not believe  it is quite the single issue you may think

As for Fulcrum,  I think it has more or less 'evangelical  orthodoxy' although I find some  of the articles in its  statement of faith  ambiguous. Perhaps this is deliberately so  as it claims  to be the 'centre' -  wherever that is.    I am baffled for example as what the statement of faith refers when it talks about Jesus "vindicating His chosen"  Is this a Calvinistic  statement?  What happens to those who are 'not chosen'. The Fulcrum statement does not say.

So just what is the "Evangelical Orthodoxy" is indeed a pertinent  question. This is what  I am interested  to know as what to people on your side regard as 'ceasing to be evangelical'  and how they make that judgment.  I am suggesting that one way of exploring convergence is to  start by agreeing as to what  is not evangelical and seeing  where that leads us.

 Apologies  for going on for too long.   You raise a key  point here George.

One of the things that seems to me to be to be at the root of defining the meaning of "evangelical" are  the error bounds or tolerances about the 'mean ' definition. While the bounds of definition of OE's and CE's overlap and in many cases coincide, they seem to be wider in the OE sphere than in the CE one.  I think it is worth asking as to how a OE or CE would judge a particular doctrine or action that both groups  would regard as ceasing to be"evangelical" . 

Perhaps some on both sides would like to give examples?

Bishop Pete,

I always find your contributions on this forum interesting  and well measured.  I note that in your last post you referred to a third type of evangelical that you call a " Mainline Evo".  Is this individual a sort of half-way house between a "ConEvo" and an " OpenEvo" ?  Am I correct in assuming this?

I have never been one for labels, but I suspect that most "Evos" have bits of "ConEvo's and "OpenEvos" inside them on various issues . Is the MainlineEvo an Evangelical  that holds them together internally? Are they a sort of evangelical version  of Mr Spock?

"Evo's " is a a somwhat adhesive term. Could it be it is the" MainlineEvo's" that are able to stick CE's and OE's together?

Thanks Graham.  I have read John' s blog a little further  and he makes his meaning clearer in his reply to postings.

Phil Allcock (correct spelling )

You wrote:

"Article after article, post after post reveals that too many of those who are significant players in Fulcrum operate within a paradigm where Conservative Evangelicals (hereafter CE - I prefer the term classical, but the Conservative mud seems to have stuck) are the great enemy of a renewed church and witness in this country; where the worst of motives are attributed to any political movements or statements associated with CEs. where any council, college or church moving in a CE direction is greeted with horror and foreboding. What irks me is the refusal to admit that what lies underneath these responses is a deep dislike for CE theology."

As an occassional contributor to Fulcrum myself, I think that is a very accurate description of the underlying attitude towards CE's on Fulcrum and I share many of your sentiments. I am at a loss to understand why CEs have such consistent antipathy directed towards them.  I think that some of this  may be due to perceived heavy handedness of some CE's that has been part of some people's experience -  witness the long postings to do with Wyclliffe Hall.  However I don't think this explains all of it.

Yet I think you are absolutely correct in asserting that at the heart of the problem is CE theology.  It's insistence of being certain about theological issues is clearly  one aspect of this, but many CE's that I come into contact with,  will readily acknowledge uncertainty in certain areas. However flashpoints such as uality , penal substitution and womens  ordination are issues where CE's  have generally clear ideas as to what they believe. They do not see the need to accomodate alternative viewpoints within their own theology although they (in the case of women bishops ), will live and let live whin the Anglican structure. In the case of homosexual issues  then they see them  as being unambiguosly sinful and will not accomodate  them  at all.

There is a spectrum within CE's of course. At one end is what Canon Michael  Saward (who was intstrumental in setting up NEAC), in his autobiography descibed  as the "small -mindedness" of some evangelical clergy although I have  not found this to be true generally of CE's although I have certainly  met some like this.  Most of them to me, seem much more articulate and reasoned such as John Richardson who in my view,  maintains  a very high standard  of debate on his blog and is courteous with it. 

What concerns me more ,  is what I can only describe  as the theological  m of liberals. My experience of liberals is that they will drive out any view that does not fit their liberal agenda or equate with their notions of equality  -witness the recent vote on women Bishops in Synod. They are the true excluders.  As Michael Saward also states in his autobiography  "there is  nothing  more illiberal as a threatened liberal".  I think this is very true. We can see it  happening in TEC at the moment.

In my view Fulcrum,  is  far too charitable  to liberals  and does not challenge them to the same degee  as it does CE's   I gain  the impression from Fulcrum  that although both OE' s and CE's share the word 'Evangelical '  CE's are the bogeymen that OE's like to throw stones at.

BTW,  I like your term 'Classical Evangelical'. I think it is a much less emotive and a more accurate description as to what conservative evangelicals are about.

Graham,

You wrote

"One might rather be forgiven in these turbulent days for suggesting that a largely conservative CEEC is a good thing and an encouraging sign, if what is conserved is evangelicalism."

I do not understand what you mean by this statement and the emphasis in italics. Could you explain further please? 

Can you  articulate just what  it is about CE's that sticks in OE's craw?

Madeleine ,

I do not get the impression that Nerson is being sneering or aggressive at all. Whether  you agree with him or not,  he is stating his case plainly, forthrightly and in measured terms.

I have found  when debating with liberals that conservative/ open evangelicals  are regarded  at best with patronising  disdain  - a bit theologically  retarded perhaps?  --  or at worst  with an  almost visceral hatred.

If you really want to see sneering and aggressive posts then you can do no better than  take a look at the Thinking Anglicans site. I think that Fulcrum in the main,  has been extremely  charitable and courteous  to liberals  posting on this blog which is very much to its credit. Unfortunaely  it is often not reciprocated.