Hi Jeremy, Liddon

First things first. I'M NOT TOBY HOLE, though I do have the good fortune to share a Christian name with him.

Jeremy, I agree with most of what you say. One observation, though. You spoke about 'the tendency to read Scripture in places like Wycliffe through the spectacles of "the Canon within the Canon"'.

I've no experience of Wycliffe Hall and don't know whether it would describe itself as 'conservative'. But in my (limited) experience, 'conservative' churches have always been aware of, and have striven to avoid, the trap you mention. It's been *some* other churches that haven't managed so well.

Liddon, I see that I was only half right, or half wrong, or at least ambiguous. The quotes you offer contain no evidence that 'critical methods' (form, source, tradition, redaction etc) aren't covered in the Wycliffe curricula, nor that the biblical teaching (by which I meant class teaching) is inadequate. So my question to Pluralist stands.

But I accept that the Hall needs, in the inspectors' view, to 'enable students to draw more creatively and critically on the rich resources of Scripture... in relation to the practice of ministry'. This too relates to biblical teaching, more widely defined - and I accept that, on this marker and if the inspectors are right, the Hall still has work to do.

None of this, of course, supports your charge that what the inspectors identified was 'a mindless fundamentalism in the college', nor even does it say that 'there are suspicions that students jump through the academic hoops in their degrees, then they are trained to ignore the findings of biblical scholars in their formation'. What's written in code and what the code means I leave to you to interpret.

Regarding your final point, if what I wrote was too robust for Pluralist, or for you, of course I apologise. But Pluralist seems able to cope with robust, posts robustly himself and, on this occasion, seemed to demand robust in return. I'd obviously speak less robustly if I were talking to others (or, at least, I'd try to), I think all of us who post here have a responsibility to hold one another to account, not only for what we say, but also for the way we say it.

Regards from Toby Crowe

Hi Pluralist

You said, 'ask why, of all places, an evangelical college lacks a thorough use of scripture both in a critical approach to training and in worship'.

I've looked through the inspection report and see no evidence that Wycliffe 'lacks a thorough use of scripture' in 'a critical approach to training', whatever that means. In fact I could see no criticism of the biblical teaching provided at Wycliffe, only of the limited use of Scripture in community gatherings. Where's your evidence that critical methods (form, source, tradition, redaction, canonical - you don't mention this last, I wonder why) aren't covered?

From your post it looks like you've just grasped a slender opportunity to beat a familiar drum, irrespective of the facts.

'Pluralism for everyone who agrees with me'.

Toby

Hi Clare

Thanks for raising an interesting point. You asked, 'isn't it a bit unscriptural to have an organisation devoted to helping persecuted Christians rather than any who are persecuted - whoever by?'.

I don't see this, I'm afraid. I agree that the church shouldn't look out *only* for its members. But are you suggesting that the church should look out for everyone *except* its members? That would be a bit odd, not to mention unscriptural, would it not? But I think it's where your train of thought leads.

There are other dangers too, already latent in your comment that 'whilst I am sure that the Barnabas Fund do a lot of good raising consciousness and campaigning on behalf of persecuted Christians, I would argue that it is a lot more Christian to support Amnesty'.

On what basis do you conclude that 'raising consciousness and campaigning on behalf of persecuted Christians' is less Christian (or less worthwhile, for that matter) than 'raising consciousness and campaigning' on behalf of political prisoners? And isn't an important part of the work of BF (or CSW, if that's more amenable to you) the sharing of prayer needs, something an organisation like AI could never do?

I also know, by the way, that some Christians feel they can't support Amnesty because of its position on abortion and, perhaps, some other issues (the Roman Catholics are an obvious example).

Toby

Hi Stuart

Yes, the canons and disciplines of the church are applied selectively and have been (by all wings) for a long time.

But a question on the ones you cite: what does it mean to wear clothes that are 'a sign and mark' of the ordained minister's 'holy calling'? I don't think this need refer to clerical clothing. Someone I know had an effective ministry as a nightclub chaplain. Wasn't a mark of his calling that he dress like other clubbers dressed?

Toby

Hi David

I agree with you that, where a traditional (or otherwise) focus on extra-biblical things might be critiqued by biblical teaching, we should allow it to be so.

I don't think you've yet argued your point that Jesus's 'welcome of the excluded' directly flows from the 'nepotism that was rife in his own society' - but I may have misunderstood what you were saying in your first paragraph. Apologies if so.

You say that there are times when Jesus's hyperbole 'does have literal force'. But is this one of those times? How then would the comment on the family that you quote fit in with other teaching on the place of the family?

It's a fair point that terms like 'liberal' and 'evangelical' are often unhelpful and unnecessary. All I can say by way of defence is that I was picking up terms that had already been introduced on this thread. But I'll try to avoid them in future, for the reason you suggest (and with which I agree).

'Polyvalence' is originally a chemist's term, I think, but it's sometimes used to describe the idea that Scripture contains plural and diverse 'voices' (which I'm happy to go along with to some extent - another discussion for another time).

Sorry if I come across as irritated. I prefer to think of it as a desire for brevity, combined with a desire to watch tv. As for impatience, it's a personality thing - but at least I'm aware of the problem.

Toby

Hi Jeremy

You ask in what way the 'Nazi analogy' (which you say isn't a Nazi analogy) is unfair.

I never said it was. My criticism is different: that it's too emotive, it's too often used to close down discussion (step forwards, L Roberts, and receive your crown) and it's hard to pin down where the analogy  actually lies. On this last note, in your latest post you do explain a bit more about what you meant - which implies that it wasn't so obvious first time round after all.

If, as you say, the point of the analogy was merely to illustrate 'the inability of people... to recognise and critique what [is] going on in front of their faces', then all I can reply is that, yes, this is a risk and we always need to be on the look out for it in ourselves. But I think you were getting at something more that I'm missing?

I agree, of course, that the history of anti-semitism has been long and terrible. I agree that this has been mirrored, to some extent, in a history of homophobia (by which I mean 'irrational hatred of gay people'). Both clearly need to be condemned and combatted. But we're told, in effect, to hate the sin and love the sinner. Some sins are rightly outlawed - the present discussion is over what the state's (and the church's) response should be to a particular sin.

So, if I were convinced that Peter A. were demonstrating an 'irrational hatred of gay people', and if he were sitting next to me now, I'd tell him so. But he's not here and I'm not familiar enough with African (or, rather, Nigerian Yoruba) English idiom to be able to 'read' his words with that degree of fluency. I certainly *don't* think that his lobbying of his government for a law change - which is where this discussion began - constitutes homophobia in itself. But we may have to agree to differ on this.

You said, 'I don't think I accused you of being controversial, did I?'. Well, er, yes you did. It's in the opening line of the post you addressed to me on Monday.

You say, 'how do you know if I am living openly "in sin" if I am living with another man, unless you ask me the bedroom questions?'. I've come across lots of gay people, Christians included, who've been happy to share what they do in bed without being asked...

You say, 'Do I have to wear a t shirt saying "I heart Lambeth 1:10"?. No, but I think it would look nice ;-)

I agree with your comment that 'our inherited moral frame of reference has told us the answer to most things without having to engage with what may lead us astray'. I think this could be applied to many people in many ways and it's a shame.

Toby

Hi David

If you think that Jesus's teaching on the family consists *solely* of 'hate your parents for my sake' then you'd be right to consider this more than a 'partial redefining' of the fifth commandment. If this *is* your understanding, then I hope you've followed this dominical command to the letter. How are your family relationships these days?

But in fact I think you may be doing several things that liberals sometimes accuse evangelicals of (occasionally fairly):

1. You're abstracting a phrase from specific teaching and then treating this phrase as if it stood alone as a piece of ethical teaching for all time, without reference to the wider teaching of which it's part and which gives it meaning.

2. You're flattening polyvalent accounts into one 'pure' gospel.

3. You're not reading and interpreting these words in the light of the other teachings of Jesus.

4. You're not reading and interpreting them in the light of the other teachings contained in the NT.

5. You're not reading and interpreting them in the light of the other teachings contained in the whole Bible.

Very briefly, a version of the words of Jesus that you cite is recorded in two gospels. But Matthew's version (Mt 10.37) makes no mention of 'hate'. Only Luke's version (Lk 14.26) does this and the teaching is given there in the context of people using their natural families as an excuse for ignoring Jesus's call. Luke is also, I think, faithfully recording in Greek a Hebraism/Aramaism which means something less than 'hate' as we understand it - but I don't have a commentary with me, at present, in which I can find out more.

I'm not going into all the other occasions when Jesus speaks of family, still less those on which other biblical witnesses do so. Suffice it to say that, if you place this Lukan verse alongside another one - 8.19 - then it starts to become obvious that there's something both less offensive and more interesting going on than you seem to suppose. It is in the light of this more interesting thing that Jesus can teach the Pharisees about honouring the family (Mt 15.4ff) and can speak tenderly of his own mother as he dies on the cross (Jn 19.26f).

On another tangent, you seem to assume that the call to create a 'radically new community' is a call to create it on terms which seem good to you. Actually I think that Jesus is more challenging than this: yes, gentiles are welcome (some of them at least) - the new community isn't just for ethnic Israel. But through participation in Christ they are expected to change in the process. It's not simply a throwing open of the doors for all individuals, although it is a throwing open of the doors to all peoples. This, I think, is partly what the parable of the sheep and the goats is about (Mt 25.31ff) - as we walk through the doors we're expected to change.

This last parable, by the way, is part of the 'less cosy' teaching I was hinting at in my last post. For modern liberals, I think Jesus's '"scandalous welcoming" of social outsiders' is easy to accept. Aren't 'tolerance' and 'inclusivity' things to be trumpeted? Less cosy are the biblical teachings which collide with, rather than collude with, modern liberal sensitivities.

Apologies if some of this seems unhelpfully compressed. It's been a long day!

Regards from Toby

Hi Roger

Thanks for your post. Of course we don't know who the sheep and who the goats are. We can only go on what the Bible says, trust and obey.

You ask, 'is the issue of gay sex a core issue?'. It's a fair question. I don't think it should be. But I think it's become so for two reasons. First, various parties have decided to make it so. Second, rightly or wrongly it's become a cipher for other things (the Buddhist bishop being a good example of this sometimes unacknowledged back story).

Toby

Hi Jeremy

You said, 'I'm disappointed. Posting controversially and then retiring is, frankly, a bit feeble'.

I've been involved in these discussions before and they usually seem to end in unpleasantness and vitriol. But as long as everyone's civil I'll stay around...

Talking of which, I *think* I know what you were trying to say in your comment that being 'sat in your gemueutlich bourgeois sitting room in Stuttgart you might have tutted about those frightful Nazi people and how tasteless they were - but they were elected after all, and any way, now the trains run on time'. But can you see how comments like this might put people off engaging in dialogue with you? I'm all for the 'listening process'; but it does cut both ways.

Also, to say that my post was controversial seems slightly rum. This is an evangelical discussion forum, run by an organisation that takes a firm line on these things: surely 'controversial' in this context would be posts that advocate positions *other than* the Christian faith as traditionally understood.

I'm glad to hear that you don't spend your time poking your nose into other people's bedrooms to see what they get up to. Putting the boot on my own foot, as you suggest: I'm happy to accept that Christians in civil partnerships aren't having sex with each other unless or until I'm told otherwise. Some might call that 'turning a blind eye'. I'd rather phrase it as: 'the Bible and the mind of the church are clear. If this person professes the Christian faith then I assume that they accept both. If they're lying then it's God who will judge, not me'. Where people are living openly in sin, of course, it's a different matter.

Regarding your paragraph on Nazism, I'm afraid it's my policy never to engage with political rhetoric of this sort. Please put your thoughts in a less emotive form (hint: drop the analogy) and I'll be pleased to respond.

You said, 'as for Lambeth 1.10, even you indicate that you don't agree with all of it'. Yes, 'even' me! I think the clause I cited is too general and the result is that it demands more than either Scripture or the traditional teaching of the church will justify. But whatever my own beliefs, I think we should follow Lambeth 1.10 in its entirety until such time as the Church of England revokes it (ie. you'll get no same-sex blessings from me).

You said, 'I wonder how close you have got to the experience of what it is to be homosexual through knowing and listening to gay people'. You'll only know the answer to that question from what I post on here.

Regards from Toby

Hi Jeremy, David

I'm wary of wading too deeply into this minefield and may not post about it again after this.

But Jeremy, you said that '"gay weddings" don't feature in the Bible', which is sort of the point. You also said that the House of Bishops' advice on civil partnerships was 'not to come out categorically against them'. Sadly I don't remember what the advice said (!), and, as it happens, I have no problem with civil partnerships per se. I know of same-sex couples, homosexual and heterosexual, who live together for companionship and for whom civil partnerships represent security for the future.

The (in)famous Lambeth 1.10 does, however, make it clear that the church 'upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage', 'reject[s] homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture' and cannot, for this reason, 'advise the legitimising or blessing of same gender unions' (my comment above should indicate that I find this last teaching insufficiently nuanced).

You also said that we should 'stand up against oppression where the oppressor is bigger and more impressive than us'. I agree with you. But if, by oppression, you mean lawful and constitutional punishment of things the state wants to discourage, then (while I may disagree with its decision) I'm not sure I disagree with the state's right to pass such laws. Also, to paint the Church of Nigeria as the nasty bully and the liberal west as the poor underdog (you did say 'more impressive than *us*', so I presume you're not talking primarily about gay Nigerians here, unless you are one yourself) is, I think, an oversimplification. Maybe you see this as 'post-colonial guilt'. I'm not so sure it is; but, even if it is, is it necessarily bad? Should it legitimately and easily be overriden by a set of values which considers itself atemporal?

I stand by my description of Abp A's words as 'startling' - they certainly startled me. I find his use of 'holocaust' language problematic; but as I don't speak Nigerian English, I've no idea whether I'm inappropriately reading my own cultural sensitivities on to words which, for him, don't carry the baggage I find in them.

David, I think I'm still only seeing half your post. Yes, a focus on the family isn't necessarily Christian. But I think anything which *didn't* treat the family as important wouldn't be Christian either (though Jesus does partly redefine family in terms of the church). Also, I wouldn't want to stress Jesus's 'scandalous welcoming' of social outsiders at the expense of other, less cosy, elements of biblical teaching. It's probably worth pointing out, too, that we don't yet know 'who is in' the kingdom and 'who is out'.

Toby

Hi Pluralist

Thanks for your reply. Maybe 'Christian pluralist' wasn't so far off the mark.

You're very open about the 'postmodernity' (your term) of the position you've come to. Could you accept that it might also look like a Beckham-and-Jade pick n' mix? On what basis are elements to be 'extracted' to produce the 'individual [faith] packages' you speak about? Presumably, as we're going all postmodern here, each person could use whichever criteria they saw fit (even if these were contradictory)?

Actually, is it possible to 'extract elements' in this way and, if so, which ones could justifiably be dumped while leaving others intact in their own integrity? (Eg. could the incarnation be dumped from Christianity and leave other elements of the faith unchanged? Would a Christianity without incarnation leave any elements worth having? It seems to me that incarnation is rather like the thread that runs through a fine wall-hanging. Pull that one thread out and, well, you know what happens to the rest).

I appreciate your honesty and am genuinely intrigued by your faith adventure. But I'm still not convinced about the coherence of 'pluralism', even as you define it (nor of the coherence of modern Euro-American liberalism - but that's another topic).

Regards from Toby

Hi Graham

Thanks for posting the link to Sarah's review (and hello Sarah, if you're out there).

I haven't read Jonathan Clark's book but what I missed in Sarah's article was any sense of critique of it. This was more surprising given the review's billing as 'a Fulcrum review'.

Now it could be that a 'Catholic-Anglican' who is also chair of 'Affirming Catholicism' has nothing whatsoever to say with which evangelicals or Fulcrum would disagree. But the review gives no hint of the appalling blandness that such inoffensiveness would suggest. In fact, Sarah refers to JC's views on 'priesthood' and, even in the few words she gives it, I could see that it might not sit easily with the classical evangelical position - yet Sarah passes gaily on, as if nothing were amiss at all.

It's not, let me stress, a bad review. In fact it made me wonder if I should read the book. But it could just as well have been published on Aff Cath's own website. I don't think being at the 'evangelical centre' means that 'all views are equally valid'. As a friend of mine used to say, 'don't let's be so open-minded our brains fall out'.

Toby