Hello again, Clare

You said, 'Does not that make it even more urgent for an independent evangelically based voice to be heard loudly and clearly rebuking the complicity in homophobia that the C of N is enmeshed within?'

I think that evangelicals, as people who claim to take the Bible seriously, have a duty to stand up against injustice. I try to do this in my own life. But before I can 'rebuke' the Nigerian church for its 'homophobia', I need to know what's meant by the term. If you're referring to Abp Akinola's sometimes startling rhetoric, I agree that it's almost certainly unhelpful - though whether my rebuking him would be appropriate is another matter.

But I can't criticise him for his stand against 'gay weddings', or whatever the phrase was, since it's also the position of the Anglican Communion and the Church of England, not to mention pretty much every other denomination, the church catholic for 2000 years and, er, the Bible. That's a fairly weighty list in his support, is it not?

In any case (and perhaps this is what Nersen was getting at), before we turn our rather puny fire on the Church of Nigeria - which in other ways could certainly teach us a thing or two - shouldn't we look closer to home? We need to fix the church in the west before we patrol the world in judgment over everyone else's failings.

Toby

Hi Pluralist

You said, 'oppression is just that, and you can state one view about the oppression and have another about the wider agenda'. I hope my views on both are clear. But I think it's wise to be wary when different agendas are presented as if they were one and the same. My attitude to the Stop the War Coalition, for example, is affected by the fact that it was set up (and to some extent run as a front for) the Socialist Workers Party - and I've kept away from it for that reason (though I've protested against the same war).

I'm interested, too, in what 'pluralism' means to you. Does it mean that different faiths point equally to the divine? If so I'd ask, do you think that the Church of Nigeria preaches a gospel which leads to God? Does the Christian faith in its traditional teaching on sexuality? Does Islam or Buddhism? (Though, to be fair, I don't know what Buddhism's 'official' teaching is on this, only the thoughts of individual Buddhists I've met).

If 'pluralism' does mean what I think it means, I hope you're equally present on Islamic and Buddhist websites, excoriorating them for their exclusivity and demanding that any mosques, temples etc which don't come up to the mark are banned from the umma. Or do you give Christianity (and the Anglican Communion) the benefit of your special attention? On what basis? Are you really a 'Christian pluralist', whatever that might be?

I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm not sure how compatible 'pluralism' (as I understand it) and modern European social liberalism are. And, since 'pluralism' seems to be a product of that same liberalism, I guess there are questions here about the coherence of 'pluralism' itself.

Thanks from Toby

Hi Clare

You said, 'Surely one can think that active homosexuality is immoral whilst vociferously repudiating Akinola's words and actions'. I think this would fairly represent my feelings. I follow the late Abp Michael Ramsey, who argued for the decriminalisation of homosexual activity in England & Wales on the grounds that not everything immoral should also be illegal.

Perhaps one reason why those taking a traditional view might be reluctant to post here is the suspicion that this thread is about more than Peter Akinola's views on what Nigerians should do in bed. Pluralist's original makes it clear that there's another agenda also at work. Which leaves me with the rather unwelcome feeling that some of the outrage might be synthetic, aimed at promoting a political platform. If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, maybe it would be best to keep the two issues separate in future.

Regards from Toby

Hi all

Thanks for your posts. Perhaps Clare is right that we need a new thread - but wouldn't that leave the discussion rather disjointed? Or does our new-found (and beautiful) convergence signal a natural breaking point any way?

I can see, Clare, why Liddon might not have liked what you wrote. For myself, I think we can use secular leadership models for analytical purposes; but we always need to remember where they come from, who we are and what they might steer us into becoming if we're not careful (I agree absolutely with Celinda: 'Christianity is not primarily about leadership style' - and that's putting it mildly).

Roger, you're right that the Greek words are related to one another. One is the common noun (hegemon = Lt princeps, dux); the other is a participle that's regularly used substantively. I think it's probably used instead of hegemon here because that word is often reserved for the office of 'governor' in the NT (ie. it's a semi-technical term).

Otherwise I'm with both you and Clare: I don't think Liddon and I disagreed too much over 'leadership' in the church. In fact, the discussion between us seemed to balloon out of nowhere. I really only meant to question the truth of something he was presenting as fact - what I expected him to say was, 'oh yeah, Jesus does say that, doesn't he? Let me rephrase my comment a little'. But I'll be more wary before engaging next time.

I also, Roger, want particularly to endorse your comments that 'we need to come to Scripture as open-mindedly as possible' and (in order to?) learn more of Jesus's 'splendid counterintuitivity'.

Liddon, you've never yet in this discussion left me less than astonished, and your latest post is no exception. I'm sorry if you feel that my comments have fallen below some (undefined) level, either intellectually or personally. But having looked back over what I wrote, I can't see any justification for this statement. I agree that what I said in my last paragraph was cheeky; but as I was only quoting your own words back at you, perhaps there's something there for you to think about too.

Love to all from Toby

Hi Liddon

You said, 'it seems to me that "micro-biblicist" simply means taking any individual saying that a gospel writer attributes to Jesus, interpreting it in a way that fits with a particular evangelical model of anything and then giving that individual example the same weight of authority as everything else in the Bible put together'. Well, of course you must use phrases as you wish; but what *I* meant (and said) was that I start wtih the individual sayings of Jesus and build up a picture of his teaching from there.

This has nothing obvious to do with interpreting things in a way that fits with 'a particular evangelical model of anything', nor with 'giving [an] individual example the same weight of authority as everything else in the Bible put together'. But please give me some examples of where you've seen this being done and we can discuss them (I imagine I'll be as critical of them as you).

A(nother) question to you: how do *you* read Scripture, except by starting with the small (individual phrases, sentences, verses), moving through the intermediate (chapters, books, testaments) to the whole thing? Of course the Bible as a whole 'tells a story' that no individual verse can match; but if any verse seems to contradict that 'story' then the story probably needs reframing - unless we've misunderstood the verse. To approach Scripture any other way leads to selectivity and, probably, proof-texting (as properly understood).

You said, 'as far as I can see Jesus says nothing about "leadership" as it is presently exercised in the [sic] parts of the church'. Well, this may be true. But it's not what you originally said, which is how our discussion began. On 5th March you said, 'I just don't want to talk about "leadership" at all. It isn't an idea I find in the Bible or, specifically, in the actions or teaching of Jesus', full stop. Nothing about 'leadership as it is presently exercised in parts of the church'. If you'd made clear then what you now imply you meant, we'd have had less to disagree about. Nevertheless...

You still say, '[Jesus] says nothing about "leadership" at all, really. It would be a concept entirely foreign to him and to the rest of his society, who thought about things like authority and kingship, service and sacrifice'. This is demonstrably untrue (even if we ignore Jesus's own words, which we've been over a few times now), unless you make a big (and unsupportable) assumption: that 'leadership' and the other things you mention - 'authority', 'kingship', 'service' and 'sacrifice' - are mutually exclusive. They're not.

'Kingship' and the rest are ways of describing human relationships which are also covered, to *some extent* (please note), by the term 'leadership'. So, for example, a leader may be said to be one who 'inspires' his or her followers and this may be taken as a mark of 'leadership'. But in certain circumstances it may also be a mark of a good king (think of Henry V, at least as Shakespeare tells it). The two terms aren't necessarily contradictory, however you spin them.

You said, 'it's been a moderately amusing diversion'. Perhaps. 'But', you go on, 'I think this whole discussion has been based on a fallacy and does not take either the Bible or the church seriously'. As my brother used, annoyingly to say in similar circumstances: that's enough about you, Liddon. Maybe we could talk about what I've said now?

Love from Toby

Ah, L Roberts, thanks for your post. But before you send me off to pore through Karen Armstrong's book (all 320 pages of it), might you give me a clue about what it is you expect me to find there? Or, better still, if what she says is going to speak to me so powerfully, perhaps you could summarise her argument here so that we could discuss it?

It's a fair point that many different groups have looked to the Bible to explain or justify their doctrine. The lesson, of course, is that we should become better exegetes, not that we should give up on exegesis or the Bible altogether.

Now you're here, by the way, I'm still waiting to see some exegetical support for your (on the face of it remarkable) claims that the Buddhist 'ultimate order' is the same as/like/'not dissimilar to' the Kingdom of God, and that 'Jesus and Gautama have met' there.

Thanks, in advance, from Toby

Hi Roger

Welcome to the party!

You said, 'I like Pluralist's metaphor of the wall and individual bricks to differentiate between an overview of this and parallel discussions and the more proof-texting approach'. Well, maybe it's a good metaphor. But it's also worth stressing that there hasn't been any 'proof-texting' in this discussion, at least not as I understand it (to me the term means wresting words or sentences out of context and applying them thoughtlessly to concerns which aren't their own). Of course you're free to come up with your own definition: but let's be clear about what it is before we continue.

It remains the case that, if we're going to be 'biblical', we have to look at what the Bible says closely and carefully - and that means adducing biblical evidence for the positions we take (eg. it won't do to assert that Jesus never says something that he can be shown in fact to have said). By this token, at least, I'm a 'micro-biblicist': start with the individual sayings of Jesus and build up a picture of his teaching from there, not decide what his teaching is and then pick and choose from amongst his words to justify this picture (this, it seems to me, *would* lead to proof-texting).

I agree with you and Liddon that 'leadership' isn't dominant in Jesus teaching (this isn't the same as saying it's absent). But the word in question isn't hodegos, which means no more than 'guide'. Nor is it hegemon, which in NT Greek usually means 'governor' (a technical military term). The word at Luke 22.26, which does refer to a 'ruler' or 'one in power' (as modern and scholarly translations make clear), is ho hegoumenos. I don't think it's quite accurate to say that Jesus contrasts this word with 'his own call to serve'. Rather, he uses this word as part of a redefinition of what Kingdom-focused and Spirit-empowered leadership is to look like.

Thanks for your helpful reminder about NT views of priesthood. Neither of the examples you give, of Jesus's own priesthood and of the priesthood of all believers, relate to the job(s) of those in ordained ministry (except insofar as ordained ministers share this priesthood of all believers). But you know this already.

Regards from Toby

Hi Pluralist and Liddon

Pluralist, we can agree that there are 'parallels' between some elements of Christianity and some elements of (some) Buddhism. That, to me, seems incontrovertible. But it doesn't get us very far, since there are parallels between most things if you look hard enough.

Liddon, if you follow Pluralist's approach of looking at walls rather than bricks, and of refusing to provide biblical/exegetical support for the positions he takes (and why should he? As far as I know he doesn't claim to be Christian), in what sense are you still 'biblical' (the word you wanted to use)? At some point, if the Bible is important, one has to justify one's reading of it by reference to what it actually says. (This isn't the same as proof-texting, which means wresting words or sentences out of context and applying them thoughtlessly to concerns which aren't their own. That hasn't happened in this discussion).

Without looking at what the Bible says, by what criteria do you judge anything? Do you just go with what seems good to you at the time? You said before, 'that's where I'm coming from', and that's fair enough in a world where 'travellers carry their stories and cultures with them' (Pluralist's words). But this can't be, isn't, the totality of Christian discipleship, which starts from where we are and *changes* us along the way. What would cause you to change?

Love from Toby

Hi Liddon

Aaaargh, I can't bear it.

Today you say, 'I'd also like to remind you that from the early part of this discussion I said that there were leadership functions but that they were always ancillary to others. I do not think I have left this position'. Yet you said before, 'I just don't want to talk about "leadership" at all. It isn't an idea I find in the Bible'. Either this is contradictory or there *are* ministries of leadership, which you just don't want to talk about and which aren't found in the Bible. But on what basis do you accept these unbiblical ministries ('it isn't an idea I find in the Bible') as legitimate ('I said that there were leadership functions but... ancillary to others')?

You say, 'as for "priest", ah, well, there you give yourself away'. Much though I like a dramatic unmasking, I don't think you can fairly read too much into one simple statement, viz. 'I'm not sure "priest" is [as] useful' a metaphor as 'shepherd'/'pastor' and 'servant'. What have I given away?

You say, 'it's because you elevate the status of the Bible that you find yourself in difficulties'. Quite possibly. Don't *you* elevate the status of the Bible? As for how high I elevate it, and over what, please tell me how (from my posts) you can be so sure what I think?

In the light of your admirable sentiment that 'any discussion of biblical texts ought to take place in the original languages', I was disappointed to see that you carried on in English after all. But I still suggest that you have a look at Luke 22.26 some time: for you to say that, in this verse, Jesus *isn't 'refocusing the content of the term leadership' simply staggers me. My own shortsightedness, no doubt.

I too would like to say it's been fun ;-)

Toby

Hi Pluralist

I was struck by your claim that, 'the nearest equivalent from Buddhism to [the] Christian Kingdom of God is in the Mahayana offshoot Pure Land Buddhism' and by the Buddhist material you appended by way of explanation.

Since your claim is remarkable, to say the least, I wonder if you could provide some exegetical and biblical support for it please?

Thanks from Toby

Hi Liddon

We're going round in circles, aren't we? And I think part of the reason is your dislike of taking things point by point. It means that you never have to hold your feet to the fire and look closely at, let alone test, your assumptions.

So in your latest post you said again that Jesus doesn't talk about leadership. You make this judgement, it appears, on the basis of the English version given us by the RSV, which you 'still accept as the best version'. Well, of course, you have to say that, don't you? Is this the 'more scholarly' translation you were talking about? I can only repeat myself (yawn): go and look at the Greek text.

That said, I do agree with you that the precise wording, either of the Greek original or of a 1946 translation, is less important than the substance of what the words denote. And since 'roping' leadership words into a discussion of, er, leadership to make a point about, er, leadership strikes you as 'sleight of hand', it's probably best that we move on. So...

You said, 'of course, there are leadership functions in the church'. Pardon? Is this the same pen that wrote, 'I just don't want to talk about "leadership" at all.It isn't an idea I find in the Bible'? There seems to be a measure of having your cake and eating it going on here, as there has been in other recent posts from you. Either there's leadership or there's not; either the Bible talks about it or it doesn't (or are you suggesting that it's found in the church but isn't biblical? Actually, don't answer that).

But we must end, partly because this thread is supposed to be about Buddhism and mostly because my brain will eat itself if we continue. So let's finish with something like beautiful harmony. I *agree*, as I have done all along, that we need to approach the topic of 'leadership' warily. I *agree* that its modern usage carries all sorts of unhelpful baggage. I *agree* that Jesus refocuses its content.

I *agree* that there's a risk of confusing 'leadership' (or whatever term we want to use instead) with autocracy and of overriding other ministries (still don't get the 'sacramental ministry' thing, but that's for another time).

Since I've agreed with all the above since the beginning (see my post of 4th March), I'm not sure I've been 'trying to justify... the idea of leadership as offered within the evangelical world today' (but maybe I have: you never really said what this meant).

I *agree* that 'shepherd'/'pastor' and 'servant' are useful biblical terms (not sure 'priest' is so useful but I don't know what the RSV says), though it's hard for me to read pastoral images without seeing some 'leadership' going on within them. And I *agree* with every word of the BCP services you mention, though I can't see how 'office and charge' and 'stewards of the Lord' (stewards over what?) aren't leadership images, at least in part. But you assert that they're not and I can't, on previous experience, see any point in pressing you for argumentation. After all, and as you say in your latest post, 'that's where you're coming from'. Indeed it is.

Signing off from this particular discussion now.

Regards from Toby

Hi L Roberts

I'm still waiting to see some exegetical support for your (on the face of it remarkable) claims that the Buddhist 'ultimate order' is the same as/like/'not dissimilar' (status uncertain) to the Kingdom of God and that 'Jesus and Gautama have met' there.

When you get the chance...

Thanks from Toby