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.

Thanks for the corrective, pete. I should have added an 'as they believe' or 'as they imagine' to my paraphrase of Ephraim Radner. I was struck by the way in which his essay acknowledged something like the human reality (people who know one another in fellowship, friendship, service), on the ground, of the situation in many of our churches in England as well as in TEC -- and did so without rancour. It just seemed remarkable that the real relationships within congregations and between their members was respected ('relationally').  I thought for that moment he was representing the best in us. But I agree that putting words into anyone's mouth is discourteous. And 'pragmatically' was less open hearted.

Neersen,

I did not accuse you of being rude or impolite actually. The words 'sneering' and 'disdain'ful were used - but not by me. I was saying that had your comments been addressed to me I would have felt the same. I am perfectly willing to be challenged directly by your views - and anyone else's for that matter. But when, for example, you use the word 'liberal' like an expletive you can hardly expect me to risk my thoughts in print.

But this is distracting from the thread topic itself ....

for what it's worth, I thought Radner's essay on Truthful Language and Orderly Separation perhaps offered the kind of model that you might need because it was was less provocatively adversarial; but that may also be why it didn't get much of a response here. He recognized that "a change of practice" for those he calls "gay inclusivists" has become impossible.   A change of practice for gay inclusivists has become impossible - because the large number of partnered gay people in congregations and among the clergy of TEC makes any withdrawal of that full inclusion "relationally impossible": I think (or I like to think) he meant "if those churches seek to continue treating their gay members as full human equals" -- but I was disappointed when 'relationally' turned into 'pragmatically'  towards the end of that part of his essay. That seemed much less generous. And somewhat closer to the fulcrum language of being gay as 'inimical to godliness' (q.v.). 

David -  pls show me what was rude, impolite etc in what I wrote?  

As for engaging with other views, I was responding to points Madeline raised.

I do not want to be rude - but I do want to be clear. Also, it does not help people in any dialogue to smother differences in warm words so that differences are not clear and we can all pretend we are united. We should be able to talk directly and clearly about the issues -  that is is showing genuine respect to each other as we "speak the truth in love".

To disagree is not necessarily rude, of course. I agree tone matters - but not sure what offends you so greatly what I wrote with regard to tone. I was direct but not rude at all.... and did engage with the issues Madeline raised (which is actually showing more respect than I would have been showing if I had used warm words to disguise the fact that I disagreed with her)

As I say below, if "liberals" want to say that sticking to the bible puts off "the world", it is fair to point out the very poor record of "liberal" churches in reaching "the world", is it not? 

Jesus himself was not averse to using harsh rhetoric . Read Matt 23 for starters.

In Matt 15:23 he appears to make a demeaning racist comment against a Samaritan woman i.e. 

Woman asks for help

Jesus says he only helps Jews.

She begs him.

He says it’s not right to give human food to dogs.

She says, “Ok, I’m a dog, but dogs get scraps from their masters!”

He acknowledges that her faith (and submission) is strong and heals her daughter.

This hardly complies with the Race Relations Act  does it?

And in Gal 5:12 the Apostle Paul appears  to be expressing the view that false prophets ought  to go and castrate hemselves.

Now I guess that really would put a lot of people off...

Dear Nersen,

Don't be daft - this isn't about being 'nice'. It is about engaging with the views of others that leaves them feeling they have been responded to with courtesy and respect - even when real disagreements are being worked through. That is basic gospel stuff my books.  Clare has a point and you don't seem to be hearing it. You seem to be saying that because you are concerned with defending  'truth' you can use whatever tone you wish in responding to those you disagree with. Well don't be surprised if, however thoughtful and important your contributions, people simply lose interest in engaging with you.

Clare - it is not wrong or not "nice" to point out the weaknesses or assumptions in what people say.... please look at what Madeline posted and you will see why I responded as I did  -  her post was based on false assumptions.....

If someone assumes falsely that sticking to biblical truth is  putting people off the faith,  we must not be constrained by the your sort of personal and emotional post into not refuting that for fear of not being thought "nice"......

If liberals want to tell us that sticking to the bible puts people off  church, it is completely fair to ask why for decades liberals have seen shrinking churches, year after year after year, while even in the compromised Church of England (in which far too many leaders are more concerned with being seen as "nice" rather than leading by sticking to the truth) growth  has been predominantly in evangelical churches  (eg fruit from Alpha, Christianity Explored etc)

Sorry Clare but speaking the truth (in love, with civil language) is a higher priority than being "nice" if that means not refuting false ideas.....sometimes speaking the truth in love means we have to say things which are not "nice" to hear....but we must speak the truth.

Nersen, I do wish you'd stop sneering.  However wonderfully orthodox and correct your belief may be, it doesn't seem to be bearing much fruit if you talk to those with whom you disagree with such distain. I believe it is possible to be a conservative evangelical and be nice to people too.

Not really, Madeline...."the world"  (which you seem to think you speak for) can see lots of relief work done by Christians in the world  (eg TEAR Fund, Morther Theresa's organisation, CAFOD etc)

Also, "the world" does not seem to be flocking to "liberal" churches like TEC, does it?  TEC's nos do not show that lots of people in "the world" are attracted to its flexible morality.

 Maybe "the world" is put off by the arbitrary nature of some liberal teaching which cares so much about poverty (consistent with the bible) but on certain other issues wants to ignore the bible completely.  Whatever the reason, I find it hard to accept "liberals" speak for "the world" when they have attracted so few people in the last decades.  Maybe better to ask why liberal TEC is not growing strongly as it has bent its teaching to fit in with contemporary society.... because "the world" is not very attracted to the "new thing" being done, is it?  I am not sure "liberals" can claim to speak for "the world" or about how to reach them ...not many coming in from "the world" to liberal churches in the west for many years now