³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Hollway's book looks fascinating, though I disagree with the first part of the premise: "The trouble with reading the Bible is that it claims to be God's autobiography." The bible, per se, does not claim to be written by God at all. That said, the book looks like a worthwhile read.

John, I've a feeling that Bishop Holloway knows the Bible doesn't claim to be God's autobiography! That'll teach you to rely on an amazon review! ;-)

Adam's book looks interesting

sounds like it could be helpful in keeping the church transparent and accountable.

On the other hand, I have read writings from Paul Reid before, and he has gone on record to say he was horrified at what he had done in the shepherding movement.

PB

PB- I'm not sure Paul used the word "horrified", though he probably wouldn't reject your use of the term. The movement certainly wasn't a helpful one for CFC, and many people found themselves unnecessarily hurt by it at the time. This was at a time when any charismatic congregation was seen as cultish in Northern Ireland and didn't have the more established 'feel' and wider connections and influence of today. I expect Priscilla to be sensitive and thoughtful as always on Sunday Sequence this morning.

I've read a lot of AC Grayling and I've never been impressed by his philosophy - and particularly his commentaries on religion. It betrays a mind that simply fails to understand the subject matter, mixed with a nasty little edge.

SG

Interesting discussion on Christian Rock. It is indeed big in the USA and only a matter of time before it takes off in the UK.

Anyone interested in seeing my nephew on stage singing Christian Rock in N. Ireland can go to

That's him on the left hand side of the picture.

Regards,
Michael Hull

The interesting, though not surprising, impression that I came away with was David Shepherd's continuing mantra 'in the end'. He seemed 'in the end' to reject every argument to which it appeared he was initially receptive.

I think that basically sums up where the argument to interpret the bible will remain. As we saw in the Creation Wars and Creation 101 blogs on this website, there are those like myself who agree with the Holloway (and Borg) approach and others who will never accept anything but the literal approach.

But 'in the end' maybe we have to accept that we all have our own biases and fixed positions. 'In the end' we are all on the same spiritual journey.

Regards,
Michael Hull

I thought Richard Holloway got a free run in the discussion, because the Bible college principal disn't seem to know how to argue with him. Crawley pushed him and exposed some of hi's real believes, but we needed a strongler evangelical objector. at one point, the "bishop" said he set God aside in reading the bible. What's the point? If there's no God, move on and leave the Bible to poetry classes.

I agree with Jeremy on this. Holloway wants to keep traditional religious trappings but discard the existence of God. I think the language used by Holloway is incredibly deceptive. The fact of the matter, and I think intelligent and honest atheists will agree, is that without the existence of a God the church in its current form has no purpose. Now, you can recreate it in some atheist form if you wish, but wouldn't we just be better off without it? The religion of Holloway, taken to its logical conclusion must surely be vacuous nonsense. It's fitting that his name is Holloway - because that's the religion he adheres to - a Hollow Way.

SG

William: The comments function appears to be broken on the article about Holloway & the Bible...

SG

I just listened to Adam Harbinson and Priscilla Reid on Sunday Sequence and thought Priscilla did a good job of confronting the issue for what it was while remaining sensitive about the shepherding movement. I have the following observations:

1) This is a book of one man's experience of spiritual abuse. I don't think (though I could be wrong) that it's a criticism of the charismatic New Church movement in general.

2) If it is primarily one man's account of shepherding, then it's not primarily a critique of the Shepherding Movement, which would be a little late: the movement died out in the mid eighties, and is - forgive me - rather confined to the history books in any case. An exposé that's twenty years late is a little useless. The Fort Lauderdale Five, founders of the movement, some of which had direct influence in the Northern Ireland movement, publicly repented years ago and denounced shepherding as wrong. Bob Mumford, one of the Five, said in 1990: "Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness."

3) As Priscilla pointed out, the leadership of Christian Fellowship Church in Belfast at the time resigned, including pastors and elders, in repentance. At that time CFC was only about 150 people. The church has gone on to lead the Northern Ireland New Church movement for twenty years, resource many thousands of churches worldwide with the worship music of Robin Mark and others, spearhead cross-community programs in its local area, pioneer an anti-sectarian church format and grow to a church well over a thousand people.

4) Harbinson has been unhelpful by using this language of his book being "banned" at a major conference. At conferences such as the one he refers to, the aim of having books is to edify attendees with regard to the kind of subjects they are covering. His book didn't appear to fit: end of story. There's no conspiracy, no coverup - it happened over twenty years ago! - nobody is trying to defend shepherding. Maybe someday CFC will have a conference on spiritual abuse and I'm sure his book will have pride of place; Paul Reid may even call him to be a guest interviewee. Until then, tactics like this are misleading.

(You can read more about CFC's experience of shepherding in Paul Reid's 1993 publication A New Easter Rising.)

Maybe Holloway's book should have a subtitle added;-

How to read the bible...(if you have never read it)

He says he doesnt understand why there is suffering, but the bible says;-

1) Original sin introduced evil into the heart of every person. It also introduced sickness and death.
And whereas the earth produced food freely with no effort, after the fall it was cursed ahd required
hard work to do so. Hence, famine, pestilence, wars, natural disasters and death.

2) A personal devil took 1/3 of the angels with him from heaven and for a short time have a free hand wherever man will welcome him.
A liar, destroyer and murderer, he finds plenty of willing accomplices. More suffering.

3) CS Lewis said pain was God's megaphone to get our attention. This is an explicit lesson from his dealings with the children of Israel.

Holloway also said the bible had little to say on slavery except to say treat them well. That was part of civil law in the OT
but Paul updated this in the New Testament.

So Holloway obviously hasnt read the only book in the bible dedicated to the subject, Paul's epistle to Philemon.

Paul asked Philemon to take a runaway slave back but with five qualifications;-

1) He was not to be a slave anymore.
2) He was to be more than a slave
3) He was to be a brother in the flesh.
4) He was to be a brother in the spirit.
5) He was to be treated as though he was Paul himself, an honoured leader in the early church.

Paul's letter was circulated to all churches for them to absorb and became part of the canon of holy scripture to
highlight the importance
of this message.

Small wonder the anti-slavery campaigners in American printed this leaflet out and published it widely as part of their
campaign to abolish the practise.

PB

PB, whatever else you say about Richard Holloway's theology and Bible perspective, I think we can grant that he has read all the passages in the Bible you mention. In fact, he's written a score of books on them. Perhaps we should consider another possibility, that Holloway has read the Bible but doesn't interpret the Bible as you do?

Gareth

With respect I have to remind myself that you are the same person who yesterday said on creation 101 that over 200 scientists of phd level and above had no scientific credibility to speak on evolution because it was not their area of specialism.

I think that says a lot. If what you say is true then evoltionary scientists cannot comment on the age of the earth, geology, big bang and such aspects of physics relevant to creationism.

If you had followed creation 101 you would see many aspects of science have important info to contribute to the evolution/creation discussion.

So back to the topic. If you would read Philemon to me it would require some pretty good gymnastics to get another interpretation of the passage concerned. OK i was being sarcastic, but if Hollow way has read Philemon it is staggering he can say what he did.

I am getting quite fed up with ultra-radicals on this website having little else to respond but, "that is just your interpretation of the bible" but I suppose you are at the mercy of your post-modern environment.

Original sin, the sin of man and the personal devil have been core beliefs of all aspects of Christianity since the beginning. If you want to be a 21st century heretic on these issues, then be my guest.

To me if you want to use this argument about interpretation and you want to be taken seriously then PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION!!!

I will make it easy for you..come back and give me just one serious alternative interpretation of Philemon and you will have my respect. Then we will publish the few verses concerned and people can make up their own mind. End of story.

PB

John Wright -

The book is not about the shepherding movement, it's about spiritual abuse. Obviously I draw heavily on my experiences, and the experiences of others, and in the book I make the point that spiritual abuse has always been with us. I referred to Ezekiel (chapter 34) and Jesus (Matthew 23) to make this point.
It may or may not be unhelpful to say that the book was banned, but that's the way it was. I had prior permission from the senior pastor, who had read the book, to display the books. One reason being that Phil Baker, a writer and senior minister from Perth Western Australia, was one of the two speaker, and he has endorsed the book. It is ill-advised and unfair of you to assume that the book didn't fit, since these two senior people had read it, one having endorsed it (Phil) the other having given permission (Paul Reid). You make many assumptions, and I would be delighted to review your further comments after you read the book - if you do.

Adam- I appreciate the time you take to deal with what I said. I certainly intend to get a copy of your book and am very interested in the subject matter. As someone who was part of CFC for several years, I have some questions. Given what you said about Paul giving permission to display the book at the conference, it seems strange that it was banned. Who banned it? Who protested its release? Is there anyone still defending the practice of shepherding? What other reason would someone want to ban it from the conference? Was the early CFC the church you refer to in your experiences?

I personally have witnessed at close hand what I'd describe as spiritual abuse (not at CFC but elsewhere), and wholeheartedly approve of your general subject matter. I am happy to hear you say that it isn't about the shepherding movement, per se.

Adam

I'm with you on this one.

A major strength and weakness of the new churches is lack of tradition and proper accountability.

Rather than shepherding per se it is good that the issue of accountability and transparency is flagged up for leaders to face.

PB

Attn Gareth Endo

I take it your argument that I was using a subjective argument to say the bible only condones slavery as fallen flat.

I challenged you to provide an alternative interpretation of Philemon and am still waiting.

Unless we hear from you again I would say no response means your comment was a prejudiced knee-jerk reaction which you have found you cannot substanitiate whatsoever.

PB

Two comments:
I agree with Jeremy Kyle, 'If there's no God, move on and leave the Bible to poetry classes.' Have the courage of your convictions. A Hammas leader once said to Brother Andrew, 'Christians have in their possession a weapon (the Bible)that has the capacity to blast the world system apart. But they put it in a glass case and worship it.'

Secondly, in response to John Wright's questions. Paul banned the book after protests from members of a bullying church who presumably felt exposed by it. And yes, there are still many who defend Shepherding, sometimes in mutated forms. It is naive in the extereme to expect spiritual bullying to peter out with the demise of Shepherding.

Adam

I agree with you in post 19.

In Acts Paul warns about wolves coming in after him and not sparing the flock.

Christ was constantly battling religious leaders who wanted to use God to aggrandize themselves instead of serve the laity.

In Revelation Christ also warns repeatedly of the Nico-laitans
(greek for 'conquerors of the laity').

These are not issues that will die away, but human nature does have a thing about power over others, doesnt it?

PB

I was a part of the same shepherding church as Adam and left under difficult circumstances around the same time he did.

I have ordered the book but have only read some excerpts from his website.

The excerpts were a highly one sided and imbalanced view of the elders in the fellowship where Adam seems to blame them for everything as the victim and not take any responsibility himself. In particular the excerpt called 'the tools of the abusers trade' is a real hatchet job of character assassination in his portrayal of the elders. The book has caused hurt and division amongst Christians, slandered individuals and should be left as ancient history.

R

Hello. This is the first comment I've made to a blog; I hope it works.
I am very interested in CFC, for a number of reasons. Too many to mention here. I am not worried about the shepherding movement, since it went away over 20 years ago. But I think history is important. Please, what is the shepherding movement? Why was it wrong? Jesus is our shepherd, right? And why would the discipleship movement be wrong?
Sounds to me like these terms were used wrongly. Discipleship and shepherding are things that Jesus talked about and so in that context, they would be right, but this must be something else.
I'm very ignorant.
Is the book in any nonprint form, like CD or the Internet? I'm thinking of those that cannot read print.
Thank you for reading this. Now, let's see if this works.
Kathy

Hi Kathy

The shepherding movement gave elders control over just about every decision in a believer's life.

It was sort of coming between God and the person, assuming the role of God.

I'm talking about right down to the smallest decisions in life that an elder has no biblical authority to interfere with.

I have read the book A New Easter Rising etc by Paul Reid mentioned by John Wright above.

PB