³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

William:

Congrats, and my best wishes are being extended for Mr. Hamilton on his election to the Presbyterian Moderator....


(D)

First, William, well done for predicting this one correctly several weeks ago.

Second, the fact that we still hear comments when Presbyterian ministers don't wear clerical collars suggests to me that the denomination still has a way to go.

And, of course, I have a suggestion for Mr. Hamilton. My suggestion is that timid moderators, or those who are afraid to rock the boat with progressive ideas, don't end up accomplishing much. My suggestion is that he improve the denomination's prospects by rocking the boat as much as possible. Take an air gun to those cobwebs, Norman, will you?

"He often dresses for comfort in a zipped-up fleece or a chunky sweater"

First the rack to make the sinner repent, then burn the heretic at the stake. The next thing you know he will have people confessing to sins they didn't commit thinking they were talking to just anyoldbody. Then he will denounce them and have them excommunicated, just wait and see. We'll have no spies impersonating the laity among moderators in the Kingdom, it is forbidden to bear false witness. He's going to hell along with that Taylor what's his name atheist, Jerry Adams and the rest of their sinful lot.

Marky's not in one of his lucid periods, is he?
What happened to you in the 1960's Marky? I think the people have a right to know.

Graham,

"What happened to you in the 1960's Marky? I think the people have a right to know."

Marcus mentioned having lived in Europe. France, I think he said. You think it could be that a French girl rejected him?

#3, #4, #5

Let's cut Marcus some slack. He's merely paraphrasing Matthew 7:15

>8-D

Marc has that effect.

Okay, as a serious issue for Norman.

1) Giving - is it spent effectively? How do secular organisations rate our use of funds?

2) The place of Evangelicals in PCI. How should they deal with non-evangelicals (sharing pulpits is an issue)? What is an evangelical?
How do evangelicals treat each other in PCI?

3) Rapprochement with Baptists, and other Evangelicals looking for a home outside the Free Church movement. Baptists church government is in meltdown, frankly, which caused me and many others to jump ship. Can room be made for those who diagree with paedo-baptism in Presbyterian Church government? Should they be elders? Why is it that only babies and adults get baptised in Presbyterian circles? What about children who ask for baptism? Could that bridge the divide?

4) To develop points 2 & 3. Many Christians are Evangelical first, Methodist, Baptist or Presbyterian or whatever second. Which is Norman?

5)Can PCI bring stability to a "Church hopping" culture? Should it try to?

6) How shoud PCI respond to aggressive secularism? (See the threads - Richard Dawkins takes on the Net, "Militant Atheist" found guilty of religious harassment) Is it equipped to? Are ministers equipped to? Elders? Sunday school teachers? How could we tell?

Just a few of the thoughts milling around in my brain. Maybe someone can see a structure in them.
Or maybe not...

GV

GV

I'm reminded of the Monty Python's sketch about the guy being interviewed for the Secret Service.

-"Can you keep a secret?"
-"Yes."
-"Congratulations! You're in."

Is Norman Hunter a compassionate man? Will his tenure be characterised first and foremost by compassion?

William Crawley;

"It really didn't take long for this thread to run off the road."

It didn't take much force to derail it either. Hardly one light puff of breeze did the trick. It couldn't have had much momentum. It didn't even take an "off with his head!" :-)

As a historic Presbyterian, I would plead with Pastor Hamilton to return to the Biblical model (and the historic position of the Presbyterian churches) as found in Acts 15 and simply chair the meetings of the Assembly. The PCI is becoming more Anglican and adding to/ taking from Scripture as it sees fit.

A moderator should simply be what the title says, i.e. he moderates, or chairs meetings.

I would also plead with him to obey God's Word and not put himself in any situation where he seems to accept the validity of false teachers, e.g. Roman Catholic priests and liberal churchmen. Of course, we should show love to all these and other adherents of false religions.

Jean

Does your last request cohere with your first, given the diversity of opinion in PCI?

What happened to Norman's hat?

A question I have is whether there would be interest in placing a greater priority on anti-sectarianism and peacemaking activities (can more energy or funds be devoted to the Presbyterian Peacemaking programme, especially now that some of the external funding has run out?).

Also, with the call of the Consultative Group on the Past for the churches to contribute to Dealing with the Past, how might the Presbyterian Church approach that?

Gladys

The danger with that Gladys is the Presbyterian grievances begin in 16th Century Geneva (-;

How exactly do we quantify the success of "peacemaking" activities? Churches aren't great at critically analysing such programmes, so it might be helpful if you could outline what criteria a Church can use when evaluating a proposed peace-making, or anti-sectarian activity.

GV

I suppose then that there are three groups Norman needs to consider:
1) Agressive secularists
2) Evangelicals attracted to Presbyterian Churches
3) Roman Catholic Churches (implicit in Jean and Gladys' question)

Can PCI form a coherent approach to all three?

Graham - how do you measure the success of Presbyterian peace-making? I seem to recollect a certain Rev David Armstrong in Limavady who tried his hand at that sort of thing. Upshot is he became an Anglican - seems like sucess to me. ;-)

The question I would like to see Mr Hamilton answer is: what does he think of those members of his flock, I am sure I can say those congregations in his church, who forced the Administrator of the PMS to abandon his proposals to make an equal distribution to shareholders and creditors alike? Does he consider a result which effectively caps the losses of major investors at little over £ 20,000 while offering just about no return of capital to small savers a faithful witness to the Gospel of Christ?

It does not matter whether or not the PMS is rescued, those who pressured the Administrator showed their colours when they acted. Will he condemn those actions as an egregious, indeed a Satanic, inversion of the message of Christ?

Maybe the following would be a suitable text for an induction service, if they have such things:

"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away." ÌýMatthew 25:29

Parrhasios

I am currently reading a book by Ian S. Markham, Dean and President of Virginia Theological Seminary, in which he makes a passing comment extolling the principles of Catholic Anglicanism, are you familiar with him or his work?

Sorry, this has nothing whatsoever to do with being a Presbyterian, although perhaps I shall convert; that would be another success, wouldn't it? ;-)

Peter - I have heard of him but am not familiar with his work I'm afraid. Would you suggest it would be worth my taking a look? You may be a teacher but, you know, you've given me quite a bit of homework already! I have been thinking a lot about your questions on Lecture 5 and know what I want to say in answer but not how to say it. Still trying.

Btw - I already think of you as an Anglican - in pectore. :-)

Parrhasios

The title of the book, bought just today, is probably more suited to another current thread, and is a glorious controversy!

Whether it is worth you taking a look I'm not sure yet, I have merely dipped in, and that not at the start! Its title is, "Against Atheism. Why Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are Fundamentally Wrong." (There is no exclamation mark!)

And, in chapter 2, writing about Nietzsche, he concludes, "The cosy atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris is no longer available. You cannot assume a rationality and argue there is no foundation to that rationality. You cannot use a moral vocabulary if the meaning of the terminology cannot be explained. Either God and rationality go, or God and rationality stay. Either God and morality go or God and morality stay. Either Nietzsche or theism. That is our choice."

First I declare I am learning from a secular bible course, and now a liberal Catholic Anglican; it appears I have homework of my own!

Jean at #12 - you want to return to a scriptural model - so he'll be becoming a Catholic then - don't remember the apostles being apointed as chairmen for a year - "you are Peter and would you mind chairing a few meetings for the next year"

Parr

At one stage radical peacemaking was saying merry christmas-times have changed. I don't think *my* generation of evangelicals realises how much. Never mind those in their teens and twenties.

Hi Graham Veale,

You asked about how churches could evaluate the success of peacemaking programmes ... I admit this is a difficult task. If you are interested in how the PCI evaluated its peacemaking programme, you can visit the relevant section of their website (hope this link is okay) and read the report of the external evaluator, Rodney Green. (I don't know anything about the external evaluator's background):



Some possible quantitative ways of evaluating a peacemaking programme would be 'counting' activities, i.e. how many congregations have peace groups, congregational peace agents, special cross community events, anti sectarianism education courses, etc. The growth in these could be charted over time. I understand that growth in numbers in such things doesn't necessarily mean real change in people's hearts, but it is one way of trying to 'measure.'

Another way would be through qualitative evalutions, i.e. in depth interviews with people who have participated in peacemaking programmes. You could simply ask them if or how the programme has changed their thinking about certain issues, or if their identities have changed. In my own research on evangelicals, I did a lot of interviews with people who said their views had changed through going on courses or conferences with ECONI, Evangelical Alliance, etc. Now, you can't 'generalise' from a few people to the general population with this type of research, but what this does give you an idea about is the small step by step processes by which people might change their mind about an issue like peacemaking.

Gladys

Very interesting and helpful!

GV

Gladys

ECONI and Evangelical Alliance are generally considerd to be on the Evangelical "Left" in Northern Ireland. (They'd be centrists anywhere else in the universe, but there you go...)

To your knowledge have any "conservative" evangelical groups produced peacemaking initiatives? Specifically groups that would take an anti-ecumenical stance?

GV

Hi Parahasios

fyi ref PMS, no congregations forced the administrator to abandon plans for an equal distribution.

As I understand it the administrator had no option but to seek guidance from the high court on the matter and the high court had no option but to rule as it did.

It would appear the challenge made in the case was quite incidental to the outcome. The question about the motives of those bringing the challenge can still remain of course.

OT

Hi Gladys

PCI made a formal submission to the CGP on the past, which I am sure is in the public domain.

As I recall, it praised the CGP work in many areas but took issue with the equating of "terrorists" with their victims but in a pretty low key way. I will be corrected.


As for peacemaking and ECONI, you will note ECONI is no more and it is now the Centre for Contemporary Christianity (I think), which was being significantly funded by the Northern Ireland Office.

I thought the work of ECONI was critical at some stages of our NI history. It did a fantastic job.


However it always appears to me that this type of work is riding a very difficult tension for Christians.

My perception at this time is that if it is underpinned by a biblical worldview it is a real asset.

I know Christ said the work of the peacemakes was blessed in the sermon on the mount.


We cannot biblically equate one narrow national interest and political identity with the gospel and the kingdon of God, it is sacrilige. People of all tribes and tongues will be in the kingdom. honest communication and perceptions of ourselves and our true identity are vitally important in such a conflict.

And yet on the other hand it is equally unbiblical to advance a worldview which works for peace but does not accept universal sin, the crucifixation and what Christ said about the situation precededing and during his return.

This is not an abstract concept, but a very real global peace movement, which many well meaning people support but which does not prioritise such core values.

From our previous conversations Gladys I would understand that you would not value these points in the same way I would.

I dont have any problem working within secular structures and teams for just purposes, but I feel uneasy about integrating with movements which claim to be biblical and use biblical language but which subvert traditional biblical values.

For example, if a "biblical" peace movement felt uncomfortable with the centrality of Christ's claim: "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me."

...then I would be compelled to ask why this was a problem to the movement and would I feel compromised in any way by adjoining to it.

Interested in your thoughts Gladys, GV??



OT

Will have you ever considered taking up comedy?? i couldn't stop laughing at this line above:
"The current Moderator, Dr Stafford Carson, has impressed many by his calm, intelligent and personal response to the PMS crisis"

lol yes he denied the PMS had anything to do with the church and held it's doomed investors at arm's reach until he could pretend no more and had to acknowledge them...then he fluffed about until they left altogether and joined other churches.... quite frankly he is on the same level as past moderator Davey

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the blogosphere...

"i couldn't stop laughing at this line above"

getting out a little more may be one option...

OT

I'm probably to the "right" of ECONIs general membership (it doesn't exist anymore, but you know what I mean). There are aspects of Roamn Catholic doctrine, generally surrounding the sacraments that I think obscure the gospel, and make joint services very problematic.

That's not to say there aren't lots of Committed Christians in the RC Church, etc etc. But I do want to treat their core beliefs with respect, and not pretend that there's common ground where none exists.

OK. So that makes peacemaking a little *more* difficult for me, doesn't it? So shouldn't I be putting *more* effort into confronting sectarianism? Are there conservative evangelical Bible studies, or even statements, that confront sectarianism. Never mind programmes.

Isn't this quite a hole to fill?

GV

how long do we wait for Norman's free DMin from PTFI? am sure the rest of us who work for our doctorates are a bit cheesed off...

as for the PMS situation, surely this would need a female moderator?

Thanks GV

You know sometimes I think you usually speak to a stereotype of me, but not actually me

:)

Did you know I am a trade union activist who has been an active supporter of NI reconciliation for some 15 years?

I think EA do a great job.

Believe it or not the idea of RC doctrine never crossed my mind when I wrote my last post here.

I understand ECONI actuall still exists but under a new name, mentioned before.

I think much of their work has addressed questions of politics, faith and identity in a way that objective conservatives are obliged to applaud.

RC doctrine shares most if not all the main underpinnings I mentioned before.

I think training for unbelievers is great; I think new churches that take a simpler NT approach to "church" and can embrace Irish, British and other national identities might be the most effective way forward.

I just feel caution about "peace" movements that do not define "peace" nor the roots of conflict from biblical underpinnings, while subverting biblical terms.

OT

OT
You sometimes think I'm debating you when I'm just making a point.

Gladys' site shows interest in "conservative" evangelicals. I don't think I quite fit her definition. But that's why i raised the subject.

GV

OT

Just to be clear, I don't think your views fall into one neat category. You're...unique. Idiosyncratic. Unpredictable. In a good way.

You're basically like a man in his own private counterculture. If you found that the majority of people agreed with the majority of your opinions, you'd probably think that you were doing something wrong.
(-:
I mean that in good way. I only call you a fundamentalist to wind you up.
They haven't made the category for you yet.
GV

Thanks GV :)

I think a clean and glorious church ie universal invisible, not denominational and visible, is the best antidote to sectarianism.

Western Christianity has become so intellectualised and theologised compared to the NT that so many people bang heads together on account of what is effectively man made tradition.

How much progress would be made in NI if we set aside Loyala and Calvin, embraced all national identities and sat down together to study the gospels together, to embrace both James and Galatians.

The primary doctrine overall of the early church was the Christ had risen.

I know many churches and Christians who do walk this path. Its not complicated but because it is not an established denomination it has poor visibility and credibility to society at large.

In NI I think we cannot offer the gospel aside from the overall national idenities of the kingdom of god, it is integrated within it.

That is why I get tetchy about Christian reconciliation without Christ.
Why take out the good news to give only reasonably good news?

You've done a lot of work in this field Gladys, Im just a blow in - any thoughts?


OT

GV have you ever heard the term "a suck-up"? and whats with the constant barrage against me? wherever i post you are there to stick a dagger in for no reason other then to feed your own incessant ego, your like richard dawkins except he can at times be interesting

ps Graham - what is your definition of fundamentalist?

Mine would be a person who seperates himself from all academia, culture and historical understandings of scripture instead of entering all those worlds and bringing sense to them in the love and service of Christ.

:)

Hi Graham Veale,

You asked, 'To your knowledge have any "conservative" evangelical groups produced peacemaking initiatives? Specifically groups that would take an anti-ecumenical stance?'

I have done some study of groups that take an anti-ecumenical stance, and to my knowledge they have not participated in what I think we mean in this discussion by peacemaking or reconciliation activities (i.e. stuff akin to that done by ECONI/Centre for Contemporary Christianity).

Most conservative evangelicals that I spoke with were more interested in 'single identity work,' feeling that many Protestants (especially young protestants) didn't really know what it meant to be a 'biblical' Protestant and needed to have their faith and identity strengthened before interacting with the other side.

That said, I think some quite conservative evangelical congregations around NI have been involved in community projects with some other churches, say around drugs or anti social behaviour, so it isn't a case of no 'contact' whatsoever.

Orthodox Tradition, you write:

'And yet on the other hand it is equally unbiblical to advance a worldview which works for peace but does not accept universal sin, the crucifixation and what Christ said about the situation precededing and during his return.'

I am not sure who or what organisations you are thinking of when you say that? I think plenty of people involved with ECONI/CCCI and/or EA would accept the reality of sin and Christ's death/resurrection. Not all maybe, but certainly most.

And I think what Christ said about the situation preceding and during his return is certainly up for debate. I have problems if someone claims that they have THE biblical view on this matter. I don't think the relevant passage in Matthew, the book of Revelation, etc, for example, are necessarily straightforward!

It seems to me Jesus and his early followers actually had quite a flexible way of interpreting scripture themselves ... (i.e. what happened to Hebrew dietary laws?). I think the bible is quite a dynamic book and this has provided people with plenty of resources down through history to work for peace, justice, etc.

Glad that other fella who used to be over Magherafelt didn't get it! He wouldn't even let the union flag into his church during the orange service....wasn't long till he was told cheerio!

Gladys

Thanks for that.

GV

OT

There's no clear defintion of fundamentalist, but I'm with the spirit of what you say.

I think that "fundamentalism" is helpful for describing a particular alliance of conservative evangelicals from the 1920s up to th 1970s, and maybe even the 1980s (the Protestants of Falwell's Moral Majority). That alliance has broken up to a large extent. The way of thinking still survives. So I'll use the term, loosely, now and then.

I'm not sure that fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Buddhists, or fundamentlist Hindus have enough in common to be lumped together. For example fundamentalist Muslims may have no gripe with evolution and be passionately antagonistic to traditional, conservative Muslims.
For a loose definition of Fundamentalist Protestantism I'd expand on what you said by adding:

(1) Protestant fundamentalists can consistently engage with a wider democratic culture if (a) they do not adopt the vocabulary and concpets of that culture and (b) they do not attempt to persuade that culture using it's own concepts. Sp I think intellectual and cultural separation from a "secular" culture is one component of fundamentalism.
This may be what Gladys means by "conservative" evangelicals (or maybe not).
They may want to organise so as to oppose gay marriage or abortion. it's the strategy that is revealing. They'll typically justify their position to a wider society by stating that they are following God's word. They avoid "public" arguments, but will use the public democratic square to advance their ideals.
However some fundamentalist churches prefer to separate from the wider culture altogether. I was raised in denominations that did not even wish to vote.

(2) I'd add a suspicion of the academy, especially the arts and above all mainstream theology. The harder the science, the more tangible and practical the benefits, the better.

(3) A very strong tendency to a literalist hermeneutic. The idea being that the Bible as it is was written for men as they are.

(4) A tendency to "revivalism" - evangelism as an event. Which, frankly, has been carried uncritically into Evangelicalism.


I may make fun of "fundies" but I'm usually just joshing around. I wouldn't judge them as harshly as some W&T bloggers. I like the anti-elitist attitude. And it's easy to miss the charitable work that fundamentalists carried out on a local level, especially in the Depression.
Theologically I share most of their key convictions - the importance of the Trinity, the Incarnation, miracles, the Resurrection, the centrality of Scripture, the Parousia, the need for personal conversion, the importance of personal piety and experiential faith. And so on..

GV

cheers Graham

Makes sense to me...

I think one major problem is that the history of the church has always returned time and again to a primaryily literal backbone of reading the scriptures. always.

Sure, there have been different emphases and different but complimentary interpratations of many issues, and sure there is hyperbole, symbol and metaphor in the scripture, but that is still the case, the church always returned to a broadly literal foundation in every century.

historically, its just a fact. eg the resurrection.

where I believe the term fundamentalist is really abused today, and I believe the spirit of the NT is very much on this line too, is if you look at where the NT talks about false teachers, eg epistles of Peter.

There are always people in every age who deliberately want to introduce heresy into churches and by this they and we both know these are teachings that have never been accepted by the church universal and are blatantly at odds with scripture.

Such people want to wrap themselves the cloak of classical church teaching and respectability when they know they are actually opposed to it.

I remember once hearing about how a loyalist gave a severe hiding to another "Protestant" on a loyalist housing estate. He warded off any possible help for his victim by yelling sectarian abuse at him while he beat him, deliberately portraying him as RC.

To me that is how the term fundamentalist is mostly used today, as a red herring thrown out by dissemblers who wish to discredit those that have their number!

I'm thinking in particular of people who multiply the volume of modern scholarship that few lay people can really grasp and then point to the volume of writing as proof of their legitimacy, such teachers carefully avoid giving a clear picture of how consistent and widespread church teaching has been on the really core issues down through history.

eg again, the resurrection.

OT

OT

You mean "humpty-dumpty" words? Folk who preach that God exists, but by God they mean "I like the universe" or "stuff exists"? By the Resurrection they mean "don't give up, the disciples didn't"?

Yeah, those guys puzzle me. Church without belief is like liver without the vitamins. What's the point?

GV

How long will it be before Irish Presbyterains consider electing a woman moderator?