I think I can give several examples of what Howard is talking about , where
evangelicals are at best harassed and at worst hounded out because they do
not hold to some evangelical , or rather ultra-fundamentalist, shibboleth
and in recent decades especially a 6 day creation. At times this can be done
in a vicious way.
That type of view is not absent in Britian and can be evidenced by some who
are very quick to dismiss another as non-Christian. I am liable to get
clobbered as I dont speak in tongues, did not have a Damascus road
conversion (actually I was just like Paul as my conversion took months
rather than minutes - read acts carefully) and am a wooly liberal on
Genesis.
It is often claimed that it is hardline evangelicals are the worst for abuse
(there is no other word) against fellow members of the body of Christ.
However they are not unique as those of a liberal bent can be as abusive and
I think the recent history of the ECUSA shows that, and some liberal
Christians are incredibly illiberal in their lack of tolerance for others.
As for myself I have witnessed and experienced religious abuse equally from
the left and the right and I think my total christian stance is fairly close
to Howard's.
Regards
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
To: "Michael Roberts" <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: P.J. Bowler book
> >From: "Michael Roberts" <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
>
> > Sorry but I do have a wicked streak and at times subscribe to the view
that
> > to be an evangelical one must not have a sense of humour. It is often
true.
> >
> > I suppose it is partly because conservative and evangelical clergy were
so
> > rare in the Church in Wales (in recent years it has climbed steeply to
10%
> > compared to 35% or more in the Church of England) that I tend to be
> > irreverent to liberals. I also get rather fed up with liberals who think
it
> > is they and they alone who have any intellectual component to their
faith
> > and conservatives (even you and me) have committed intellectual suicide
and
> > are basically fundamentalist.
> >
> > I also find much liberal theological writing today is plain wooly as one
can
> > never find any real substance as what they say is wrapped up in luvly
(sic)
> > sounding words that it flows over you and you think "this is good" until
you
> > ask "What did he say?" At least Spong says exactly what he means.
> >
> > I am hoping the next Archbishop of canterbury is not a wooly liberal! As
> > there is much jockeying for position and also a campaign against Michael
> > Nazir Ali because he is conservative it is a time for concern. Some are
> > trying to claim that Nazir Ali has concealed from everyone the fact that
he
> > was a Roman Catholic while a teenager and was received into the Anglican
> > Church in Pakistan at the age of 20. This type of thing concerns me as I
> > thought it was common knowledge that Nazir ali had RC roots. Probably
most
> > of us have links with other denominations which is a good thing.
> >
> > I hope the Church of England can avoid the problems of the Episcopal
Church,
> > but then some of the problems caused by ultra-conservatives in certain
> > denominations are just as bad and I am sure many can give examples.
>
> Michael,
>
> Thanks for your candor. My own history leads me to be far more wary of
lint
> (the dust of yesterday's disintegrating garments) from the right than wool
> from the left.
>
> Howard
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 13 2002 - 16:45:30 EST