Press Release
1.0 Conservative Evangelicals are clearly trying to create a defining moment for the Anglican Communion. The declaration by the Anglican Church of Tanzania separating itself from all who ordain, who are, or who support homosexual people, together with Reform’s “Covenant” are the next stages in the rolling out of a strategy which will, if allowed to proceed destroy the Anglican Communion.
2.0 We are seeing the development of a long term plan developed by various people on various continents which is intended to bring the Anglican Communion out of its historically generous and open position, into a narrowly defined, confessional group of churches rooted in the religious right of the United States and extending from there across the world.
2.1 We understand that the Tanzania declaration was produced at the behest of others with the specific aims of undermining the Presiding Bishop of the United States, challenging the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and derailing the moves towards an inclusive Covenant which the Communion is beginning to make. It is a deliberately incendiary move. The intention is to pre-empt any decisions the Primates’ Meeting in February might make so that elements from the Global South and disaffected elements of the Episcopal Church rebels can proceed with their plan to set up an alternative Communion.
3.0 Reform’s “Covenant” brings this strategy into England. The authors of the “Covenant” (all male, all white) and their cohorts are, simply, using the politics of the playground, issuing financial threats and huffing and puffing in an attempt to bring the Church of England into line. The most cursory reading demonstrates a startlingly inadequate ecclesiology and a deep misunderstanding of the role of bishops. They are showing increasing militancy and becoming more and more vocal, because those of us who support the orthodox, historic and open tradition of Anglicanism are, unexpectedly, refusing to lie down and be trampled on.
4.0 Underlying all this is an obsession with homosexuality which flies in the face of human understanding, of natural law and of the Gospel; fundamentally, the labelling of homosexuality as “intrinsically sinful” offers the only chance for unity that these groups can find. It means that Biblical scholarship is distorted to justify the anathematising of homosexuals, and that the Gospel is reduced to a message where the rejection of lesbian and gay people lies millimetres below the surface.
5.0 InclusiveChurch has always, from the beginning, tried to be open to those with whom we disagree. We have sought meetings with conservative groups, and have tried to ensure that the breadth, generosity and openness of Anglicanism is extended to those who would reject that breadth and generosity. But we find that these groups, in the end, do not wish to engage. They wish to set up a separate structure which will keep them safe from taint. In the first place, the taint of homosexuality. Beyond that, the taint of women as bishops (or indeed as priests); and beyond that, the risk of change.
5.1 InclusiveChurch is committed to orthodox Anglicanism, which preaches the gospel of the liberating love of God. Jesus came to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind and to let the oppressed go free. Nowhere in the statements of these conservative groups and churches do we hear of the boundless love of God. The theology of the Reform “Covenant” bears as much relation to Anglican theology as that of Calvin and Zwingli did to Hooker and Andrewes.
6.0 We ask the people of Reform: “Why do you not have the courage of your convictions and leave the Church of England altogether? When your actions and your statements display so clearly your wish to distort the church of the Elizabethan Settlement, the Protestant revival, the Oxford Movement and the innovations of the twentieth century, why do you not simply realign yourselves with other churches? Why do you want to remain Anglican if that Anglicanism is a travesty of the gift we have been given?
The logic of your statement is you should secede from the Church of England altogether, not have it restructured to accommodate your narrow views of who may or may not be an Anglican. Inclusivity is written into the title deeds of the Church of England and we ask you to respect it.
But if you leave, you may not take the name “Anglican”; for the church you create will not be an Anglican church.
6.1 Or, if you wish to remain in the Church of England, then remain in the knowledge that we are all required, in love, to engage with each other. We inclusive Christians undoubtedly have a great deal to learn from you; we all, undoubtedly have a great deal in common. Stay in the knowledge that engagement will bring about change. And that God speaks not just to you but to others as well. And that all our understanding of God’s will – yours and ours – is flawed, because we are all flawed.”
7.0 We say to the senior hierarchy of the Church, to Archbishops, Primates and senior staff of the church: “Enough is enough. This squabbling needs to be brought to an end. There is no justification for a Bishop from the province of Nigeria exercising jurisdiction in the United States. There is no justification for Alternative Episcopal Oversight or Extended Primatial Oversight or any other terms used to cloak intolerance. There is no way a province can declare itself to be “out of communion” with another province. We ask you to say to the rebels, whether they are provinces or parishes – ‘leave or engage: if you engage, respect the structures: and listen to the spirit as it speaks to the whole church’. This bullying and hectoring must cease, so that the Gospel can be proclaimed anew. If that means that this generation oversees a split in the Communion, so be it. We trust in God for the future of the Church.”
8.0 To laity and clergy throughout the Communion we say: “You are the future. The Gospel we have been given lies with you to pass on. Are you willing to allow that Gospel to be distorted and broken, to allow the Communion to be torn into something it is not, for the sake of a concept of tradition, biblical truth and God which is exclusive and condemnatory? Are you willing to allow the Communion to go the way of all sects, into marginal oblivion?
We need, all of us, to speak, to pray and to love. We need to seek ways to engage with those with whom we disagree, in worship, in prayer and in our daily lives. We need also to engage with all the structures of the Communion – the Instruments of Unity, Synods, Bishops and officers, making our passion and our commitment known.
But, in the end, we need to be willing to say to those who would undermine the Gospel we proclaim: leave, if you will. Taking your money with you. We are all diminished by division but if division comes, so be it. God’s love will not be constrained.”
Giles Goddard: Chair, InclusiveChurch
St John of the Cross: December 14th 2006
original press release here, and continued here.
These are very serious allegations–especially 2.1.
I cannot imagine that this would be said in public without clear supporting documentation. Where is it, please?
Para 4.0 says, “Underlying all this is an obsession with homosexuality which flies in the face of … natural law.” That’s puzzling–unstated arguments in FAVOR of homosexuality from “natural law.” Where would one discern this natural law? Nature teaches a rather un-homosexual message. Para. 5.1 says: + that “InclusiveChurch is committed to orthodox Anglicanism”. Why? And what could orthodoxy mean in this context? + that “Jesus came to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind and to let the oppressed go free.” Quite true. But he also came not… Read more »
Please excuse me if I find the tone shrill and unhelpful. The overall tenor of this piece seems to prefer a religion called Anglicanism – which is sort of defined. I thought that we were simply a branch of the Christian Church and in that Church Christianity is defined within certain parameters which we would call Apostolic. Therefore what is Anglican must be within those parameters. To take it beyond those parameters would suggest another religion. This is exactly the analysis of +Rochester and others. That is at the heart of the divisions that we are experiencing. It is not… Read more »
First of all, I have a general agreement with the position of the InclusiveChurch reply to Reform and Tanzania. However, it is stretched to the point where it is on two places at once. It is saying it always has been inclusive, and then go if you will and take the money. These two points are unavoidable. But it has its own internal stretching. It is making the point that (5.1) InclusiveChurch is committed to orthodox Anglicanism, defined as Jesus’ social gospel and boundless love of God. This is not going to convince those who define orthodoxy as doctrinal, and… Read more »
The Inclusive Church reply is what I have wanted to hear, and tried to say, for some time. I recognise it as authentically Anglican and Christian. It restores my hope in the Church I was brought up in, and I pray that it will, this Advent-tide, put the incarnate God in Jesus back into our discourse, and wake us from the nightmare in which we have been eating our own church alive for too long.
Faith, hope, love these three. The love went. The hope flickered. Now let us have them back, all three.
Its clear enough that there are views and attitudes which are diametrically opposed and incompatible. Why can’t we simply accept this and agree that we need to work within separate organisations?
Personally, I think ‘traditional,apostolic christianity’ has very little of worth to offer, but quite how that view can sit alongside others which regard it as literal, revealed truth is unfathomable.
Rather than calling upon one or other side to ‘leave’ , there needs to be a civil and respectful separation. Why can’t this happen?
Can’t you just feel the love oozing from the (presumably black and female) chair of InclusiveChurch? (Part of the problem with this broad alliance of evangelicals is evidently that this statement was prepared by white males.)
It may be inconvenient to some but we should remember that the gospel is actually exclusive. The gospel of Jesus Christ offends precisely because it does not, never has and never will be what the universalists claim: by definition, according to Jesus Himself, the Christian message excludes and it cannot be all-inclusive. An all-inclusive gospel is not the authentic gospel. Period.
I welcome the Statement from IC (above) and am relieved, encouraged and grateful for it.
Surely this kind of thinking and that of Simon Butler;and Simon Morden and perhaps some of Fulcrum could bear fruit and point a creative way forward.
‘the heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind’ *
(Father Faber, English Hymnal)
* How I wish I was. How I wish we were.
Anyone for Confession ?
By “we understand” we mean “we draw the inference from the number and speed of current events” or “our reading of the direction of recent statements is”. Very happy to replace “we understand” with “it is probable that”. If further evidence were needed, it’s worth looking at http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/print.php?storyid=5168 Apologies too if our tone is “shrill and unhelpful”. I guess our reading is that the situation is very grave, and that the church we are part of with its tradition and understanding of the Gospel is under threat. We believe that strong words are necessary to emphasise the seriousness of the… Read more »
Concerning 2.1 we in TEC have seen the work of the network to create a province X along with the Chapman memo as was a the creation of CAPA by Akinola. There may be no proof of the Tanzania but considering the track record of these people I could believe it. Concerning this: Para 4.0 says, “Underlying all this is an obsession with homosexuality which flies in the face of … natural law.” That’s puzzling–unstated arguments in FAVOR of homosexuality from “natural law.” Where would one discern this natural law? Nature teaches a rather un-homosexual message. As a teacher of… Read more »
Ian Montgomery writes “I thought that we were simply a branch of the Christian Church and that Church Christianity is defined within certain parameters which we would call Apostolic.” Gee, what parameters are we talking of here? What if those parameters were different in truth than what we have been led to believe? Do you honestly think that I am to accept the argument that all we know about Christ has been learned, therefore setting parameters that must not be changed? I guess that is when I see photographs of worship services of certain sects where most of the people… Read more »
Both the Reform statement and Inclusive Church’s reply seem to suffer from corporate amnesia. The Church of England I knew as a young person was tolerant without having some form of legislated or institutional recognition of diversity. Diocesan bishops regularly permitted retired bishops, many of whom had served abroad, to confirm and even ordain in Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical parishes where the Ordinary might not have felt comfortable or the congregation comfortable with the Ordinary. Liberal bishops with liberal agendas are not something new. One thinks of Gore, Temple, Henson whose beliefs shocked conservatives of many stripes. I remember conservative evangelical… Read more »
I want to add my voice to those who are relieved by the frankness, earnestness, and evident sincerity of the IC statement. Far from being “shrill and unhelpful”, it is a rather sober and well-considered response to a very troubling moment. It is always distressing to admit that a union might be threatned by ‘irreconcilable differences’, but when I compare some of the statements on this page (passim Neil Barber and Ian Montgomery) with the Anglican tradition I love, I think separation – at least for the short term – is now inevitable. Bickering about which tradition is authentic (or… Read more »
Clarification question.
The statement above says…
“Inclusivity is written into the title deeds of the Church of England and we ask you to respect it.”
Would someone be kind enough to point me in the right direction to see this for myself?
Robert, I think that’s what we mean; natural law increasingly teaches us that sexuality is a spectrum. So the important thing is not how we’re made, but how we live out the way we’re made as humans…. The hope is always that we can move on from discussion of sexuality to discussion of God and the Gospel but so often the discussion is brought back to sex. That’s why it appears as an obsession. So often it reminds of committees which get tied down on tiny issues while the bigger ones are ignored.
Merseymike wrote ‘Its clear enough that there are views and attitudes which are diametrically opposed and incompatible. Why can’t we simply accept this and agree that we need to work within separate organisations?’
Neither Reform or Inclusive Church seem to have any intention of leaving the Church of England. The questions which remain are ‘can they peacefully coexist?’ and ‘what structures are needed to facilitate that?’.
Marvelously ludicrous and absurd. However, my personal favorite is paragraph 6. I love the way “innovations of the 20th century” is positioned in the list of what constitutes Anglicanism (at least in the mind of the author). The fact that “innovations” are definitionally not part of the Apostolic faith, and that it is these self-same “innovations” that are the point of contention seems to escape the scrivener. Can anyone say–“Convicted out of his own mouth”?
Steven
“If sexuality is what divides us then maybe we should start distancing ourselves from all people who are not “normal.” Robert Christian Where to start, where to start…the world is filled with the sexual complexities delivered by such grotesque folks as warrior rapists (MACHISMO MALE seekers of male or female/equal opportnity victims…afterall, rape *is* merely a “power” kinda thing has nothing to “do” with REAL sex because there is no homosexuality in Africa even though these fellas can’t be considered “normal” by even +Orombi/Akinola standards…verdad?)…most sexual “mischief” makers are heterosexual everywhere/anyway just because of the number of heterosexuals in the… Read more »
On the subject of “natural law”, my take on that would be that we do not all have to be the same, that in animal or human groups different members can and do take on different roles. GLBT people are just the presenting issue for Reform et al – the line where they can get the most agreement for now. Although I’m straight, hearing the statements about “intrinsic disorder”, and people not being allowed to make a choice which has no negative impact on others, inevitably reminds me of the hostile reactions I’ve often had as someone who remains childfree… Read more »
Having read Giles’ statement on behalf of IC, I find myself both relieved and fearful. I am relieved because there is finally evidence that the Calvinist curse has not been visited ONLY upon our Episcopal Church! We know so little and hear so little from the C of E that I began to wonder if we alone had been chosen to suffer such slings and arrows. Thank God, you Brits are in it with us! I feel fearful because I share with Giles the sense that this is massively important, and like most people, I do not see an easy… Read more »
Neil B wrote “It may be inconvenient to some but we should remember that the gospel is actually exclusive…” My reading of the gospel is that Jesus fought against exclusionism. In fact, Jesus was more worried about the people who were excluded than those who were saved. e.g. Luke 5:30-32. What is repentance? Embracing the exclusionist puritanical thinking that Jesus fought against? Or embracing faith in God and allowing God to be the judge and getting on with meting out true justice: showing mercy and compassion to one another. And on the comments of historical edificacy. The universe laughs at… Read more »
‘A plague o’ both your houses!’ Or more constructively, shouldn’t all concerned be down on their knees begging God’s forgiveness for the havoc being wreaked on his Son’s body on earth? Indeed shouldn’t we all?
Erasmus ; I think the chances of co-existence are nil – so-existence is what we have now. It doesn’t work.
There needs to be an acceptance that the CofE is not united and would be better formally split. I simply think its a question of how that happens not if or when.
“What is repentance? Embracing the exclusionist puritanical thinking that Jesus fought against? Or embracing faith in God and allowing God to be the judge and getting on with meting out true justice: showing mercy and compassion to one another.”–Posted by: Cheryl Clough
Right on, Cheryl! Thank the Lord that all Australian Anglicans are not Sydney Calvinists!
Like Fr. Tony Clavier, I am puzzled why we cannot continue to disagree and pray together as in the past. But this seems no longer to be the case, regardless of the preferences of Fr. Clavier or myself.
Bishop Robinson has said consistently that he wanted to continue to be in the same church as Archbishop Akinola. Archbishop Akinola has clearly never agreed.
It takes two for reconciliation. The Fulcrum Evangelicals (if I may be permitted this shorthand reference) seem to be willing to talk about things. The Reform Evangelicals seem to have non-negotiable demands.
Oh, Merseymike:
I agree as always. The difficulty is that when push comes to shove the liberal response is always “you get out and leave us with all the goodies!” You can translate this terminology into something more high-blown and ethereal, but it comes down to the same thing — our way or the highway! There needs to be some kind of willingness to seek a fair division of the patrimony of the church in England and the U.S. or there is going to be nothing but bitterness and chaos.
Steven
“A Pastoral Letter from the Archbishop of Uganda,” so far available only on TitusOneNine, makes it clear that Uganda too is breaking with the Anglican Communion. http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/p=16707 Two paragraphs give the flavor: “I have been in consultation with the other Primates and Archbishops of Africa and the Global South about this crisis in our beloved Anglican Communion. We have written to the Archbishop of Canterbury and informed him that we cannot sit together with Katharine Jefferts Schori at the upcoming Primates Meeting in February. We have also asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite an orthodox Bishop from the Anglican… Read more »
I loved no 6.0: “We ask the people of Reform: “Why do you not have the courage of your convictions and leave the Church of England altogether? ……. Why do you want to remain Anglican if that Anglicanism is a travesty of the gift we have been given?” Now, given that liberals like those in IC see the Church of England’s official teaching about sexuality issues as oppressive and hated filled (That the only sanctified form of sexual partnership is life-long marriage, and that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equally congruous with biblical teaching or with the order of creation/evolution… Read more »
Its only when both sides actually stop talking about the other ‘leaving’ that we may get somewhere.
No one group is going to ‘leave’ voluntarily, so the answer has to be a split, where no one leaves byt two organisations are formed.
Both sides accuse the other of wanting to keep all the spoils. Steven, above, accuses liberals, others accuse evangelicals.
But both miss the fact that whilst this sort of row goes on, everyone loses
Since the ‘purple shirts’ of several African provinces are afraid of contamination, were TEC’s PB Schori to attend the Primates’ Meeting in February 2007, why doesn’t ++Rowan Cantuar put his foot down and cancel the meeting as well as Lambeth 2008. Rather than have unchristian primates make a spectacle of themselves to a secular world of throwing four-year-old temper tantrums, ++Cantuar could, by cancelling the meetings, create space for them to learn how to behave themselves. Why pander to their antics and give them a stage on which to perform in a shameful and disgraceful way as hate-mongering, gay-bashing and… Read more »
Why don’t liberals leave the church? Liberals don’t leave the church because they have the temerity to believe sincerely that they are Christians and have as much right to be there as conservatives. It’s clear from the above discussions that some conservatives believe they have the right to say who is and who is not Christian (though left to themselves, we know they’d be excluding one another). Let’s say an important person invites a diverse group of guests to a banquet (don’t know where I got that one from). Some of the guests might have table manners that to others… Read more »
I’m puzzled by the gloating tone I read in some of the evangelical opposition postings; as though they expect to win something. I agree with Brother John-Julian above, I see this breakup of the Anglican Communion and of its constituent churches as a catastrophe. I can’t see how anyone will be well served by this, even those who expect to be vindicated. In an increasingly volatile and violent world so sharply divided along sectarian lines, the end of Anglican comprehensiveness would be an irreplaceable loss. The holy men of the earth throw anathemas and human bombs at each other daily.… Read more »
This statement needed to be made and it is perfectly correct, it seems to me.
It is the “equal and opposition reaction”.
A clear case of stalemate.
So what do you do? Do both sides declare victory and walk apart in a huff? Do you throw the chessboard in the fire?
Or do you live together amicably united in the faith you share and agreeing to disagree?
WWJD?
The answer to Dave’s question, why liberals do not leave, is because they never have except as individuals. A key moment in this would be the Feathers Tavern petition of Theophilus Lindsey against clerical subscription to the thirty-nine articles (1771-72). Lindsey was a faithful vicar at Catterick, gave up his living and started the first named Unitarian Church in London when it was still illegal, based on Sameuel Clarke’s Arian revision prayer book. He got his mate John Disney to be the second minister. What did not happen, and what he wanted, was for those who agreed with him to… Read more »
There are two fundamental reasons to remain progressive inside the larger embraces of historic Anglican leeway. One is love of God, and the other is love of neighbor. Following these centers of value as one seeks to live as progressively as possible is a fine way to follow Jesus of Nazareth. Some progressive touchstones: Open-endedness instead of closure, Inquiry instead of prefabricated condemnations or judgments, Provisional best practice tool kits for discernment instead of categorical legacy absolutes, Democracy instead of the Divine Right of Monarchs, Apostolic authority flowing through the laity who call and discern the priests and bishops to… Read more »
Neil Barber wrote: “Can’t you just feel the love oozing from the (presumably black and female) chair of Inclusive Church? (Part of the problem with this broad alliance of evangelicals is evidently that this statement was prepared by white males.)”
Evidently – and no this is a narrow alliance, see what Fulcrum says in its “initial response”.
Neil Barber wrote: “An all-inclusive gospel is not the authentic gospel. Period.“
However, an exclusivist or self-serving one isn’t even a gospel, much less the Gospel.
Pluralist wrote: “It is making the point that (5.1) Inclusive Church is committed to orthodox Anglicanism, defined as Jesus’ social gospel and boundless love of God. This is not going to convince those who define orthodoxy as doctrinal, and they won’t regard this as orthodoxy at all. So why stretch and play this game?“ From Paul until the doctrinal orthodoxy of Calvinism, the Gospel of God’s righteousness in Christ was about God’s boundless love, expressed in his forbearance and out-giving of himself on the cross. We were forbidden to judge eachother. For 16th century theologians even Anselm’s much distorted satisfactio… Read more »
‘Theophilus Lindsey against clerical subscription to the thirty-nine articles (1771-72). Lindsey was a faithful vicar at Catterick, gave up his living and started the first named Unitarian Church in London when it was still illegal’
I am grateful for this information. It is of great interest to me.
I think all any of us can (try to ) do is to keep faith with our truth as it unfolds, and seek to repect the journies and explorations of others.
It is astonishing to me that Cheryl called Neil a terrorist at 8pm last night and the only comment since has been to agree with her. “You are no better that the 9-11 or July 7 bombers…. You demand submission and use intimidation and threats to get loyalty…. How are you different to those who take hostages and “convert” them at gun point?” It seems that the ‘thinking’ and ‘liberal’ anglicans who use this site have at least sympathy for her comments. Do you wonder why dioceses controlled by the ‘thinking’ and the ‘liberal’ sometimes leave evangelicals feeling unreasonably handled… Read more »
Giles Goddard writes that ‘sexuality is a spectrum’. I wonder how many societies have even had a word for ‘sexuality’ at all. I can’t recall hearing the word until a few years ago. Its origin is not hard to seek. For it is a short step from (1) introducing a word ‘sexuality’ to (2) proclaiming that all sexualities are equal. (2) is the presupposition and the raison d’etre of (1). Had there never been homosexuals wanting their own proclivity to be seen as equal (by what criterion? not productivity; not biological ‘fit’), then I doubt the word ‘sexuality’ would have… Read more »
It seems that the ‘thinking’ and ‘liberal’ anglicans who use this site have at least sympathy for her comments writes Charlie.
That might be because “thinking” and “liberal” readers recognise hurt and the anger that springs from it, and don’t use it as an opportunity for facile point-scoring.
Has the ABC not already made it clear in an interview that it is a mistake to think the church ought to be or sets out to be “Inclusive”? Just write out all the words of JC – see how inclusive and tolerant he is for yourself….. …please note, I said ALL his words, taking them all together – not just the “nice” bits but the tough truths he taught too (eg John3:36 for just one ref…..although I guess even some TA people think JC was ever so primitive and misguided for believing in hell etc!) People need to have… Read more »
cryptogram wrote:
“That might be because “thinking” and “liberal” readers recognise hurt and the anger that springs from it, and don’t use it as an opportunity for facile point-scoring.”
So-called ‘thinking’ and ‘liberal’ commenters are quick to cry foul on the use of inappropriate and abusive language by conservatives but not of their own. Such language invariably comes out of personal hurt for both sides but should not be tolerated by any of us. Cheryl’s post was inappropriate, unthinking and illiberal.
“It takes two for reconciliation. The Fulcrum Evangelicals (if I may be permitted this shorthand reference) seem to be willing to talk about things. The Reform Evangelicals seem to have non-negotiable demands.”–Posted by: Prior Aelred
I wonder if the former group consists mostly of Wesleyans and the latter of Calvinists? It would make sense to me, knowing what I know about both groups.
“So-called ‘thinking’ and ‘liberal’ commenters are quick to cry foul on the use of inappropriate and abusive language by conservatives but not of their own. Such language invariably comes out of personal hurt for both sides but should not be tolerated by any of us. Cheryl’s post was inappropriate, unthinking and illiberal.” Andrew Carey
Oh, please Andrew! Why don’t you stroll over to the SydneyAnglicans site and see that they do exactly the same thing!
>>>I wonder how many societies have even had a word for ‘sexuality’ at all. I can’t recall hearing the word until a few years ago.
According to the OED, the word has been in use since about 1800.
Everyone has the right to do exactly as they wish with the second-hand reported words of Jesus – all of which have a specific target and agenda!
Its the lack of being able to analyse the Bible in sociological rather than theological terms which has led to the continuation of something which is really well past its sell-by – ‘traditional’ Christianity, which, frankly, very few here in the UK believe any more. Have a look at Voas’ research which shows very few hold to the traditional supernaturalist dogmas.
Being ‘liberal’ has nothing to do with ‘anything goes’, but recognising that which needs opposing in conservatism.
I’m glad to see tough liberals fighting back – enough of this fence-sitting ‘tolerance’. I have no wish to tolerate conservative theology, which I regard as evil and harmful.
Liberals should stress the positives of what they believe and make it clear that they oppose conservative theological ideas root and branch. This would be best done in separate organisations
NP worte: “… although I guess even some TA people think JC was ever so primitive and misguided for believing in hell…”
OT Sheol is not “hell”, NT “gehenna” isn’t either. So He certainly didn’t.
“Hell” was not invented in his day.
“Hell” is an extra biblical development from Plato to Dante. Literature, not literalism ;=)
“You demand submission and use intimidation and threats to get loyalty…. How are you different to those who take hostages and “convert” them at gun point?”
Pertinent question, in my opinion. I expect no answer.