91热爆

I wish Rev Patterson a successful and blessed year and pray that God's blessing will be with him as he leads our church from June.

Ho hum. Conservative evangelical nominated leader of Northern Irish religious organisation. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

I wouldn't be so quick PaulR to label this latest moderator a conservative evangelical. I think you will find he is much more in line with the liberal/ecumenical people in the PCI.

Ian

Although a member of PCI I don't really know anything about the Moderator-Designate; but I'm wondering what you think it takes to make a Presbyterian "liberal/ecumenical"?

Interesting question Peter.

Well, Peter, for some years now there has been a division in the PCI over the issue of inter-church relations, particularly in regard to the PCI's relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. The more conservative people in the church are very much opposed to closer links with the See of Rome and normally refuse to engage in joint worship, the more liberal people tend to organise and enhusiastically participate in such ecumenical services.

This division is recognised by the Northern Ireland media and that is why each year the incoming moderator is asked as to his attitude to joint worship with Roman Catholics.

Ian, if your definition of "liberal" is "is prepared to interact with Catholicism", I think the sentiment I expressed earlier remains appropriate.

Paul, it's not really a question of my definition of what constitutes a religious liberal. In terms of the conservative/liberal split in the PCI I think it's pretty obvious where the moderator designate would be. And I think describing him as a conservative evangelical is fairly misleading.

Ian,

I think we are getting the description of a conservative evangelical from him and the biography published by the PCI.

"He describes his ministry as "conservatively biblical with a strong evangelical outlook"

I am not sure how those not in the know are not meant to take that as meaning conservative evangelical.

I also think that what you are describing as liberal many others (outside the PCI) would simply regard as politeness and respect.

Maybe he is just 'not quite so conservative', it would all depend on what is the other side of conservative as to whether he could be described as a liberal. Is the other end of the scale catholic or non believer or progressive introvert ?

I really only ask because I have great trouble connecting the word liberal with many religious folk of the hierarchy in NI. I think the term liberal has a wide usage and it's meaning is mainly based on your own starting point. eg compared to Fred Phelps I would describe Ian Paisley as more liberal (I was going to say Stephen Green but now I am not so sure ) so what defines liberal in this context - Church of Ireland?

Ian

You said to Paul, #8, 鈥渋t's not really a question of my definition of what constitutes a religious liberal.鈥� But I rather think it is.

Your comments about the current Moderator-Designate are predicated on what your definition of a religious liberal is, how can it be other; and, your definition stands in contrast to the way in which the Rev. Patterson describes himself.

See

Perhaps, however, you are referring to the comment in the same piece, 鈥渨as the first chairman of Youth Link, a body set up by the Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic Churches to provide support and training for youth leaders and community relations experiences for young people.鈥�

Perhaps this is what you think brings him into 鈥渓ine with the liberal/ecumenical people in the PCI.鈥� I don鈥檛 know, but you seem to think 鈥渋t's pretty obvious where the moderator designate would be.鈥� You even say, that 鈥渃onservative evangelical is fairly misleading.鈥� Really, why?

I鈥檒l tell you why I ask the question - I expect that there are sufficient contributors on this blog who will be able to vouch for my conservative approach to the bible, my reformed approach to grace, and my evangelical (as in evangelion) attitude towards the gospel. However I also get the feeling, actually it鈥檚 more than a feeling because I know from experience, that it matters not one whit how orthodox my theology is, at the slightest hint of 鈥榗ompromise鈥� (what Dave calls 鈥減oliteness and respect.鈥�), I become suspect:

If I suggest that Roman Catholics are Christians, I am suspect.

If I pray in an informal setting with those who think of themselves as Roman Catholic, I become suspect.

If I read the Sunday papers, I am suspect.

If I dress casual for church, I am suspect.

If I read Thomas Merton, I am suspect.

If I appreciate liturgy or responsive Bible reading, I am suspect. (I could go on!)

鈥渨hat defines liberal in this context鈥�, Dave?

With that list I鈥檓 practically an apostate!


And we wonder why people have stopped listening to the church.

The terminology I have employed to describe the division which exists in the PCI over the issue of ecumenism is in common usage. It was not invented by me.
I refer both Dave and Peter to an article in the Belfast Telegraph which indicates the Moderator-designate's enthusiasm for joint worship with Roman Catholics. The article confirms my original statement that the Moderator designate, in the context of the PCI, will have much more in common with the liberal/ecumenical side of the PCI.

Ian

You have singularly failed to engage with my question, except to tell me about 鈥榙ivision in the PCI over the issue of inter-church relations, particularly in regard to the PCI's relationship with the Roman Catholic Church.鈥� and the fact that Rev Patterson is willing to worship with Roman Catholics.

What I鈥檓 interested in is *why* you assign the category liberal/ecumenical (something you seem to regard as a negative position) to Rev Patterson or much any other Presbyterian. I broadened the question in #4. Is it simply a matter of joint worship with Roman Catholics, or have you any other objections?

So I ask my question again, what, in your opinion, makes a Presbyterian a liberal/ecumenical?

What about the list I wrote in #10?

What about reading the NIV, or Message, or versions of the bible other than the KJV?

What about music? Is this a 鈥榣iberal鈥� matter?

I鈥檓 trying to get a handle on how you see things?

I鈥檓 trying to understand how it is you think Christians can remain faithful to the gospel (I鈥檓 assuming you think liberal/ecumenical Presbyterians are not). Is it the stating and restating of theological positions? Is it the definition of doctrinal points? Is it the promotion or opposition of a particular form of worship? Is it faithfulness to historic creeds? The 5 solas, perhaps - assent to them, Chalcedon, WCF, The Chicago Statement?

Is the endless definition of what we are not the thing which defines us?

Ian, I *know* the theology (backwards). I can have the debates; my essential theological position is Reformed (capital 鈥楻鈥�) through and through, but I鈥檓 asking, is this what it is to bring grace to a hurting world? Is this what it means to bind up the broken hearted, to set the captive free, to proclaim the year of the Lord鈥檚 favour.

To be honest, if this theological nit-picking is the gospel, you鈥檝e lost me.

Peter, I think you're jumping the gun a bit with this whole "gospel" aspect of the discussion. What we're talking about seems to just be orthodoxy versus heterodoxy.

I have suggested that Rev. Patterson is very much in the orthodox of Northern Irish Protestantism. Ian thinks being open to discussion with Catholicism puts him outside that orthodoxy. Maybe he has a point. Our response to this (if you don't mind me extrapolating) would be that even the fact that this is something that's treated as a matter of importance suggests that the orthodoxy hasn't really moved in any substantial way.

Nonetheless, I don't think he's committed to saying that the perspective that treats this as an important issue is the right one. That issue would just be a debate that divides consensus. If consensus isn't ultimately the net goal of religious collective action, he can think of that particular debate (regardless of what his opinions are on the matter) as one that is just a minor detail in the grander scale of the project that happens to split opinion.

I mean, there would seem to be something terminally problematic with the view that says "Orthodoxy is to be adhered to without qualification" - namely, it's idolatrous, and orthodoxy says you shouldn't do that - but I don't think Ian has claimed that (or anything that requires it) thus far.

If Peter and Paul take time to carefully read and review my comments they will discover two things. First, I have expressed no opinion in this dialogue as to the merits or demerits of joint worship with Roman Catholics. Second, I have sought to accurately represent the divisions in the PCI with terminology that is in common usage. If they are not with happy with the terminology I have used perhaps they could suggest terminology of their own to describe the variety of opinion which exists in the PCI theological spectrum. When they do so they can pass it on to the media which routinely speaks of religious liberals and conservatives.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions.

I think Ian Hall is right. I doubt if many in the PCI would class the Rev Patterson as a conservative evangelical.

What this debate does, however, is to show us the nonsense of labels. What do they mean any more?

I think at one stage worship with Roman Catholics would not have been seen as being consistent with being a conservative evangelical. In many quarters that is still the case. And yet there are now those who regard themselves as being C E who would participate in joint worship.
So what does C E mean any longer?

It is time, I think, for a whole new set of labels.

Robert, RE: What this debate does, however, is to show us the nonsense of labels. What do they mean any more?

I use the term "conservative evangelical" in a very literal way - that of adhering to a perspective in Christianity that says that the historial tradition of scriptural interpretation is to be followed, and that others are to be persuaded of this fact.

I don't think this term is senseless, nor is it useless. It is simply silent as to what that tradition is. That's why it gets pounced upon by groups like the PCI who want to say that it is or isn't "conservative" to interact with other faith groups, or by Non-cognitivists who think that anything involving a commitment to a personal and extra-worldly God is too close to that tradition to avoid the label.

Personally, I don't particularly mind what the Presbyterians call the Rev. Patterson. What's important is the perpetuation of a trend in Northern Irish religion that believes it has a duty to impose the belief structures of the past on the people of the future. If that's what he says he thinks, then the issue I have with him remains, regardless of what we choose to call it.

In relation to Will Crawley's comments.

First, anyone can describe themsleves as "biblically conservative" and engage in joint worship with Roman Catholics but whether or not they actually are "biblically conservative" would be a matter of debate.

Second, no disagreement with the list of key features of general evangelicalism. But of course we are not speaking of evangelicalism generally but of the specific situation in the PCI. And in the PCI context the question of joint worship with Roman Catholics is an important and historically divisive issue. This is a fact that the media recognises and explains the media interest each year in what approach the new moderator will take to the issue. It isn't the new moderator's doctrinal understanding of the person and work of Christ which makes the news but whether or not he is prepared to participate in ecumenical services.

Ian, here's what we're all asking: why is this distinction important to the debate at hand? My problem is not that Rev. Patterson self-identifies as "conservative" in the PCI sense, but that he self-identifies as conservative in Will's sense or my own, both of which are strictly weaker statements than the one you seem to want to insist on attributing to him.

I mean, if you want to talk about the nature of collective identity, I can understand there being a substantial point worth making, but I don't see this PCI/Media semantic point leading anywhere.

As a critic of evangelicalism I find this almost-debate potentially extremely interesting - it would be fascinating indeed, Ian, if you could forget about labels, actually engage with Peter, and say clearly what you really think - it doesn't take a combination of the skill-sets of Clouseau and Fassbender to work out where you stand - why not just spit it out? It is obvious, from what you write, that you must have definitions of conservative/evangelical and liberal/ecumenical in mind. Why not tell us what you think those definitions are?

Parrhasios

鈥滱s a critic of evangelicalism...鈥�

Sometimes it's enough to make one an Anglican! (almost)!


Ian

#14

鈥滷irst, I have expressed no opinion in this dialogue as to the merits or demerits of joint worship with Roman Catholics. 鈥�

Quite; but you seem to be equating 鈥渏oint worship with Roman Catholics鈥� with 鈥渢he liberal/ecumenical people in the PCI.鈥� That is part of what I鈥檓 trying to understand. When you say liberal/ecumenical people in PCI do you mean those who are happy to worship with Roman Catholics? Is that, a way, one way, the way in which you define liberal/ecumenical Presbyterians? And you seem to regard this liberal/ecumenical description as negative; am I reading this incorrectly?

Secondly, and directly related to the above, I鈥檓 wondering why you are happy to use the label liberal/ecumenical of someone who describes himself as 鈥渃onservatively biblical with a strong evangelical outlook.鈥� Why the need to make this distinction? On what basis? This raises the issue of the extent to which you will deny someone the opportunity to use the descriptions conservative and evangelical. For example, on the basis of some of the examples I have given, would you question my use of the words, evangelical, reformed and conservative regarding myself? I have already explained why I ask.

#18

鈥滻t isn't the new moderator's doctrinal understanding of the person and work of Christ which makes the news but whether or not he is prepared to participate in ecumenical services.鈥�

Perhaps, but when you refer to someone as liberal/ecumenical I鈥檓 interested in asking a question about the implications of that; about whether or not you think that person鈥檚 willingness to participate in ecumenical services calls into question his words about his doctrinal understanding of the person and work of Christ. Does it?

And a minor point, again #18

鈥渨e are not speaking of evangelicalism generally but of the specific situation in the PCI.鈥�

I鈥檓 not sure I see the point here. The breadth of thought and practice which is evangelicalism generally is merely reflected in the breadth of what is PCI or the Church of Ireland, or Methodism, or independent fellowships...


Paul #13

Yes, maybe I did jump the gun in reference to the 鈥榞ospel鈥�, but I鈥檓 sure you will agree that in what Ian keeps referring to as 鈥渃ommon usage鈥� it is not unrelated. Jumping the gun, perhaps, but I鈥檓 not confusing the 100m sprint with the parallel bars.

Well, in spite of the silence on this thread, I have learned one thing today: blogging on the Sabbath doesn't make someone a liberal! :-)

Like it Peter!

It amazes me as much as I am sure it must concern you that some people can consider snipeing a profitable witness.

peterm2,

"blogging on the Sabbath doesn't make someone a liberal!"

That's good to know, not for me obviously, but I can almost feel the panic from mccamleyc at the mere suggestion that he is a liberal. How would he ever face his own blog again?