As happens to many such groups who start out with good intentions, it has tended to get hijacked by the more fundamentalist end of the church, thus alienating many people who agree with original premise of the group.
Query: isn't "keeping to a biblical basis" the definition of "fundamentalist" in a Christian context? In which case, can whoever wrote that re-phrase it to be a lot clearer?
Well, fundamentalist usually implies taking the Bible literally, word-for-word, without doing much interpretation of it, viewing it as a whole, or realising that at least some parts are allegorical. --M-A
Interesting; I found the *meaning* to be quite clear, even if the words chosen are ambiguous. The way I interpreted it in this context was "the end of the church who take more extreme interpretations of Biblical teaching on a number of controversial social issues", or possibly "the end of the church who are more inclined to publically disagree with other branches of the church on more issues". I can see that neither of those statements are entirely unambiguous either; I just have to ask you to try to understand the general meaning I'm trying to communicate rather than dissecting particular words. Using "fundamentalist" of Christian groups is an undertaking which risks misunderstanding, because I know some of the Wiki's Christians would interpret it generally negatively and others would interpret it generally positively. HTH. --AlexChurchill
(PeterTaylor) I presumed the meaning to be along the lines of "the more evangelical end of the evangelical wing", but I don't like to start discussions with only a hazy agreement on terms. If the intention was, as it now appears, to refer to those who do microexegesis only, and little of that, then I was clearly quite wrong in my interpretation, and disagree. Or, at least, I was certainly under the impression that StAG, HTB, AllSoulsLanghamPlace? and StEbbes? were among the more influential churches in it: if anyone disputes that, it might be the next place to go.
The Bible says we are all sinners, and all sin, no matter how minor it may appear, is just as bad in the eyes of God; Christ came to save us all, and redeems us in the eyes of God. Christ wants us all to unite as a church and follow him. Therefore let us split the church into two halves: those whose sins are kept hidden or deemed permissible by us and those whose sins we consider too intolerable or who are not willing to lie about the way they lead their lives.
Can anyone explain to MoonShadow how the reformers make the above not be self-contradictory, in their own heads, or alternatively which bits of the above they would not sign their name under? As things stand, MoonShadow cannot understand the mindset involved.
I didn't find that section on their website - how hilarious! "God wants us to unite... let us split the church", coupled with "You can sin as long as we say it's OK or as long as you lie about it". --M-A
Oh for heavens sake, argue the issue rather than the words. --Vitenka (Hair splitter, you can see what is meant)
Sorry, I'm not very with it today - what is meant instead? --M-A
The question is "bible says this but their actions say the opposite", not that their website has such obvious contradictions plainly written upon it (which, obviously, it does not) --Vitenka
? Was the above quote not off the Reform website, then? Where is it from then, and why is it on this page? --M-A
MoonShadow was, rather deliberately provocatively as his revision comment shows, "summarising" the position of Reform as he sees it, and asking where the hole was. For my part I suspect it's that they don't want to cause a split, but they think there are some issues it's more important to take a stand on than go along with what the rest of the church thinks. --AlexChurchill
Oohhhh, right. Oops.
(PeterTaylor) Perhaps we should move this to ChurchDiscipline? - that seems to be the issue. Look at NIV: 1Cor 5: Paul orders the Corinthian church to throw out a member who was sexually immoral, and generalises to "You must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. ... 'Expel the wicked man from among you.'" (NIV?). Why? The church is supposed to be a Godly community which reflects Christ to the world. If it's as bad as the world, why should they listen? And note that I don't think it says the guy referred to in NIV: 1Cor 5 was an elder - church leaders are supposed to be able to set an example, and should be able to say as Paul "Imitate me as I imitate Christ".
(PeterTaylor) Spotted another bit they wouldn't sign their name under. It's not about "sins ... deemed permissible by us" and "sins we consider too intolerable": it's the other way round. To take the example you're probably thinking of with regards splitting the church: the US Episcopalians are the ones who are saying that some sin is tolerable, and not Reform. I would imagine the Reform position to be along the lines of "The leaders who say that homosexual practice is not a sin should be disciplined and removed from office for grave sin - see NIV: Matt 18: 6 and parallels. If the Episcopalian church won't do that, we should do it in the only way open to us, which is to cut the Episcopalians off from communion with the Anglican church."
You are missing the point I am trying to make. The Bible says everyone sins. Therefore if you are a Reformer casting out some church leaders for being practicing homosexuals, you are discriminating between sins - you are saying some sins are acceptable (since you don't cast out *all* the leaders, and the Bible says *everyone* sins, and you believe the Bible is true, therefore you are *choosing* not to cast out some leaders that sin) and some sins (like homosexuality) are not, and setting yourself up as the arbiter and judge of which is which. Does that make sense? - MoonShadow
(PeterTaylor) You're missing my point. Reform aren't casting out church leaders for being practicing homosexuals so much as for saying that it's not a sin.
One might have hoped that a degree from Cambridge would have resulted in someone not making egregrious straw-man arguments, especially when there are so many real holes in Reform's position to be picked. But apparently not. So keep tilting at your windmill, MoonShadow, the real debate will be over here when you've finished. - cache1-nrth
Thank you, until someone demonstrates their windmillness to me I intend to. - MoonShadow
Sure. They have faith, therefore they are windmills. --Vitenka
This will probably need categorising somewhere, but still - let Vitenka the RabidExtremist? try to take a stance defending... the MiddleOfTHeRoad?. First of all, remember that most people have not memorised the bible. Heck, most people can probably remember the basic stories of some of the more fun bits and that's about it. These people still deserve help. So the reformist belief is that a church which caters to them is, at least, a step in the right direction. Hopefully, once they have got started in the right direction, they will continue to grow. The fundamentalist view of "You are all evil and the book is to be taken literally" is certainly appealing. Black and white is a much easier world view. But it is complex in two ways. The first is easy to argue over incessently, and, in the end, less important. This is that the book is not infallible, and anyway should be taken only as the guiding first steps - and that in relation to the circumstances that existed at the tim that it was written. Take that as controversial or not, but skip it, it's not important. The important issue is that 'real' christianity is hard. It is in many ways unsustainable alongside a modern lifestyle. It massively strangeles the growth of society and culture. These things are undesireable - and the decision to water down Christianity in favour of them has been made time and again. Add on to that the many rituals and observances of the stricter sects (which are not, after all, specified in the book) and you get a lot of people choosing to be strict christians in a non-strict church. The belief being that the belief is more important than the observance. And from there they (from pov of strict observers) slip further into sin.
Hmmm. Odd. That rant didn't end up where I was aiming it. I had intended to say that taking the practical 'these things are acheivable' bits without the rest is better than taking none of it, and from there a schism evolves and the two are forced apart. I actually seem to have shown that the two don't really have much of a difference.
Anyhow. It all comes down to selective reading of the texts and the other bits of faith around the texts. Something that both 'sides' (if you can call them that) are guilty of. I think its flexibility is the most important strength of modern Christianity - one of the things that keeps it in existence.
But I still think it's a fallacy to say that people cannot or should not believe two contradicotory things at once, and seek action along the interface. Heck, the books themselves are full of such conflicts. Simplest example would be 'no work on the sabbath'. But as soon as you start to say "surely this is what was meant?" you open the floodgates for anyone to interpret things any which way. Which in an age of near universal literacy is a good thing. Let six billion flowers bloom.
(Are strict believers only those who read Hebrew?)
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Reform