...and no that's not the make up of the next coalition government that I'm describing!
It is in fact a discussion that's been rumbling on in a small way on the (almost defunct now) Sanctus web forum: http://www.sanctus1.co.uk/forum/topic.php?topicid=25 if you want to see more of it. A brief summary would be about what the definitions of theologies as above are and where various Manchester churches and congregations might fit into them, inc. Sanctus, Ivy Cottage, Vineyard/ Reach etc.
Might be better to have comments on this topic here rather than there - will post that to the forum and let folks follow it here if it continues to spark any interest.
3 comments:
The conservative - liberal thing is often misleading and infuriating. If 'conservative' means Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell than I'm a liberal. If 'liberal' means Don Cupitt, Jack Spong and Richard Holloway then I'm a conservative.
This isn't to say that there aren't clear distinctions though. In fact one of the reasons I hate these labels is that it is frequently implied that reactionary fundamentalists are more 'traditional' or 'orthodox' in their Christianity. The fundamentalist wing of evangelicalism is not only (in my opinion) a complete aberration of traditional Christianity, it is also, relatively speaking, a very recent one.
I much prefer the idea of a Radical Orthodoxy or a Generous Orthodoxy.
Agreed, Dan, agreed (sigh).
Having not read the book, I'd just quite like to borrow Brian Mclaren's title:
Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN
I like people of a charismatic / evangelical persuasion, as they tend to spend more money on mass-marketed Christian product and therefore keep me in a job.
It's hot in here all of a sudden...
Post a Comment