The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A Plea for Theological Diversity and plug for Randal Rauser

Theology
#1

I read Dave’s parting comments earlier today and the suggestion that this site incorporate the guidelines used at the Tentmaker site be incorporated.

Later Cindy commented on the suggestion and said:

I was, frankly, horrified! :astonished: :astonished: :astonished: Images of being summoned by the political officer in the old Soviet Union for “re-education” come to mind. Deportation to the Gulag…Siberia…Long beards… Cabbage soup… Images of sweet Cindy with her hair in a severe bun, pistol at her side with “comfortable shoes” on… :smiley:

Of course, being that this is only an internet forum, those affected could just leave. :wink:

But this is only partly in jest. I for one, was attracted to this forum because of its diversity, its tolerance and friendliness. I remember seeing Johnny’s avatar at the time of Malcolm McDowell in “A Clockwork Orange” and thinking, “Hmmm…this place is a bit different, I like it!” :wink: Part of what makes this such a great place is the open discussion of difficult topics. By and large this is done in a friendly manner, but at times, tempers rise, words become heated and people are hurt. That doesn’t mean that the solution is banning difficult topics, just that participants need to modulate their tone and (occasionally) moderators have to step in to allow things to cool off.

The next thing I want to point out is that the view of scripture I have recently presented, which is similar to that of Dick and Johnny at least, is indeed pretty “mainstream” as Dick put it. Questioning simplistic explanations of the “Problem of Evil”, questioning whether God really ordered the Amalekite genocide, questioning whether books like Jonah and Job are historical or “myth”…this is all very mainstream.

As Exhibit “A”, I present professor Randal Rauser, A friend of Robin Parry, “hopeful” universalist, author, philosopher, theologian, apologist and Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. I’ve enjoyed his blog in the past few months (and a couple of his books, which are excellent) and he’s not afraid to address the most difficult philosophical and theological problems, but continues ,despite his “liberal” theology, to maintain his status as not only an orthodox christian but an evangelical.

Here’s a blog post regarding a particularly sad defense of the Amalekite genocide…randalrauser.com/2013/01/an-unbelievable-defense-of-the-amalekite-genocide/

Here’s one criticizing the idea of demons being responsible for natural evil…randalrauser.com/2012/10/are-demons-responsible-for-natural-evil/

Here’s a recent one about reading the Bible informed by conscience (particularly apt regarding recent threads)…randalrauser.com/2013/11/reading-the-bible-informed-by-conscience/

Finally, here’s one plugging The Evangelical Universalist by Robin Parry (Gregory MacDonald) :smiley: randalrauser.com/2011/02/universalism-isnt-a-four-letter-word/

I’m afraid if Randal Rauser happened to post on this forum with the proposed rules in place, he might soon have to undergo counseling by one of the moderators to help him “grow in the faith”…

Steve

#2

Hi, Steve

You have a point, and I didn’t actually mean it quite the way I made it sound. It’s just this. Sometimes people post incendiary things kind of, well, on purpose, you know? I wouldn’t dare post something outrageously disrespectful to the Quran, even to the more objectionable suras, because for one thing, Johnny would totally pull me up short (which he should do and would be right to do) and for another, it would be very disrespectful to anyone who holds the Quran to be sacred.

I think it’s great and necessary to ask the questions that are troubling us. Everyone piles in; everyone gives their interpretation and usually someone will have something to say that will shine a new light on the thing. What’s more, other people who might have the same difficulty can come along later and read what we’ve said and maybe be helped by it. What I’d like to see changed is that we take a little more care in how we speak of sacred things – whether they’re sacred to us personally or whether we suspect they’d be sacred to others – and tread lightly.

Do you have a problem with, for example, Ps 137? That’s okay. Lots of people do, and understandably so. Post and tell people about it, but perhaps with a somewhat more respectful title and op. The real problem in this case is, I suspect, the fact that some theologians take Ps 137 as prophetic words in the mouth of the psalmist expressing the heart of God. So if that misinterpretation is the problem you’re dealing with, say so. Not everyone is going to pick up on the sarcasm or bitter irony or whatever. To do otherwise is just to bait those who will (you are aware) be offended. I’m not saying that the original posting is intentionally calculated to irritate, but rather that it might be good to think it through.

Granted some people aren’t going to do that. Perhaps they can’t. What should the mods/admins do? Ask the person to reword/reconsider? I’m always a little in doubt as to what exactly to do. I don’t want to suppress honest expression, but I also don’t like a big bomb dropped in the middle of the family dinner table.

Those are my thoughts – not sure what the solution is. I just know that it’s been a very long time since I’ve discussed universalism on this forum. It’s fine to discuss all these other issues too, and I also find them important and interesting, but not much fun to always be pulling people off one another’s necks.

Your thoughts are coveted. :wink:

Cindy

#3

Hi Cindy,

I’ve been thinking long and hard about what you wrote. :smiley: I’ve been looking back at the contentious threads/recent history on the forum, doing a little searching online to see if there were other forums with similar issues and how they were addressed and think I’ve got something worthwhile to say…

First off…

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley: I’m so glad! I wasn’t entirely sure, but hoped that was the case.

Too true! It does seem like a bomb has gone off and you as the poor mod (and sweet, caring person you are) are left to clean up the mess, treat the injured family members and try to keep it from happening again… :frowning: :frowning:

I’ll start with some observations about what threads are most controversial and seem to generate the most heat…

  1. Homosexuality
  2. Biblical inerrancy/errancy. (This is where the Psalm 137 thread would actually fall…)
  3. Creationism/evolution

What leads to the confrontations? Generally it occurs between individuals at opposite ends of the Christian theological spectrum which ranges from “fundamentalism” ------>“liberal/progressive”

Expectations seem to play a role as some of the more recent conservative members seemed to expect that members of this forum hold (or should be held to) their own more conservative/traditional views. They seemed surprised that certain views could be held in good conscience by more liberal/progressive members and, though I personally think there is a full spectrum of views here, felt like the “liberals” had “taken over”.

As you point out, the style and tone of postings can, at times, at least seem to be intentionally chosen to get an emotional rise out of others. (Though I think it’s often generated out of the poster’s own emotions.) The dynamic during the argument has not helped anything. I see a lot of perceived personal attacks resulting in retaliation with attacks of their own and often friends jumping to their defense. Attention to wording and perhaps a bit thicker skin might go a long way in keeping the tone civil.

I have no great answers, but having a “red flag warning” of some type that threads under the three categories above will be more closely watched (and moving threads that morph into one of these categories) might help.

I also think it might be worthwhile to somehow remind members (especially new members) that there is a wide spectrum of Christian theology that members hold and to understand and accept that.

Perhaps most importantly, I think it’s important to recognize that the emotions coming out in these arguments often comes from fear…Fear on the part of “progressives” that a loving God is accepted and portrayed as a monster of sorts, that accepting immoral views of God will lead to immoral/unloving acts by Christians, that believing unscientific theories based on the Bible will lead to ridicule and increased marginalization of Christianity/Christians. More “conservative” Christians fear acceptance of what they believe to be immoral as moral. They fear a loss of trust and belief in scripture to the point where even the divinity, death and resurrection of Jesus are thought of as “myth”. They fear disrespect and mockery of God. All these fears are understandable and recognition of them by both parties might be helpful…

All the best,

Steve

#4

Great thoughts, Steve

Thanks for pointing out to me (reminding me) that when people make angry posts it’s often their OWN emotions they’re expressing, and that they’re not intentionally trying to provoke.

We actually do have a “sensitive topics” cache, and though people don’t usually seem to intentionally post in it, Alex moves them over there pretty quickly. The thing is, most of the regulars just look at “active topics” and don’t notice what the category is. There’s a pink banner across the posts in the sensitive topics category – still, people get used to that and after a while they don’t see it any more.

Unfortunately I can’t talk more just now – we’re headed for town – but I’ll get back to you soon. :slight_smile:

Blessings, Cindy

#5

Hi Cindy,

Very true, but I agree…People just look at “active topics” and a title that catches there eye and click on it. (At least I do). Could the titles of “sensitive topics” be changed to bright red on the active topics list? That might help… Maybe a pop-up with a warning that comes up when you click on “post-reply”? Also, putting “Beware” with a skull and cross-bones after the title might help! :wink:

P.S. I thought of just sending A PM to you but perhaps others have some thoughts on this so continued on the thread.

Steve

#6

:laughing: I like the pop-up poison pirate, Steve. We’ll have to ask [tag]Alex[/tag]. He’s the one who does the techie stuff usually. It is a good idea, pop-up or no pop-up. PM me any time you like – but talking here is fine too.]

#7

Sounds good, Cindy. :smiley: Will let you know if anything else comes to mind.

Steve

#8

I agree that people come here expecting a certain mindset. I’m more on the conservative side myself (at least I look that way to me! :laughing:) and at times I don’t feel free to express what I’m thinking because I will surely offend someone. That’s probably just me, though. As time goes by I feel more comfortable doing that. And really, it’s my understanding that this forum was started as an outreach to evangelicals who might, in fact, feel like I mention feeling myself – on a forum in which mostly liberal theology is expressed, or on which liberal ideas go unchallenged. I don’t think the ideas need to be shot down, but it should be safe to express a different opinion (with reasonable courtesy) without having people become angry. Sure, maybe you’re wrong, and maybe you might even change your mind given enough reason and time – but it ought to be safe to at least say your piece – where you are at that moment.

You see, from my pov, I see people expressing conservative ideas and being shot down. And I’m sure that’s just my own personal bias – that it looks that way to me. The conservative opinions they express don’t seem offensive to me as they apparently do to some others. That’s probably because I’m used to them even if in some cases I no longer share them. So I’m standing back wondering, “Why does everyone get so incensed whenever this or that person says something?” and thinking I’m quite a dunce for not seeing whatever it was that was apparently so offensive.

But yes, I think you’re right. There is fear on both sides. And some of those fears are of things that are actually going on – most of them are, to tell you the truth. As you say, we have people here from all points in the theological cosmology, from those who do deny the virgin birth and deity of Christ to (from time to time) those who believe in the whole tulip with all petals intact. I don’t feel comfortable with either extreme, but I guess the hard-core Calvs (and Arms) who come through now and then are the most troublesome in the moment, though they usually get themselves banned fairly quickly.

The idea of a welcome page explaining the widely varying pallet of beliefs folks will find here sounds like a good idea. I’m pretty sure Alex and the other mods/admins are reading this, so they’ll take it into consideration once we get past the current spamicane. :frowning: Right now what’s mostly happening behind the scenes is a whole lot of deletin’ goin’ on.

Well, I s’pose I can’t put it off any longer – I’d better go clean up the kitchen. Otherwise I’ll have it to do in the morning – after I (hopefully) shoot my deer. :laughing: Wish me luck . . . .

Blessings, Cindy

#9

Hi Cindy,

Hope you got your deer! :smiley: I misread what you wrote yesterday and had a picture of you doing the dishes, taking off an apron, grabbing your rifle from behind the door and walking out to shoot your deer… :wink: (Of course it was too late to hunt when you posted which made me reread it.)

That’s the key isn’t it?—responding with courtesy and kindness, even if you don’t agree with someone. What good is it to “win” the argument if people are offended and hurt? I know that those that* do* become unloving and unkind in their arguments are often very upset with themselves and distraught after one of those exchanges. That being said, I do think discussing contentious topics has a place. Sometimes people may actually change where they stand on homosexuality, biblical inerrancy and creationism/evolution or at least be exposed to those with the opposite viewpoint and learn (hopefully) to accept them and see where they’re coming from.

We all bring our own biases here, I agree. Having grown up in typical American Evangelicalism I can recognize where those with very conservative opinions are coming from even when I don’t agree. I do, however, finding myself wishing they’d “wake up and smell the coffee” at times and can see where the frustration of the more liberal members comes from. :frowning:

That’s all I’ve got for now…Hope you got your deer (hey, the morality of hunting could be an interesting topic sometime! :wink: ) I’m for it (generally) BTW.

Keep up the good fight against the evil spam! :laughing:

Steve

#10

Thanks, Steve

The deer are safe from me again until this evening – nothing so far – well I did see a couple, but I’m not confident enough to shoot when they’re already running. :frowning: So I’ll try again when the shadows get long. :wink:

#11

:laughing: I think both ‘sides’ need to smell the coffee. eh? And both wake up?
This whole labeling thing scares me. No person here is a label. We stop listening once we label.

1 Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again. They come about because you want your own way, and fight for it deep inside yourselves. James 4/1

Anyway, I’m gonna lay low…I’d use a smaller font if there was one… :smiley:

#12

Hi maudib! :smiley:

You’re absolutely right! Labels are used to marginalize people whether it’s calling them a “fundie” or a heretical “liberal”. I think though, that there are ideas/beliefs that various Christians hold that separate them (to some degree) whatever “label” they do or don’t fall under. Certainly holding to EU separates most people here theologically from those holding to ECT or annihilationism. I think respecting other Christians and continuing to love them even if you don’t agree with or even respect some of their ideas is what we should strive for. Recognizing, however, that holding a particular belief—such as “young earth creationism”—needn’t bring with it the label “fundamentalist” and the whole package of ideas that come with that label.

All the best,

Steve

#13

Good discussion here folks.

#14

Hi Dick! :smiley:

Thanks, I certainly hope something good comes out of this…

Hi Cindy!

Glad you’re careful about when you shoot. I think killing and eating wild game is far more ethical than eating most domestic animals, as long as the game is killed quickly and cleanly. I’m not a huge fan of venison but if wild cattle roamed the forests and hills… :smiley:

Good luck this evening!

Steve

#15

I agree with Steve that there is actually lots going for this site because of its freedom which Tentmakers – respect it as I do – just does not have. I can’t in a million years imagine dear Cindy acting as the Grand Inquisitor in sensible shoes – no I wouldn’t give her the job; she’d not get through the fair selection process. These days there is usually a practical group exercise in interviews – what would we have Cindy do, try her hand at tickling a foot with a feather to force a confession?

I think labels can sometimes be helpful but they have to be accurate. Part of the problem here I think is that this site comes with the name and prestige of a writer (Robin Parry) who I reckon – as a Brit – would go under the label of a liberal and very ecumenically minded Evangelical in my country. Also one of the favourite writers here – not only because of what he said but because of the company he kept and his general outlook – would go under the label Broad Church in my country (I speak of GMC here). Also the older schools of universalism – the ones I most identify with – tended to be pretty radical politically and flexible in their biblical criticism.

I think on this site – certainly in the past – the conservative American Evangelical ethos/input (and its Australian counterpart) – has often been the dominant voice actually. It’s not necessarily fundamentalist – although this is often a fallback position. It can major on ideas of the uncontrollable violence of God especially in it biblical hermeneutic. It is the violence of its theology rather than the side issues about literalism that give scandal to some. This emphasis is not given in the wider Church normally – even those part soft eh wider Church that are morally very conservative.
It has struck me as topsy turvy that sometimes people with enormously virulent ideas about God’s violence and an implicit belief that Gods violence is on their side have bolted universal salvation on to their theology and have appropriated GMD and Origen as fellows. Sometimes the violence of God is just something that crops up every now and then – but for some God’s uncontrollable violence has been central and bits and bobs of GMD and Origen say have been quoted in support of violent views with no foundation in the originals.

One of the things that always saddens me is that there are people on site who have been badly damaged by violent theologies – or violent theologies have not made their personal suffering easier to bear. Also ever since I’ve been on site – since writing my History of Universalism in the Anglican Church – I’ve had people who have been damaged terribly by violent literalism PM-ing me (I guess its’ because I was clear from the start that I did not self identify as an evangelical). Some of the stories I’ve heard have been so terrible – so very terrible. I never came here, for example, to get into debates about homosexuality – but put it this way if some of you knew what I know you’d never make the collocation between child abused and homosexuality again because of the terrible suffering this has caused someone here for reason that are in no way theoretical.

The most recent spat on site about the authority of scripture was begun by people with a conservative literalist view of the Bible – absolutely. It began on an interdiction thread of someone who obviously had moved away from this position had no reason to want to engage but perhaps foolishly tried to facilitate the conversation.

What has happened IMHO is that we’ve generated a situation of rivalry and mimicry. There are people on this site who have been chewed up by fundamentalism and have no yet sorted things through properly (although they are very intelligent the sorting is still going on). They have mimicked the wrath of the other side in their anti violent god rhetoric – which has become increasingly violent and depressingly so. ADN the violent rhetoric against the Bible has mimicked rhetoric shouting up for a violent Bible.

It’s horrible to watch these dynamics develop. They are impersonal dynamics and in the mimicry both side end up being the same. Obviously there could be a conservative retrenchment on site as a reaction now. If that is so – I think I’d have to think through a game changer. Perhaps the non conservatives here should go elsewhere and really think through a more constructive and hopeful view of scripture together in accordance with broader Church traditions rather than have this kerfuffle happen all of the time.

Love

Dick

#16

Hi Dick,

Very astute observations…

I have the same thoughts, but would be horribly saddened by this. Just what we need, another schism. :frowning: There is much to learn by each side if we can keep emotions in check… I linked to Randal Rauser who, as I mentioned, is a friend of Robin Parry, considers himself an evangelical, but whose views are not typical of, at least most, North American Evangelicals and though, I’m not sure, may have views close to those of Robin himself. (Robin has a different type of blog, so where he stands on various theological issues is more difficult to pin down)

Steve

#17

I would be horribly saddened by it too :frowning: But it is part of the waking up and smelling the coffee that it could happen :frowning:

Yes Robin is all things to all men - he reminds me of Erasmus.

#18

Hi Dick,

You’re right of course… :frowning: Perhaps a “broad church” portion of the forum here would do the trick? Not sure what it would look like or what rules would apply but that might be something to work with…

Edit: It might be like having two houses next to each other, each group could certainly be hospitable to those “visiting”, but those visiting would defer to their hosts when in the house, recognize their “quirks” and try not to be offensive?

Steve

#19

I dunno Steve - if I was not party to terrible personal stories of terrible suffering (and suffering that is sometimes worsened by the conversations here) I’d feel differently. But certainly these mimetic crises shouldn’t’ continue. They are never about what people are actually saying they are all about the dynamics of rivalry and mimicry (and I do find Girard enormously enlightening here and I’d recommend Girard to people struggling with a violent god and the paradox of how not to become violent over a violent god and thus reinvent a violent god- and Girardians are very influential on universalisms in the broader Church now). One thing that is great about this site is that in the end it is very kind - but these mimicking spats always end in scapegoating and the real scapegoats are not always obvious at first sight. I’ve never been scapegoated here I have to add.

#20

Hi Dick,

Just added an edit to my last comment. Does that change anything?

Edit: There are several reasons for keeping diversity in this universalist forum. First and foremost is to keep in contact with friends we’ve made who may be on the other end of the spectrum, secondly, there are those “in-between”, those who have “not yet sorted through things properly” who would initially consider themselves to believe one thing but might migrate to another opinion if exposed to it. And of course I’m speaking from a “broad church” bias --(I love that term, Dick :smiley: )

Steve