Re: P.J. Bowler book

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Sun Jan 13 2002 - 12:49:07 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"

    I think I can give several examples of what Howard is talking about , where
    evangelicals are at best harassed and at worst hounded out because they do
    not hold to some evangelical , or rather ultra-fundamentalist, shibboleth
    and in recent decades especially a 6 day creation. At times this can be done
    in a vicious way.
    That type of view is not absent in Britian and can be evidenced by some who
    are very quick to dismiss another as non-Christian. I am liable to get
    clobbered as I dont speak in tongues, did not have a Damascus road
    conversion (actually I was just like Paul as my conversion took months
    rather than minutes - read acts carefully) and am a wooly liberal on
    It is often claimed that it is hardline evangelicals are the worst for abuse
    (there is no other word) against fellow members of the body of Christ.
    However they are not unique as those of a liberal bent can be as abusive and
    I think the recent history of the ECUSA shows that, and some liberal
    Christians are incredibly illiberal in their lack of tolerance for others.

    As for myself I have witnessed and experienced religious abuse equally from
    the left and the right and I think my total christian stance is fairly close
    to Howard's.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Howard J. Van Till" <>
    To: "Michael Roberts" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:23 AM
    Subject: Re: P.J. Bowler book

    > >From: "Michael Roberts" <>
    > > Sorry but I do have a wicked streak and at times subscribe to the view
    > > to be an evangelical one must not have a sense of humour. It is often
    > >
    > > I suppose it is partly because conservative and evangelical clergy were
    > > rare in the Church in Wales (in recent years it has climbed steeply to
    > > compared to 35% or more in the Church of England) that I tend to be
    > > irreverent to liberals. I also get rather fed up with liberals who think
    > > is they and they alone who have any intellectual component to their
    > > and conservatives (even you and me) have committed intellectual suicide
    > > are basically fundamentalist.
    > >
    > > I also find much liberal theological writing today is plain wooly as one
    > > never find any real substance as what they say is wrapped up in luvly
    > > sounding words that it flows over you and you think "this is good" until
    > > ask "What did he say?" At least Spong says exactly what he means.
    > >
    > > I am hoping the next Archbishop of canterbury is not a wooly liberal! As
    > > there is much jockeying for position and also a campaign against Michael
    > > Nazir Ali because he is conservative it is a time for concern. Some are
    > > trying to claim that Nazir Ali has concealed from everyone the fact that
    > > was a Roman Catholic while a teenager and was received into the Anglican
    > > Church in Pakistan at the age of 20. This type of thing concerns me as I
    > > thought it was common knowledge that Nazir ali had RC roots. Probably
    > > of us have links with other denominations which is a good thing.
    > >
    > > I hope the Church of England can avoid the problems of the Episcopal
    > > but then some of the problems caused by ultra-conservatives in certain
    > > denominations are just as bad and I am sure many can give examples.
    > Michael,
    > Thanks for your candor. My own history leads me to be far more wary of
    > (the dust of yesterday's disintegrating garments) from the right than wool
    > from the left.
    > Howard

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 13 2002 - 16:45:30 EST