I see it another way.

In Australia, trade unions have been largely been diminished in terms of raw power through numbers, yet Australia still retains some decency towards fair wages, albeit the climate is tougher these days and suits corporations more.

I think if the key tenants of religion for decency and so on are evident in the society, then declining numbers at churches do not matter.

Maybe you should write an article and discuss whether the moral fabric of our societies have fallen away over time.

Why not read these boundlessly "theologically" liberal essays instead.
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-2.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity The Secret Identity of the Holy Spirit of God

Thank you Spencer.

Guess what Spencer, I don't give a shite how many willfully ignorant positions you take! Or how many times you break the "rules" of grammar and syntax! Or your extreme right-wing/Neonazi interpretation of the Christian ethic?

And if you then destroy the very thing you claim as sacred with your brainwashed or willful misinterpretation of biblical text? So be it! I like many former Christians, I just don't care anymore

If the church would reform itself to better represent the teaching and example of the master and far more inclusive brethren, then it needs to see you and yours as a cancer that needs to be cut out of all Christian establishments!

Take your sacrilegious poison and peddle elsewhere!
Alan B.

Where would one start with a response to Spencer Gear's accusatory article. Perhaps start gently by noting the change in church attendance from the 1960s from which time women entered the public workforce in greater and greater numbers. Should supernaturalist Christians send them back to domestic confinement? Is that superrnatural religion in practice? It was certainly the practice for nineteen centuries of Christian orthodoxy.

Then there are the biblical explanations for such events as earthquakes, famines, wars (and massacres). There is no absence of supernatural theological explanations for these phenomena. Does Spencer Gear also deplore the contemporary silence on these texts in non-liberal churches?

And the biblical silence as regards domestic violence against women and children. That is another issue which liberals seem to be so upset about. Are we, being faithful to supernatural inspiration of the bible, to perpetuate the biblical silence in that area?

These are just a few immediate thoughts on the accusations.

Let’s look at Spencer’s arguments.

It does not require breaking grammar and syntax to take a “liberal” approach to the Bible. It just requires a non-literal interpretation of parts of the Bible. I don’t think Balaam really had a talking donkey (Numbers 22-24), or Than Jesus really wants us to hate our husbands/wives and children (Luke 14:26). Does Spencer?

Liberals do not deny Jesus' resurrection, though many deny it entailed the physical reanimation of Jesus’ corpse. There is Biblical evidence to support this. The failure of disciples to recognise Jesus on the Emmaus road (Luke 24:13-35), Mary mistaking him for a gardener (John 20:11-18), and Matthew’s admission that some disciples “doubted” that they were seeing the risen Jesus (Matthew 28:17) all suggest the resurrected Jesus was not a physical continuation of the pre-crucifixion Jesus. If I thought my best friend had died, but then she knocked on the door, I would recognise her instantly.

It’s true that if I took all of the Bible as literally binding and valid for modern Christians I would be ashamed of some of its content. So should Spencer. Do we really think that rape victims should be forced to marry their assailants (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), that menstruating women should be kept apart from society (Leviticus 15:19-30), that disobedient children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and that polycotton trousers are a sin? (Leviticus 19:19 - ok, that one may be debatable).

It’s true that mainstream churches that lean towards theological liberalism are losing members, while some smaller denominations are holding ground or even growing. But that doesn’t mean liberalism is wrong, still less that fundamentalism is right.

Spencer considers liberalism to be heresy, but apart from a largely irrelevant excursion though the word’s etymological evolution, he gives no evidence of that. The literalism and supernaturalism of fundamentalists, along with their fierce insistence than only they are able to interpret scripture correctly, looks to me much more like the sects and heretics of old than most modern theological liberals.

Blowy,

<<Where would one start with a response to Spencer Gear's accusatory article. Perhaps start gently by noting the change in church attendance from the 1960s from which time women entered the public workforce in greater and greater numbers. Should supernaturalist Christians send them back to domestic confinement? Is that superrnatural religion in practice? It was certainly the practice for nineteen centuries of Christian orthodoxy.>>

A better place to start would be to deal with the issues I raised in the article.

+ Jesus' bodily resurrection

+ The need for correct grammar and syntax when writing any narrative.

+ The Bible's literal content that applies to reading your reply as much as reading the Bible.

+ Refusing to accept heretical teaching, based on the Bible's understanding of heresy - false teaching.

+ How to continue emptying churches without pursuing a secular agenda.

Chris Lewis,

<<I see it another way.>>

My other way is for you to deal with the content of my article.

What's preventing you from dealing with with the biblical content of my article? Do you lack biblical/theological knowledge?

Spencer Gear- Thanks for your important article. I'll be making efforts to change this trend as these institutions are critical to western culture.

Canem,

<<Thanks for your important article. I'll be making efforts to change this trend as these institutions are critical to western culture.>>

Thank you for your encouragement.

I urge you to join a church where this "rot" is entrenched so you can be part of the rebuilding process. I live in Qld so I see the need for it with the Anglicans, Uniting Church, Roman Catholics (you'll have a lot of trouble changing that denomination) and the Lutherans.

These are the denominations losing attendance in droves.

The one that bothers me most is the evangelical, Presbyterian church that is at the top of the losers. Are there any Presbyterians here who can help me understand the reason why an evangelical church is a leading loser?

Alan B,

<<Guess what Spencer, I don't give a shite how many willfully ignorant positions you take! Or how many times you break the "rules" of grammar and syntax! Or your extreme right-wing/Neonazi interpretation of the Christian ethic?>>

When will you quit using logical fallacies, e.g. "willfully ignorant positions" (red herring); "your extreme right-wing/Neonazi interpretation of the Christian ethic" [ad hominem (abusive)] so we can have an intelligent conversation?

Here goes your flaming again: "your brainwashed or willful misinterpretation of biblical text."

<<Take your sacrilegious poison and peddle elsewhere!>>

This is your dumping an "Appeal to Ridicule" Fallacy on me and the OLO audience.

A better and more rational approach would be to deal with the arguments I raised on why I'm not a theological liberal.

From my understanding the Presbyterian's are suffering because they have merged under the Uniting banner- from what I can see is the most "progressive" (code for Communist) church. It's strange because the Scots in a sense are the Capitalists of Britain in a sense. There is another interesting effect in Ireland where the "nationalist" movement appears to be heavily influenced by communist ideology. In both cases perhaps the reason for the communist ideology is due to the perceived overarching threat being England- but generally English don't try and occupy Scottish land- perhaps they do try and occupy Northern Ireland- unlike immigrants under the support of the Communists (and the larger Industrialists in the interest of cheap wages). But Communism doesn't necessarily mean Marxist in the UK according to some.

Overall there is an interesting interaction between Communist, Capitalist and Nationalist ideologies. But Communists are very good at exploiting these gaps for their own advantage.

It's sad that many seem to have rejected their own families in favour of Communism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_Church_in_Australia

The Methodists are part of this union and rightly or wrongly seem to have influenced the movement in an egalitarian equality direction- and in a sense have lost their self identity and meaning. Some believe that the Methodists have been on the front edge of socially "progressive" policy for centuries. Society is a bell curve so someone has to be on the "progressive" edge but now the edge is controlling the power centre.

Society has to have a balance between tradition and progression.

If one traces history- I believe there is a link between the Methodists, to the English Civil War, to the French Revolution, the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution.

Dear Canem Malum,

«Overall there is an interesting interaction between Communist, Capitalist and Nationalist ideologies.»

Capitalism, communism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are most compatible as can be seen in China. Most importantly for this topic, all three cherish something that they consider to be more important than God.

A person who holds one or more of the above three ideologies, would only attend church if it seems to advantage their ulterior motives. This no longer being the case, they find church a boring waste of time, so only the truly faithful remain, who actually want God, which are a minority. This is not really a bad thing!

Canem,
>If one traces history- I believe there is a link between the Methodists, to the English Civil War, to the
>French Revolution, the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution.

Considering the Methodists originated in an Anglican revival in the 18th century, I think a genuine historical link is extremely unlikely.

Canem,

<<From my understanding the Presbyterian's are suffering because they have merged under the Uniting banner>>

That's not the Presbyterian Church to which I refer. I'm referring to the continuing, evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia which lost 36% of attendees, 1996-2006.

This is a different Presbyterian denomination to the one that joined with the Methodists and Congregationalists to form the liberal Uniting Church.

Why is this taking a dive in attendees while Oriental Pentecostals have increased in attendance? Could it have something to do with the nature of the mode of worship that is not focussed on happy, clappy experientialism?

Spencer, could you provide examples of the incorrect use of syntax and grammar by theological liberals?

Rhian,

<<Spencer, could you provide examples of the incorrect use of syntax and grammar by theological liberals?>>

Take this statement about history by leading historical Jesus' scholar, John Dominic Crossan: His definition of history is, “History is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse.”

Chew over that one at dinner tonight when discussing Captain James Cook's visit to Australia in 1770,the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the USA, Hitler and the Nazi's slaughter of 6 million people in World War 2, and Jesus Christ's crucifixion.

Crossan's history as reconstructed interactivism means he can engage in free play with the text, introducing information that was not in the original text.

Canem,
<<The Methodists are part of this union and rightly or wrongly seem to have influenced the movement in an egalitarian equality direction- and in a sense have lost their self identity and meaning.>>

Methodism began with a Gospel spiritual revival in 1738 in the UK. Its leader, John Wesley, stated "I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins." That experience transformed Wesley and inspired him to become one of the greatest preachers of all time. Today it's the fourth largest Christian denomination in the UK with 330,000 members. There was encouragement of women in ministry if they were gifted to teach or preach.

John's brother, Charles Wesley, became a prominent hymn writer, penning more than 6,000 hymns, including And can it be, Christ the Lord is risen today and Love divine, all loves excelling. He also wrote the hymn we’ll hear in a few weeks, “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing.”

You seem to have forgotten there is a continuing Methodist Church, outside of its Uniting Church amalgam, known as the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Australia. This denomination has more than half a million worshippers weekly with Wesleyan Churches in nearly 100 countries with more than 6,000 congregations globally.

Rhian,

<<It’s true that if I took all of the Bible as literally binding and valid for modern Christians I would be ashamed of some of its content. So should Spencer. Do we really think that rape victims should be forced to marry their assailants (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), that menstruating women should be kept apart from society (Leviticus 15:19-30), that disobedient children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and that polycotton trousers are a sin? (Leviticus 19:19 - ok, that one may be debatable).>>

It's time you learned how to interpret the Bible. The quotes you have given here are for the Old Testament people of God (the Israelites) to keep them holy before the Lord.

They are NOT for New Testament believers. Why don't you take a course in biblical hermeneutics at an evangelical Bible College? That will straighten out your interpretations.

All you have done is cherry pick some OT verses that were never meant for God's people today.

Hi Spencer

I agree those texts are not binding for modern Christians. But it still raises the question of why they were – and perhaps still are – regarded as God’s binding instructions for his chosen people Israel. And some OT texts are regarded as binding on modern Christians too – most of the 10 commandments, for example. Jesus clearly thought parts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were important for his followers. And some of Jesus’ sayings in the New Testament are also not meant to be taken literally – hating our parents and children being a good example.

Doesn’t that leave evangelicals in the same place as liberals – choosing which laws are binding, and which not; and which of Jesus’ teachings are, or are not, to be taken literally?

Crossan’s language may be dense, and his interpretation of history leans towards the postmodern, but that is not a failure of syntax or grammar. His definition of history would not raise eyebrows on most modern university history campuses. Your examples actually illustrate his point well – all of them are events whose causes, interpretation and meaning for modern society are fiercely debated. “History is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse” would be a fairly good working description of the “history wars” in Australia, for example.

Rhian,

<<I agree those texts are not binding for modern Christians. But it still raises the question of why they were – and perhaps still are – regarded as God’s binding instructions for his chosen people Israel.>>

Read the context in the books of the OT to see the commands are meant to keep God's people pure.

<<And some OT texts are regarded as binding on modern Christians too – most of the 10 commandments, for example.>>

This is not true. The 10 Commandments are binding for the Israelites. The NT Commandments are in the Beatitudes (Matt 5-7)/

<<Jesus clearly thought parts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were important for his followers.>> Those are your assertions. You haven't proved it.

<<And some of Jesus’ sayings in the New Testament are also not meant to be taken literally – hating our parents and children being a good example.>>

Who said so?

<<Doesn’t that leave evangelicals in the same place as liberals – choosing which laws are binding, and which not; and which of Jesus’ teachings are, or are not, to be taken literally?>>

Not at all. It leaves you with not pickle but not with me.

<<Crossan’s language may be dense, and his interpretation of history leans towards the postmodern, but that is not a failure of syntax or grammar.>>

That's not what I learned in my PhD dissertation on Crossan. He promotes postmodern deconstructionist ideology. It IS a failure of syntax and grammar when he engages in deconstructionist free play and makes the text say what he wants it to say.

<<His definition of history would not raise eyebrows on most modern university history campuses.>>

That is not so with the universities I surveyed with my dissertation and the historians I surveyed.

Rhian,

<<Crossan’s language may be dense, and his interpretation of history leans towards the postmodern>>

I learned through a research PhD that Crossan's interpretation of history does not LEAN towards postmodern. It IS postmodern, IS deconstructionist, and he ENGAGES IN FREE PLAY with his understanding of history.

He makes the text say what he wants it to say. The intention of the original author and audience is sent by Crossan into postmodern deconstructionist cookoo land.

Do you want a few examples?

Hi Spencer

Do you think Jesus really wants us to hate our parents, spouses and children (Luke 14:26)?

When a rich man asked Jesus what he must do to enter eternal life, Jesus answered “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Did he mean that?

Do you not think Jesus conflating Leviticus 19:18b (“love you neighbour as yourself”) and Deuteronomy 6:5 (“you shall love the Lord your God …”) into the double love command (Mark 12:28-34 etc) is relevant to Jesus’ followers?

I agree that the OT commandments about not mixing fabrics and about menstruation are to do with purity, but not the ones about rape and disobedient children.

I’m no fan of Crossan – I think his methods are questionable and his assumptions and conclusions are often highly implausible. So do most mainstream bible scholars. But I fail to see how his arguments constitute incorrect grammar or syntax. At worst, I think some of his methods may suffer the logical error of circular reasoning. For example, the Jesus Seminar’s approach assumed that only the sayings of Jesus with X characteristics can be authentic, and concluded that the sayings of Jesus that have X characteristics are authentic. Of course, the same logical fallacies apply to those from the opposite camp who argue that if it’s in the Bible, Jesus must have said it.

So yes please, I would like examples of grammatical errors.

Within what you call “liberal” theology there is a debate between advocates of conventional historical-critical methods and postmodern ones which parallels quite closely the equivalent debates on history campuses because they address fundamentally the same different approaches to historiography. That’s why I said Crossan’s definition of history would not raise eyebrows on most modern university history campuses – postmodernism is well entrenched there.

Rhian,

<<Do you think Jesus really wants us to hate our parents, spouses and children (Luke 14:26)?>>

A course in Hermeneutics 101 would help you to understand this verse in context of the NT.

Luke 14:6 states, "“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." This is a strange saying in light of Jesus call to love one another and love enemies.

To interpret Scripture, we compare Scripture with Scripture: "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37).

What does Luke 14:6 mean? It means that just as things can come between the believer and the kingdom of God, so can family ties interfere with our relationship with God. For Christians, the interests of God's kingdom must be given priority - even over family ties.

"Hating" in Luke 14:6 is shown to mean "loving less" in Matt 10:37.

The teaching of Jesus is: 'Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life."'

Rhian,

I made a couple typo errors in my last post where Luke 14:6 should be Luke 14:26.

Ozspen- I'm not a Christian Religious Scholar and you are obviously knowledgeable about such things. However it seems that John Wesley democratised religion in England through Methodism based on the principles of Jacobus Arminius, Martin Luther and others as a counterpoint to the thesis of centralised authority however not capable of forming an authority of it's own. Queen Elizabeth bridled protestantism under centralised national control but methodists freed it again. Elizabeth relocated religious power at the national level of the global hierarchy- methodists were the religious equivalent of anarchism- no authority. Many traditionalists such as Reagan believe in small government (limited authority) but not anarchy.

Societies can go through periods of balancing interspaced with stability- a form of creative destruction- similar to that of modern capitalism- in a sense but different. Communism doesn't believe in permanent authority but permanent revolution- permanent instability.
A balancing of structure vs chaos, parent vs adolescent, nurture vs nature. How many of us want weeds in the garden and doors off their hinges.
I see Communist/ political liberalism and Protestant/ religiously liberal forces as developing in parallel- based on similar principles- partly due to the formation of mass society, technology, and the inherent resource and arms race. Tradition in a sense represents authority- an adolescents duty to destroy and rebuild in their own image- but what of the devil in the middle- the bug in the flour- the snake in the grass- the pedophile seeking to guide children into adulthood- for their own purposes.

Hi Spencer

I have no problem interpreting Luke, but I do wonder how people who take Jesus’ words at face value interpret them, which is why I asked for your understanding of this text. Even with Matthew’s somewhat kinder take on a similar theme I think many people would regard as problematic a call to abandon one’s children to follow Jesus. Anyway, Luke has a virtually identical passage at 18:29-30, so I’m not sure comparisons with Matthew are either necessary or appropriate to understanding this text. I assume that Luke included both this and 14:26 for a reason.

Anyway, I agree with your broad conclusion that both texts point to the fact that many things, including family ties, can interfere with our relationship with God. Indeed, using social-scientific criticism to evaluate the role of the family in Jesus’ time and culture can assist greatly in understanding these passages. See e.g.

https://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/loss.html

I’d still be interested in examples of liberal theology’s grammatical errors.

Rhian,

See the article on liberal theology at: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/liberal-theology/

Rhian,

<<I’d still be interested in examples of liberal theology’s grammatical errors.>>

John Dominic Crossan wrote: "I formulate it here as I see it" (The Birth of Christianity:xxx).

Do you read any book with the view of "I formulate it here as I see it" or do you choose to follow the grammar and syntax of the author and you interpret the book according to the author's intention?

In my understanding of English grammar and syntax, when an author engages in free play with the text (as Crossan does), I have departed from English interpretation and entered into postmodern deconstructionism.

Without context it’s hard to see exactly what Crossan meant, but the sentence is grammatical. Nor is it necessarily postmodern – it could simply mean “this is how I interpret the available facts”.