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.