The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Essentials

Here’s a good article on

In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity
The Problems with Post-Modern Interpretation of the Bible

Please note - as part of what I shared in Christians and Technology - I’m making a ***radical ***change in my life.

I’m no longer using the IS.GD URL Shortener.

I am turning over a new leaf.

Instead of using the URL shortener IS.GD, I’ve decided to pick one or two, that come up on page one of Google for “URL Shortener”. So I will run with one of these - going forward:

GOO.GL
BIT.LY
OW.LY
I’m sure some will be happy to see this radical change I’m making. But if I re-post old links already created - I’ll run with IS.GD :laughing:

Truth is truth, regardless.

It is very important to know the truth. It is important to not believe false things.

It is even more important to live righteously.

Agreed. That’s why you can read my detailed questions on IS.GD - defending it like Perry Mason - in Christians and Technology. And it is my civic duty, to educate everyone on what a false positive is. Like I’ve said before. Just because one or two say “God created evil” - doesn’t make it truth. Or one or two - not in the top ten (and certainly NOT Google - by a long shot) - say they detected malware - doesn’t make it truth. But I really don’t want anyone dying of a heart attack, if they suffer a panic attack over IS.GD. :laughing:

And to prove a point. Go to sitecheck.sucuri.net// - which was offered before as “proof” and put in the Google URL shortener goo.gl/. It’s infected with malware. Explain to me how this is possible, given the money and talent at Google. Or should we question the company providing the information?

Dave B,

Thanks for your wonderful response and clarifications. I certainly don’t think any ban is needed. I’ve always enjoyed your participation here, and yes, I can see how the language of betraying the Gospel can press our buttons. If I took it as “bullying” me toward a position, I would resent it too. Yet I’m afraid that the reality is that most evangelicals do see Christ’s deity and the incarnation as a basic building block of the Gospel’s story. So if we say that only the Father is God, it truly sounds to them that we have violated an essential.

My own bias is that what is crucial in traditional belief about Jesus, is to trust that in him we really find a trustworthy picture of God’s character (that “God was in Christ reconciling the world,” or as Jerzak argues in “A More Christ-like God,” that God’s nature is most clearly revealed as self-emptying love and goodness). Thus my preference was that we as an ‘evangelical’ site convey openness to all who want to argue beliefs on the basis of Scripture (such as universalism; even if their interpretations are not traditional). Therefore I argued with the other moderators for using Biblical terms and texts for Jesus, just as we did for every other affirmation in our creedal statement, and not philosophical concepts of later centuries.

All of them liked that language and were gracious to me, BUT vigorously insisted that since the Biblical terminology was “ambiguous,” it was crucial to use creedal Trinitarian language and identify ourselves with historic orthodoxy. Part of this was because they thought anything less would raise red flags for the average conservative evangelical who we were inviting to consider a more universalist vision in Scripture. But much of it was clearly because they are more inclined than I to think that Scripture strongly backs up the Trinitarian formulation, and as I said, that that incarnational scenario is intrinsic to the Gospel message, and perhaps even essential to the mechanics of assured salvation.

Unfortunately I learned that if you and I concede that we are not “strictly orthodox,” I have to expect many to say that my position ‘betrays’ evangelical interpretations of the Gospel. My impression is that Parry himself is broadening a bit beyond his initial claims to be classically evangelical (except for his U.R.). I’m not familiar with the context of his old statement here. I suspect it was in the context of the kind of debate I sketched above over language of an evangelical statement of doctrine, and reflected concern that questioning a classic incarnation not turn off his own traditional constituency to universalism, as opposed to making a judgmental claim about the status before God of others of us who interpret such things differently. I suspect it’s a tricky balance to be The “evangelical” U.R. spokesman, and yet communicate as much openness as you and I would prefer. But hearing him at the recent Pasadena conference confirmed to me what an effective representative he is.

All the best to you,
Bob

Actually, I thought Dave’s “pathetic, childish sentence” showed a great deal of insight.

Thanks for the gracious responses, probably more than I deserve.

Jonny95 - I was not making a declaration that any trin has actually said so-and so - I was merely trying to point out that, if God blesses, loves is pleased with an individual, who are we to accuse them of the crime of betrayal?
I believe Hebrews 1:1-4 with all my heart. I don’t think that, because I won’t go further by adding the philosophical language of all-too-human councils to what the scripture plainly teaches (You, Father, are the only true God; God (the Father, obviously) was in Christ; one mediator, the man Christ Jesus - well we all know the drill) - because I do not add to the Hebrews statement and others with non-scriptural binding language, that I or anyone should be called BETRAYERS. That’s all I’m saying.
My childish question was no more than a question - if I am a betrayer, then I am betraying not only the gospel, but Christ, correct? Is that correct??
It was not childish nor petulant - it had a point - to follow out to its logical extension the simple declaration that Unitarians (or anyone who is not ‘us’)? Whoever we are as a group?) is a betrayer.
That’s it. I know it sounded bombastic, part of the reason being I’m trying to kick my dependence on depression meds, but putting the ‘tone’ aside, the content of my grievance is, I think, valid.
I am guilty of ignoring my own inner rules of posting before editing. I am sorry for the tone.

So I checked it out… and I’m thinking it’s probably a case of ‘horses for courses’ as in any dyed-in-the-wool “evangelical” infernalist would probably and happily say in-kind regarding “universalism”. Especially when the power of ‘orthodoxy’ (in religious circles) is as powerful as it is. It then comes down to how comfortable (internally secure) we are in our own (considered by others) heterodoxy… which at the end of the day is what EU is to most evangelicals; even though secretly many in their camp would love it to be true.

Dave, I fear you are turning a commonplace verb for lack of doctrinal conformity into a noun intended as an epithet. Calling Parrry’s statement asinine is not the same as expressing an intention to call him an asinine ass. Similarly, I doubt saying one formulation is a ‘betrayal’ of another doctrinal tradition, is the same as asserting an intention to call you Christ’s “BETRAYER.”

We need to assume the best about those with whom we enter into doctrinal debate, and not treat their rhetoric about their views as if it is personally directed epithets. If our relationship with God hung on agreeing or getting all our beliefs right, we’d all be in the soup. You are loved, and no one here wants to diminish you.

Right-0, davo.
It’s not an argument for or against trin or non-trin that concerns me. Both of those are matters of choice and conscience, and from what I’ve seen and heard from people in both camps - there is no difference at all in the work God is doing in their lives. It does not seem to hamper or bless one way or another, which way one chooses as to that doctrine.

Working on tone…

Great words Bob! :slight_smile:

Yes, good words as usual Bob.
I’m not waging a doctrinal war; to what end would I, since bright minds and sincere spirits have wrestled with and argued the issue for an age or more, seemingly. I’ve knocked my head against that wall, and I think have learned my lesson. :smiley:

I was wrong to meet the harshness of the judgment with my own harshness of tone.
My content stands, however.

I love this Forum; it has its warts and all, but also plenty of strong lights and intelligence; and I owe a lot to the founders and admins and mods for investing their time and energy in this good work.

Still, the content stands; the tone not so much. :blush:

It seems clear to me that Judas betrayed Christ, I have no hesitation in saying that. Perhaps it is also true that I have betrayed Christ many times in my life by my sinful actions. Neither of those statements exclude the possibility (and to my mind certainty) that Christ loves both Judas and myself. Whether He is pleased with a particular belief I hold is an entirely different matter and is unknown to us.

Agreed.

Speaking of essentials. This recent blog post reminds us of a spiritual Christian classic:

‘The Imitation of Christ’: antidote for media-addicted america

Remember when I said this earlier?:

And here is an interesting article regarding Sucuri, by a software firm:

False Positives Highlight Deeply Flawed Website Malware Scanners

And a PC World article on Virus Total:

VirusTotal tackles the tricky false positives problem plaguing antivirus software

How much money does Google have to spend? Look at this BBC article:

Google ‘paid Apple $1bn in 2014 to keep search on iPhone’

And if you noticed I used OW.LY, BIT.LY and GOO.GL in this post, you win a high-five :laughing:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT97l_afRWmU5oo2pdm76Scp4f5duoWELyGDagc6hxqScsKAPP6

This thread has provided some good grist for the philosophical mill.

If we can put aside the rancor and misunderstandings - and please, let’s do that - I’d like to briefly discuss what I think is the fundamental problem, as I see it, with what I called the ‘harsh judgment’ - re Unitarians and betrayal.
This will NOT have a focus on persons, personalities, doctrines, nor an attack of any sort. High-toned all the way.

I want to suggest that the term ‘betrayal’ is generally perceived as a negative MORAL term. It would not normally be used where there had not been a pledge, a commitment, or an agreement that involved TRUST. Without those or comparable pledges, etc., there could not be betrayal.
I"Betrayal’ is a term of moral opprobrium.

I think I’m on solid ground thus far.
Next, I observe that to differ in one’s opinion does not normally carry the same moral burden as making a pledge. To differ, with justifiable reasons, is not essentially a value judgment. It is a recognition that an opinion that is made public, is open to public scrutiny, can be questioned openly and fairly, can also be rejected with no moral consequences. This was not true in Calvin’s Geneva - the interpretation of scripture by the magistrate carried severe penalties for those who disagreed. We do not live in that Geneva.

So, in what cases generally can a group that considers itself ‘orthodox’ make a moral judgment concerning those who differ in opinion and belief from that particular orthodoxy? Well, in the cases of ethical breeches, of what God/society have declared to be ‘wrong’; actions that have the character of damaging other people or society as a whole. I’m over-simplifying here, but keeping the kernel of truth intact, I trust.

The point is that a moral judgment of betrayal has to be made on the basis of an ethical breech, harmful to others, disobeying God.
It is my belief that the unfortunate label of ‘betrayal’ was laid upon a group that had committed NO ETHICAL breech.
Moral judgments are not made because of a difference of opinion; especially among people of good will, and intelligent people who have justifiable reasons for their dissidence.

My suggestion is that the Statement of Faith be amended to show a recognition of the above argument, and tolerance on both sides concerning this issue.

And God rest Ye Merry Gentlemen! And Ladies!!

I think I’ve made this point before :exclamation:. Why can’t we use the Clint Eastwood method for settling doctrinal disputes :question: :laughing:

We could, I suppose, but this isn’t at bottom a doctrinal dispute.
But I would look stunning dressed as the High Plains Drifter.

Dave,

I’ve agreed with you that the term, betrayal, can be loaded, and come across as harsh. But when I review Parry’s words in context, I don’t see him intending to assert a “moral” judgment, or to censor those with other views, or even to apply betrayal as a verb to non-evangelicals. I read him to simply be using this term to say that he believes that non -Trinitarian theology itself is contrary to evangelical’s tradition (which it is). His intention in that essay is not to make judgments on non-evangelicals, but to convince traditional evangelicals that many of their beliefs are compatible with embracing universalism. And even as a non-Trinitarian, I too would affirm that.

If the term “betrayal” appeared anywhere on our Statement of Faith page as a formal position, I too would find it problematic. But I don’t see that it is there. Thus I only see this as an issue appropriate to raise with Robin. Any suggestion of placing formal language that opposes his, or of deleting his term betrayal, could sound like a request to censor another member. And I’ve long stood here for the widest possible tolerance for differing views and semantics on our site. So my own preference would be just to allow you both to state your views.

Grace be with you,
Bob

Ok, Bob, if you insist, I will let calmer heads prevail!! :smiley:

No, I would have been happy had he said that.
But it was a “fundamental betrayal” - not of tradition - but of the Gospel itself and the scriptures. I’m not going to argue any further about it, but words matter, and those are the words he used. And though it is not a part of the SOF, it is directly linked to; and I think many on this forum would agree with what he wrote.

Anyway, this dead horse is safe from me kicking it any longer. Yay!!
Thanks for the thoughtful perspective.

Jonny95 - are we ok??

Yep, Dave, we may have exhausted this. But yes, the reality is that the evangelical tradition sees rejecting the deity of Christ as a “fundamental” contradiction of its’ interpretation of “the Gospel and the Scriptures.” And since that is all equivalent to them, of course many here would appreciate Parry’s point.

What I might add, is my perception that the proportion here who holds this traditional view is lower than it used to be, with more who question such views finding a home here. I can only conjecture that the vocal nature of non-traditional views here may explain why the range of participation has noticeably declined. It seems to me that those of us who have progressed to a place that appreciates being able to challenge traditional evangelical beliefs and rhetoric, may have to wrestle with the effect our rhetoric and judgments have on a site that was founded on welcoming an evangelical stance. For me, the upshot is that all of us need to be secure enough to avoid expecting everyone to state things as we would prefer.