Evangelical extremist?

[Anchorman]

The government seems to think he is...... http://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/I-m-just-an-evangelical-Christian-but-the-government-thinks-I-m-an-extremist?utm_source=Premier%20Christian%20Media&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7734918_Christianity%2011%2F11%2F16&utm_content=Welby&dm_i=16DQ,4LSAU,LBNHST,H4921,1 (I'm with Justin!)

[Brownie]

I can't say I've ever thought of Justin Welby as an extremist.  He always seems quite reasonable to me, I daresay there are some issues with which I would not be in agreement but that's the same for everyone.  I wonder if he's said anything recently that has provoked this opinion?

[floo]

I don't think Welby is an extremist either.

[Gordon]

I suppose it depends on perspective, and one aspect of evangelism (and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) is a desire to spread the word, so to speak, and not everyone wants to be considered as a potential target for this so-called 'good news'.

That they want to evangelise is fine of course, and like anyone else they should have the right to be heard, so if they want to stand on street corners proclaiming faith their (I saw an example recently in Glasgow city centre) that is fine by me: I can decide to listen or not. However, I can see an issue if these evangelical Christians also thought that they should have greater influence over public policy beyond that of any other group or cause, then that would concern me greatly - such as seeking to proselytise to my grandchildren when they are at school: there I draw the line, or having CofE clerics voting in the HoL.

I don't think for a second Welby is some kind of firebrand: he seems a thoughtful and intelligent chap, but if evangelising Christians want to have an impact on public policy over and above making representations on the same basis as any other pressure group in support of their cause, then they should stand for election on a theological manifesto.

Interesting that the chap who wrote the article Jim linked to in the OP says:

If the Government really want to get the new Counter Extremism legislation right, then they need to talk to evangelicals (and others) and listen to our concerns. And we evangelicals need to get ready to tell the Government what we believe. It would be tragic if the noble intention of protecting people from radicalisation and extremism became the means of undermining the vital principle of religious freedom and free speech.

I'm afraid that in my view those of his compatriots who recently opposed SSM on religious grounds, thereby seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, are to my mind religious extremists even if they don't think they are: fortunately their influence is declining.
   

[Alien]

I suppose it depends on perspective, and one aspect of evangelism (and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) is a desire to spread the word, so to speak, and not everyone wants to be considered as a potential target for this so-called 'good news'.

That they want to evangelise is fine of course, and like anyone else they should have the right to be heard, so if they want to stand on street corners proclaiming faith their (I saw an example recently in Glasgow city centre) that is fine by me: I can decide to listen or not. However, I can see an issue if these evangelical Christians also thought that they should have greater influence over public policy beyond that of any other group or cause, then that would concern me greatly - such as seeking to proselytise to my grandchildren when they are at school: there I draw the line, or having CofE clerics voting in the HoL.

I don't think for a second Welby is some kind of firebrand: he seems a thoughtful and intelligent chap, but if evangelising Christians want to have an impact on public policy over and above making representations on the same basis as any other pressure group in support of their cause, then they should stand for election on a theological manifesto.

Interesting that the chap who wrote the article Jim linked to in the OP says:

I'm afraid that in my view those of his compatriots who recently opposed SSM on religious grounds, thereby seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, are to my mind religious extremists even if they don't think they are: fortunately their influence is declining.
 

I think you will find that Welby voted against SSM. Does that mean he is an extremist in your opinion, Gordon? I would have voted against SSM. Does that make me an extremist?

[Brownie]

I read an article with him a little while ago and he said he was conflicted on the subject of SSM.

[Anchorman]

To be fair, he's not alone. Many Christians resolve it by continuing to accept that Christian marriage can only be between a man and a woman, whilst not opposing secular SSM.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suppose it depends on perspective, and one aspect of evangelism (and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) is a desire to spread the word, so to speak, and not everyone wants to be considered as a potential target for this so-called 'good news'.

That they want to evangelise is fine of course, and like anyone else they should have the right to be heard, so if they want to stand on street corners proclaiming faith their (I saw an example recently in Glasgow city centre) that is fine by me: I can decide to listen or not. However, I can see an issue if these evangelical Christians also thought that they should have greater influence over public policy beyond that of any other group or cause, then that would concern me greatly - such as seeking to proselytise to my grandchildren when they are at school: there I draw the line, or having CofE clerics voting in the HoL.

I don't think for a second Welby is some kind of firebrand: he seems a thoughtful and intelligent chap, but if evangelising Christians want to have an impact on public policy over and above making representations on the same basis as any other pressure group in support of their cause, then they should stand for election on a theological manifesto.

Interesting that the chap who wrote the article Jim linked to in the OP says:

I'm afraid that in my view those of his compatriots who recently opposed SSM on religious grounds, thereby seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, are to my mind religious extremists even if they don't think they are: fortunately their influence is declining.
 

A comprehensively Stalinist post.

[Hope]

I can't say I've ever thought of Justin Welby as an extremist.  He always seems quite reasonable to me, I daresay there are some issues with which I would not be in agreement but that's the same for everyone.  I wonder if he's said anything recently that has provoked this opinion?

Not sure why you're surprised, Gordon.  The same occurs here, when one or more posters accuse those who stand on mainstream Christian principles of being extremist.

[Gordon]

I think you will find that Welby voted against SSM. Does that mean he is an extremist in your opinion, Gordon? I would have voted against SSM. Does that make me an extremist?

I'd have to say I think so, although I'm sure you'll disagree.

I think the opposition to the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation on the basis of religious doctrine is extreme if the intention is to constrain society at large. That the CofE had to be legally protected so as to maintain their discriminatory stance is utterly shameful.

[Gordon]

Not sure why you're surprised, Gordon.  The same occurs here, when one or more posters accuse those who stand on mainstream Christian principles of being extremist.

Only when they advocate discrimination: thankfully their influence is declining, and thankfully too not all Christians advocate discrimination.

[Hope]

That they want to evangelise is fine of course, and like anyone else they should have the right to be heard, so if they want to stand on street corners proclaiming faith their (I saw an example recently in Glasgow city centre) that is fine by me: I can decide to listen or not. However, I can see an issue if these evangelical Christians also thought that they should have greater influence over public policy beyond that of any other group or cause, then that would concern me greatly - such as seeking to proselytise to my grandchildren when they are at school: there I draw the line, or having CofE clerics voting in the HoL.

And in what way does informing your grandchildren about one of a number of worldviews that exists within our society as part of a balanced curriculum that covers a whole host of such worldviews - proselytisation?    I'm grateful that my daughters came into contact - within a faith school that fits the usual definition to a tee - with so many different ideas and subjects: many more than they would ever have come into contact within any secondary school here in the UK.

I don't think for a second Welby is some kind of firebrand: he seems a thoughtful and intelligent chap, but if evangelising Christians want to have an impact on public policy over and above making representations on the same basis as any other pressure group in support of their cause, then they should stand for election on a theological manifesto.

There are already those who do just this.  Sadly, I don't find the theological stances they take match my position on many issues.

I'm afraid that in my view those of his compatriots who recently opposed SSM on religious grounds, thereby seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, are to my mind religious extremists even if they don't think they are: fortunately their influence is declining.

So, would you regard those who oppose it for scientific and other 'secular' grounds to be extremists?

[Hope]

Only when they advocate discrimination: thankfully their influence is declining, and thankfully too not all Christians advocate discrimination.

Oddly enough, Gordon, when I referred to 'mainstream Christian principles', I was thinking of ideas like 'all have sinned' and 'Jesus died for all of humanity'.  I hadn't read your post about SSM at that point, but now wonder whether the term 'discrimination', as you have used it, can be applied to a belief that a certain forms of behaviour are bad for society. 

After all, you and others have often suggested that you believe that society suffers as a result of religious belief; taking your definition of discrimination into account, you and they could be regarded as acting discriminatingly against those of faith.

[Gordon]

And in what way does informing your grandchildren about one of a number of worldviews that exists within our society as part of a balanced curriculum that covers a whole host of such worldviews - proselytisation?

Leaving 'worldview' to one side, since I have no idea what this is in my case, my position is quite simple: if they want my kids (or grand-kids) to say prayers and sing hymns etc then I call that proselytising when it involves kids of primary school age: so we were having none of it.

I'm grateful that my daughters came into contact - within a faith school that fits the usual definition to a tee - with so many different ideas and subjects: many more than they would ever have come into contact within any secondary school here in the UK.

That would be your choice, and I fully respect that for some parents involving their children in religion is an expression of their love and care for their children: we just exercised the same love and care by not exposing them to religion as young children.

So, would you regard those who oppose it for scientific and other 'secular' grounds to be extremists?

Yes, since seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of personal sensitivities so as to maintain the discrimination of homosexual people is in my view an extremist position. I suspect you are flying a kite again when it comes to the 'scientific': so what are these grounds exactly?

[Anchorman]

I think you will find that Welby voted against SSM. Does that mean he is an extremist in your opinion, Gordon? I would have voted against SSM. Does that make me an extremist?

Not in my view, it doesn't.
Hi, Alan.

[Gordon]

Oddly enough, Gordon, when I referred to 'mainstream Christian principles', I was thinking of ideas like 'all have sinned' and 'Jesus died for all of humanity'.  I hadn't read your post about SSM at that point, but now wonder whether the term 'discrimination', as you have used it, can be applied to a belief that a certain forms of behaviour are bad for society.

Of course it can where these beliefs are used to justify discrimination based on what these 'Christian principles' are: you are free to reflect them in your personal opinions if you wish but they are not categorical imperatives that apply to society at large. 

After all, you and others have often suggested that you believe that society suffers as a result of religious belief; taking your definition of discrimination into account, you and they could be regarded as acting discriminatingly against those of faith.

No I haven't and I have clearly said that I respect the entitlement of people to be religious: in a secular society this is as important as others being entitled to be free from religious influence beyond respecting the right of those who choose to be religious.

The problem is that some religious people can't keep it to themselves and would rather like the rest of society to reflect their religious views in relation to social policy - but when it comes to advocating the discrimination of homosexual people then I say no: keep your prejudices to yourselves. 

[Anchorman]

Of course it can where these beliefs are used to justify discrimination based on what these 'Christian principles' are: you are free to reflect them in your personal opinions if you wish but they are not categorical imperatives that apply to society at large. 

No I haven't and I have clearly said that I respect the entitlement of people to be religious: in a secular society this is as important as others being entitled to be free from religious influence beyond respecting the right of those who choose to be religious.

The problem is that some religious people can't keep it to themselves and would rather like the rest of society to reflect their religious views in relation to social policy - but when it comes to advocating the discrimination of homosexual people then I say no: keep your prejudices to yourselves. 

problem there, Gordon, is that, yes, I accept that you respect the right of the individual to believe in the religion of their choice, yet emphasise that this should be a private matter.
The Christian faith stresses that discipleship is not an optional extra, and sharing the faith is a part of what it means to be Christian. In other words, those of us who claim Christ as Lord have no get-out clause: we must share our faith.
The manner in which some do so, however, can be both annoying and self defeating.

[NicholasMarks]

The government seems to think he is...... http://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/I-m-just-an-evangelical-Christian-but-the-government-thinks-I-m-an-extremist?utm_source=Premier%20Christian%20Media&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7734918_Christianity%2011%2F11%2F16&utm_content=Welby&dm_i=16DQ,4LSAU,LBNHST,H4921,1 (I'm with Justin!)

You see why it is necessary to follow Jesus accurately. Jesus teaches us to respect laws much higher than governmental laws and under normal circumstances there should be no conflict but we are hurtling into an age whereby certain politicians want to be in charge of what everybody is thinking and their years of propaganda have shown them that they can bully, ridicule, use media bombardment and hysteria to overpower free thought and good-order, unless, of course, people are following Jesus accurately because following Jesus is a counter-brainwashing technique, which is why people following Jesus, accurately, are living proof that brainwashing is a strong contributing factor in ill health.

[Gordon]

problem there, Gordon, is that, yes, I accept that you respect the right of the individual to believe in the religion of their choice, yet emphasise that this should be a private matter.
The Christian faith stresses that discipleship is not an optional extra, and sharing the faith is a part of what it means to be Christian. In other words, those of us who claim Christ as Lord have no get-out clause: we must share our faith.
The manner in which some do so, however, can be both annoying and self defeating.

I respect the right of people to be religious, Jim, and would have it no other way.

The problem I have with the 'spreading the good news' approach is the implicit assumption that it is relevant to all whether we like it or not and where this could be seen as being intrusive, such as in primary schools, and also where it might be assumed that views based on religious doctrine, usually reflecting just one of several available doctrines, somehow have a default significance for society at large.

I accept that, for instance, many Christians are subtle and nuanced people but I'll confess to being utterly appalled at the stance of some elements within organised Christianity towards SSM, where the legal ring-fencing of the CofE to allow then to continue to discriminate against homosexual people was especially sickening. 

[torridon]

I don't think Welby is an extremist either.

He seems a nice enough bloke for sure.

We all break the law from time to time, but what is the government supposed to do with people who in principle put their personal beliefs above the law of the land ?  The content his particular beliefs might not be so subversive, but there is a principle that no one should be above the law.

[Anchorman]

I respect the right of people to be religious, Jim, and would have it no other way.

The problem I have with the 'spreading the good news' approach is the implicit assumption that it is relevant to all whether we like it or not and where this could be seen as being intrusive such as in primary schools, and also where it might be assumed that views based on religious doctrine, usually reflecting just one of several available doctrines, somehow have a default significance for society at large.

I accept that, for instance, many Christians are subtle and nuanced people but I'll confessed to being utterly appalled at the stance of some elements within organised Christianity towards SSM, where the legal ring-fencing of the CofE to allow then to continue to discriminate against homosexual people was especially sickening. 

Can't speak for CofE, but as for the Kirk, our involvement is minimal as far as education at primary level goes.
In my own local authority, it is at the whim of the head teacher (not a very good idea, as far as I'm concerned - there is no uniformity)
Certainly there is no indoctrination, nor should there be. There are four occasions when the minister (or other Christian rep) conducts a form of simple service - and attendance is not compulsory: the church - rather than the education authority, issues a form through the school secretary for every parent to give consent for attendance of the child. In other words, the default is non attendance; only a positive tick in the box allows a child to attend.
There's also a visit to the local places of worship by various classes - all religious places are asked to allow this: the Jehovah Witness and spiritualists were the only ones to decline.
So the kids had a look round the Kirk, RC church, Bretheren/Christian Fellowship, and were bussed to a mosque and Glasgow Synagogue.

[Gordon]

Can't speak for CofE, but as for the Kirk, our involvement is minimal as far as education at primary level goes.
In my own local authority, it is at the whim of the head teacher (not a very good idea, as far as I'm concerned - there is no uniformity)
Certainly there is no indoctrination, nor should there be. There are four occasions when the minister (or other Christian rep) conducts a form of simple service - and attendance is not compulsory: the church - rather than the education authority, issues a form through the school secretary for every parent to give consent for attendance of the child. In other words, the default is non attendance; only a positive tick in the box allows a child to attend.

That sounds similar to arrangements here, Jim, which is why it wasn't ever a major issue since, presumably, the schools plan for this being an option.

The schools our kids/grand-kids went/go to (the same schools in fact) are non-denominational so I don't know how this differs in denominational schools, such as designated RC schools, or faith schools (not sure if we have many of these in Scotland) - but I'd assume that in these cases the parents consent to a religious element as being part of deal, so to speak.   

There's also a visit to the local places of worship by various classes - all religious places are asked to allow this: the Jehovah Witness and spiritualists were the only ones to decline. So the kids had a look round the Kirk, RC church, Bretheren/Christian Fellowship, and were bussed to a mosque and Glasgow Synagogue.

Aside from services at the local church, which were covered by the permission form, I can't recall there being planned visits to Mosques etc.

[Anchorman]

The kids love the Kirk visits - 'cos our kirk sits in the middle of a historic graveyard, and it might seem 'spooky'. When they come inside, usually the minister - dressed in civvies - (possibly leathers, because our minister's an aging biker) and myself will do the tour. It's an access all areas - pupils are sometimes encouraged to make paper planes and throw them from the pulpit.....they seem to like the visits, for some reason........ Obviously we encourage such visits, as does the local school. Opportunities for Christian witness exist outside the educational system, and whether or not kids attend is purely up to the parents. That's the way it should be, IMHO. Back to SSM. The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith.

[Gordon]

The kids love the Kirk visits - 'cos our kirk sits in the middle of a historic graveyard, and it might seem 'spooky'. When they come inside, usually the minister - dressed in civvies - (possibly leathers, because our minister's an aging biker) and myself will do the tour.

He's in good company, since I too am an ageing biker.

The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith.

I don't have a problem with that, Jim, since people are free to disapprove or dislike stuff, be it music, politics or social matters. My problem is with the notion that social policy should reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives.

That some Christians consider that SSM isn't 'scriptural' may be their opinion but this isn't a compelling argument for non-Christians, bearing in mind that society has changed considerably since biblical times, and since not all of us see the Bible as being authoritative or binding and where the consequence of ensuring marriage legislation accorded with 'scripture' would maintain discrimination: thankfully our legislators rejected the scriptural view of marriage, and of course the legal status of marriage isn't determined by organised Christianity or 'scripture'.
   

[Alien]

I'd have to say I think so, although I'm sure you'll disagree.

I think the opposition to the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation on the basis of religious doctrine is extreme if the intention is to constrain society at large. That the CofE had to be legally protected so as to maintain their discriminatory stance is utterly shameful.

A couple of questions:

1) I would say that sometimes discrimination is justified, e.g. not allowing a Christian to be in charge of the British Humanist Association or the Muslim Council of Britain. Would you agree?
2) When does someone fall into the category "extremist"? Do you have some objective criteria that can be used?