Those "abominable" liberal evangelicals
Welcome to the next episode in the unfolding drama (perhaps "tragedy" is a better term) of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. So far, more than a third of the staff of this evangelical college , apparently unable to continue working there under the leadership of their new principal, .
It seems that Dr Turnbull's conservative brand of evangelicalism is proving more than a little claustrophobic for the "liberal evangelicals" on . Evangelicalism represents a wide spectrum of views -- from fundamentalism at one end to " (an adventurous rethink of the of God) at the other end. Somewhere between those two poles, "liberal evangelicals" are to be found defending the ordination of women, challenging literalistic readings of the Bible, extolling the divine genius of biological evolution, and sometimes making a case for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian believers in the church. These kinds of views are an abomination to those who find themselves at the more conservative end of the evangelical spectrum.
And "abomination" is, we learn in today's Guardian, precisely the right biblical term to explain the visceral response of some conservatives at Wycliffe Hall, and other places, to the presence in their midst of a growing number of liberal evangelicals. 
Alister McGrath, the former Principal of Wycliffe Hall and one of the leading evangelical theologians in the world, is no longer associated with the college (he's now a fellow of Harris-Manchester College, Oxford, and spends his days writing books). He has carefully avoided making any public comment about his successor and the chaos that has overtaken his former academic home. But in the Gaurdian's "Face to faith" section today, his wife -- the Anglican priest and psychologist (pictured) -- to what's going on.
To the 95%-plus of the population not initiated into the finer points of evangelical Anglicanism, the now infamous video of the conference address by Dr Richard Turnbull, the principal of Wycliffe Hall, reported in the Guardian (Theologian damns most Britons to hell, May 24), must make for incomprehensible as much as compelling viewing. His dire warnings about "Catholic understandings of the church" and the danger of "liberal evangelicals" may also seem trivial and plain irrelevant in a world threatened by climate change, poverty, war and disease.
The piece goes on to interpret Richard Turnbull's difficulties with the idea of "liberal evangelicalism" using a hermeneutical tool provided by the anthropologist :
Douglas drew our attention to the human need to impose order on a chaotic and dangerous universe. The cosmos is more manageable if it can be categorised, with everything in its place; but if things are in the wrong place, huge anxiety is generated. Douglas used this insight to give a systematic account of the dietary laws of the book of Leviticus, pointing out that anomalous creatures such as shellfish (fish shouldn't have legs) are presented here as a dangerous abomination.
The notion of "liberal evangelicalism" is as bizarre and unacceptable to Turnbull, it seems, as shellfish was to the authors of the book of Leviticus, who condemned as an "abomination" anything that departed from the order they imposed on the universe. Those same biblical writers also applied the term "abomination" to consuming pork, lobster, or any meet that was three days old, and trimming beards (if you are male).
We wait to see what response, if any, the clean-shaven Dr Turnbull is likely to make to this razor-sharp analysis.
Comments
I've always thought fundamentalists were too quick to throw the word "abomination" around. Mary Douglas has nailed this term for what it is. When people say homosexuality is an abomination they are abusing the bible. That passage has to do with the abomination of idolatry in some cults that used male prostitution. Liberal evangelicals are right to read the bible differently. The Bible needs to be saved from rejection by atheists and exploitation by fundamentalists.
Turnbull is full of sanctimonious guff, he probably doesn't realise it(fundies never do)but he is doing more to turn people away from religion than Dawkins et al could ever do.
I do hope that he never wears clothes of mixed fibres?!
Nice pun in the last para Will!
How amusing to watch these people argue over what their book of fairy tales means. When do they go to war with each other over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Hello Dylan Dog,
You may well be right that he's doing a very effective job of turning people away from religion. Should we send him a bunch of flowers or box of chocolate to show our appreciation of his unintended good work?
This is interesting. I'd no idea there were so many different kinds of evangelicals. I had rather assumed they were all variations on fundamentalism. This Anglican priest has some very interesting things to say and following the links here I'm very taken by some of what I've read now about open theism. I won't be putting evangelicals in a single box anymore.
I've been reading about the French religious wars from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the Catholics. There were 8 wars which involved not only France but Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and England. It's so complicated you can't tell the players without a scorecard. Here's a thumbnail sketch but you'd better have a pretty big thumbnail for this one.
A lot of people died in the fighting and in the massacres. It reminded me of the fighting in Iraq. I think what Europe needs to divert it from its real problems is a good religious war. There hasn't been one in Europe for quite some time now....about 8 years since the Americans bombed the Christian Orthodox Serbs into rubble to save the Islamic Kosovars ending the ethno-religious war in the Balkins. In many eras of Europe, 8 years would be a long time to go between wars, especially when just one country had 8 wars in the space of only 36 years. Now that the Protestants and Catholics have declared a truce in NI, is there any chance that these two sects will take up where they left off? Doesn't a drop or two of the dew of Erin stir the blood? Time to spike the punchbowl.
Hi Peter,
Chocolates would be good, however I suggest a bit of rope because give a fundie enough rope and...
I'm being typically, narrowly evangelical here, and missing the point entirely, but is William suggesting that the Book of Leviticus is a purely human work, written by a picky eater?
Hello pb,
Hadn't seen your for a while, welcome back on the blog.
I haven't read the book you link to. Could you please give a short summary of the scientific justification of the dietry requirements that the book describes?
The food law thing thrown in at the end by William, was William being facetious to stir things up. The food laws of the OT have been superseded by the NT 'What God has made clean, do not call common.'
Christian Hippy- Curious logic. The food laws of the OT have been superceded, but not the ten commandments nor the condemnations of homosexuality?
Ummm..... okay.
It seems John that you don’t know your Bible as well as you thought you did! After all human reason is nil and void when it comes to the understanding of spiritual things, for you walk by sight and not by faith, the statements of Jesus support the Ten Commandments Matthew 22, and the statements of Paul support the abomination of Homosexuality Romans 1 & 1 Corinthians 6.
.
CH
Does seem some parts of the Bible are more literal than others-especially the parts that support your prejudice.
Anyway do you like...gladiator films?
So I presume you'll not be appealing directly to the OT whatsoever but instead referring to the teachings of Jesus and Paul on the matter. That said, I can offer alternative interpretations of the verses on homosexuality (but I'm sure you're not interested in that).
John
Would love to see your alternative interpretations of the New Testament.
Last time we discussed this you referred me to a dud website that said Paul hated sex.
PB
acceptance of gay and lesbian believers in the church?
William if you are talking about accepting homosexuality rather than homosexuals, I have been waiting a long time for a serious reading of the NT that shows how the church can do this?
It seems to be, you have to bin the NT to do so.
ie use a distant rather than close reading of the text.
And as for damning people to hell, let's get this straight. Hell was always a standard belief of people like Bunyan and Wesley until the latest "distant" readers of the NT.
Putting the blame on Turnbull is unfair and disingenous. He is simply standing on the traditional understanding of what God does, not him.
I never cease to be amazed at how modern man can feel so comfortable and tolerant of so many views of the afterlife that are just so completely contradictory.
By any standards, many, many people are going to get a shock in the afterlife as they cant all be right.
Might almighty God actually have one truth on this matter?
I certainly take the existence of hell seriously as I see it was mainly a warning to believers in the NT, not unbelievers.
PB