I do sometimes look at the arguments like the one you were describing in the original post and think “you know, if we spent all that energy agreeing on things and making sure that people understand that *these* are the things we’re all about, maybe people wouldn’t think so badly of Christians…”

That’s the hard part. For some reason disagreement draws attention more easily than agreement. Just watch the news…

There are a large number of Christians out there who are moderate in belief, but don’t speak out that much. That allows the more vocal folks to define Christianity for the public. But combining ‘moderate” with “vocal” is not always easy!

It’s interesting seeing the view from the inside, and how it’s not really all that terribly different from the view on the outside. I do sometimes look at the arguments like the one you were describing in the original post and think “you know, if we spent all that energy agreeing on things and making sure that people understand that *these* are the things we’re all about, maybe people wouldn’t think so badly of Christians…”

I’m still… auditioning, I guess is the best word… my current church. The pastor’s a little doom-and-gloom for my tastes, but I like the congregation. There are a couple of other churches of similar denomination locally, so I may go try those out sometime soon. (Anything but the campus church, where I went last Christmas — they changed the words of the Christmas hymns, and you could tell exactly who was singing off the book versus who was singing from memory. Cacaphony doesn’t even begin to describe it, and I was left feeling sort of deflated by the weird changes that didn’t affect anything but the meter.)

In the meantime, I leave my question to the famous and expert bloggers. How do the rest of us unknowns help create safe space to think in the Christian church?

Good question. I think I may promote that to a post and see what some famous and expert bloggers might have to say, should I happen to have any such readers. I’m not sure I do that well at it myself, though I try.

One thing that I think does help is simply stating that you accept certain practices as valid. By being a woman and a pastor, you give some other people, who might have less courage, some cover. My wife does so by being an active teacher in the church. I give people cover by expressing certain non-standard views, which gives permission for others to do so as well.

I do believe that silence is the great enemy. Let’s just take one of my pet subjects–evolution. I taught a seminar at church on creation and evolution. One of the points was that one could have differing views on this topic, and yet be a Christian. A young man who was in that seminar went to college the next year, and encountered a fellow student who as attracted to Christianity, but with a science background said he simply could not accept a faith that required him to believe something he knew to be a lie. The young man drew on material from the seminar and explained that he didn’t have to do any such thing, then pointed him to a church congregation that would find his beliefs acceptable.

The punch line? I didn’t really want to give that seminar. At the time I was avoiding creation-evolution because I figured that if I believed one could be a Christian and differ on beliefs about the “how” of creation, why not just keep quiet and let people believe what they wanted?

The fact of the matter was a bit different. By being silent, I allow the folks who make the noise to push aside those who differ with them. So now I make noise. I annoy people. But I think I’m called to annoy.

I don’t know if that’s helpful, but it has been working for me in small ways.

I agree that Christians moderates–and I use two labels: passionate moderate and liberal charismatic–need to speak out against hatred and bigotry and abuses of the Christian message.

OK, how do we do that? That’s one of the reasons I blog, but I’m not a famous Christian and not many people read my blog. Serious question.

I’ve been in churches with theologies similar to those held by Adrian Warnock and John Piper. I don’t want to speak for Warnock and Piper as specific people, but I do know that people with this theology don’t think that people like me (Wesleyan moderate women minister) are ‘real Christians’. How do I know this? Because I heard it said when I was on the inside of these movements. People who grew up as moderate Wesleyan Methodists don’t think that issues presented by conservative (charismatic or cessationist) Calvinists are worth engaging. To be honest, I think that moderate Methodists don’t actually believe that a significant number of people hold these sort of ideas. I usually get incredulity when I talk about them.

To anyone in the UK who wants a church where they are free to question, I’d first put the caveat that one always needs to suss out a particular congregation, but the URC, Methodism and moderate Anglicanism (‘Fulcrum evangelical’ and ‘Affirming catholics’) would be good places to start.

In the meantime, I leave my question to the famous and expert bloggers. How do the rest of us unknowns help create safe space to think in the Christian church?

Actually your comment doesn’t sound terribly aggressive to me. I’ve been communicating online about politics and the internet since the days before we had internet service in homes, and I generally manage to read the tone pretty close.

I agree that Christians moderates–and I use two labels: passionate moderate and liberal charismatic–need to speak out against hatred and bigotry and abuses of the Christian message. Part of my intent in my post was to point out that some of the critics of the charismatic movement are themselves pushing at the fringes and missing the core of the message as I see it.

I don’t suppose I speak out often enough against abuses, though part of that is just my personality. I’m much more likely to write something about the idea of gay marriage than attacking any particular opponent of gay rights, for example. I’m idea driven. I do get aboard specifics from time to time, but I have to work at it, because it doesn’t come naturally.

Then there are folks like Fred Phelps who are so far off the map I don’t know exactly what to say, and I certainly don’t want to give him any more publicity. I hope the current jury award against him sticks so he won’t have any more travel money to carry out his vile activities.

On another point, you mention questioning. I think “questioning” is the best way to approach faith. That’s my own biases showing, and I don’t mean to denigrate a simple, trusting faith, but while I can celebrate that, I can’t get onboard myself. I have to question.

I dislike faith communities that tell people not to question and seek. So I’m right with you there, I think. Also, ritual can be a very helpful part of life, something that my charismatic colleagues sometimes forget. I have truly enjoyed worship services that varied from almost unstructured to very high church, but for me personally the two best I recall were high church, though one was high church with contemporary music.

Are any of these ramblings helpful? I’d be interested in knowing.

I understand that a lot of people think the Bible says X, Y, or Z is wrong, but there’s got to be a line between “professing belief” and “teaching hatred” that some of the most famous evangelicals cross an awful lot.

I find it very upsetting that there isn’t more of a voice in the moderate Christian community standing up and saying “you know what? Those people are whackjobs and don’t have anything to do with what our religion is actually about.” Most of my friends think it’s very weird that I go to church, even though I’m a part of a fairly liberal Lutheran parish, just because they can’t disassociate “Christianity” from “that religion that all those people who say that they’re evil and need to die claim to believe in.”

I don’t mean to rant, so I shan’t go on any further, but I’m interested in how you, as someone who seems like someone I’d get along with just fine and who could plausibly be labeled the same way those people are, reconcile the issues.

(Um…. I suspect this may come off as a lot more aggressive than I mean it to, because there isn’t any tone of voice. I’m honestly *curious*, because you’re the first person I’ve run across who seems willing to discuss these sorts of things openly and without getting caught up in the specifics of any given argument.)

And of course there may be people doing this who are actually giving false prophecies, either knowingly or because they are deceived. But I don’t think you should make general accusations against those offering “prophecy on demand” unless you have very clear proofs that this cannot be genuine.

Well, I attempted to nuance this. I do not deny that God can work in almost any circumstances. For example, I don’t recommend letting your Bible fall open and then pointing at a verse as a way of receiving an answer from God, but my mother experienced an answer to prayer in that manner when she was younger.

In any case of prophecy on demand in my own experience I have observed problems. I feel strongly enough about this that I would never allow it at a meeting I was coordinating, recommend it. But I would not deny that one could hear from the Lord under such circumstances. On rereading, I did not make that latter element clear.

I would only want to question why you imply that “prophecy on demand” is false prophecy. It is not a practice I would recommend. But I have no trouble believing that God can give someone a ministry of giving prophetic words to each person in a line. I would expect most of these words to be rather vague, even banal, more words of general encouragement than actual prophecy. And of course there may be people doing this who are actually giving false prophecies, either knowingly or because they are deceived. But I don’t think you should make general accusations against those offering “prophecy on demand” unless you have very clear proofs that this cannot be genuine.