Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BBBCanada

Cornerstone 2006

Recommended Posts

Ann, Cornerstone is much more intellectually and aesthetically diverse than most Christian events, but it still has a lot of room to grow, particularly in the areas you've cited (age and race). My impression is that it's still largely an event aimed at white, middle class Christian teenagers. (At least they're the vast bulk of the 30,000.) I'm wondering if Cornerstone would ever consciously begin moving away from the "emo and screamo" bands and incorporate other genres appealing to other demographics? Particularly as Christian consumer trends evolve/fade away?

As far as the emo and screamo scene at Cornerstone, I think that's the identity that has evolved over the years. Back in 1984 when the whole thing started, the other major Christian festivals were geared toward mellow CCM artists like Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith, so Cornerstone was conceived as the first festival to have a specific rock-oriented focus. Therrefore Cornerstone developed a reputation for being the hardest rocking Christian rock festival there was. Over the years, fests like Creation have invited more and rock artists, so I think Cornerstone decided to focus more and more on the harder kind of stuff to keep its identity and to keep the kids coming back.

But I think they're tried to be a little more diverse once in a while. The past couple of years they've had a cool jazzy hip-hip outfit called the Urban Sophisticates at one of the smaller stages. And M.C. Hammer played main stage back in 1994. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey...hey...just hold on a sec....just look at this...

347 days until Cornerstone 2007! June 25 - 30

I am SOOOOO there. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug C wrote:

: One of the things I most appreciate about Cornerstone is its acceptance--even celebration--of

: cultural and theological diversity, which is a rare and beautiful thing to experience in

: community given its scarcity in our institutions like individual churches.

I dunno, if you want diversity, maybe Greenbelt would be more your ticket? True, Greenbelt seemed more "liberal" than "balanced" when I was there 12 years ago, but it was still possible to find just about every point of view there.

FWIW, I think the pendulum had swung a little too far when you were there, and subsequently it has swung back to a more balanced position. Still a great range of views, but now more pro-evangelical, as well as pro0liberal, pro-post evangelial, pro-emerging church, pro-catholic, pro-traditional.

IMHO

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see Cornerstone Festival remains too conservative for some, too liberal for others! For me, the fest is an ideal of which the reality always falls short, but the ideal has so inspired and nurtured me over the years that I'm glad to continue to reach with others toward the ideal. From the inside, the fest is a barely-contained anarchy -- hardly a monolithic or ideologically-driven enterprise, and always on the edge of going broke. Whenever I consider the differences between attendees or even staff, I can't understand how it all hangs together and I'm always certain it can't last much longer. But I think we did at least well enough this year to try it again next year, when I hope to see a few more A & Frs at Flickerings.

On that note, here's the 2006 Flickerings report.

Edited by mike_h

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mike_h wrote:

: Glad to see Cornerstone Festival remains too conservative for some, too liberal for others!

Or maybe it's both to the same people, just in different ways. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Mike, you didn't get it. My concern has nothing to do with the presence of CBE, liberalism, conservatism, or otherwise.

My concern is about the poor judgment demostrated by championing divisiveness, something that should concern Christians of different convictions on this issue. It's one thing to have all sorts of crazy stuff happening at Cornerstone--I can deal with that. But this is a highly divisive issue that, by virtue of the ill-advised banner, becomes another issue.

Alan, I get it -- I'm trying to defuse the emotions a bit. In any case, I'm the Flickerings guy. You want me to defend Cornerstone Festival, I'm not sure that's my calling entirely. But I wish you'd start a thread on CBE and move into something substantive and stop with the heated rhetoric. Your appeal to objective standards about what is the right or wrong way to run a festival ("poor judgment", having the CBE tent is "wrong", etc) when in fact these are your opinions, doesn't do much for bringing about the dialogue you want. Denouncing the CBE like they were the KKK seems over-the-top and counterproductive. As I say, I'm the Flickerings guy. Maybe I can find you a CBE rep to debate you in another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not looking to debate CBE or its agenda--that was a by-product. I *am* (in the "Cornerstone 2006" thread) wondering about the banner, that's all.

"What's the deal with the name of the tent?" is a perfectly reasonable question (I'm assuming that's what you mean by references to "the banner"). I'm sure it was just an effort to get attention at a place where the competition is stiffer than most places -- and apparently it worked. "Gender Revolution" seems to me a fairly accurate way to describe a discussion where traditional gender roles and attitudes (and interpretations of Scripture) are being rethought within an Evangelical context. If you feel threatened or bothered by that name or discussion, you're not the only one. I haven't sat in on that particular discussion much, but I'm glad its taking place at Cornerstone. I invited a speaker from Christians for Biblical Equality to introduce "Whale Rider" a couple years ago because I thought they might make interesting a discussion of a film about a girl who has to fight against cultural limitations on her own role and opportunities. (And, touching on an earlier complaint you have expressed about that, it doesn't matter to me whether or not someone sponsoring or leading a discussion at Flickerings is from outside the film buff community or doesn't participate in any of the other film-related activities at the fest. Why should it? I invited a speaker from ONE to come talk about HIV/AIDS after we screened Bortz's fine documentary this year.)

I'm still entirely too wasted from Cornerstone to get involved in hot-button debates (I'm still trying to relearn this indoor plumbing thing). But when you suggest that being potentially "divisive" is something Cornerstone shouldn't be doing, I think you've been away from Cornerstone too long. (Were you not there when the syncopated beat was "divisive"?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem that CS starts out with a progressive POV and then goes from there. That seems to be a problem for Alan because it isn't "balanced." I don't see why they HAVE to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great pics, BBCCanada, especially that hair-flinging speed metal band. I saw them too, I must have been standing right next to you or something. They were very entertaining to watch. I thought I was in a time warp or something, like I was watching Vengeance Rising in 1989. All that was missing was for the one guy in the band to start whirling his hair in a pinwheel. Maybe next year they can book a Deliverance tribute band at one of those generator stages. ::headbang::

I've posted a few of my Cornerstone pics here.

Edited by Crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were right in the same crowd and we missed each other??? Wow. That's freaky! Glad you liked the pics. I'll have some more up within a day or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pics of "Destroy the Runner" and the "Mosh Pit" and Brandon sleeping in the car.

Edited by BBBCanada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBE is a group calling themselves Christians for Biblical Equality. They sponsored a tent this year (and some previous years) with the banner "Gender Revolution". Last time I was at Flickerings they sponsored a screening of Whale Rider--even leading the post-film discussion (but not partipating in any other film events).

I'm certainly all in favor of raising awareness of women's issues, such as the ones you specify. That has nothing whatsoever to do with CBE's core mission.

The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has a response to CBE here written by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. (Was CBMW present?)

(I just spotted some other terms: egalitarian for the CBE view and complementarian for the traditional view.)

Alan,

First time I've posted here. I definitely do NOT want to start a flame war or anything regarding gender equality, but as the guy who pretty much single-handedly got CBE involved with the fest -- and who convinced JPUSA to officially co-sponsor the CBE / Gender Revolution Tent -- I do hope I can explain a few things.

First, the word "divisive" is, in my mind, a bit of a low blow by you. That is, by labeling something you disagree with as "divisive" you try to take the high ground in the conversation. Realize that for many of us this issue is one of burning importance and absolutely necessary. So I guess I'd say (in a friendly tone of voice!) that [a] it is not division, but conviction, that motivates us, and even if it were divisive, sometimes division is necessary. I guess I'm asking you to reconsider the use of the word 'divisive' as one which in and of itself divides unncessarily, and muddies the waters when trying to discuss the issues raised by the Gender Revolution tent.

A view from where I sit:

Just as many on this forum would have an awfully hard time being patient with a "fundamentalist" over art, literature, or music, others of us have an awfully hard time being patient with those who seem not yet to have interacted seriously with feminism and the issues feminism raises. It is sometimes sadly humorous to me that the CBE folk (see http://www.cbeinternational.org) come in for so much negativity when they are about the most un-angry bunch of women and men I've met. Me personally? I'm a bit more feminist (reada that "angry about gender issues") than they are, I think, which is probably good on them.

We read, view, and listen to secular artists here. Why not read feminists? If nothing else, by so doing you'll certainly discover what a voice of reason and moderation CBE is. Sure, some secular feminists are lesbians, and almost all of them I've read are naturalists (that is, disbelievers in any supernatural being or power). Yet their rage is often astonishingly articulate. Read, for instance, Kate Millet's "Sexual Politics" or even (with teeth gritted, because it is a vicious ride) Andrea Dworkin's "Pornography." Then consider CBE's winsome response to both feminists and non-feminists.

Then there are the Christian theologians on each side of this divide. On the non-egalitarian side, Wayne Grudem and company. Is Wayne someone who "gets" what is going on in the culture, church, and society today? Honestly, I don't think so. On the egalitarian side, N. T. Wright (as just one example). Somehow, I sense Wright is far more attuned and "existentially" plugged in to what is happening today.

I am completely unconvinced by the name "complementarian" for the Grudem folk, as complementarians is what CBE sees male and female as... but that's another can of worms involving that po-mo flavored struggle to be the "winner" in getting to define the words.

Cornerstone's parent organization, JPUSA, is part of the Evangelical Covenant Church, which is also egalitarian in its understanding of Scripture. Perhaps that helps further illuminate our position on these themes.

I'm very disappointed for your daughter that you feel Cstone's CBE inclusion is bad for her. I have two daughters, and they are two of the biggest reasons I could never support the (to me) twisted views of Scripture supported by CBMW. The very same arguments, often down to chapter and verse, were used by American slave owners in the 19th century and before. Kevin Giles' excellent book on that (with a title so cumbersome I cannot recall it) shows not only the disturbing historical linkages but also the theological error (regarding subordination within the Trinity itself) that Grudem falls into...

Anyway, there is spirited debate often at the Gender Revolution tent. As I had to forcefully explain to one speaker another year (who was not speaking for CBE but rather at another fest venue) no question is wrong at Cornerstone. At least, we sure try to make it that way.

Blessings,

Jon Trott -- and I'm glad to be here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin Giles' excellent book on that (with a title so cumbersome I cannot recall it) shows not only the disturbing historical linkages but also the theological error (regarding subordination within the Trinity itself) that Grudem falls into...

The Trinity & Subordinationism is the title you are looking for, I suspect. Giles does a better job with the contemporary gender questions and history of gender than he does with the trinitarian side of things, but I agree it is a valuable read for anyone interested in these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, thanks so much for wading in here and offering an informed, even-handed defense of Cornerstone's inclusion of this "divisive" (ie. important) topic. I confess that I've been so involved with Imaginarium/Flickerings that I haven't even stepped inside the CBE tent, but I'll try to make an effort next year.

(And John, thanks for the book reference; it's always great having an actual theology student around. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, can't help asking: Isn't it a little disingenuous to complain about other people's use of the word "divisive" when you yourself have endorsed a "Revolution" by one side of the debate? Or is there some sense in which the word "Revolution" is somehow neutral and non-divisive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, can't help asking: Isn't it a little disingenuous to complain about other people's use of the word "divisive" when you yourself have endorsed a "Revolution" by one side of the debate? Or is there some sense in which the word "Revolution" is somehow neutral and non-divisive?

And I would ask in return if you're a word parser or for real with the above questions. They sound like someone who's playing with language rather than honestly interested in dialogue.

I am a part of a ministry which occurred during the so-called "Jesus Revolution" of the late 60s and early 70s. That, I believe, was not at all meant to be divisive. Likewise, a "Gender Revolution" today is not meant to be divisive, but it is meant to clearly identify a move of God among his children. I am not "endorsing a revolution by one side of the debate." I'm not even sure what that means. I am hopefully, in God's Economy, a part of a revolution regarding gender within His Church.

Now you and I can play semantical games all day. But I doubt either of us will walk away edified or enlightened. If there are real issues beneath this wordplay, let's talk about them.

Sincerely,

Jon

Edited by jon_trott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, first of all, I'm very honored to have you grace our forums. I hold you (and Mike) and all of JPUSA in the highest of esteem and have for many years. I was a fest regular for ten years (until I got married), and was, at times, particularly close to the folks in The Crossing. JPUSA was a formative influence on me as a young Christian. I have learned so very much from you and the other good folks there, by example as much as by word.

That is very kind, and encouraging Alan. I would hope our/my example has done more good than harm to others within and without the Body, but one can only pray and try to live one's beliefs authentically, knowing of course that the result will be less stellar than once I might have expected. With JPUSA, I definitely believe the whole is more than the parts (each of us in our individual incompleteness).

...which is why it pains me to be so discouraged by, yes, the diviseness of how CBE was positioned at the festival. I don't have a problem in disagreeing with JPUSA or in disagreeing with how the fest is run. It's your fest and you may run it as you wish. Many times the fest has shaken things up and crossed lines that should be crossed, for example, by inviting Nat Hentoff and Jean Vanier to speak. But you're criticizing Peter for not engaging in "dialogue" when there was only a monologue about the very issue we're discussing?? Oh, come on.

Sorry, Alan. Honestly. If you think it was a monologue... I thought I'd come into a conversation where much of the posting was pretty anti-CBE, anti-egalitarian. Thus my reaction. I thought I'd sort of turned things into more of a dialogue...? But again, here I am the new guy on the block and already making trouble! Sheesh! (I'm smiling broadly as I write this, truly.)

As a Christian upholding the traditional view of "headship" AND the broad goals of feminism, I believe "gender revolution" crosses the line, making Cornerstone more like Greenbelt in an "anything goes", carnival atmosphere rather that being a reliable, sound, and respectful place for Christians of differing backgrounds to, well, differ. I have no problem bringing my daughter to the latter but will keep her away from the former until she's much older and able, on her own, to more critically engage that monologue. I *thought* Cornerstone had a "big tent" view of the Christian family. But maybe I'm not a part of it if I'm not "revolutionary" enough. Has CBE discovered something fundamentally new about the Christian faith? That would be quite remarkable. (And even on a merely tactical level I'd suggest that it's a misstep to use vinegar rather than honey.)

But Alan, did you visit the tent? I guess I'm wondering if you really are giving CBE a fair shake here. I suggest next year that you come, at least for a few of the seminars. As far as Cstone vs Greenbelt, all I can say is that considerable (even excessive by many accounts) discussion goes on over each and every speaker we have at the fest. That doesn't mean we get it right always -- but we try real hard.

I have read feminists, specifically Elaine Storkey and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, as well as a few historical feminists such as Sarah Grimke and Angelina Grimke Weld. In Storkey's seminal book What's Right with Feminism, in one of the appendices IIRC, she separates the idea of headship from broader feminism, allowing for feminists to hold the traditional view. Fox-Genovese certainly allows for this as well. I would also hope that you would recognize that it is possible that Christians with a solid grasp of the scriptures will hold to a view of headship that is both at odds with radical feminism and CBE's position AND at odds with male chauvinism and dominance. As is often the case, there is another way.

Your referencing of Elaine Storkey's views is very interesting, and I thank you for it. I will have to look back at that (the book you mention is somewhere in my bewildering mess of open tomes and old computer parts surrounding my desk). I'm not as sure the Grimkes are as useful, for me at least, as their ideas seemed at times extrabiblical and sometimes downright odd. Another great resource on this is Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen -- http://www.eastern.edu/academic/trad_undg/...ology/mvanleeu/ Her writing on everything from Male sexuality to gender equality to lesbianism (she once was involved in that before her journey w/ Christ). But as a sociologist / theologian, oh and as a writer, she is doggone good.

You are right that CBE doesn't go with what many folks call "soft hierarchalism" but insists upon gifts not being determined by the presence or absence of a penis (sorry, my colorful way of putting it). If I can offer a few terms often used in such discussions, there is [1] hard hierarchalism (the male is boss!), [2] soft hierarchalism (male as "servant leader" and so on), and [3] mutuality (male and female "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" [Eph 5:21]. I'm thinking if you came to the CBE Tent, though, you'd find something good to walk away with even if you couldn't go with position [3]. Just my thot, though...

Anyway, do forgive me if I was rough on either you or Peter. Discussing an issue that burns within me like this one does is always a bit of a cautionary journey for me to venture out on.

Many blessings, and thanks by the way for this board. I've lurked here before, but chose not to fly my flag out of (for one thing) the realization that regarding movies my knowledge is decidedly pedestrian, and regarding serious art (as in painting) things are even worse. In literature, things look a bit better, but I'm truly not one who thinks of himself as the artistic critic / expert. I enjoy the arts, or not, unapologetically but also with few pretentions regarding the value of my own opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

(BTW, Storkey's going to be giving the Center for Public Justice's annual Kuyper lecture this year -- in Illinois -- on October 21st! This is an interesting coincidence, as I saw Fox-Genovese give the lecture several years ago at Eastern.)

I snipped the rest for now only because I'm a bit tired and just wanted to note something interesting about this last part. First, it looks like something I'd like to go to, as it is out in the 'burbs here. Second, I had to smile when I saw my old Freshman year (dropped out in Sophomore year to join JPUSA) Gordon College poly sci prof, James Skillen, mentioned as one of the co-authors of a book mentioned elsewhere on the Kyper site.

I just know that thrills everyone here.

Zzzzzzzz.

Jon

Edited by jon_trott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Skillen is very cool. I interviewed him many years ago on a talk radio show that I did. His work with the Center for Public Justice is very valuable and much needed.

Hehehe... yep, my main memory of Jim was scamming him for a good grade in a class I rarely studied for... it was one where we had to write essays. I wrote 'em and he believed me. What a lout that Trott is!

I did follow his journey into CPJ, though haven't recently paid as much attention. And years ago, we briefly met in person again, though I don't think I bothered mentioned Gordon College or those essays to him.

Edited by jon_trott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jon_trott wrote:

: And I would ask in return if you're a word parser or for real with the above questions.

Well, you're the one who took issue with the word "divisive". The parsing didn't begin with ME. So if you are going to make a big deal over a single word, then it stands to reason that you should be very careful in how you choose the words that dominate your tents and banners, etc.

: I am a part of a ministry which occurred during the so-called "Jesus Revolution" of the late 60s and

: early 70s. That, I believe, was not at all meant to be divisive. Likewise, a "Gender Revolution" today

: is not meant to be divisive, but it is meant to clearly identify a move of God among his children.

Movements divide. Whether they mean to or not is kind of beside the point. And given that they do divide, it is better to openly recognize this fact than to protest when it is brought to one's attention. "I come not to bring peace but a sword," etc.

: Now you and I can play semantical games all day. But I doubt either of us will walk away edified or

: enlightened. If there are real issues beneath this wordplay, let's talk about them.

Well, I'm a recent convert to Orthodoxy, so the question of whether Protestants do or don't ordain women is neither here nor there to me, now. I was chummy with CBE types in my Mennonite-Anglican days, and I still hang out with a few of them on a semi-regular basis. (Interestingly, a few of them are pro-gay, while another is ex-gay.) So I know that they can be wonderful people. But their doctrine is something else, and some of the arguments in, e.g., CBE's mission statement just plain miss the point of the biblical texts they cite (I mentioned one such example in our 'Anglican Schism?' thread three years ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I somehow messed up the quotations -- but to quote Vonnegut, 'So it goes!' I lamely tried to signify who was who with "jon1" "peter2" (responses to Jon1) and "jon2" (responses to "peter2." Got it? Me neither.

jon_trott wrote:

: And I would ask in return if you're a word parser or for real with the above questions.

peter2:

Well, you're the one who took issue with the word "divisive". The parsing didn't begin with ME. So if you are going to make a big deal over a single word, then it stands to reason that you should be very careful in how you choose the words that dominate your tents and banners, etc.

jon2:

Peter, I gotta say the above paragraph once again reflects the attitude of a debator. Sure, once in a while I'm up for a little silliness and wordplay--if for no other reason than it sharpens ones thinking / writing skills. But I'm not really here to score debate team points or make myself feel good. (Writing is painful enough!) If you don't see the difference between responding to "divisive" and your response to it, I'm not going to explain it to you. I'm really not tryin' to be snarky here; if we were sitting at a table drinking joe (or tea if you prefer) I'm sure some of this would be easier to discuss.

jon1

: I am a part of a ministry which occurred during the so-called "Jesus Revolution" of the late 60s and

: early 70s. That, I believe, was not at all meant to be divisive. Likewise, a "Gender Revolution" today

: is not meant to be divisive, but it is meant to clearly identify a move of God among his children.

peter2:

Movements divide. Whether they mean to or not is kind of beside the point. And given that they do divide, it is better to openly recognize this fact than to protest when it is brought to one's attention. "I come not to bring peace but a sword," etc.

jon2:

This point seems a non-point, sorta like saying "the sky is blue!" True enough, but what does it have to do with anything? The question was originally about CBE / Gender Equality as a movement, and its legitimacy or lack thereof. My point above was that those within a movement can (and in both the Jesus movement and CBE usually did/do) percieve themselves as being inclusive and positively focused rather than exclusive and negatively focused. Now as an example of a sub-movement within the Jesus movement that was negatively focused, you might take the Children of God / Family of Love / Family (the name has morphed over the years). That group's exclusivity and sexual + doctrinal aberrations are a good example of a suspect movement.

But see... you sucked me into parsing again. Ha!

jon1:

: Now you and I can play semantical games all day. But I doubt either of us will walk away edified or

: enlightened. If there are real issues beneath this wordplay, let's talk about them.

peter2:

Well, I'm a recent convert to Orthodoxy, so the question of whether Protestants do or don't ordain women is neither here nor there to me, now. I was chummy with CBE types in my Mennonite-Anglican days, and I still hang out with a few of them on a semi-regular basis. (Interestingly, a few of them are pro-gay, while another is ex-gay.) So I know that they can be wonderful people. But their doctrine is something else, and some of the arguments in, e.g., CBE's mission statement just plain miss the point of the biblical texts they cite (I mentioned one such example in our 'Anglican Schism?' thread three years ago).

jon2:

First, I know of *no* CBE staff member or even rank and file member past or present who hold to homosexuality being either biblical or acceptable. In fact there was an ugly split within the Christian feminist movement back in the (early?) 80s over that, which we covered in Cornerstone at the time. The pro-gay EEWC -- http://www.eewc.com/index.htm -- is the "other side" of that split, and they do not affirm a number of orthodox beliefs held by CBE and other Christians. CBE's very existence is rooted in their forthright defense of the family and one-man, one-woman marriage. If you know a CBE member who supports homosexuality, you might want to redirect them to EEWC (or try to convince them that they really don't get it, blblically speaking).

Second, I don't think CBE misses the point of Galatians 3:28 -- the core of their mission statement -- at all. To dive into that swimming pool would probably drown us both, but suffice it to say that the more I read Galatians, Ephesians, and the rest of Paul (along with Jesus' own comments as well as Peter and the others), the more I'm convinced CBE is onto something very central. It goes beyond even the gender debate into the nature of the gospel itself, as reflected by the entire book of Galatians and its attack on the "circumcision party."

But then, that's just me.

Third, your attempt at a refutation of CBE based on that one paragraph linked above seems less than overwhelming to me. Again, no time or space to go fully into it, but as someone who has heard Mimi Haddad speak on similar themes (Mimi, president of CBE, has attended and spoken at Cstone Fest a number of times), I can say I've heard that whole complex of biblical and historical data unpacked in a way satisfying to me intellectually. Aida Spencer (wife of Bill Spencer, whom many here are likely acquainted with) also this year did a masterful job at unpacking these verses / themes / histories. Perhaps when I've time -- and if others actually want to read this stuff on a board dedicated to the arts -- I'll try to link to some good resources on this.

Blessings, gotta run!

Jon

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point above was that those within a movement can (and in both the Jesus movement and CBE usually did/do) percieve themselves as being inclusive and positively focused rather than exclusive and negatively focused. Now as an example of a sub-movement within the Jesus movement that was negatively focused, you might take the Children of God / Family of Love / Family (the name has morphed over the years). That group's exclusivity and sexual + doctrinal aberrations are a good example of a suspect movement.

I dunno, Jon, submovements aside, the Jesus Movement erected as many walls as it tore down. I'm thinking of new denominations that don't have the guts to admit that they're denominations. I'm thinking of house churches that aren't answerable to anybody, and completely cut off from 2K years of church history, and claiming to have restored the apostolic faith -- and while they may not be heretics like Children of God, one can hardly dispute that they're isolated. I'm thinking of Keith Green's tracts claiming that Catholicism is a cult. I'm thinking of the chapbook you can buy in the bookstore at Hope Chapel Kaneohe, a well-known charismatic Foursquare church in Honolulu, which explains why John Calvin was a heretic...

P.S. Good to see you round these parts. We had a chat in your office about 6 years back, when the Kroghs put me up at Friendly Towers for a night.

Edited by mrmando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jon_trott wrote:

: Peter, I gotta say the above paragraph once again reflects the attitude of a debator.

Well, this is impressive! It normally takes a few more rounds before people here start arguing about other people's attitudes instead of the facts on the table -- but you've launched into the attitude criticism right off the bat! Suffice to say that this sort of diversion doesn't interest me very much.

: If you don't see the difference between responding to "divisive" and your response to it, I'm

: not going to explain it to you.

Too bad. My original point still stands, then. You cannot pick at someone else's use of a word while minimizing the significance of your own use of words -- especially when the words in question are so closely related.

: : Movements divide. Whether they mean to or not is kind of beside the point. And given

: : that they do divide, it is better to openly recognize this fact than to protest when it is

: : brought to one's attention. "I come not to bring peace but a sword," etc.

:

: This point seems a non-point, sorta like saying "the sky is blue!"

Perhaps, but when the other person was saying something confusing like "we're not excluding other colours ... although we admit there might be times when we SHOULD exclude other colours ... but the point is, you shouldn't say our colour choice is 'exclusive'," then a bit of clarity is called for. Even if it's clarity of the well-duh sort.

: The question was originally about CBE / Gender Equality as a movement, and its legitimacy or

: lack thereof.

Ah, but it seems to me that the REAL original question here was whether a broadly evangelical organization like Cornerstone should be giving the CBE movement an exclusive endorsement. Why have an entire tent devoted to CBE -- with a bold endorsement of its "Revolution" -- and not one for CBMW? (Try to imagine that Cornerstone is taking place in the 1770s, and the festival is devoting an entire tent to "the American Revolution" and completely excluding the Loyalists. You may not be tarring and feathering them, but...)

: My point above was that those within a movement can (and in both the Jesus movement and

: CBE usually did/do) percieve themselves as being inclusive and positively focused rather

: than exclusive and negatively focused.

FWIW, I am less interested in how people perceive themselves than in what they actually DO.

: First, I know of *no* CBE staff member or even rank and file member past or present who hold

: to homosexuality being either biblical or acceptable.

Staff member, I can buy. But rank and file member? Maybe Vancouver is different from Chicago, but what can I say -- I first met some CBE types at a booth they sponsored at the local MissionsFest, and then I interviewed several of them for a story on CBE in the local Christian newspaper (which doesn't seem to be online, but if memory serves, this was before the big kerfuffle over the gender-inclusive NIV in 1997), and then I moved downtown and bumped into a couple of them at a local supermarket, and since we were now neighbours, we decided to stay in touch, go to movies, attend meetings on post-evangelicalism, etc.

: If you know a CBE member who supports homosexuality, you might want to redirect them to

: EEWC (or try to convince them that they really don't get it, blblically speaking).

Don't know if EEWC exists in this town, though I think I heard about it at one of the CBE meetings I attended. For that matter, I don't know if the friends I referred to above are still with CBE, though I do know they were into the post-evangelicalism thing back when I first met them (and one of our mutual friends is a gay evangelical who was never really sure whether he met the definition of a "post-evangelical"; but I do not know whether he himself was ever with CBE).

: Second, I don't think CBE misses the point of Galatians 3:28 -- the core of their mission statement

: -- at all. To dive into that swimming pool would probably drown us both . . .

Yup, and we already have other threads on feminism, or the role of history and tradition in forming and interpreting scripture, etc., etc. :)

: Third, your attempt at a refutation of CBE based on that one paragraph linked above seems

: less than overwhelming to me.

Heck, it's less than overwhelming to ME, too! But the presence of such a glaring error of interpretation in such a foundational document is still a wee bit problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...