"It helps to have a family."
Rowan Williams on the lives of bishops.

ONLY CONNECT

Yes it does help bishops and priests to have a family but gay priests and bishops in the C of E are all celibate? Whom does he imagine he is kidding?

Simon - Here is the link to the transcript for the entire press Conference. It is worth reading.

http://www.anglicanplanet.net/TAPIntern0705a.html

It seems pretty clear to me from reading it in total that he views the Communique as just that a communique. That the Primates are trying to dialogue about the extent of the problem and come up with a solution that is satisfactory.

"I’m still waiting to see what the Episcopal Church will come up with as an alternative. The reaction from the Episcopal Church was a very strongly worded protest against what was seen as interference, although that wasn’t the intention of the primatial Communiqué. So the next question is “If not that, then what?” Is there another possibility on the table? I’ve spoken privately to people in the United States and am waiting to see what opens up."

Viewed in this way - The deadline is a deadline by which to give a response to the "recommendations" as part of a larger dialogue.

Now, Akinola may not see it that way. But clearly, the ABC thinks a majority of the Primates do.

And yet we get an opposite report, looks like from Australian press.

At: http://au.news.yahoo.com/070418/21/135kh.html

Go figure.

If the 9-30 date is just a deadline for replying so that the dialogue can continue in a timely manner, many, many of the conservative realignment folks have entirely viewed it otherwise.

So some are going to be calling Rowan Williams "Rocket Man"

And I think it's gonna be a long long time
Till touch down brings me round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home,
Oh no no no! I'm a rocket man -
Rocket man, burning out his fuse up here alone

...
It's just my job five days a week
A rocket man, a rocket man

_Archbishop Williams also said that he wished the current debate on sexuality that has bitterly divided the Anglican Communion would be framed in terms of “biblical justice and biblical holiness” instead of the prevailing conservative view of “biblical fidelity” and the liberal view of justice_

Rowan Williams has said similar before, wanting to stay within theology to get answers, rather than go outside to sociology and the like.

However, the reason we go outside to law, to sociology, and to biology, is because that is where to find comparative knowledge, and the context in which the Bible as used sits. Not everything comes from within. Again, he sits within the tradition in a kind of bubble, but some of us to ask what it means come outside the bubble (and it is a check to sanity too).

While this should not be taken as a comment on the editorial bias or not of the Anglican Planet (as I have not had the opportunity to read much of its content), it should be noted that this site/publication was set up by supporters of the Network in Canada - who did not feel that the official publication (The Anglican Journal) of the Anglican Church of Canada was representative of their views.

Unfortunately the "About Us" page implies a more formal releationship with the Anglican Church of Canada than exists in reality.

Rowan Williams ought to get out of his bubble and address the issues facing the church with something other than theology? Hmmm. I saw a physicist do that sort of thing in trying to defend a theory he favored. He wrote a defense and even got it published as an Op-Ed in the New York Times, but most of the response from the physics community was derision for the NY Times as a proper place to argue physics and the substance of the defence was laughed off as more or less entirely failing to deal with any questions significant for the study of physics. Perhaps we should take a lesson from the physicists and make sure to hold our arguments close to the fundamental questions and of the Christian community. In the present circumstances biblical justice and holiness are probably far closer to the center than liberal justice and the conservative's claims about biblical fidelity.

Jon

Well Jon, biology, aspects of sociology and social anthropology, and legal theory tell us quite something about forms of relationships, and the fact that a theology expert might not extend very cleverly into other fields does not mean that these are irrelevant nor that a Church can seal itself off from them and try to extract everything from within. The problem with trying to keep within the bubble is the realisation that the bubble reflects what is going on outside and that if floats in and among the outside, so it is worth looking there too. There is everything to gain in a theologian drawing on other expertise, starting with sociology of religion, other sociology and social anthropology, looking at secular views of justice and adding scientific insight.

ABC: "As I have said, this does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment."

So after decades of exegetical wrangling over this subject, the ABC concedes the gay issue cannot be settled on interpretation of Romans 1... Thank you ABC.

Now we can proceed to other parts of Scripture perhaps, that might infer inclusivity? Then we can surely count on Reason - the pluralism of science, ethics, human rights, the law, culture and secular humanism? Liberals, it seems, have several large bubbles.

What's left for the conservatives now that we can confidently say that to rely on their favourite passage of Scripture is to clutch at straws? Tradition, perhaps? Um. Women were ordained without communiques complaining about breaking "bonds of affection"; divorcees were allowed to be remarried in church without similar complaints.

Tradition is constantly evolving it seems. Good news that.

The trick is, Jon and Pluralist, to find the balance between involving "the world" too much in our theology, and looking at "the world" and seeing how we can best theologize given its insights.

It is paradoxical--we Christians are said to be "not of this world" and yet we are not to be taken out of it.

Ren Aguila,
we can't look "at" the world, we live right in it. When we say that Christians are not of this world we often overlook that this world was lovinglgy created and that we are an integral part of this creation. All it means is that we are not slaves to the fleeting fashions and negative values of this world but have an "external" reference to help guide us.

Unless I can live fully in this world and make sense of it with the help of my faith, my faith is largely worthless and only serves to exclude me from the life around me.

If my faith excludes science, psychology and all the normal experiences I make in my daily life, it becomes purely self referential and ultimately shallow and pointless.

"It is paradoxical"
One of the many beauties of the Catholic Faith is that it doesn't seek to resolve paradoxes when it comes to God, preferring to get lost in the wonder. All the same, I do not see our call to be in the world, not of it, as a paradox. As Erika says, we have an external reference to guide us. It is to our great shame that we have allied ourselves to the world for the past 1700 years, and compromised our principles along the way. We now lack the moral credibility to speak truth to power, so we are left to silly arguments about who is allowed to put what body part where in the Kingdom. Sex is not a Kingdom issue, human suffering is, yet one of our "leaders" is obsessed with other people's sex lives and has made the claim that human suffering doesn't matter! This is the result of our ancient capitulation to the world, and it is nurtured by some people's idea that salvation has nothing to do with this world, with Creation, with the here and now, instead, it's all about making sure God doesn't roast you forever after you die! It's great for scaring people into churches, but it isn't a good representation of the Kingdom. Salvation isn't bought, neither by good works, nor by fearful obedience.

Good explanation, but I think we do need a little more of the resistance to the "fleeting fashions and negative values of the world." This is what I meant by not being "of the world," which I should add appears in the farewell discourse of Christ in John's Gospel. You're right, we are in the world--a very crucial insight of 20th century existential thought.

I agree that we should be able to integrate our life-worlds with our faith, but we should have the critical eye to ask whether we are losing sight of the centrality of the Christian message in the process.

What Dr. Williams is doing in his lecture, I think, is to remind us of that centrality. Paradoxically, though, it requires a hermeneutic in order to make it meaningful, and sometimes, we do have to look outside theology.

Ford - don't think your argument works in the light of Romans 6.

We are not talking of "fearful obedience" but joyful repentance in right response to grace as in Roms 6

NP

I am so glad to hear you talk of joyful response. The bible is redolent of joyful imagery of God's healing for humanity e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:51-58, Isaiah 54 which opens with the words "“Sing, O barren woman,you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy..."

This article was advertised on Christian radio station yesterday, so I checked it out last night http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/indepth/articles/why_easter_is_so_offensive/ It was the antithesis of joy and hope. It denies the God who rebukes the nitpickers, it forgets the joy of victory of life over death, compassion over tyranny. If forgets why the Daughter of Zion threw her support behind Jesus. This article also includes allusions to passing fashions; which seems to mean anything that doesn't flatter their theological paradigms.

Both Erika and Ford are valid to point out that God leaves us in the world for a period. If we are here, there are things that we are meant to learn and do within this reality. God does not make manifest things in this reality without a reason, and to deny God's manifestations is to miss the whole point of why you are here.

Ecclesiastes 9 beautifully encapsulates the principles that we should fully live within this reality and also has passages to rebuke the judgemental who deny that being in this world matters or precludes joy. e.g. "All share a common destiny" "Anyone who is among the living has hope — even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!" "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do... Enjoy life with your wife (spouse), whom you love, all the days of this... life that God has given you..."

Perhaps it would be helpful, Ren and Pluralist, to note that theology, like physics, is a discipline. This means that theology has a characteristic approach to the questions asked of it. This characteristic hermeneutic, by its nature, limits what sort of question makes sense in the same way that the basic hermeneutic of the sciences rules out any question that cannot be verified by empirical methods. Approaching theology as a discipline rules out using other disciplines to define how theology must answer, but also rules out moderating what we bring into the theological discourse.

Jon

"Approaching theology as a discipline rules out using other disciplines to define how theology must answer".

Generally speaking, disciplines are strengthened by their interaction with other disciplines, especially the sciences. Are you afraid of the vulnerability of theology to external influence?

Good God! Is this what our modern world has reduced talk of God (theo-logos) to, a mere discipline?
St. Anselm (whose feast we celebrate today) would have been disgusted.

Scuse me ? 'Empirical vefification of theology ?

I think not.

Try The Cloud of Unkowing or Mother Julian

Hugh, if one tries answering a question of physics using just the laws of chemistry one will simply get laughed out of the room. Just so, while the other disciplines can reveal something about the reality of the world they cannot define what answers theology must give any more than chemists can tell physicists what they must believe. It is a case of no discipline being able to trump any other discipline.

Ren, what more would you make of theology? It can't build bridges over the Thames or predict what will happen to any particular star when it goes nova, and yet both those questions are worth considering at least some of the time.

Laurence, I didn't say that theology's hermeneutic was emperical; I said science's hermeneutic was emperical. As it happens I am familiar with both Dame Julian and the Cloud of Unknowing; let me suggest that it is wise to be careful how strongly we emphasize the trandsendance of God. If we can't know anything definite about God, especially if this makes the importance of love and other ethical concerns look like matters of opinion, it can become difficult to see how a liberal can reasonably oppose bigotry. After all, how can anyone be denied the right to their own opinion?

Jon

Jon, yes, theology cannot do the things you suggested, but it has the function of putting all things into a perspective beyond the everyday. In other words, talk of God makes us aware of the greater implications of what we do.
In short, this is what we call "discernment."

Now I hope Simon can put up coverage of the goings-on in Canada, now that the nominees for Primate have been announced. I wonder if readers have anything to say about this.

A Lambeth Conference next year will be extremely expensive financially, and will achieve very little, I fear. I wish it had been cancelled or postponed. It will either produce dissent, arguement, and schism, or bland statements.

If an international debate is called for then something more representative and forthright would be appropriate. The gathering would after all consist of large group of bishops - men mainly over 50 (plus possibly a woman or two), and no laity.

All disciplines, if they are worth pursuing, make sense of the world. The primary differences are in scope and how closely they are connected to the foundation of reality.

Jon

_Approaching theology as a discipline rules out using other disciplines to define how theology must answer, but also rules out moderating what we bring into the theological discourse._ Jon

No it doesn't. It depends what theologies you use. I give you Robin Gill, hardly a radical, who uses theology and sociology of religion and writes about the overlap between them in terms of using one with the other.

Etheldreda: "A Lambeth Conference next year will be extremely expensive financially"

And a rather large carbon footprint to boot. And all for what?

Will AC take another step on its fundamentalist path towards the exclusion of gays? Amongst other things, it ought to be be an opportune moment for the world to be shown just how serious they were about the Listening Process, about the reality of LGBT life across the communion, about a commitment to equality for all, all, all.

Funny how keen some are to avoid Lambeth 2008 happening......maybe because it is not so easy to make fudge in the AC these days.

Lambeth 2008 will happen and will be very productive without those who have been hijacking the agenda of the AC for years now - they will be probably having "Vegas 2008" and at Canterbury, the AC will be free to get on with its mission (at last)

"Lambeth 2008 will happen and will be very productive without those who have been hijacking the agenda of the AC for years now "

The "Global South" isn't going?

Very funny Ford - imagine the tragic group of declining churches represented without the GS!

I hope people are taking Sept 30th seriously - even the ABC says clear decisions must be made to walk with the AC if things like Lambeth are to go ahead with TEC and other liberal provinces.

And, pls do not imagine for one moment that VGR is coming to Lambeth....that is not an option open to the ABC, given he does not want to see the AC split and does not want the AC to become a few million liberals dotted around the world.

Sorry, NP, I couldn't resist:-) As to:

"pls do not imagine for one moment that VGR is coming to Lambeth"

how do you know this?

"imagine the tragic group of declining churches represented"

But you don't think you're better than anyone else, right? You sincerely grieve that these "declining churches" can't seem to break through the bigotry generated by narrow minded fundies? Have you ever watched South Park, NP? You ought to. They skewer Christianity from time to time, and it is an interesting thing to see what their impression of Christianity actually is. It is what the world outside the Chruch sees, it is what they think we are, it makes God a dirty word in their mouths, and it keeps them out of the Church. It is also much closer to the kind of Christianity you practice. Do with that what you will, I'm getting sick of telling people who hate Christianity that the image they have is not what Christianity is, since those who are loudest are people who practice exactly that kind of Cristianity.

Ford; part of NP's difficulty is the metropolitan situation. THings are very different out in the sticks where local churches are far more known for what they are. Metropolitan situations are always happy hunting grounds for eclectic congregations.

As I often lament, who do so few Christians take note of sociology?

Off to choose a few hymns - no guitar, no Graham Kendrick, I wonder if there's anything new by Venantius FOrtunatus or Ephraim Syrus...?

I've got an album called Vigil from St. Vladimir's Seminary Chorale, Russian hymns in English. If your choir is up to it, suggest they do the Polyelos with the Russian "Athos Chant". I listen to it while working, and when that track comes on, I can't work, it just transports me! The real Orthodox, especially the Russian ones, have their hymnody copper fastened!

Mynster - pls give some Kendrick and Townend a go - it is good to attract younger people and let the church service live in its own time.

(We always have one or two golden oldies because some of the words are so good but most of our music is more modern but always with high quality theology in the words - we take care on that - and being up to date does help to attract thousands every week - it is not a sin to do this)

NP said
'let the church service live in its own time.'

but let our theology/ethics live in the past?

(Sorry, being wicked, couldn't resist it. Anyway, the mass lives in eternity.)

But (and it's a b******** BIG but) if the Kendrickian goo is so wonderful at bringing in the kiddies, why is it that here, where we use that stuff only sparingly, we have more involvement from kids and young people than other denominations/congregations which do that stuff wall-to-wall.

There is not one single form of musical spirituality, and the prevailing evangelical assumption that 'The Young' respond to Kendrick's ditties is not conclusive. My own kids (21-28) do not (and have never) found that stuff in the least bit uplifting - they find it embarrassing and evanescent, as did their pals (no they didn't go to private or public school, just the local stuff round Grimsby). I think you're suffering from metropolitanitis again.

If you want something worthwhile in that area try material like the U2Charist.

Ship of Fools has a long running thread called Crappy Choruses and Horrible Hymns in which the Kendrickian style of hymnody is seriously skewered. They don't appeal to everybody, and are characterized as "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs. I call 'em MPEPs for "mindless panEvangelical pap".
Thanks to our (gasp) female deacon, our church has done some very good work rebuilding our Sunday school, and we get the occasional new face at Mass, in response to this outreach. Not huge growth, but growth. This in a rather stodgy old Anglo-Catholic parish, neither right nor left, with a rector who calls himself an old fashioned Tory, we don't touch "the gay issue" and are also appalled at Essentials et al, and we sing exclusively out of the old Canadian Common Praise. I'd debate whether you can use the phrases "more modern" and "high quality theology" in the same sentence when speaking of hymns.

I know this is terribly off-topic, so I shall post this and belt up - but in view of the 'Jesus is my Boyfriend' comment above, I thought I should add supporting evidence to that interpretation by saying that my organist and his missus (proving Satan finds work for idle hands) once composed the plot of an erotic novel out of the first line of entries in 'Songs of Fellowship.

It began with something like 'O Lord, You're beautiful' and ended with the Parousia - I think posting the rest of the titles would get me barred.....

Mynster - like I said, if we are carefully selecting on the basis of the words / theology - there is lots of good modern music.

You seem to think it is easier to preach the gospel and fill churches in the cities....I don't think that is likely but perhaps people are more willing to travel across a city to get to a church....so bigger churches can grow up more easily.

We actually do not like being huge as fellowship becomes very hard - so, every year, we encourage hundreds of people to leave and go somewhere (with a faithful vicar) nearer to where they live as our building an only take a thousand.

NP,

I sympathise, I find intimate fellowship with more than a thousand people very hard too.

Please comment on Mynsterpreost's reply to you on an earlier thread:
"If the fastest growing faith numerically was (say)Islam, would that indicate to you God's intention as well? Would you convert on the grounds of numbers alone? Or is there something else which even in you reccognises that the numbers game is a red herring?"

Erika - I did not respond to that comment on nos because it was weak.

Clearly, I was saying that preaching the authentic gospel (ie sticking to the bible) produces growth and we see that in conservative churches while we see decline in churches which water down the biblical message to make it more acceptable.

The irony is that the non-watered-down, Biblical message attracts large nos in England today and the compromise is unattractive to everyone.

"the authentic gospel (ie sticking to the bible)"
But the latter does not imply the former, as you well know, NP. First, the Bible is NOT the Gospel. It contains the Gospels, but neither of them is the actual Good News, they are some of the teachings of Jesus (some because they admit to not telling us things, since "all the books in the world" couldn't hold them) given to us by four people who actually heard the Gospel from His own lips and received a gift from God to report them accurately and truthfully. To say that the written Gospels ARE the Good News is to misunderstand what they actually are. Furthermore, lots of people claim to stick to the Bible, but come up with many different and mutually exclusive teachings. "Sticking to the Bible", then, is no insurance of fidelity to the Gospel.
And as to numbers, you well know that more and more people in England are going to no Church at all and many are coming to have a clear hatred for Christianity, largely because of the intolerance spouted by conservatives. Just because Evo churches attract a large number of the ever decreasing number of people who actually go to Church does not mean that they are actually furthering the Gospel. If you bothered to talk to the people who your beliefs have caused to hate God, you'd know this.

Ford - just this week, in my "Alpha" group, I saw 3 people become Christians - they were not going to church at all a year ago.

We are very focussed on those not coming atall and find they are joining when we preach the gospel without making concessions to our society....I don't believe these people would have been converted if I had been telling them that they did not really need to repent of anything given the bible is "bronze age" as some here say.

One of the barriers we find in inviting people is some know the CofE as an org which does not know what it thinks and others think it is just corrupt. Whatever the objection, I do not see many flocking to the "inclusive" churches which do not challenge people to listen to God's wishes for their lives - even when that is very hard indeed for them to hear or live out. We must tell the truth and the truth is in the scriptures, not in traditions of modern men

"I do not see many flocking to the "inclusive" churches which do not challenge people to listen to God's wishes for their lives"

But such churches DO challenge people to listen to God's wishes for their lives, NP, that's the point I'm trying to make over and over here, just because a Church is "liberal" in some sense doesn't mean they don't take seriously the call to change of life, they just see the need for change of life in areas you don't. That you continue to believe such caricatures of those who disagree with you is another thing many would challenge. It is simply unture to say that "liberals" see no need for repentance.

"That you continue to believe such caricatures of those who disagree with you is another thing many would challenge. It is simply unture to say that "liberals" see no need for repentance."

And that you have talked with liberals on this forum for months without beginning to see even a trace of this is desperately sad - and not encouraging as far as any continued conversation is concerned.

NP encouraged me with
Mynster - like I said, if we are carefully selecting on the basis of the words / theology - there is lots of good modern music.

Well, that depends on what you define as 'good theology'. For those of us who, on scriptural and traditional grounds, are deeply unhappy with PSA, for example, the field is immediately reduced mightily.

And there's a peculiar didactic unimaginativeness in so much of it. Compare and contrast the kenotic Christ of 'Morning Glory' and the very-nearly-kenotic Christ of 'The Servant King: what happens in the last verse of the first - an exquisite meditation on the cross; in the second, the feeble 'So let us learn how to serve...' unexceptionable, I know, but no great insight or originality. And that's one of the better offerings: the unspeakable 'I am a lighthouse' is the source of a continuing competition here at St. Mary's....

I know that Mr Kendrick et al are capable of producing lyrics which tickle the erogenous zones of evangelical Christians: they just don't do much for the rest of us. And some of us like a little astringency in the music as well, rather than formulaic balladic drivel.

"And that you have talked with liberals on this forum for months without beginning to see even a trace of this is desperately sad - and not encouraging as far as any continued conversation is concerned."

Was this for me or NP?

Sorry, Ford, that was for NP.
I have you down as a reluctant liberal, and I see you as someone who takes his faith extremely seriously and who listens to other's point of view with a wonderful self-searching and always self-questioning openness. That's what true listening and engaging should be about - I'm learning a lot from your contributions!

I figured as much, but thought I'd clarify. I often get myself into Internet scrapes since what I type often seem so clear, but is anything but when it's on the screen.

This 'hard-line reasserting packs 'em in' needs challenging. I spent an uncomfortable session not so long since with a person who has been attending such an assembly. Required to call black white in order to be a member of this fellowship, he has decided that if that is true Christianity it can get knotted. I am working on him to give the faith another chance, but I suspect that it's another loss to the church courtesy of fundamentalism.

Erika - yes, months of chat without being convinced because I keep on asking for substance but all I hear is rejection of scripture in order to justify certain sins.

NP,
If all you keep hearing is rejection of Scripture then you really haven't been reading very well. What I have seen is very careful and prayerful interpretation of Scripture. Moving away from the literalist, of course, but with huge reverence and care and with enormous personal integrity.
I'm really sorry you're so blind to that.

But Erika - you don't want to move away from the "literalist" teaching on wealth and looking after the poor - do you?

Funny it is only on certain issues that revisionists want to "revise" the bible!

NP,
I move away from any literalist teaching. Including that about wealth. I have a bank account, I have a high interest savings account, a credit card, I own more clothes than I need, I own a small house, I go away on holidays - none of these are defensible if you take the bible literally.

You don't accept that we should ever interpret the bible, and all I'm trying to do is point out that you are not as literalist as you claim to be. The only time I can see where you really insist on literal biblical morality is when you criticise my sexuality, safely from the comfort of knowing that it's the one sin you'll never be tempted with. Neat!

Erika - I am not excusing any of my many sins.....this is the point.

I have no authority to say that since eg I want to accumulate a lot of wealth (which I do, I admit), that is right behaviour - because it is not if we listen to the bible as God's word rather than a "bronze age" book.

I am not saying "do not" means "do"....sorry but we have no authority to do that

NP,

"But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

Would you say that this is a clear command "do not crave money", and that we do not have the authority to say "I want to accumulate lots of wealth"?

And I'm only quoting the NT here so you can't say that the Apostles have allowed us greed.

Why is is that one sin is so severe that those committing it have to be thrown out of your church, whereas another sin is so minor that we can openly admit to it as a bit of a personal fault?

If you ask me, the moral and social consequences of greed at much much worse than those of loving same sex relationships.
I really do not understand on which basis you decide when "don't" means "don't" and when it can be ignored.

NP: point of grammar (or semantics perhaps?). The shift is not 'Don't' to 'Do', is it. It is from 'Don't' to 'May' - in other words, the prohibition has been weakened, it has not been inverted into a command.

It doesn't greatly affect your argument, but such sloppy use of language is a bit silly, don't you think?

Hi Erika

You ask why one sin is seen as eviction-worthy whereas another can be laughed off.

In the present case it is because the former is not being admitted to be a sin at all. Any eviction would not be on the grounds of the sin having been committed but on the grounds of
(a) lack of repentance
(b) reclassification of sins as non-sins.

"it is not if we listen to the bible as God's word rather than a "bronze age" book"

You've used this phrase before. Who else uses it? Merseymike? Well, he's obviously angry at the Church, and it isn't hard to infer some of the reasons. Now you can feel attacked by that or try to understand and minister to it. WWJD? Goran? Goran is a very intelligent, knowledgable academic. I love what he writes, it makes me think, it informs me, and I have great respect for him, but he is making academic arguments, which ought to challenge you, not offend. Let's say some of what we attribute to Paul actually was written years after his death, what odds? The Spirit guided to Church to see it as inspired by God. I don't care who actually wrote it. Who else? You have so bought into the Evangelical myth of the persecuted modern Christian that you actually see this attitude as the norm around here. This is why I keep harping on about not buying into the persecution myths, regardless of whether or not there actually IS persecution of your side. It makes you see the other side as some sort of monolithic 'other' that can be easily stereotyped, then feared, and fear is NOT a Christian virtue. It's not at all different from what I can so easily fall into WRT Evangelicals, and which colours any criticisms that I may make of Evangelicalism that actually may be valid.