Michael-
Bowler does briefly mention the Victoria Institute, but mostly in the context
of anti-evolution activists. He does deal with evangelicals to a certain
degree, but keep in mind that his main intent is to deal with liberal
theology and non-materialist science. So evangelicals are necessarily
treated in a more abbreviated form.
BTW, I've never seen the Victoria Institute treated as anything but a hotbed
of anti-evolutionists (even by evangelical authors). Was it anything more?
Karl
*************************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com
In a message dated 1/12/02 4:42:21 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
topper@robertschirk.u-net.com writes:
<< From 1900 to 1950 Conservative Evangelicals were thin on the ground. Within
the Church of England their strength may be indicated by out of 30m
seminaries, 3 were conservative evangelical , 5 or 6 were liberalish
evangelical and the rest high church (dominant) or central to modernist ( a
close second). In fact in these decades a lot of donkey work was done
especially on the mission field and IVF which gave a foundation for the
future.
Did Bowler deal with the Victoria Institute an evangelical science and
religion group?
I think Bowler is echoing the dominant view of church historians who often
simply ignore evangelicals as of no consequence. Or at least they could
until 1990 when it was clear that evangelicals form the dominant group
within the Cof E, but have a range of opinion from mildly liberal to fairly
conservative. My observation is that what would be seen as a conservative
evangelical in England would be somewhat iffy and liberal across the pond.
For example most Anglcian evangelicals would not subscribe to inerrancy and
of the clergy probably 5% are creationist
Michael
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 14 2002 - 20:47:37 EST