|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Spectrum of conevo to radical
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Dave W wrote
Last year Gallup got 38% who said that "God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years", vs 38% for "Humans evolved, God guided process" and 19% for "Humans evolved, God had no part in process". (Respondents were asked which of these three statements came closest to their views.)
And 38% of Americans self-identify as Evangelicals
Interesting.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
38% of Americans self-identify as Evangelicals
Where does that figure come from?
The most common figure (eg Pew) is 25%.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Wasn't the 25(-ish)% figure from a while ago, Kaplan? The most recent survey I can trace suggests it has nosedived over the last decade. The 2017 PRRi survey (here) shows it down to 17%.
I think the 38% figure must relate to something else.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I subscribe to the theory of secularization, and of the development from sect to congregation to church theory (though I never really understood why the trend could not be bucked!). I hadn't applied it to individuals but I find that a very helpful idea to think about - thanks.
The trend can seemingly be arrested in some contexts; some movements have retained sect-like qualities. The Amish groups have grown since the turn of the 20th c., and haven't lost their distinctive qualities as a result. The JWs and the Mormons are still quite different from the Protestant mainstream.
Going back to my earlier post, it's not quite right for me to say that church-sect theory focuses on religious groups rather than individuals. Some commentators do go into the influence of changing church dynamics on individual churchgoers, or on types of churchgoers.
Certainly, the phenomenon of increasing education and social status on the part of the clergy and/or laity often leads to tensions within movements which were born to service the faith of less privileged groups. Generational differences may become apparent. And even though modern evangelicals can be quite middle class from the start, there may well be personality differences that indicate how some individuals are likely to move in a different direction.
Commentators note that the growth potential of some evangelical churches actually stimulates these problems. People of all kinds are drawn to popular, lively, close-knit communities, even if they're not entirely convinced about the theology or the lifestyle. Some newcomers may completely absorb what they're taught, but others won't. Too many of the latter will reduce the strictness the church as a whole (to the disgust of some strict members, who sometimes leave), but in a large or growing churches it's almost inevitable that a less strict minority of individuals will probably end up losing interest.
Some strict groups prefer it if dissatisfied people leave rather than staying to undermine the cohesion of the group. But where the transition is already taking place, or where decline has set in, there's probably more anxiety.
[ 09. February 2018, 17:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the mistake here is viewing atheism and conservative evangelicalism as opposite ends of a spectrum and liberal Christianity as some sort of point in between; that going conservative->liberal->radical->atheist is just progression in the same direction. It's not. You can be a faithful believer with as great a commitment as a con evo while still thinking that PSA is awful theology and that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.
Not really. Going conservative -> liberal IS a progression towards atheism. Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy. Then they come up with resignifications of traditional christian beliefs, like "God is the ultimate concern of a human life" or "the ressurrection means that Jesus´ project continued in the disciples´ community after his death; his ideals are still alive", etc. You can tell this is a fact, both from a rational and an empirical point of view.
Rational: if you left traditional believes like Jesus´ miracles, ressurrection, atonement, etc, purely on the basis that it cannot be proven rationally, then odds are you´re going to leave belief in a personal God sooner or later, cause that cannot be proven rationally or scientifically either.
Empirical: mainline churches are loosing most of their membership to nonbelief, and that is not happening as a radical change, like it would happen if a former evangelical became atheist. In fact people who leave mainline churches usually notice no difference in their lives, except that they do not have to pay church anymore, since their previous religion was almost indistinguished from the beliefs of the secular society.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Not really. Going conservative -> liberal IS a progression towards atheism. Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
What unmitigated bullshit.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you Mousethief: clear, concise and accurate.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
Simplistic and reductionist generalisation, but in some cases the stark and uncomfortable truth.
Liberals have every bit as much capacity for hypocrisy as conservatives.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
Simplistic and reductionist generalisation, but in some cases the stark and uncomfortable truth.
Wish fulfillment of the conservative who doesn't hear what the liberal is saying.
quote:
Liberals have every bit as much capacity for hypocrisy as conservatives.
True but wholly unrelated to the above statement.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Not really. Going conservative -> liberal IS a progression towards atheism. Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
What unmitigated bullshit.
mousethief: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I would call the things gorpo described radical rather than liberal. To me, liberal means accepting (for example) that the accounts in Genesis and Exodus are at best later embellishments of oral traditions and don't accord with historical evidence. Conservative means you assert that those events really happened as described. Liberal doesn't mean denying the reality of God, or of the miraculous, or of the resurrection, but it does mean taking seriously the truths revealed in and by God's creation as well as those contained within the Bible.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Not really. Going conservative - liberal IS a progression towards atheism.
From my OP: An email exchange went like this:
Me: “I no longer believe…”
Friend: “ I sensed many years ago that you were headed in that direction…”.
See? Get it? Your comment is EXACTLY what I suspect my evangelical friends think.
At no time duration my pilgrimage from fundamentalist to radical did I ever give up believing in GOD. I preached the Gospel (Bible-based!), I taught social justice, I prayed with people and so on - all the things that a GOD-believing pastor would do. I do not believe that I was hypocritical. Non-belief came after I retired from ministry and was little to do with previous 'theology', more to do with the institutional church (don't get me started).
This is Purgatory isn't it? ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Mark Wuntoo
I think you're protesting a bit too much. You moved from a conevo to a liberal Christian position. And then much later you became an atheist.
Your colleague was therefore correct about the broad outline of your trajectory, even if he was incorrect about all the influencing factors, the precise nature of your journey, the books you'd read, the people you'd spoken to, etc., etc. After all, your colleague was unlikely to know the details unless he was a very close friend.
As for gorpo's comment that liberal Christianity leads to atheism, this isn't primarily a conevo slur. AFAICS, the challenges to faith of various kinds of liberal Christianity have been depicted by historians and sociologists for some time. The issues are part and parcel of the ongoing experience of mainstream Protestant denominations, even if they seem new and 'radical' to those who come from a conevo background.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mark Wuntoo
I think you're protesting a bit too much. .....
Your colleague was therefore correct about the broad outline of your trajectory,
The thing I objected to is the apparent assumption that someone moving from a fundamentalist position through liberal to radical is necessarily 'headed in that direction' (as my friend stated) of non-belief; they are not, is my contention. I asked if shipmates think it is inevitable that such a pilgrimage will end up in some form of atheism. I agree with the general sense of this thread that it is not inevitable.
The reason I am a non-theist, as opposed to an atheist, is my attempt to respect the position of those who hold to faith of whatever sort.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It clearly isn't inevitable, since liberal Christians continue to exist, and relatively liberal denominations also exist.
Nevertheless, as you know from church-sect theory, the liberalising process tends to lead to weaknessess in denominations where it becomes influential. Decline sets in and becomes difficult to reverse, since liberalism doesn't exist to tackle the issues that are causing the decline.
I've belonged to the liberalising mainstream (British Methodism) all my life, and have seen the problems with my own eyes. The best situation, ISTM, is to belong to a liberalising niche within a denomination that's still fairly strict and committed to its distinguishing theological features. The Orthodox church perhaps provides such an environment; maybe Seventh Day Adventism, or other strict forms of evangelicalism. But to belong to a highly liberalised denomination is almost certainly to belong to a group that's facing a form of slow death.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Liberal theology exists basically because young students loose their faith during seminary, but have to pretend they are still believers to keep their jobs in the clergy.
Simplistic and reductionist generalisation, but in some cases the stark and uncomfortable truth.
It is the exact opposite. A liberal theology has give. It can take challenge and remain intact. A conservative theology is rigid and more likely to fall apart if there is the slightest fracture in the structure.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Not really there are two dimensions. One is Liberal to Conservative where Conservative means adopting beliefs that are seen as traditional while Liberal means adopting beliefs that are seen as innovative.
There is also a dimension that deals with the rigidity with which the ideas are held which goes from tight to loosely. While I admit I have met few ultra conservatives who are not pretty tight on the belief, I also find that a surprising number of ultra liberals are equally tightly wedded to their belief system. It seems to me that it is the people in the middle who are most open to the perspective of the other side and thus to challenge.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It clearly isn't inevitable, since liberal Christians continue to exist, and relatively liberal denominations also exist.
Nevertheless, as you know from church-sect theory, the liberalising process tends to lead to weaknessess in denominations where it becomes influential. Decline sets in and becomes difficult to reverse, since liberalism doesn't exist to tackle the issues that are causing the decline.
Yes.
And there are those, a minority I suspect, who get fed-up with the liberal trends and leave to form their own (new)(back to basics) group.
So the cycle continues.
Meant to say up-thread: the Salvation Army is an interesting case (not sure where it fits in all this). In East London, their birthplace and early stronghold, they have all but disappeared as worshipping corps.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
There is also a dimension that deals with the rigidity with which the ideas are held which goes from tight to loosely. While I admit I have met few ultra conservatives who are not pretty tight on the belief, I also find that a surprising number of ultra liberals are equally tightly wedded to their belief system.
Yes, I'd agree with this. WIth the caveat that liberal, ultra or not, tolerates more POV so more difficult to challenge in a general sense. On specific issues, yes. But as an overall philosophy, it is not one failure point ad then collapse.
quote:
It seems to me that it is the people in the middle who are most open to the perspective of the other side and thus to challenge.
I don't disagree, but I would phrase it differently. People do not like their POV challenged, no matter what position on the scale it is. That is simply how our brains work. Those in the middle are closer to each side, so neither is as large a challenge to their beliefs.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A conservative theology is rigid and more likely to fall apart if there is the slightest fracture in the structure.
Complete rubbish - an ideological assertion based on bigotry and presuppositions instead of inconvenient reality.
I have known countless theological conservatives over the decades, and a handful of them remained as conservative from the day I met them until the day they died, while a handful abandoned the faith entirely.
The overwhelming majority, however (not just me, and my contemporaries, but representatives from older generations) have modified or softened their stance in various particulars without the slightest indication of their faith's looking as if it was going to therefore "fall apart".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Okay, the percentage of Evangelicals in the US is 26.3% according to the Pew Research group.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A conservative theology is rigid and more likely to fall apart if there is the slightest fracture in the structure.
Complete rubbish - an ideological assertion based on bigotry and presuppositions instead of inconvenient reality.
Perhaps it would help if I said it was a simplistic and reductionist generalisation, but in some cases the stark and uncomfortable truth.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think it is possible to be conservative and flexible rather than brittle but I suspect that fundamentalism of all kinds is something of a dead-end.
Where the line between conservatism and full-on fundamentalism is to be drawn is, of course, a moot point.
However we cut it, though, it seems to me that both liberal and conservative Christians can end up tumbling off the edge into unbelief.
From what I can gather, Trevor Huddleston the noted anti-apartheid cleric ended up denouncing all religion as baloney.
I would imagine the same applies to hard-line Marxists, hardline anything-ists and whatever else-ists as much as it does to theists of one form or other.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well, I started to add my two penn'orth days ago. The stream has tumbled on. To answer Mark's question, the answer is mainly yes. The more educated the less religious as a rule for a start. My journey, chronicled tediously here for years and years and bloody years, exponentially accelerated to the point a year last November when deconstruction and physicalism met at a time of existential threat. An interesting time. By the Spirit I still believe, I bow the creedal knee. Hot eyed there. I don't believe in ANYTHING else. Any claim. I cannot see how transcendence is imaginable let alone possible, yet I believe in the mystical sublimity of the best case God. I always have but He's been decluttered 99.9..%
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think it is possible to be conservative and flexible rather than brittle
This depends on how one defines conservative and where one draws the line between it and moderate.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The more educated the less religious as a rule for a start.
Honestly, I think much of this is because religion, in general, has poorly adapted to the aspects of life that are non-religious.
Religion has, for most of its existence, been presented as the answer. For everything. Education shows that it isn't necessary for very much and that applying religious interpretation to many things illustrates a jarring inconsistency.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think it is possible to be conservative and flexible rather than brittle
This depends on how one defines conservative and where one draws the line between it and moderate.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The more educated the less religious as a rule for a start.
Honestly, I think much of this is because religion, in general, has poorly adapted to the aspects of life that are non-religious.
Religion has, for most of its existence, been presented as the answer. For everything. Education shows that it isn't necessary for very much and that applying religious interpretation to many things illustrates a jarring inconsistency.
I suppose religion has pulled its horns in in many ways. For example, the notion of divine providence is used less commonly now - to use it about 9/11 is quite eccentric, whereas in the 18th century, I think it was widely used, both for earthquakes and personal tragedies, such as the death of a child.
I'm not really sure how this connects with the trajectory of conservative to radical, but I suppose that religious people have had to adapt considerably to a scientific age, and also a secular one.
These things seem to dissolve faith in some cultures, but not all. But also other things probably, e.g. urban life.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Are the more educated less religious? My experience has been that the pews are occupied by middle class graduates, not working class school leavers. A brief perusal of wikipedia suggests no clear pattern across different countries.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Are the more educated less religious? My experience has been that the pews are occupied by middle class graduates, not working class school leavers. A brief perusal of wikipedia suggests no clear pattern across different countries.
That is pretty much the position here, not just at St Sanity (where from the local demographic you'd expect a congregation of graduates) but the whole country.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We must have different Wikipedias.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
There are those, a minority I suspect, who get fed-up with the liberal trends and leave to form their own (new)(back to basics) group.
So the cycle continues.
Interestingly, my sense is that the English are less keen on setting up new churches than they used to be. Secularisation (and perhaps the cost of living) has made the venture much riskier than in the past.
AFAICS, it's now a better bet for evangelicals to colonise existing churches. The CofE offers the most choice, and it also happens to be the most secure and most visible denomination that already has a viable evangelical tradition. Combined with a creeping congregationalism it offers the best of both worlds for congregations that are developing a strong evangelical agenda.
The embourgeoisement of English Christianity has probably also helped to reduce the appeal of the small independent or Nonconformist church, for both lay worship and clergy employment. By contrast, church plants and Fresh Expressions benefit from being denominationally financed, resourced and approved, no matter how defiant or extreme their staff may be.
Church-sect theory is further complicated by David Voas' claim that although some individuals will have a commitment to particular doctrines, what most people want from a church is a supportive community, not a particular theology.
This renders strictness and denominationalism fairly unimportant in themselves, yet it tends to be the churches with a strong sense of identity and vision, and a high level of group cohesion and morale that can offer this kind of community. But such churches then become attractive to people who have little interest in the doctrinal specifics, which means that in the long run, the churches lose what made them distinctive. Ironically, popularity makes evangelical churches quite vulnerable.
One sees it here on the Ship; people complain about 'conevo' churches, but they won't necessarily go and support their local struggling moderate church instead, because what these churches offer in terms of tolerance and social justice engagement they may lack in other aspects. It's easier to criticise a lively but mistaken church than to help revitalise a struggling but right-minded one.
Indeed, it must feel dangerously thrilling to be 'radical' in a conevo church. To be 'radical' in a church that's been promoting its radical message since the 1950s wouldn't offer anything like the same buzz.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote:
I suppose religion has pulled its horns in in many ways. For example, the notion of divine providence is used less commonly now - to use it about 9/11 is quite eccentric, whereas in the 18th century, I think it was widely used, both for earthquakes and personal tragedies, such as the death of a child.
Sort of - I don't think divine providence has gone away, but a lot of the older interpretations of it owed more to a deist "worldview" rather than a theist one.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
95% spot on as ever SvitlanaV2. There are NO moderate churches in Leicester, struggling or otherwise, doing anything incarnational. There's the odd Methodist-Baptist hybrid which has a radical group. Moderate is always doomed as it is moderate in all things. There certainly aren't any radical, incarnational Oases either. Char-evo Anglican is the ONLY show in town actually doing anything that stands out by an order of magnitude. And there is NOTHING dangerously thrilling about thinking most usually mutely radical thoughts in it. Expressing them creates a useless frisson. One has to put up with the insane damnationist magic and even find a way to subversively use the language for the sake of being allowed to lift the distal phalange of ones fifth digit in the direction of the poorest.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
But the question is, why wouldn't it be reasonable join a Methodist-Baptist hybrid and turn it into something that's radical and incarnational?
Don't you think there's something really topsy-turvy about churches with terrible theology doing the good things, and churches with the excellent theology doing... not very much? How do you explain that paradox?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote:
I suppose religion has pulled its horns in in many ways. For example, the notion of divine providence is used less commonly now - to use it about 9/11 is quite eccentric, whereas in the 18th century, I think it was widely used, both for earthquakes and personal tragedies, such as the death of a child.
Sort of - I don't think divine providence has gone away, but a lot of the older interpretations of it owed more to a deist "worldview" rather than a theist one.
The deist Voltaire did not treat the Lisbon Earthquake as an example of divine providence.
Au contraire.
Even more orthodox Christians at the time were cautious - in my Malone edition of Boswell's Life of Johnson there is a footnote which runs: "To deny the exercise of a particular providence in the Deity's government of the world is certainly impious, yet nothing serves the cause of the scorner more than an incautious forward zeal in determinng the particular instances of it".
[ 13. February 2018, 23:27: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But the question is, why wouldn't it be reasonable join a Methodist-Baptist hybrid and turn it into something that's radical and incarnational?
Don't you think there's something really topsy-turvy about churches with terrible theology doing the good things, and churches with the excellent theology doing... not very much? How do you explain that paradox?
It is droll isn't it? I note you don't refute it. That it is your experience too. My joining a MOTR congo with prophetic zeal would damage at least one of us.
Nothing motivates zeal like damnationism, as demonstrated by all textist theist peoples of the Book. Jews aren't damnationist and therefore aren't proselytizing, aren't desperate to 'save'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Martin60 and SvitlanaV2, what do you mean by 'incarnational' in this context? It's a word, or more accurately a concept, which by and large, I think most of us have got wrong.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But the question is, why wouldn't it be reasonable join a Methodist-Baptist hybrid and turn it into something that's radical and incarnational?
Don't you think there's something really topsy-turvy about churches with terrible theology doing the good things, and churches with the excellent theology doing... not very much? How do you explain that paradox?
It is droll isn't it? I note you don't refute it. That it is your experience too. My joining a MOTR congo with prophetic zeal would damage at least one of us.
Nothing motivates zeal like damnationism, as demonstrated by all textist theist peoples of the Book. Jews aren't damnationist and therefore aren't proselytizing, aren't desperate to 'save'.
To answer my own question, I think the basic problem is that while people often approve of the moderate churches for being tolerant, these churches lack the dynamism and appeal that I mentioned above, and hence end up with a reduced level of manpower and resources to do the work they'd like to do. I certainly have experience of that.
This is where the 'moderate' approach fails. Strict churches end up stronger, for various reasons. And even though the Jews don't have a damnationist or conversionist theology, their ultra-orthodox constituency is likely to continue growing, becoming dominant in Britain and elsewhere.
That being so, my reference to 'terrible' and 'excellent' theology isn't exactly reflective of what I feel. Shippies complain a lot about conservative religion, but my experience suggests that what happens at the moderate ('radical'?) end doesn't offer a viable alternative, and indeed that it deserves a far deeper critique of its attitudes and methods than it ever seems to get.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Moderate ain't radical. This is a three cornered fight. Radical offers one end of a viable alternative. One end of a front. A conservative-moderate-radical(CMR) front. Divided we fall. Or just carry on. The cons and the rads will always recruit from society, maintain their tiny minorities. Like in the Russian revolution, the second class carriage is the one at risk.
Show me an open, honest, naked CMR Anglican congo and the future's bright.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Martin60 and SvitlanaV2, what do you mean by 'incarnational' in this context? It's a word, or more accurately a concept, which by and large, I think most of us have got wrong.
I think Martin60 is talking about congregations getting alongside disadvantaged or marginalised groups in a very physical, personal, self-denying way. He's talked about this in relation to damnationist churches that have an ongoing ministry with the homeless, for example.
By contrast, although the moderate churches may talk up social justice, raise funds and even get involved in seasonal initiatives, they don't throw their whole being into serving the disadvantaged; certainly not to the extent of spending large amounts of time with them.
The 'tolerance' of these churches makes them reluctant to seek converts among this (or any) group, but this reluctance also conveniently keeps their churches very 'safe'; mental health and other social issues won't become a commonplace, tangible and significant part of church life, for example.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Moderate ain't radical.
Mark Wuntoo used the term 'radical' in his title, but I don't think he meant what you do by the term. You probably mean something similar to incarnational, but as we've sort of agreed, conevo spirituality can be incarnational, and one doesn't necessarily have to leave conservative evangelicalism to serve the poor or the sick. What conevo spirituality can't be, by definition, is 'moderate'.
I think Mark was using 'radical' to refer to a somewhat abstract liberal theological approach rather than in your more liberationist/ incarnational sense.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think Mark was using 'radical' to refer to a somewhat abstract liberal theological approach rather than in your more liberationist/ incarnational sense.
Yes. I see the spectrum as fundamentalist / conservative evangelical / liberal / radical and lots of in-betweens. It's, for me, a theological / belief system although, of course, lifestyles change too but not, I think, as smoothly through the spectrum (as has been pointed out).
Now I think about it, I seem to remember the phrase 'radical evangelicals' being tossed around in my young days: I think that referred to fundamentalists who had erred into conevo! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) But it might have referred to evangelicals who had got involved in community action.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
BTW, which British churches, in your opinion, are the best destinations for people going from 'conevo to radical'? I don't just mean in terms of their theological position, but also their culture, welcome, community life, rituals, etc?
I get the impression from the Ship that in England almost all roads lead to the CofE, despite the tensions involved in being part of a broad church. I find this a fascinating indication of how the English 'religious market' has largely failed to provide sufficient numbers of attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical' congregations in other denominations.
The Quakers are the most radical alternative, but perhaps they're off-putting to some Christians whose style, if not their theology, remains a bit more traditional. Then there are the Unitarians, but they don't seem to have much visibility.
It would be interesting to come across any research that talks about 'conevo to radical' church switching in the UK (as opposed to the rest of the world). Googling doesn't suggest that anyone has really focused on this issue, although there are some interesting bits of information here and there.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I get the impression from the Ship that in England almost all roads lead to the CofE, despite the tensions involved in being part of a broad church. I find this a fascinating indication of how the English 'religious market' has largely failed to provide sufficient numbers of attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical' congregations in other denominations.
I don't really think its a failure specific to the UK as such. Creating "attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical'" congregations (and actually by extension denominations) requires a lot of resources and man power. The density of Christianity in the UK makes this fairly hard (and it's marginal in other places) and as the CofE is relatively accepting of difference, the people inclined towards such movements find it easier to find a home in the CofE.
[ 23. February 2018, 22:31: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There's only Oasis in Waterloo. Otherwise join a char evo Anglican congo and subvert it. Or, better, stay where you are. And subvert it. That's a calling.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I get the impression from the Ship that in England almost all roads lead to the CofE, despite the tensions involved in being part of a broad church. I find this a fascinating indication of how the English 'religious market' has largely failed to provide sufficient numbers of attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical' congregations in other denominations.
I don't really think its a failure specific to the UK as such.
Well, FWIW, the USA seems to have a much stronger radical/liberal presence. I understand that some Episcopalians as well as the Churches of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists fit into this category, and perhaps some others. The openness and strength of the American religious market and the need for some historical churches to distinguish themselves from popular evangelicalism has probably contributed to this.
And the Scandinavian Lutheran churches are very liberal. This has been put down to the close involvement of the secular state in church life (at least until quite recently) plus the fact that these churches are paid for by the state. They don't need evangelical money.
In England I do agree that it's easier to find a home in the CofE, but let's not forget that for a time, Nonconformity was growing in numbers and power. It sought to offer alternatives to the CofE. What's interesting to me (but perhaps not to others) is how and why this changed. The Nonconformists generally suffered secularisation more deeply than the CofE.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There's only Oasis in Waterloo. Otherwise join a char evo Anglican congo and subvert it. Or, better, stay where you are. And subvert it. That's a calling.
It may well be a calling. The problem is that the journey towards radicalism tends to pass through moderate liberalism. Experience and research show that this process often weakens churches.
AFAICS there needs to be a strong awareness of the the many internal and external challenges a church will have to deal with if it's considering going down this route. Subversion alone risks creating conflict, division and misunderstanding otherwise. You obviously need the church leadership to be on board.
As I said above, though, the CofE is probably a good starting point. Its charevo element appears to have more money and a more youthful, dynamic demographic than others. Although the MOTR Nonconformists in many places already see themselves as committed to social justice, I think they'll be hard pressed to do much more than they are doing. They've been losing members and money for a long time, and sooner or later that undermines a church's mission, radical or otherwise.
[ 24. February 2018, 00:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, FWIW, the USA seems to have a much stronger radical/liberal presence. I understand that some Episcopalians as well as the Churches of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists fit into this category, and perhaps some others.
You mean the United Church of Christ—the descendant of the Congregationalists (including the Puritans) and the Evangelical and Reformed (aka German Reformed) Church—not the Churches of Christ. There’s a big difference.
And many would include at least some Presbyterian (PCUSA), Lutheran (ELCA), United Methodist and even American Baptist congregations, depending on how radical/liberal you’re thinking.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I don't really think its a failure specific to the UK as such.
Well, FWIW, the USA seems to have a much stronger radical/liberal presence. I understand that some Episcopalians as well as the Churches of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists fit into this category, and perhaps some others.
So the (at least originally) quasi-ethno-national regional churches which assume some of the role of the CofE (and run a similarly broad church) provide the vehicle for the "attractive, diverse, well-resourced, 'radical'" in the way that the CofE and CoS does. Most states weren't Rhode Island.
At the very least these movements find a home within such denominations - though viewed a little uncharitably, one could posit that they require rather more resources to run that could be easily provided by the movement itself (most of whom aren't big enough to fund seminaries, a press or two and so on).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This may have been said already on this thread. I haven't been following it. But it's quite a bad misuse of language to use 'liberal' and 'radical' to mean less and more extreme points on the same Christian spectrum. The Little Brothers of Jesus (followers of the inspiration of Charles de Foucauld) are Christian 'radicals' by almost any meaning of that word, but they aren't exactly 'liberal' in any of the various meanings people might give it, however imprecise.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Yes, we mentioned above that for some people 'radical' means liberationist or incarnational, while 'liberal' refers to a more abstract theological approach to the Bible. But the distinction isn't always made.
My experience is that in some historical churches the liberationist/radical approach frequently does go hand in hand with a certain biblical liberalism. AFAIUI the South American RC liberation theologians promoted their own blend of both. They weren't the most 'traditional' of RCs.
Moreover, the kind of liberationist radicalism that Martin60 espouses is very affirming with regards to SS relationships. That won't always be the case when more traditional church groups are doing the work. Having said that, I think there has to be a degree of pragmatism in all social ministries these days, especially if the secular authorities are involved with funding, referrals or training, etc. Presumably, only the wealthiest conevo church can run a huge social ministry that bypasses the state completely and hence avoids contact with equality regulations, etc.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, FWIW, the USA seems to have a much stronger radical/liberal presence. I understand that some Episcopalians as well as the Churches of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists fit into this category, and perhaps some others.
You mean the United Church of Christ—the descendant of the Congregationalists (including the Puritans) and the Evangelical and Reformed (aka German Reformed) Church—not the Churches of Christ. There’s a big difference.
Yes, you're right. I knew my terminology was inaccurate there. I should have checked it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
