Ship of Fools: "We must move with the times .... "

Thread: "We must move with the times .... " Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023162

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

What does this (I submit) vacuous statement actually mean and what possible significance could it have for theologising? Consider Germany in the 30's for example. I suppose the Church, on this basis, could have justified supporting anti-Semitism because it was "moving with the times."

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

[Killing me]

Get Godwin's Law out of the way early shall we?

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Care to address the question rather than the illustration?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

People using terms whose meanings they don't understand is so inimical to good discussion, I feel.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Care to address the question rather than the illustration?

The question is too vacuous.

You have to provide a context in order to discuss the question meaningfully.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Well current discussions where moving with the times has come up as an argument for doing something are:

Online sacraments
Disestablishment
Are young Christians leaving the church re attitudes to gay people? in Dead Horses
of the threads I've been reading.

And it's implicit in some of the issues around Vatican clamps down on liberal nuns

So there are a selection of live questions on the Ship and depending on the denomination other live issues (ordination of women or married men in the RC church), so actually some clarification as to what Father Gregory wants to debate would be helpful.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think it suggests two things, Father Gregory.

1) That issues of faith and morals are matters of fashion.

2) That there actually is a coherent "zeitgeist" and we must conform to it, whatever it is.

I think both of those suggestions are flawed.

Jim Wallis has spoken and written rather well on this. He sees political processes as ones often characterised by someone raising a wet finger in the air "to see which way the wind blows" - and then following it. That fits in rather well with the Yes Prime Minister observations

a) that a major requirement is moral malleability

b) that politicians prefer solution which are quick, popular, simple and cheap.

c) that "courageous and far-sighted" will lose you not just the next election but the one after that.

He thinks that there is often a deeper challenge - to be "wind-changers" - and cites e.g. Desmond Tutu and MLK as "wind-changers".

An encouragement to "move with the times" is often an excuse for avoiding real engagement with issues. As de Bono once put it, "people think in order to stop thinking", i.e. to get as quickly as possible to a comfortable pre-packaged automatic thought.

On most "hot button" issues of faith, for example, I would probably be regarded as a radical, rather than a conserver, or conservative. But that's a result of hard personal thought and reflection, not some sense that "swimming with the tide" is a good thing in itself. I think in general it's a bad thing in itself.

[xposted with CK]

[ 16. June 2012, 07:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Evensong ... certainly. I wanted to avoid Dead Horse temptations but more especially the tendency of some people ... hopefully not you ... to argue from the basis of the context rather than the principle. That way the argument gets deflected into the pros and cons of the contextual issue rather than the principle being addressed. So let's see if we can actually avoid talking about gay marriage.

The comment: "We must move with the times" was made on TV last night by a lady from a parish whose Vicar is lobbying the Archbishop of York for the possibility of the CofE allowing its clergy to marry gay people in church.

I respect totally those who argue for a course of action based on the theology and practice of the Church. I repudiate entirely those who argue for the same course of action based on "moving wioth the times."

So, let's now forget gay marriage and deal with the principle being addressed .... which is ... how does the Church authentically theologise and act.

Remember Dean Inge?

quote:
Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.

THAT'S what I am getting at. Nothing to do with gay marriage per se.

[ 16. June 2012, 07:21: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Totally with you Barnabas. Hope that clarifies Curiosity.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I would actually agree on this, liberal though I tend to be on a number of issues.

Modernity is a red herring. The current values of a secular society give us cause to examine what we believe, but no cause of themselves to change it. If the changes in society are consistent with the major principles of Christian belief, then it is worth examining whether it is our existing position that was conformed to secular society's expectations. The ordination of women, in particular, would seem to come under that heading. Promiscuity and casual sex, I think, would not.

The only yardstick of value when consider issues of faith and morals is what is right and wrong, neither tradition nor modernity can stand against doing what is right.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I think it's difficult when we're in the middle of the situation to see who are the wind-changers, although Tutu is definitely one, and who are rightly holding on to tenets of faith that should be held, as against refusing to see how our understandings have changed - which is what happened over slavery, to use a historical example.

I think church as community, real hands on community, is a tenet that should be held on to, but also we need to reach out - and getting that balance right is a huge challenge as society changes and the ways we can reach out change.

But that issue of community also means we need to be aware of what the local and international needs are to be able to reach out and that means we do have to change what we offer and our focuses.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

originally posted by Barnabas62

That issues of faith and morals are matters of fashion.

It's not always clearcut what are issues of faith and morals though. Something which is a matter of fashion to a significant extent in society is music. So is it legitimate for the church to choose to use the sort of music it thinks people will like ? That's not an issue of morals but whether it is an issue of faith depends on what you think the Christian faith consists of.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

CK

It's in the nature of things that you can't see who the wind-changers have been until afterwards.

While the shit is hitting the fan, I think the real moral imperative is not to look for a guru (or hoist a "wet finger" in the air either) but to work out what your own convictions really are, and go with that.

Another half-remembered Yes Prime Minister joke is this one.

Hacker (I think) to Bernard. "So which side are the Foreign Office on?"

Bernard. "The winning side".

[Or maybe it was the Civil Service as a whole, not just the Foreign Office?]

I'm sure you get my point. Nailing your colours to the mast, standing to your tacking, these things can have both costs and rewards. But once you start playing "winning or popularity" consequences games while the issues are joined (not decided), you're up a gum tree of circular argument.

[ 16. June 2012, 07:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Arethosemyfeet .... I was with you until the last sentence. How do we tell right from wrong (especially in hard cases).

Dear Curiosity killed .... Community yes, but who, where and when?

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Living in South Africa, the influence of Archbishop Tutu is prevalent in many churches here. A few years ago I was at a lecture Tutu gave where he spoke about how he had been encouraged by reading the Roman Catholic encyclicals on social justice to discern the 'signs of the times' and not simply to react to injustices under apartheid and colonialism with protest and outrage, but to envision what kind of society might be possible without certain oppressions, the difference human rights and freedoms might make in the lives of ordinary people and help bring about the Kingdom.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Dear father Gregory, I entirely agree with you and unlike some, I understood what you meant from your very first post.

I too don't liker this attitude that the church must move with the times, as if if the very date itself should determine our faith and practice.

There's a verse in one of our songs that says:

quote:
In a world of shifting values
there are standards that remain.
I believe that holy living
by God's grace we may attain.

It is indeed worrying that the church finds a need to copy the world's attitudes and it's often because some people look to their own interests, hobby-horses, politics, morality and campaigns, and try to bring them into the church. The loudest voices, in my experience, always win while the sincere and less vocal majority have to put up with issues in church that are not necessarily relevant to them.

Paul said 'do not be conformed to this world' and this, sadly, is what I see going on quite often. The phrase that really annoys me about the mission of the church is 'Find out what God is doing (in your community) and join in.'

People therefore look at social issues and assume automatically that God is in it and feel that the church must join in with it all. Well maybe, just maybe, some of these things have little to do with God and what he wants is for us to be salt and light and do something different.

Having said that, issues of compassion and justice are God's issues anyway, but the solution is not to go along with human remedies and resources but to actually bring the love and light of Christ and the word of God to bear on the issue and thus bringing in a different emphasis, a different solution, to the 'worldly' and more acceptable one.

Maybe the world would be more at peace if we built our attitudes on the rock rather than the sands of changing seasons and attitudes.

Some things, after all, are eternally true; and we shouldn't change things just because this generation with no other foundation than 'preference' and 'lifestyle choice' wants to build on shaky ground.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

[Overused]

I wish I knew though where this itch to be on the same page comes from. Is it a lack of confidence in the gospel, an entirely alien intrusion (with or without conscious infiltration), ignorance etc. etc. What?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
What does this (I submit) vacuous statement actually mean and what possible significance could it have for theologising?

I tend to agree with you but am rather puzzled by your OP.

I would have thought that such a phrase was anathema to the Orthodox Church by definition. End of.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
What does this (I submit) vacuous statement actually mean and what possible significance could it have for theologising? Consider Germany in the 30's for example. I suppose the Church, on this basis, could have justified supporting anti-Semitism because it was "moving with the times."

I think it all depends on one's world view. Many (particularly secularists) seem to be of the opinion that human progress is an ever increasing, upward, phenomenon. They see absolute total democracy as the Raison d'être for their efforts, although we all know that this has been tried in the past and failed.

Sometimes (with things such as gay marriage) our ethics go into complete reverse, yet it is always progress. Abortion (with all it's euphemisms) is seen as progress. History is believed to show that we are just getting better and better, towards some perceived utopia of humanism.

(For the record, I'm not particularly interested in the rights and/or wrongs of gay marriage, but I do have strong views against abortion.)

It seems that many liberal christians seem to put this principle of human progress before Christ, meaning that "the Church must change with the times."

I don't see things this way at all. As others have said, ethics are more like fashions. They come in and go out of fashion, and I don't see any trend for ever increasing progress. History isn't like a ladder, where we go up and up to ever increasing heights of progress and righteousness.

Rather, I believe history is more like a pendulum, where we seem to just keep making the same mistakes, impervious to what has happened in the past. If this wasn't so, wouldn't human warfare have ceased centuries ago?

So, if we ignore Revealed truth, and gradually replace it with our own this-worldly hopes and dreams, how will that ultimately profit us? How can we put our trust in human progress, if we know it isn't what it's made out to be?

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I'm not sure one can divorce the meaning (or perhaps underlying meaning, or validity) of "move with the times" from specific issues and contexts.

There are some things where one most emphatically doesn't "move with the times" and indeed needs to stand in principled opposition.

There are others where, actually, it's not such a bad thing at all.

I (and obviously this is me personally, and I accept some of these may be lines in the sand for others) have no problem in "moving with the times" in areas such as musical style, forms and structures of worship, how one "does church". In fact, I'd argue that generally being culturally relevant is a good thing. As long as the core/heart of what's being done is still focused in the right place, and on the right person(s).

There are other areas where I'm thoroughly convinced that "the times" are wrong, and it's right and appropriate to speak and act (lovingly) in opposition. I'm not a big fan of the whole divide between public & private morality; of the veneration of casual sex. I'm highly unlikely to "move with the times" in supporting the New Atheism.

As others have said, there's a difference between cleaving to core moral/ethical/theological positions, and cleaving to the way that those positions are necessarily expressed or demonstrated.

In the general case, though, I agree it's usually a vacuous phrase, employed to cover up a lack of thought and justify a vague feeling that one doesn't want to be seen to be out of touch or anachronistic. The underlying principles are a bit more subtle, however.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

The biblical justification for the attitude portrayed in the OP is, of course:

quote:
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

1 Cor 9:19-23, and for me it challenges the logic of the Orthodox, who seem to be saying 'All the churches should fossilise their worship in the forms of 5th century Constantinople'. The focus is surely that last verse: I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. We need to remove unnecessary barriers - even the Orthodox have introduced seats and heating these days! - but the core problem is that we don't know how to hear God for ourselves. Many of the aphorisms that are around, such as 'Find out what God is doing (in your community) and join in' aren't bad in themselves as long as they are seen as part of a process of trying to hear what God is telling YOU to do. Which will be different in every case, because God has given each of us a particular set of gifts which He wants us to use for His service. ONE of the indicators of this is sometimes that something 'takes off'. However the success of the church in achieving Prohibition is a reminder that sometimes we get it BADLY wrong, whilst the persistent support of church leaders for socialist economics and their presence on the roll of useful idiots is also a major embarrassment in retrospect.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

OK, so how have we moved away from slavery to not accepting it if we don't accept change? And what are the current slavery issues?

Most people would find regarding a woman and children as property to be decided by the man as anathema - however Biblical - are we right in moving with the times to change that?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Curiosity killed .... Community yes, but who, where and when?

I was thinking about the Online Sacraments thread when I was following that train of thought, that there were different views of community, communion and reaching out embedded in the underlying assumptions being made on that thread.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Evensong ... certainly. I wanted to avoid Dead Horse temptations but more especially the tendency of some people ... hopefully not you ... to argue from the basis of the context rather than the principle.

The principle will decide the application of pros and cons in the context.

If change is a "bad thing" in principle then the context probably doesn't matter much.

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

So, let's now forget gay marriage and deal with the principle being addressed .... which is ... how does the Church authentically theologise and act.

Well in my tradition we do it together and we do it by basing our principals on Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

Many people accuse my particular stream of "moving with the times" too much but it is usually accusations based on fear of removing social mores that have been traditionally hidden behind codes of moral piety that have no basis in Jesus' central theology.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
OK, so how have we moved away from slavery to not accepting it if we don't accept change? And what are the current slavery issues?

Most people would find regarding a woman and children as property to be decided by the man as anathema - however Biblical - are we right in moving with the times to change that?

Certainly once you look at slavery from an Old Testament perspective, you gain a far more nuanced attitude to it than the simplistic attitudes seen today. The church had absorbed the Graeco-Roman attitude to it, and had failed to challenge that biblically - leading to the serfdom that persisted in Europe until the 19th century. The abolition of slavery in the obscene form to which it had degenerated in the Americas was an application of those biblical principles which had finally been rediscovered; the abolition of slavery [from a CHURCH perspective] was thus a late flowering of the Reformation principle of applying biblical standard, not the traditions of the church; of course we were helped by our conclusions appealing to many others at the time. Sadly the present 'slavery' experienced by criminal offenders locked up is equally sub-biblical - but most of us have yet to wake up to the need for change in this area.

[I wrote a 2000 word essay on the topic which is why I'm confident to offer a somewhat unusual perspective - anyone who wants a copy can private message me]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Ah, but what's implicit in what I'm asking is that we can read and justify our prevention of slavery from our current understandings of what the Biblical writings were basing their assumptions on. And some people would say that women priests and homosexuality are due the same revisionism. Is that moving with the times?

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I think 'moving with the times' is often bound up with attempts to 'make church relevant'. These two things can often work wonders when done in the correct spirit and aiming to engage and enthuse a rather lost generation of people.

Change does not have a moral status, it is not bad or good in of itself. It's our motivations for the change that give it its standing. The church has 'moved with the times' on any number of issues over the centuries and come down on both sides of the moral divide as a result.

I've been thinking lately that Christianity is getting itself vastly sidetracked by what are, in the whole picture of resurrection and salvation, very small and insignificant issues. I think people are so keen to appear as if they agree with everyone else that they are forgetting the fundamentals of this rather astonishing and life changing message.

The message of Christ is and always will be relevant when it is properly expressed in a language people understand and can engage with. I think if Christians focussed on this rather than on trying to defend and explain social positions that do not make sense outside of the message before explaining the message itself then we would actually get somewhere.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Just a reminder ... some are posting here as if the Orthodox subscribe to "Sola Scriptura" or the "Nothing-ain't-ever-gonna-change" society. Neither is true. Theologising for us happens in Tradition ... which is not "the traditions of men" or "how we have always done it."

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Are we just discussing this for the Orthodox Church? or Christian Churches in general?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

We are basically discussing yet another of Father Gregory's rhetorical questions. [Razz]

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Er no .,.. I am just correcting a misinterpretation of my contribution. If I said "you Calvinists are all the same ... you believe that God decided before creation who would be saved and who wouldn't" then I would expect to be corrected. Sauce for the goose?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I was thinking of the OP actually.

But that's okay. I understand. You're just moving with the times.

Ask a question. Pretend you're interested in people's answers to make them feel empowered then bring in your own agenda as the best way to go.

Good social theory. Well done. [Smile]

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Is that emoticon "passive aggressive"? Actually I am interested in peoples' views .... but how I answer can never be non-denominational. You are going to have to live with that I'm afraid.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

If we were to consider Kierkegaardian understanding (for the sake of argument as much as anything else), there is a mutuality between two different kinds of ethics - one related to the generally accepted understanding of 'the good' and one divine. The religious often want to imply that these are in opposition, but Kierkegaard suggests that the Christian is the one who holds these things in tension.

I'd say that the public understanding of 'the good' is always in flux, but even that doesn't mean it is irrelevant for theologising.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was thinking of the OP actually.

But that's okay. I understand. You're just moving with the times.

Ask a question. Pretend you're interested in people's answers to make them feel empowered then bring in your own agenda as the best way to go.

Good social theory. Well done.

Unless you know something I don't know (which is possible I suppose), the Orthodox are not assumed to be 'pretending to discuss' on these bulletin boards any more than anyone else.

Maybe yon Orthodox personage is actually interested to hear what other people think.

Maybe you are actually an annoying, sniping, bitch with nothing useful to do around here but randomly attack anyone who thinks differently to you as a bigot.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

That I find attractive (Kierkegaard). The two ethical perspectives can be derived from two theological premises ... we are made in the divine image ... we have the possibility of a renewed mind. Discernment I suppose is the bridge.

[ 16. June 2012, 11:18: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Personally I can't think of anything worse than the person that thinks his ethics are solely derived from the divine. Such thinking leads to all kinds of errors and worse.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Surely the key issue here is prophecy? Prophecy is standing outside the world with its ways and methods, and speaking God's word into that situation. If we run with the spirit of the age, we'll never be able to be prophetic - aren't all of the OT prophets precisely not conforming to the spirits of their own ages?

Instead, we should let God transform and renew our minds (cf. Romans 12). This means that change in the church is possible, but not in the direction of the world, but in the direction of God. We know that all churches have erred in some way or another, so we need to be constantly listening to God's word and transforming our churches back to what it says as he reveals our own and our forefathers' sins to us - semper reformanda!

The trick, of course, is differentiating the two. How do we ascertain that we're listening to God rather than to the zeitgeist, or interpreting God's word through the lens of the zeitgeist to such a degree that it's being distorted?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Dingy Sailor, I'd say we have to calm ourselves and listen for the voice of God, which may be from the depths of our understanding of the universal ethic or the Holy Spirit whispering the divine ethic into our hearts.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was thinking of the OP actually.

But that's okay. I understand. You're just moving with the times.

Ask a question. Pretend you're interested in people's answers to make them feel empowered then bring in your own agenda as the best way to go.

Good social theory. Well done.

Tiresome sarcasm Take it to Hell

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

Too late. TLR beat her too it.

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I suppose the Church, on this basis, could have justified supporting anti-Semitism because it was "moving with the times."

Surely the Church less frequently supporting anti-semitism as it had done for centuries prior to the 1930s was a sign of "moving with the times" that many of us would welcome. I'm sure that the Jews who used to be corralled into the medieval ghetto a stone's throw from my flat, where the synagogue looks like a Catholic Church because Jews weren't allowed to build themselves, would have agreed with me on this.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Melon:

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I suppose the Church, on this basis, could have justified supporting anti-Semitism because it was "moving with the times."
Surely the Church less frequently supporting anti-semitism as it had done for centuries prior to the 1930s was a sign of "moving with the times" that many of us would welcome. I'm sure that the Jews who used to be corralled into the medieval ghetto a stone's throw from my flat, where the synagogue looks like a Catholic Church because Jews weren't allowed to build themselves, would have agreed with me on this.

Again, I don't really hold with either a 'good old times' or a 'modern perfectionism' viewpoint. Things have changed, the situation for some people who were adversely and directly affected by our forebears (some of whom shared something of our religious outlook) might have changed, but the lot of others has got considerably worse.

On the whole, ethics have not noticeably got better or worse, they're just different.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

When I came across this thread, my first impression, having just read the "Blessing the toilets" thread, was a mental image of someone walking down the path to the bog with a copy of The Times. Ah, well.

But we do move with the times. Otherwise there would not have been a Reformation, the Great Schism would not have happened, slavery would still be a norm, there would not be electric lighting in the churches (candles matter!), priests would not use their IPads to carry their sermon notes, there would be no debate about male supremacy, OoW or SSM...

Just how much farther out of touch with the potential Christians do you want to be?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

If there is a desire to be relevant to the world then I think the Church is doomed to failure. We cannot be relevant to the world.

What the church must be, however, is accessible.

Catherine Booth (wife of William Booth, Founder of The Salvation Army), wrote:

quote:
"When the Church and the world can jog along comfortable together you may be sure there is something wrong."

There have to be times when the Church actually has to rebuke the world about its standards and morality, even if it means being less 'inclusive'.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Martyrdom, imprisonment, exile. This is the usual condition of the Church and Christians ... punctuated by episodes of peace and polluted by compromises with worldly power.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, but what happens Mudfrog when representatives of the Church (however defined) start attacking values, norms or activities that thee or me or anyone else might consider to be the very model of appropriate Christian behaviour. Many of the slave-owners in the Southern US States were very devout. The same could be applied to many Apartheid supporters in 1970s South Africa.

There was a comment about 'middle-class values' for instance over on the NFI thread. I'm sure many Christians (of all stripes) in this country think that middle-classness is next to godliness. Consequently, when a clergyperson of whatever tradition challenges that they are then pilloried for being overly socialist or pursuing a political rather than a spiritual agenda ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Chucking something else into the debate ...

Thee and me had a recent discussion (which got heated at times) about theological innovations and which ones were to be deemed appropriate. I suggested that things like the Rapture and pre-millenial dispensationalism should be rejected partly because they were of apparently recent vintage - something you hotly denied.

Clearly, someone like Fr Gregory would go for antiquity (or perceived antiquity) over modern developments any day of the week (for the record, Ender's Shadow, Fr Gregory is one of those who doesn't really want to bring in seating ... [Biased]

) - but I also know that he can be seen as quite 'liberal' and something of a 'moderniser' by some Orthodox standards.

Morality is morality and timeless truths are timeless truths - I'm not suggesting that everything is subject to moral relativism. But just as we no longer tend to see mental illness as evidence of demonic possession (in the way that previous generations might have done) it does seem that there is a shifting of the goal-posts over time. The same-sex relationship issue is a case in point. I know quite a number of very conservative Christians who have shifted ground on this one.

How do we discern these things?

At the risk of putting Fr Gregory on the spot, he strikes me as more liberal on this one than many of his co-religionists. At what point does he become completely out on a limb? At one point do his co-religionists need to budge and modify their views?

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there is a desire to be relevant to the world then I think the Church is doomed to failure. We cannot be relevant to the world.

What the church must be, however, is accessible.

... There have to be times when the Church actually has to rebuke the world about its standards and morality, even if it means being less 'inclusive'.

The Church has to meet people where they are and speak to them in a language they can understand - of course, as a Salvation Army person, you know that. Presumably, that's what you mean by being accessible - but to me that also means being relevant and inclusive.

New times throw up new problems and new information. Moving with the times therefore involves reviewing customs, practice and perhaps even teachings, in order to find valid answers to new questions. That may sometimes involve a re-evaluation of the foundations on which Faith rests - and occasionally that may lead to a new understanding.

Whatever our Faith is, we always have to make sense of it and - if we're going to do any kind of outreach - help others to do the same. The idea that moving with timesnecessarily involves compromising your values is erroneous, though it is true that someone may use this phrase in an argument in order to try and persuade you to do just that. The argument that you must change your values in a certain direction simply in order to move with the times is obviously morally vacuuous, as the OP demonstrates. On the other hand, as Melon has argued, it is equally vacuous to suggest that all changes necessarily involve a movement in the wrong direction.

You talk about rebuking the world - but surely the point is that a rebuke is a relevant comment. I think being irrelevant means being unaware of what is going on (or behaving as if you are unaware) and having nothing to say about it.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

I am no fan of the Zeitgeist, believe me. I have a very low opinion on pop culture, and the worrying tendency of mass theology to meet on the lowest common denominator. I am also highly critical of the current tendency of over-egalitarianism and Political Correctness nonsense, where everyone, regardless of the kind of crap they think or say, must be respectfully listened to. Sorry, but there you are. That being said, I do not think we ought to completely refuse to take note of what is going on around us.

At the risk of antagonising some of my more traditionally-minded fellow RCs
(not that I'd really mind that [Razz]

), I propose to approach this issue from a Process Theology perspective.

According to an article by P.S. Fiddes in the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Modern Christian Thought, "Process theology conceives the world to be a social organism, an interdependent and interrelated whole, growing toward its satisfaction through a network of mutual influences among which are the persuasive aims of [...] The theology is based upon process philosophy as formulate by Alfred North Whitehead [...] Modern influences can be traced in G.W.F. Hegel, William James, Henri Bergson and C.S. Pierce [and, I may add, Teilhard de Chardin]. In contrast to traditional metaphysics based on substance and essence, reality according to process philosophy is characterised by becoming, change, and event [...] Change happens against a background of permanence, which is the organising principle of growth itself” [and thus something to calm down the essentialists].

For more, see also here

I don’t say I agree with all of it. It can easily be taken into too “western”, too pseudo-rational, sophistry. The turnoff to Mysticism (which Teilhard found) is often missed on this road.

Still, if we take this perspective, there is a need for “relevance to the world” in the church, but it must be grounded in its essential transcendence. A Christology of the Christ-in-us gave us Mother Theresa, Desmond Tutu, Dag Hammarskjöld and (yes, I’m procative here) the Liberation Theologians.
Beyond individuals, it also gave us Catholic Social Thought (read Caritas in Veritate -that encyclical reads in parts just like the manifesto of some Occupy- group), and that great body of Christian charitable institutions for which e.g. the Buddhists so admire us.

Jesus-the-man acted in the world and re-acted to it, yet he was firmly transcendent. He had no marketing campaign, no sleek spokesman, no logo and he definitely did not bend over backwards to pander to the Zeitgeist. He was The Christ, both historical and trans-historical.

I find the metaphor of the Martial Arts (especially Aïkido) helpful: Aïkido was founded by Morihei Ueshiba, himself a deeply spiritual man. It is neither about running away from things nor about beating the other guy senseless. It is about re-acting, being flexible, blending in at times, stepping slightly aside at others, but always remaining both non-antagonistic yet firmly rooted, with the aim of transforming the Other.

Who knows, in some quaint pub in heaven, Whitehead and Teilhard may meet Ueshiba to talk process theology. I hope I can join them when my time comes.
Cheers
[Cool]

[ 16. June 2012, 13:35: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

The problem of conformity to the world is highlighted by: "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets."

It's my perception that the leadership of the church - at least in England - is spoken well of by most 'lefties'. For them it has become one of the civic groups who they like to line up for their latest scheme, be it CND, debt remission, anti-apartheid, anti-Israel, climate change etc. Such is the danger of relevance: we become part of the scenery...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

There is an extent to which we have to 'move with the times' and that is in order to work within the world. We are called to be in the world, not of the world, coupled with a standpoint from that of the Gospel, which is not typical of any wordly values.

OTOH I don't think our personal preferences can be sublimated - God made us the way we are - but an awareness that we are to work in the world as we find it is essential. Those who work in the world as if it is something other than that are in danger of being of no benefit to mankind and giving less glory to God than they could.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there is a desire to be relevant to the world then I think the Church is doomed to failure. We cannot be relevant to the world.

What the church must be, however, is accessible.

Catherine Booth (wife of William Booth, Founder of The Salvation Army), wrote:

quote:
"When the Church and the world can jog along comfortable together you may be sure there is something wrong."
There have to be times when the Church actually has to rebuke the world about its standards and morality, even if it means being less 'inclusive'.

I certainly agree with this though individually I might disagree with what the conclusions mean!

But I want to ask, by 'relevant' do you mean this word perjoratively as in 'trendy', 'faddish' etc. Or 'relevant' as in the opposite to 'irrelevant' or 'applicable to', 'important'?

The Church has many very relevant things to say to the spirit of the age, and these important things need to be seen as relevant by the people it's hoping to reach. Jesus spoke relevantly to the people he addressed, including the religious leaders.

Mind you, I don't think he tried to be relevant. He just was.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Desert Daughter

The Hegelian thing (19th century idealism, thanking-you-not Mr. Marx) is quite understandable against the backcloth of a sterile theology of essence. However my own tradition's take on this is that Augustine tended to confuse person with substance; his legacy to the medieval scholastics being an impersonal Trinity of relations.

A failure adequately to distinguish essence and persons, divine energies and substance leads to this implication of development in God. All Marx did was to take the Hegelian metaphysic and reinterpret it as a narrative of human economic liberation. If God ain't personal, He ain't no use. Pie in the sky 'n all that. The liberal bourgeois version is the goddess of Progress assisted by the Handmaid of Reason and the Colossus of Power.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

YMMV but on balance I quite like it if the Church is regarded more favourably by lefties. For too long the Christian churches have been associated with heirarchical and repressive structures and reactionary politics.

The kind of Christian pundit that brings me out in spots is Peter Hitchens of the Daily Heil.

Of course, there is a danger when one is courted or favoured by the chattering classes - but there are equal and opposite dangers when the churches end up on the side of the bad guys - be it Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany or Tsarist Russia ...

Of course, I'm using short-hand and polarising things to make a point - other than Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Stalinist Russia and what-have-you, most systems have their redeeming features. But things like slavery, apartheid and what have you are always wrong.

I'm not sure that support for soft-left or liberal causes do make the churches irrelevant. I'd like to see a lot more Christians involved with union activities, protest marches, lobbying, Green issues and community issues and initiatives in general.

Why join a Christian Cycle Club? Why not just join a Cycle Club?

Why have a Christian Arts Festival? Why not have Christians taking part in a general Arts Festival?

[Confused]

Some of the people who bang on the most about being salt-and-light are often the ones who are the most conspicuously absent from the public sphere or involvement in community activities other than those that promote their own agenda.

There have been a few incidents hereabouts in recent weeks and months that have made me cringe. Ok, so I've only heard on side of it, and I'm sure the actual incidents were more nuanced.

The first provoked a series of letters to the main local paper. A bunch of Christians had taken to the streets to protest about abortion. Fair enough, they are entitled to do so. But from what the letters were saying it seemed that they were accosting passers-by in a rather judgemental way as if they were personally responsible for the issue. If they want to lobby about abortion, fine. Write to their MPs, go on a protest march ...

But don't go judgementally waving placards and shouting at people you automatically assume to be in favour of it just because they don't go to church ...

The second was when the Olympic Torch came through this area. Some Christians went out with tracts purporting to highlight the history and significance of the torch, its background context and so on. People took these in good faith, only to find that they were cunningly disguised evangelistic tracts.

I have no problem with evangelistic tracts but there was something very distasteful about this approach - if what I read was to be believed. A local Christian lady wrote in to the paper to distance herself from the whole thing.

Ok, maybe I'm straying away from the OP, but it does strike me that there's a particular kind of pompous pietism that prides itself on standing aloof from 'the times' or 'the world' and which sanctimoniously throws platitudes and Pharisaical preachiness at it as this were somehow a commendable thing to do. It's pants.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The problem of conformity to the world is highlighted by: "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets."

It's my perception that the leadership of the church - at least in England - is spoken well of by most 'lefties'. For them it has become one of the civic groups who they like to line up for their latest scheme, be it CND, debt remission, anti-apartheid, anti-Israel, climate change etc. Such is the danger of relevance: we become part of the scenery...

I don't think any of those things are bad (except on occasion being 'anti-Israel' (which I actually think is fairly rare and blown out of all proportion by a constituency of Christian Zionists who want to equate in everyone's mind criticisms of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism)).

For the life of me, I fail to understand why the church should not stand with other religious groups and civic groups on issues it agrees with.

But then I also appreciate the complexities involved. Personally, I'd prefer all churches stood on some kind of political platform like this, even one I disagreed with (and would therefore avoid) rather than pretending these issues were unimportant and resorting to religious limpness.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

@ Father Gregory:

well, yes, it is quite easy to link Process Theologies (I think I'd better use this in the plural form) to Dialectics, and then draw in Hegel, Marx & Co. Some PT thinkers do this more than others.

As it is dialectics (as related to the Trinity or not, and definitely going beyond Hegelianism) is an aspect of PT but not the whole thing.

But I agree that all of this can easily be hijacked by simplistic neoscolastics as well as by people professing a naïve "progress is good" teleology. Was Teilhard naive? I doubt it. We need ton put man (and of course the ocasional woman) into the equation, issues of responsibility and discernment, and also the wonderful concept of co-creation. Which, may I point out, is not the same as growth worship or progress fixation.

[ 16. June 2012, 15:22: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Surely Father Gregory (ay up mate!) and Evensong you are united, after all, the pre- and post-modern are united like ones children and ones parents: they both hate the same people?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

My two-pennorth of (disconnected) thoughts:

Yes we are called to be the salt of the earth and challenge human preconceptions. But many conservative Christians have been very willing to challenge new ideas and 'the times', while failing to recognise just how much of Christian tradition and practice has uncritically accepted the preconceptions of a previous age. Slavery is a case in point.

It is bad, unincarnational theology to polarise 'the World' and 'the Church'. The wheat and the tares are mixed together and it is impossible for us always to discern which is which. The Holy Spirit is not confined to the Church, but can inspire many non-Christians and non-religious people.

Uncritical following of secular trends is not what the Gospel is about. But we are called to be discerning and not necessarily condemning: we need to ask 'is God's Holy Spirit at work in this movement?'

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The problem of conformity to the world is highlighted by: "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets."

It's my perception that the leadership of the church - at least in England - is spoken well of by most 'lefties'. For them it has become one of the civic groups who they like to line up for their latest scheme, be it CND, debt remission, anti-apartheid, anti-Israel, climate change etc. Such is the danger of relevance: we become part of the scenery...

This is what the ABofC was on about at Easter:

quote:
When all's said and done about the newly acknowledged social value of religion, we mustn't forget that what we ultimately have to speak about isn't this but God: the God who raised Jesus and, as St Paul repeatedly says, will raise us also with him. Even if every commentator in the country expressed generous appreciation of the Church (and we probably needn't hold our breath...), we'd still be bound to say, 'Thank you – but what matters isn't our usefulness or niceness or whatever: it's God, purposive and active, even – especially – when we are at the end of our resources.

We are not here just to go along with the niceness of society. Sometimes we have to be not nice as far as the comfortable, selfish, licentious world is concerned, and speak of God.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are not here just to go along with the niceness of society. Sometimes we have to be not nice as far as the comfortable, selfish, licentious world is concerned, and speak of God.

If you think society is nice, you're not living in the same one as me.

Also, the problem with being prophetic is that it is very difficult to distinguish from being an arse.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there is a desire to be relevant to the world then I think the Church is doomed to failure. We cannot be relevant to the world.

What the church must be, however, is accessible.

... There have to be times when the Church actually has to rebuke the world about its standards and morality, even if it means being less 'inclusive'.
The Church has to meet people where they are and speak to them in a language they can understand - of course, as a Salvation Army person, you know that. Presumably, that's what you mean by being accessible - but to me that also means being relevant and inclusive.

No, I mean this:

Being accessible means being true to what you are, having integrity and sticking with principle and identity, but then making it understandable and available.

Therefore, for example, it means using clear, modern language to describe our beliefs without watering down those beliefs to make it easier to accept them.

Being relevant seems to mean making things acceptable by changing what we are to suit others.

If we do that we lose integrity and we actually insult the hearer vbecause we assume somehow that they are not capable of thinking ajny differently ferom their little cultural world.

This is why youth work doesn't work particularly well because the church seems to feel that it has to make the message 'relevant'. It succeeds in actually alienating much of the elements of youth culture because there is no such thing as youth culture! If one uses music as the vehicle for relevance then you necessarily have a small target audience. Broadening the way the message is given and making it simply understandable rather than 'relevant' respects the hearer and maintains the integrity of the message.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are not here just to go along with the niceness of society. Sometimes we have to be not nice as far as the comfortable, selfish, licentious world is concerned, and speak of God.
If you think society is nice, you're not living in the same one as me.

Also, the problem with being prophetic is that it is very difficult to distinguish from being an arse.

Have you actually read the sentence you're commenting on?

We don't 'just go along with the niceness of society' - because there are good bits, evidently, about community and charitable work, about family values , etc, etc...

BUT I do mention the 'comfortable (by which I meant complacent), selfish, licentious world' as well.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting point about 'youth work', Mudfrog. There's quite a thriving 'youth work' in our parish and the people who run/lead it do a good job. I sometimes wonder how 'effective' it is in real terms, though, not that I think that all this stuff can be quantified. If it gives kids a place to go and keeps them off the streets then it's achieving something ...

My own kids are getting a bit beyond it though, and without seeking to absolve myself from my own responsibilities, I do notice that the 'spiritual' element - the 'God bit' as they call it - doesn't engage them at all. My two can give a very good impersonation of earnest young 'yoof' evangelists - and it can be very entertaining to see/hear them do so. And yet, and yet ...

Authenticity is the key to any of this and I think you're spot on about the need to maintain integrity in the way we present our beliefs and values.

This might be another thread, but I'd be interested to hear what your solution or alternative might be to the current 'youth work' scene. I'm not sure the current trend is 'fit for purpose' at all, it's patronising and treats kids as if they're part of a mono-culture ... which is, as you say, far from what 'youth culture' actually is ... if indeed there is such a thing.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting point about 'youth work', Mudfrog. There's quite a thriving 'youth work' in our parish and the people who run/lead it do a good job. I sometimes wonder how 'effective' it is in real terms, though, not that I think that all this stuff can be quantified. If it gives kids a place to go and keeps them off the streets then it's achieving something ...

My own kids are getting a bit beyond it though, and without seeking to absolve myself from my own responsibilities, I do notice that the 'spiritual' element - the 'God bit' as they call it - doesn't engage them at all. My two can give a very good impersonation of earnest young 'yoof' evangelists - and it can be very entertaining to see/hear them do so. And yet, and yet ...

Authenticity is the key to any of this and I think you're spot on about the need to maintain integrity in the way we present our beliefs and values.

This might be another thread, but I'd be interested to hear what your solution or alternative might be to the current 'youth work' scene. I'm not sure the current trend is 'fit for purpose' at all, it's patronising and treats kids as if they're part of a mono-culture ... which is, as you say, far from what 'youth culture' actually is ... if indeed there is such a thing.

I agree entirely with you.

Maybe the answer is not to have youth work at all but to treat teenagers like adults.

They might respond to that because they will feel respected.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, mind you, with some churches I rather wish they'd start treating adults like adults ...

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
Living in South Africa, the influence of Archbishop Tutu is prevalent in many churches here. A few years ago I was at a lecture Tutu gave where he spoke about how he had been encouraged by reading the Roman Catholic encyclicals on social justice to discern the 'signs of the times' and not simply to react to injustices under apartheid and colonialism with protest and outrage, but to envision what kind of society might be possible without certain oppressions, the difference human rights and freedoms might make in the lives of ordinary people and help bring about the Kingdom.

To me, that's quite helpful. The materials we have to work with are Scripture, Tradition, and Reason - and the "current age" is part of "Reason" (which also includes experience generally). None of those will give us the whole answer without help from the others. But our goal is eschatological - the Kingdom of God. We need to try to discern what we should do in a situation to bring ourselves and our actions into line with the Kingdom of God as we're able to perceive it. I think that has to be done with a lot of openness, but also with wisdom.

Different churches/denominations have very different polities, but I believe the Holy Spirit can work through whatever arrangement we have.

I really agree that just keeping up with "the times" is wrong-headed, but no more so than blindly sticking to tradition. I can say that just the opposite way, too: blindly sticking to tradition is wrong-headed, but no more so than just keeping up with the times.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think this is a rather high-level debate. I have a milder, lower-level comment about the use of the phrase.

I think many churches do indeed "move with the times" in the sense that they adopt new technologies such as sound systems, projectors, web sites, electronic music, etc.

I also notice that some church organizations make use of such non-Biblical ideas as democracy or even racial equality.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

I also notice that some church organizations make use of such non-Biblical ideas as democracy or even racial equality.

Non biblical??? What about Galatians 3.28?

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

Personally I can't think of anything worse than the person that thinks his ethics are solely derived from the divine. Such thinking leads to all kinds of errors and worse.

And one post later...

quote:
Dingy Sailor, I'd say we have to calm ourselves and listen for the voice of God, which may be from the depths of our understanding of the universal ethic or the Holy Spirit whispering the divine ethic into our hearts.

Am I the only one who sees a bit of a problem in your reasoning here long ranger? You seem to be contradicting yourself spectacularly.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I'm not sure I can do a better job of explaining what I mean, I'm sorry.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Despite my not liking you 'personally', I have no problem with you as quoted there Ell Arr. Cool in fact. Sorry Tee Ell Arr, or should it be Ah ?

[ 16. June 2012, 21:47: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
What does this (I submit) vacuous statement actually mean and what possible significance could it have for theologising? Consider Germany in the 30's for example. I suppose the Church, on this basis, could have justified supporting anti-Semitism because it was "moving with the times."

What it means is that we've progressed in the 2000 years since the Birth of Christ.

Jesus himself said "The poor shall always be with you." As a target in the 21st century (or even the 20th) that is simply not good enough. We can legitimately ask why in this world of abundance anyone is poor.

Paul wrote "Slaves, obey in all things your masters". Again, for all it is part of scripture and tradition, this is simply not good enough. Any tacit acceptance of slavery as something unchangeable is something we have moved beyond. (And the bible is full of such acceptance).

The significance it has to theologising is that any theological reasoning is a product of the society it came out of. Any epistle was written to its readers. Any Ecumenical Council was set up under specific conditions. And although all such teachings may be useful for instruction or reproof the fundamentally most important part of any parts of such teachings is who the target audience was.

The timeless principles in theology might not change. To apply them in the present day requires that we understand both what the situation in the present day is, and why the specific instructions (rather than the principles) were being given.

Or shorter me: "If you talk to me as if I was 'Paul's dear son Timothy' you will get precisely nowhere. You aren't moving with the times. If you try to keep to the principles that Paul was trying to convey and work out which are applicable to someone over 1900 years later, you might get somewhere."

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

God made the whole of creation, not just the church. The holy spirit imbues the whole of creation, not just the church. In his ascension, Christ took the whole of humanity, indeed creation, into the Godhead, not just the church. Why, therefore, should we see God as being inactive outside the church? Why should resistance to the rest of creation always be seen as doing God's work?

Being a person of realised eschatology, I believe my job is the building of the kingdom, within and outside the church. Sometimes this will mean applying things learned in one sphere in the other: this can equally well go either way.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Jesus himself said "The poor shall always be with you." As a target in the 21st century (or even the 20th) that is simply not good enough. We can legitimately ask why in this world of abundance anyone is poor.

Unfortunately the record of the higher echelons of the church in the 20th century in endorsing the dead end of socialism and sulking about capitalism means that we've got a big credibility gap to overcome. And no the present bump in the road doesn't prove there 'MUST' be a better alternative.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The problem of conformity to the world is highlighted by: "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets."

It's my perception that the leadership of the church - at least in England - is spoken well of by most 'lefties'. For them it has become one of the civic groups who they like to line up for their latest scheme, be it CND, debt remission, anti-apartheid, anti-Israel, climate change etc. Such is the danger of relevance: we become part of the scenery...

How quaint. Reading that last paragraph, I almost felt I was back in the 1970s. You need to move with the times, Ender's. [Biased]

Seriously, I don't know if you've noticed, but there aren't any "lefties" in Britain any more. They sold their principles, bought shares in Thatcher's privatised industries, moved to Islington and became the chattering class. And these days, the chattering class - always dedicated followers of fashion - are all atheists.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Seriously, I don't know if you've noticed, but there aren't any "lefties" in Britain any more. They sold their principles, bought shares in Thatcher's privatised industries, moved to Islington and became the chattering class. And these days, the chattering class - always dedicated followers of fashion - are all atheists.

May I suggest you make a trip to Greenbelt where you will find a plenteous supply of idealistic leftie Christians... [Big Grin]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Jesus himself said "The poor shall always be with you." As a target in the 21st century (or even the 20th) that is simply not good enough. We can legitimately ask why in this world of abundance anyone is poor.
Unfortunately the record of the higher echelons of the church in the 20th century in endorsing the dead end of socialism and sulking about capitalism means that we've got a big credibility gap to overcome. And no the present bump in the road doesn't prove there 'MUST' be a better alternative.

Unfortunately the record of the higher echelons of the church in the past 30 years makes a mockery of this assertion. We've had an Archbishop of Cantebury decided because he wrote a book about The Church and The Market. We've had St Paul's Church lining up with the City of London against the long haired hippies in the past year - over the strenuous objections of a couple of its members. The Church does what it has done ever since the time of Constantine - largely lines up with the current power structure.

And anyone who talks about socialism as a dead end obviously hasn't been to Sweden. What's a dead end is Totalitarian Socialism - like Totalitarian anything. Man is a complex being and any one size fits all system is doomed to fail. Without socialism being included, your beloved capitalism wouldn't have lasted much past 1929.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[ We've had an Archbishop of Cantebury decided because he wrote a book about The Church and The Market.

Do you mean George Carey's 'The Church in the Marketplace'? That was a story of mission about how he revived a dying church he was vicar of.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, Greenbelt is full of idealistic lefties. What's wrong with that? I'd rather that than UKIP or the Tory Party at prayer which is what you seem to be advocating, Ender's Shadow ...

[Help]

I'd probably find Greenbelt a tad wearing the same as I find any mass Christian gathering (of whatever stripe) a bit too much to take ... but hey ...

I know this ain't moving with the times but the best thing Runcie ever did, in my opinion, was to tell Thatcher where to get off. Anyone who did that is worthy of a place near the Great White Throne if you ask me ...

[Razz]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Not this close I hope Gamaliel?

[Biased]

(This is not a comment on your post, as I agreed with it wholeheartedly)

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Man is a complex being and any one size fits all system is doomed to fail. Without socialism being included, your beloved capitalism wouldn't have lasted much past 1929.

This is all absolutely true - but may I just add that the reason is not because man is a complex being - it is because he is a fallen being (regardless of whether he believes it or not.)

This means that any man-made ideology, although it may sound good to begin with, will turn sour when taken to extremes, as it inevitably will be.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Boogie ... Arrggh! and [Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0