|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglicanism is Incarnational... unpack this
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I have often heard that Anglicanism has an Incarnational theology. What does this mean? How did it arise particularly as a focus in Anglicanism? Do other denominations have less of a focus on it (or are there other denominations that also focus on it)?
Wikipedia tells me:
quote:
Anglican incarnational theology emphasizes the importance of God using the mundane and temporal as a means of giving people the transcendent and eternal.
So I'm not the only one who has heard this link between Anglicanism and Incarnational theology. But I still don't know where it comes from, why (or whether) it's an Anglican distinctive, and what it means for Christian life or belief. (Plus, I don't know how much I should trust that definition.). It appears in an article on the Eucharist, but I've never heard this in connection with the Eucharist before. When people cite "Anglicanism has an Incarnational theology" to me, they usually seem to be talking about the importance of acting out our Christianity through service outside the church.
I'm puzzled. Help?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I have often heard that Anglicanism has an Incarnational theology.
It may have but it's not unique to anglicanism. Arguably the baptists are way more incarnational as a consequence of their congregational approach to church government and broad commitment (at least in the uk) to mission and social action/justice.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Exclamation Mark, what does incarnational mean? I can't tell if the things you cite mean baptists are incarnational, until I know what the word means.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
As I understand it, "incarnational" is directly related to the idea that God became flesh, in Jesus--this is the literal meaning of Incarnation, as Shipmates don't need telling.
So, as Jesus, a divine being, took on a fleshly existence, this means that God gives value even to our earthly lives. God used the mundane and temporal, as Wikipedia says. God can work even through the limitations of our earthly, limited, carnal lives.
(Am I right in saying this is very different from the Platonic Greek, or the Gnostic, view of earthly life being utterly disgusting and alien to the spiritual? And that's why there was a heresy (forget its name at the minute) that held Jesus never really became a flesh-and-blood man?)
It makes sense to me to talk about incarnational theology in connection with the Eucharist, because in the Eucharist Christ comes to us through the very basic foods, bread and wine, things important to our bodily sustenance. He uses the earthly materials and works spiritually through them. He speaks to us through the things we, fleshly animals as we are, know best. He comes to meet us here in the nitty-gritty of this fleshly life. That's what I understand by the idea of incarnational theology in relation to the Eucharist, but I'm no theologian--so correct me if I'm wrong.
It's less clear to me what it means to speak of an incarnational theology as expressed in our service to others outside the church; but then when I think about it, it seems logical--doesn't it mean that, as Christ became a man, was incarnated as one of us, so we should see Christ in all human beings? He said, if you do it (give water, visit in prison, etc) to one of these, you do it to me. Mother Theresa's service to the poor, sick, and dying of any and all faiths seems to me to illustrate this approach so beautifully.
Are these the sorts of things others understand by "incarnational theology" ? And what about its success as an expression--is it too vague, too much smacking of theology-speak, to mean much to most people??
And why does Microsoft word put those red squiggles underneath "incarnational," as if it's not a real word at all?
I must check the OED....
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I once read in a book which was an overview of Christianity that Anglican/Episcopalian churches had a Christmas spirituality, Roman Catholics a Good Friday spirituality, and the Orthodox an Easter spirituality. Although of course that's rather simplistic, since joining the Ship, that point of view makes some sense. In the Eucharist, I as a Piskie have always seen it as a joining of God to his creation. The RCs seem to focus on the Mass as the eternal sacrifice. And the Orthodox seem to see the Passion as culminating in the defeat of death.
Now people from all these churches may tell me how mistaken and/or simplistic I'm being. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I recently went to the ordination of a Baptist youth pastor at a nearby inner city church. The youth pastor had recently moved to a house round the corner from the church, and this was described by one of the Baptists as an 'incarnational' act. I thought that was an interesting statement.
It's not a term I've come across much in the Methodist church, which is the tradition I know best. Methodist clergy, who are appointed to a circuit rather than a congregation, often have several churches to look after, and will have to live in a church-owned property that's only in the same area as one, or maybe none of them. So the idea of coming down to live 'among the people' doesn't really work in that sense. Also, Methodism has been in retreat from inner city areas; but the concept of 'incarnational living' doesn't seem so meaningful when referring to a new minister who moves to a leafy suburb.
Maybe the CofE is deemed to be incarnational simply because it's present in most parts of the country, whether rich or poor. But this can't be the case for international Anglicanism, I imagine.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
As I understand it, what is meant is that Anglicanism doesn't see itself as a gathered church. A gathered church is one that makes a sharp divide between the believers and the world. Rather, the Anglican church is supposed to exist in the midst of the world as Jesus is supposed to have done. The Anglican church goes to parties with tax collectors and usurers and so on. Likewise, in theory if someone turns up at an Anglican church asking for a baby to baptise they won't be given the third degree about whether they're properly saved or not.
The risk of course is that the Anglican church gets conformed to the world rather than the reverse.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Cynics would say that in the C of E (at least, I don't know about other parts of Anglicanism) we enjoy getting sentimental about the Baby Jesus and Christmas cribs and all that.
But there is a strand in Anglican theology (strongly marked in the late 19th century mutation of Tractarianism that produced Lux Mundi, Charles Gore, Herbert Kelly and Conrad Noel, among others) that is characterised by a concern for social justice and recognising Christ in the everyday world. Of course it is not exclusive to Anglicanism and much of Anglicanism was untouched by it. I think LydaRose has a point about understandings of the Eucharist.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To be honest, I've not heard this term applied to Anglicanism in any particular sense to more 'catholic' forms of sprituality in general - of which (depending on one's point of view), Anglican is a reformed subset.
I've also heard it used of all and any of the 'historic' Churches (RC, Anglican, Orthodox) over against the 'sects' - sorry EE - although I would certainly agree with EE that there is an 'incarnational' element within the UK Baptist scene given the emphasis on social justice etc.
In a reductionist sense, the Incarnational elements are said to be evident in the more inclusive 'feel' of the Churches (capital c) rather than the newer 'sects' (understood in sociological and not perjorative terms).
So more 'catholic' churches are meant to be 'for all' and not just for the particular members of the congregation.
Also, there is less 'dualism' than might be found in the more 'rigorist' of the sects ... at one time many non-conformists or Free Church people were less likely to drink, go to parties, visit the theatre or cinema etc etc ... although this hasn't been the case for many years, of course.
My own view is that Christianity as a whole is an incarnational faith as it emphases the Word made Flesh, God eternally uniting himself with humanity in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So I'm not sure it 'does' to suggest that the Baptists, say, are any more or any less incarnational in their approach than anyone else or that the Anglicans are somehow more incarnational than the Methodists or whatever else ...
--------------------
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
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
Dear Cara I thought what you wrote was beautiful.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Seconded. What Cara wrote was lovely.
I think the ancient heresy you are thinking of is Docetism.
Up until comparatively recently, it could have been argued that Anglicanism, like Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, was less likely to sink towards a form of 'unitarianism' or unorthodox beliefs about the Deity of Christ.
I mean no disrespect to Presbyterians, Independents (Congregationalists), Baptists and other 'separatists' but it is true to say that many of them struggled with Socianism and forms of Arianism and Sabellianism and lots of other isms and heresies during the 17th and 18th centuries in particular. Jengie Jon could tell us all about that.
The Baptists struggled with Christological controversies in the late 19th century and also again in the early 1970s when many Baptist congregations left the Baptist Union in the UK because they believed it had become unorthodox on the Deity of Christ ... a position that it seems, overall, to have recovered from since.
It's difficult to be intentionally incarnational, I suppose, if you don't believe in the Incarnation.
I hasten to add that most Baptists I've met DO believe in the Incarnation.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Of course, at the core of all Christianity is the belief that God came down to live among us as a man. But the question here is how that 'historical' event is replicated symbolically in the life of the churches.
On the one hand, the mainstream churches (but most particularly the CofE) have a long history and a privileged status, which means they have an entree into local communities throughout the nation, regardless of the beliefs held by individuals in those communities. They have the clout and the resources to engage in fundraising and social justice issues in a way that's visible from the outside.
But on the other hand, newer churches, especially those that remain close to their humble origins, perhaps have an advantage in that their very ordinaryness and lack of status may bring them closer to their people in a particular setting, though not on a national level. I think this is truer of churches in the developing world rather than here, though. In the UK, the new churches with the most spiritual impact on the lives of the less privileged within local communities are now to a large extent churches (sometimes founded by and) of particular benefit to immigrants. Otherwise, if we're talking about 'brand awareness' and providing an inclusive service to 'sinners and tax collectors', that's mostly the CofE, isn't it?
But maybe every church community is incarnational simply by existing. That might be the most comforting way of looking at it!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I suspect the issue behind the OP is one of mindset as well as praxis, SvitlanaV2. The idea has been mooted that historical or 'established' churches (such as the CofE or the RCs or the Orthodox in some countries) are more concerned about being 'in the world' rather than attempting to take people 'out of the world' and into some kind of parallel micro-world of the gathered Elect, as it were. The historical or more 'Catholic' churches have, it is argued, been more this-worldly than other-worldly ... although this is, of course, debatable.
I think it is fair to say that there has, historically, been more engagement with the arts, with culture and so on in the more historic traditions than within the more 'sectarian' forms of church - although this has been changing for some time. I think some of the 'newer' or Free Churches have been more 'rooted' among particular demographic groups and quite close to the ground at times - I'm thinking of grass-roots Methodism in Cornwall and The Potteries, Baptists among the shoemakers and independent artisans of 17th and 18th century Northamptonshire etc.
Baptists and Methodists were certainly more grass-roots in the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands and so on.
In pockets, I would suggest that the same has been true for some Pentecostal and 'new church' restorationist groups but overall I think you're right that it is the more ethnically-defined churches among migrant communities that have exemplified a more 'grass-roots' approach.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Otherwise, if we're talking about 'brand awareness' and providing an inclusive service to 'sinners and tax collectors', that's mostly the CofE, isn't it?
Are you suggesting that the CofE has a particular ministry to those in the Financial Services sector? (++Welby might think so!) And might the word "sinners" be a euphemism for "bankers"? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
To be honest, I've mostly encountered 'incarnational' as a theo-buzzword meaning "We're more Christian than you."
As in, you might not like the Book of Common Prayer / Anglo-Catholic mass / praise bands, but we take an incarnational approach and believe that God is present even in labyrinthine 16th-century prose / suffocation by thurifers / screeching amps ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be honest, I've mostly encountered 'incarnational' as a theo-buzzword meaning "We're more Christian than you."
Well, yes. Anglicans IME tend to use it this way to refer to the parish system, claiming that because they claim to cover the whole nation they have first dibs on any Christian activity anywhere, and should be consulted about anything any other Christians want to do.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, I know enough Baptist and other Free Church ministers to recognise this as a cause for some concern - and I'm sure we might find RC and other clergy saying the same in relation to the CofE ... but generally speaking, I would suggest that letting other Christians in an area know what you're up-to is simply politeness and good-neighbourliness.
In my experience, Baptists are rather better than this than the more independent evangelical or charismatic evangelical types who'll simply plant something on someone else's doorstep without any attempt at consultation or even advance notice.
But the Baptists aren't always squeaky-clean in this respect, I've known instances of them impinging on one another's 'patch' without a great deal of prior consultation or notification.
Most clergy - of whatever stripe - appreciate knowing when stuff's going on. I remember going to see an evangelical vicar once to inform him that the independent charismatic evangelical church I was then part of was planning to do some outreach in his area. He was supportive and appreciated being told. He wished us well.
I might have got a different reaction if he'd been a very liberal vicar or Anglo-Catholic or something ... but I think it was only fair to let him know what was going on - so if any of his parishioners or others asked him about it he'd be able to comment from an informed position.
To be fair, I've been involved with 'new church', Baptist and Anglican churches and I've not particularly noticed any Anglican sniffiness towards anyone else - although I'm sure it does exist. I've not seen it first-hand though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be honest, I've mostly encountered 'incarnational' as a theo-buzzword meaning "We're more Christian than you."
Well, yes. Anglicans IME tend to use it this way to refer to the parish system, claiming that because they claim to cover the whole nation they have first dibs on any Christian activity anywhere, and should be consulted about anything any other Christians
want to do.
I have to say that has not, largely, been my experience. But then most of my experience with the CofE is MOTR and liberal where the notion of 'we're more Christian than you' tends against those particular churchmanships. At least our critics are fond of telling us we're not exclusive enough, and make everything too easily accessible for everyone etc!
I remember the attitude, however, quite vividly from within a conservative evangelical church, which was CofE - and only then from particular members. So I think the attitude was more personal than ecclesial.
You might be trying to put forward the idea that because the CofE is the national established church and has (debateably) an accepted place in most communities, it naturally follows its ministers and members think they are 'more Christian' than others. I think you'd be wrong to try to do this.
What I have noticed, referencing your final paragraph, is the hardly surprising tendancy of long-established church fellowships within a community - including Anglicans - getting annoyed when other Christian groups 'move in' on an area to proslytise (sp?) regardless of how God may already be working in that area. It's discourteous, inefficient and patronising. An attitude - one might say - that very much shouts: we're the real Christians, listen to us!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be honest, I've mostly encountered 'incarnational' as a theo-buzzword meaning "We're more Christian than you."
Well, yes. Anglicans IME tend to use it this way to refer to the parish system, claiming that because they claim to cover the whole nation they have first dibs on any Christian activity anywhere, and should be consulted about anything any other Christians
want to do.
I have to say that has not, largely, been my experience. But then most of my experience with the CofE is MOTR and liberal where the notion of 'we're more Christian than you' tends against those particular churchmanships. At least our critics are fond of telling us we're not exclusive enough, and make everything too easily accessible for everyone etc!
IME it's been MOTR churches insisting that their permission ought to have been asked for any Christians to do anything in their area, as they are the national church. YM obviously Vs, and that's fine. I was simply answering the OP by saying that's the context in which I have heard Anglicans using the phrase.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
There's no way, national church or not, that we need to be asked for 'permission'. But common courtesy is a different matter.
Just before Christmas our local farmers' market was visited by a group of carol singers from a free evangelical church who were handing out leaflets, when a couple of stalls away the local parish church were also singing carols and handing out leaflets. To add to the confusion the independent group have given themselves the same name as the parish church, but they have no base in the area and no commitment to the community as such. (Incidentally the parish church would claim to be evangelical too, but takes its pastoral responsibilities seriously)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
At its simp;lest "incarnational" means living in the same place as you go to church.
Since life sometimes isn't so simple, incarnational can be taken to mean living with and among those people you are trying to share the Christian faith and service and love with.
Gamaliel, Anselmina - from the Bapoist POV there are some good and some not so good instances of BUGB churches working together and/or liaising with other denominations in order to reach out to a particular area.
Human nature being what it is (from both sides), there can be issues when a bigger, financially sound fellowship extends into an area which is currently served by another denomination. Irrespective of whether that (existing) church is making any effort to engage with the community, resentment can result.
Sorry to say Anselmina that I've experienced some of the arrogance of the CofE that you haven't seen. It's a bit like the example in the previous paragraph: a growing all age BUGB church and very small, very traditional, CofE and methodist churches in a village setting of 3000 people. Very little mission/outreach/community work is happening. An offer from the (larger) church to work on a common programme is turned down so in the absence of any other work, the BUGB church goes it alone. Result? Mega whining and whinging.
It wasn't an uncommon attitude in that part of the world where there was an assumption - if not presumption - that the CofE was the real church and everyone else was somehow not quite the ticket. I couldn't for example lead the eucharist at a church school where I was the Bishop's appointed Governor (note!), since according to the local church, "I couldn't do the magic!" That's not been the case elsewhere esp in the instance of where this BUGB helped to replant/revitalise an Anglican church.
Gamaliel - the reason churches left the BUGB in the 1970's was the result of 2 things. Firstly the ecumenical movement and the BUGB's embarce of the World Council of Churches and Churches Together in England and Wales. Some baptist churches were calvinistic and seperatist and couldn't accept that this was helpful or biblical. It took me 3 years to discover btw that the church I'd been called to was one of them!
The other reason was the assumed position of the BUGB President Michael Taylor, on the divinity (or lack of) of Christ. When assurances were not forthcoming about the denominational stance on this, a number of con evo churches left. Michael Taylor went on to be Chief Exec of Christian Aid, IIRC.
The real problem was not that a lot of people followed Taylor's line but that the BUGB was like a rabbit in the headlights and didn't know how to respond to the biggest crisis since Spurgeon and the downgrade controversy of the 1890's. There wasn't much support for Taylor but no one seemed to want to say that there wasn't.
Today the position is rather different IME with few outside the con evo or open evo position. The current leadership is certainly very strongly con evo - and I can vouch for that as I know the Gen Sec personally. I can't imagine for example the BU ever sanctioning same sex partnerships but there may be a case for DADT ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Mind you (sorry double post) in the same area the BUGB church was as peeved as everyone by the constant stream of people arriving with the story of how God had told them to do a new thing in the area.
Apparently we weren't doing it right. I think there was an everage of one a year between wood and water over 10 years - none survives now. The quickest went in 6 weeks, the longest relocated to the big city a few miles away and imploded.
Now try sorting out the pastoral disasters and bad PR from those ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I was using short-hand on the BUGB issue ... I was aware of the situation and when I was in the BUGB I sometimes got the same reaction from independent evangelicals and independent Baptists as you're complaining about from the CofE ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The reason churches left the BUGB in the 1970's was the result of 2 things. Firstly the ecumenical movement and the BUGB's embrace of the World Council of Churches and Churches Together in England and Wales ... The other reason was the assumed position of the BUGB President Michael Taylor, on the divinity (or lack of) of Christ.
True, of course, but churches also left because they joined "New Church" networks - some Baptists of course saw that as hijacking or taking over ... it certainly led to problems with Trust Deeds and Church Buildings.
quote:
The current leadership is certainly very strongly con evo - and I can vouch for that as I know the Gen Sec personally. I can't imagine for example the BU ever sanctioning same sex partnerships
More's the pity - one of the reasons I struggle as a Baptist is its fairly narrow thelogical (and liturgical) spectrum. More a loss than a gain IMO.
quote:
But there may be a case for DADT ....
By the way, what is this?
[ 08. January 2013, 17:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be honest, I've mostly encountered 'incarnational' as a theo-buzzword meaning "We're more Christian than you."
Well, yes. Anglicans IME tend to use it this way to refer to the parish system, claiming that because they claim to cover the whole nation they have first dibs on any Christian activity anywhere, and should be consulted about anything any other Christians want to do.
Well, that's not an issue for Anglicanism as a whole, but in only one particular part of one particular nation (i.e., England in the UK). It's not an issue anywhere else. (When I read SoF discussions of some of issues facing the CofE, I thank God that the ECUSA is not a state church.)
But, returning to the main topic of this thread -- "incarnational" (and yes, TextEdit on my Mac also puts red dots under that word likes it's a misspelling). . .
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I once read in a book which was an overview of Christianity that Anglican/Episcopalian churches had a Christmas spirituality, Roman Catholics a Good Friday spirituality, and the Orthodox an Easter spirituality. Although of course that's rather simplistic, since joining the Ship, that point of view makes some sense. In the Eucharist, I as a Piskie have always seen it as a joining of God to his creation. The RCs seem to focus on the Mass as the eternal sacrifice. And the Orthodox seem to see the Passion as culminating in the defeat of death.
While only a generalization, it has some validity as far as it goes. But these are tendencies not official doctrinal positions. Certainly Anglicans and Roman Catholics and Orthodox as a whole all believe in the incarnation, believe that Jesus died on the cross, and believe that he rose again. And it also has been my impression that -- speaking in very general terms -- i've noticed more of a tendency in the piety of the Roman Catholicism of my youth to remain morosely stuck in the sufferings of Jesus as compared to his final victory. But it was from Roman Catholic priests that I first heard stated (especially in the wake of Vatican 2) that Christians are above all an Easter people. (In those days I was even less knowledgeable about Eastern Orthodoxy than I am now).
I consider myself an Easter Christian, but the Resurrection would not make sense without the Cross, nor before that without the Incarnation. And so I am also incarnational. Actually, I've tended to look upon the incarnational perspective as being a strong counter to Gnostic perspectives about the material world. God's material creation is good!
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I have often heard that Anglicanism has an Incarnational theology. What does this mean? How did it arise particularly as a focus in Anglicanism? Do other denominations have less of a focus on it (or are there other denominations that also focus on it)?
Wikipedia tells me:
quote:
Anglican incarnational theology emphasizes the importance of God using the mundane and temporal as a means of giving people the transcendent and eternal.
So I'm not the only one who has heard this link between Anglicanism and Incarnational theology. But I still don't know where it comes from, why (or whether) it's an Anglican distinctive, and what it means for Christian life or belief. (Plus, I don't know how much I should trust that definition.). It appears in an article on the Eucharist, but I've never heard this in connection with the Eucharist before. When people cite "Anglicanism has an Incarnational theology" to me, they usually seem to be talking about the importance of acting out our Christianity through service outside the church.
I'm puzzled. Help?
To my mind, it gives a name and a term of reference to people who find equally unattractive the focus on doctrinal purity of certain RCs and protestant biblical fundamentalism, by drawing attention to the fact that life, in all its dullness, is a valid and valuable source of information about our faith. It allows us to own our experience and validates its application to our relationship with God, based on the fact that the primary source of information about God is the life of Jesus: not either the written accounts of this, nor the doctrines developed by the church since his death, but his ongoing, resurrection life.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
ExclamationMark
Points of accuracy.
No Baptist churches left BUGB because of Churches Together in the 1970s. Why? Churches Together did not exist. It was the old British Council of Churches, my Mum was employed by them in the late 1970s. CTE and CTBI did not exist until the late 1980s. There are significant differences. The old BCC did not include Roman Catholics for starters and really was a council of churches not just a forum. The watering down of the ecumenical closeness was the price paid to include the RCC.
Michael Taylor only eventually ended up at Christian Aid, he went via principleship of Northern Baptist College.
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be honest, I've mostly encountered 'incarnational' as a theo-buzzword meaning "We're more Christian than you."
Well, yes. Anglicans IME tend to use it this way to refer to the parish system, claiming that because they claim to cover the whole nation they have first dibs on any Christian activity anywhere, and should be consulted about anything any other Christians want to do.
Well, that's not an issue for Anglicanism as a whole, but in only one particular part of one particular nation (i.e., England in the UK). It's not an issue anywhere else. (When I read SoF discussions of some of issues facing the CofE, I thank God that the ECUSA is not a state church.)
That sort of triumphalism is a perversion of that approach. It still lingers unfortunately in pockets of the C of E. But incarnational theology is put into practice in many other parts of the Anglican world. Think of the South African church during the struggle against apartheid. I know a priest in one of the poorest cities in the USA whose style of ministry is totally involved with the community.
But of course it's not a monopoly of Anglicanism. The Methodist church has been much more imaginative and courageous in some of its urban projects than the C of E could ever be. And there are many Roman Catholic priests, religious, and (perhaps especially) lay people who are strongly committed to social and political action.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There's no way, national church or not, that we need to be asked for 'permission'. But common courtesy is a different matter.
Just before Christmas our local farmers' market was visited by a group of carol singers from a free evangelical church who were handing out leaflets, when a couple of stalls away the local parish church were also singing carols and handing out leaflets. To add to the confusion the independent group have given themselves the same name as the parish church, but they have no base in the area and no commitment to the community as such. (Incidentally the parish church would claim to be evangelical too, but takes its pastoral responsibilities seriously)
What does common courtesy look like in this situation Angloid? Should there be a default of the free church not doing a Christmas event at the farmers market because the parish church is there? If so, why?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What does common courtesy look like in this situation Angloid? Should there be a default of the free church not doing a Christmas event at the farmers market because the parish church is there? If so, why?
Not necessarily. The ideal would be for both groups to combine.
It is quite possible that at first the free church was not aware that the parish church normally has a stall on the market; it is even possible (though unlikely) that it didn't regard its name as likely to cause confusion.
However, in this particular case I understand that it was not the first time this had happened, and that the vicar had previously spoken with the free church representatives. Knowing him he would have spoken courteously and said something on the lines of 'there's room for both of us'. But it is unfortunate to say the least that they appeared as a rival organisation.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]
1. True, of course, but churches also left because they joined "New Church" networks - some Baptists of course saw that as hijacking or taking over ... it certainly led to problems with Trust Deeds and Church Buildings.
2. But there may be a case for DADT
1. Yep there was a NFI link (Bedford, Bracknell) and a desire for independence elsewhere (Redruth e.g)
2. Don't ask, don't tell. How do we know anyone is celibate or even if we have a common definition of the same? There's (allegedly) BUGB ministers in same sex partnerships in every region of the UK.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
ExclamationMark
Points of accuracy.
No Baptist churches left BUGB because of Churches Together in the 1970s. Why? Churches Together did not exist. It was the old British Council of Churches, my Mum was employed by them in the late 1970s. CTE and CTBI did not exist until the late 1980s. There are significant differences. The old BCC did not include Roman Catholics for starters and really was a council of churches not just a forum. The watering down of the ecumenical closeness was the price paid to include the RCC.
Michael Taylor only eventually ended up at Christian Aid, he went via principleship of Northern Baptist College.
Jengie
Apologies for the error in looking down the barrel of 40 odd years! Whatever vthe title of the national grouping an whatever its means of discussion, there's little doubt that some BUGB churches left because they couldn't tolerate any ecumenical discussions or meetings. Others like the church I was called to, becaus eof the rumour or possibility that the RCC and/or Quakers would be included or asked to meet around the table. Fo soem it wasn't the BCC which was the issue but the WCC.
I didn't discover the fact that the church I was called to was an "exclusion" from the BUGB's agreement (although still a BUGB church), until I received a letter 3 years in, asking me if the church still held that same position. There were a lot of ex Brethren in the church who i think were the driving force behind the Non involvement stance. That church still isn't part of the local churches together despite being by far the largest congregation in the surrounding area.
Northern produced a few "interesting" minsietrs under Michael's tenure!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Dear Cara I thought what you wrote was beautiful.
Hear hear!! ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
And that's why there was a heresy (forget its name at the minute) that held Jesus never really became a flesh-and-blood man?)
Would that be monophysitism? I'm not 100% sure - help me out guys!
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...but I'm no theologian....
You're more of a theologian than many who claim to be!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
At its simp;lest "incarnational" means living in the same place as you go to church.
Thank you, that is clear. But now I am puzzled: is "incarnational" supposed to have anything to do with Christ's incarnation? If it is, then I don't see the connection from "the second person of the Trinity became human" and "live in the same place as you go to church."
Not quite related: why should you live in the same place as you go to church? (I have actually almost always gone to the closest Episcopal church, at least in the times of my life when I've been going to church, and I feel like I have strong reasons for doing this, but at the moment I can't actually articulate them!)
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
And that's why there was a heresy (forget its name at the minute) that held Jesus never really became a flesh-and-blood man?)
Would that be monophysitism? I'm not 100% sure - help me out guys!
Gamaliel cited Docetism, and I think that fits better: Jesus only appeared to be a human, but his human appearance was only an apparition of sorts.
Monophysitism says that Jesus had a flesh-and-blood body, but he only had one nature: either purely divine, or a mixture of human and divine into a new sort of nature.
In Docetism, Jesus also only has one nature -- divine -- but he doesn't even have real a flesh-and-blood body.
[ 08. January 2013, 19:49: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the ancient heresy you are thinking of is Docetism.
Yeah, that as well! No, you're right, I looked it up.
LATE EDIT:
Thanks Autenrieth Road - that's a better explanation than wiki!
[ 08. January 2013, 20:04: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
I've always taken the "we're an incarnational church" hashtag to mean we're not afraid of the human body. Everything we do is bodily and overtly so. We are very materialistic. We don't have "shut your eyes and ask Jesus to be your personal saviour" approach to spirituality.
Washing the stinky feet on a tobacco smelling drunk is always called an "incarnational" act.
Food pantries, homeless shelters, wearing collars and habits and crosses and vestments, decorating the church building, feasting on rich, fattening food and drinking too much (sometimes, any way), loving the theatre and good books, all the arts--music!--finding grace at the dry cleaner's, feeding a stray dog, etc. all count as part of our spirituality. We enjoy the beauty of holiness and the holiness of beauty. We are living in a material world, and God became one of us and shared our life so we can share his divine life, which is now, irrevocably, material.
Living at the level of those we serve is very much a part of our service, Jesus did that, so that youth pastor, by living "down there" is sharing in that--so it's incarnational.
Jesus receives us through our being washing water, anointed with oil, fed with real food, drinking real drink, confessing real sins, having real sex and so on. God became human, ergo knowing humanity is knowing God, or at least a part of the mystery. God created the universe and came to live in a speck of ground in Palestine. Weird.
So our faith cannot be bodiless and ethereal or expressed by "four bare walls and a sermon."
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be honest, I've mostly encountered 'incarnational' as a theo-buzzword meaning "We're more Christian than you."
Yes, in all seriousness that sounds about right I'm sorry to say.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Is "incarnational" supposed to have anything to do with Christ's incarnation? If it is, then I don't see the connection from "the second person of the Trinity became human" and "live in the same place as you go to church."
Not quite related: why should you live in the same place as you go to church?
I suppose there's a sense in which the Church is incarnational by representing Christ's 'body' on earth. In one way, the Church serves this purpose simply by existing. But it also means action, since Christ himself didn't just come, but came, acted, and made a difference.
In England, Anglicanism is the state 'confession'. The fact that Anglican churches are present in (almost) every community, rich or poor, is very important to the CofE. This is a sign that it's the church of the nation, is inclusive and is embedded in the wider culture, rather than drawing 'believers' away from the culture. As others have explained, this is one reason why it might described as incarnational in English culture; being present where the ordinary people are replicates Jesus being present among us.
The term 'incarnational' sometimes represents situations where pastors or ministers live and minister in quite poor areas, among underprivileged people. Jesus did so too, which is why the term might be employed to describe such situations. It's less incarnational when a minister lives in a leafy suburb and has to drive quite a distance to reach his poorer parishioners!
This understanding of being incarnational is probably less meaningful in places such as the USA, because there the Episcopalian Church doesn't have any special status as the church whose duty is to serve the whole nation, regardless of creed; it's just one denomination in a huge competing crowd of denominations. (Of course, individual congregations and ministers might have a very incarnational presence in their local community.) The Anglican church in South Africa during apartheid seemed to have had a more prominent status, though. There are probably historical reasons for that.
In British Christianity, people who travel a considerable distance to attend church are often more likely to be attending an evangelical church. The feeling among more liberal/mainstream Christians seems to be that such churchgoers don't care about supporting the (often struggling) local church or parish; they're more absorbed in what they can get out of an exciting church several miles away. Again, perhaps the cultural implications are different in huge countries like the USA and Canada, where almost everyone has to travel a considerable distance to get to church, whether they're evangelical or not?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Much to think about that there, SvitlanaV2 (and from all posters, indeed). While I'm thinking, I'll mention that I am in the U.S. and the comments I hear here (*) about "Anglicanism has an incarnational theology" seem to me to be meant to solidly apply to the Episcopal church here, no less than to Anglicanism worldwide, and not just in some diluted essence here even though we're not the state church.
(*) I mean "here in the US where I live", that I wss referring to in the OP.
[ 08. January 2013, 21:43: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
No Baptist churches left BUGB because of Churches Together in the 1970s. Why? Churches Together did not exist. It was the old British Council of Churches, my Mum was employed by them in the late 1970s. CTE and CTBI did not exist until the late 1980s. There are significant differences. The old BCC did not include Roman Catholics for starters and really was a council of churches not just a forum.
Sorry to return to this, as it's a bit of a tangent ... My recollection is that several churches (Cromer, for one) left BUGB precisely when BCC mutated into CTE and BUGB Assembly voted to be part of the new body, simply because the latter included the Catholic Church as a full member. Up to that point they had just about managed to stomach being linked to BCC.
Other congregations may have come out earlier over "secondary affiliations" (i.e. BCC itself was OK, but it was part of WCC which wasn't). I know that Ian Paisley of the Ulster Free Presbys certainly wrote a booklet about that (in his usual calm and easured style, of course). And that would have ben Martyn Lloyd-Jones' view although he wasn't a Baptist, of course.
Even today I think that many BUGB Baptists are much happier being part of local ad-hoc interchurch groupings or clusters than being part of a more formal "Churches Together" group - and don't say the wod "ecumenical" as it can carry many negatve overtones.
[ 09. January 2013, 07:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I have often heard that Anglicanism has an Incarnational theology.
It may have but it's not unique to anglicanism. Arguably the baptists are way more incarnational as a consequence of their congregational approach to church government and broad commitment (at least in the uk) to mission and social action/justice.
Why is this more incarnational? I fail to see the necessary link here.
It is my understanding that 'incarnational,' when not being directly linked to the Incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, is primarily a reference to the fact that Christianity as a religion is not tied down to a specific culture, but can 'become incarnate' within difference cultures, and secondarily a reference to the fact that Christianity makes use of 'fleshy' stuff; water, bread, wine, etc.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What does common courtesy look like in this situation Angloid? Should there be a default of the free church not doing a Christmas event at the farmers market because the parish church is there? If so, why?
Not necessarily. The ideal would be for both groups to combine.
Indeed. If it had happened before, I wonder why the vicar didn't contact the free church and ask if he could join in with their outreach. My guess is because it is this "we are the national church for this parish and people should join in with us" mentality that I see so often in C of E people.
Which is not to say that us free churchers aren't sometimes far too "God is doing a new thing" to faithful parish churches.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
No Baptist churches left BUGB because of Churches Together in the 1970s. Why? Churches Together did not exist. It was the old British Council of Churches, my Mum was employed by them in the late 1970s. CTE and CTBI did not exist until the late 1980s. There are significant differences. The old BCC did not include Roman Catholics for starters and really was a council of churches not just a forum.
Sorry to return to this, as it's a bit of a tangent ... My recollection is that several churches (Cromer, for one) left BUGB precisely when BCC mutated into CTE and BUGB Assembly voted to be part of the new body, simply because the latter included the Catholic Church as a full member. Up to that point they had just about managed to stomach being linked to BCC.
Yes but BCC mutated in the late 1980s not in the 1970s. The initiating Lent Study course that kicked off the process was "Call to be One" which happened in 1984.
Jengie
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'm sure you're right, although I wasn't in Britain at that time. I only knew what happened in, as you say, the later 80s.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Leprechaun, all our experiences will vary, but I've been involved with a charismatic evangelical 'new church' network, a Baptist church and with parish churches and I would have to say that the kind of attitude you're describing sounds far more common to me across the 'independent sector' than it does from the CofE.
In fact, I've known plenty of Free Church evangelicals who 'look at you daft' when they find that you worship at an Anglican parish as if it's completely beyond them why any evangelical (synonymous in their minds with Christian per se, generally speaking) would want to be involved with the CofE and how on earth they survive there.
I don't doubt that there's a certain amount of sniffiness among some Anglicans to non-conformists, but I've never encountered it. Almost invariably, I've found it the other way round.
Even when I was among the Baptists I encountered some suspicion from independent evangelical types (largely of the Reformed persuasion) who thought that the BUGB had all but apostasised in the early 1970s.
My guess as to why the CofE vicar in your instance didn't contact the free church and join their outreach might be different than yours. He might not have done so because of the mentality you describe but because this particular free church could have been complete pains in the neck.
I've encountered plenty of judgementalism and holier-than-thou-ness among independent evangelicals of both charismatic or conservative persuasions. Sure, there are corresponding blind-spots and judgemental attitudes across the more historic or sacramental churches too.
We all see the specks in our brother's eye when we're carrying whopping great big telegraph poles in our own.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
It is also said that veneration of Jesus' mother Mary is part of/reflects an incarnational theology.
The fact that Jesus had an earthly mother and was born as a baby etc is part of the theology of the incarnation. Hence honouring Mary as Theotokos: God bearer.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I wonder why the vicar didn't contact the free church and ask if he could join in with their outreach. My guess is because it is this "we are the national church for this parish and people should join in with us" mentality that I see so often in C of E people.
I don't want to say much more because it might run the risk of outing the parish concerned. Suffice it to say that I think your guess is unlikely. Especially as the free church is based some distance outside the parish boundaries.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I wonder why the vicar didn't contact the free church and ask if he could join in with their outreach. My guess is because it is this "we are the national church for this parish and people should join in with us" mentality that I see so often in C of E people.
I don't want to say much more because it might run the risk of outing the parish concerned. Suffice it to say that I think your guess is unlikely. Especially as the free church is based some distance outside the parish boundaries.
Angloid, I must apologise for the snarky nature of my post. As you can probably tell, my frustration at a particular difficult situation is coming out on this thread. It's a tangent, and I apologise. You too Gamaliel, you're absolutely right about the self righteous nature of lots of free evangelicals. Apologies again.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I notice you refrained from commenting on whether my alternative interpretation was less likely, Angloid ...
I'm reminded of the great Richard Baxter at this point. There's a striking section in his autobiography where. highly eirenically, he lists (alongside the strong points if I remember rightly) the besetting sins of the various Christian confessions ... the 'Papists' for apparently thinking they were the only true believers around and for effectively damning everyone else, the Established 'State' Protestant churches for a degree of nominalism and the Separatists and Anabaptists for being holier-than-thou ...
Has much changed in 350 years?
Perhaps I've been fortunate, but outside of full-on independent 'sectarian' evangelicalism on the one hand and some 'we're-the-True-Church-sod-you' type attitudes among some converts to Orthodoxy, most clergy/ministers and people I've met in Anglican, URC, Methodist, Baptist, Salvationist and Catholic settings have been the very model of eirenicism, tolerance and tact.
The only time I've seen Baptists get stick from any of the other denominations is if they've done anything daft.
I've certainly encountered wariness towards some independent churches - whether charismatic or conservative evangelical - but I tend to think that there's no smoke without fire and some (but not all) of that wariness is deserved ...
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
