quote:

---

Anglican incarnational theology emphasizes the importance of God using the mundane and temporal as a means of giving people the transcendent and eternal.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
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....
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...
 

---

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :
 
Dear Cara I thought what you wrote was beautiful.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

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"?
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
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 ...
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be honest, I've mostly encountered 'incarnational' as a theo-buzzword meaning "We're more Christian than you."

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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)
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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 ....
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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 ....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...


 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

But there may be a case for DADT ....

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.)

---

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)

---

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?

---

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by poileplume:
Dear Cara I thought what you wrote was beautiful.

---

Hear hear!!

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?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
...but I'm no theologian....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
At its simp;lest "incarnational" means living in the same place as you go to church.

---

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!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the ancient heresy you are thinking of is Docetism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be honest, I've mostly encountered 'incarnational' as a theo-buzzword meaning "We're more Christian than you."

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I notice you refrained from commenting on whether my alternative interpretation was less likely, Angloid ...

---

I honestly couldn't comment because I know nothing about the other church and its attitudes (only about the fact of their presence)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I was teasing ...



On a more serious note, I can imagine parallel conversations going on in both 'manses' (or the equivalents) in each case.

In the independent evangelical church manse: 'I really don't get that vicar, you know. At no point has he approached us and asked whether he can get involved with the outreach work we're doing in his area. He probably thinks his is the only show in town ...'

In the CofE vicarage: 'You know, I really don't get the pastor of that independent evangelical church. They keep coming along and having a stall at the Farmer's Market but at no point have they ever approached us and found out with we're doing or asking whether they could get involved. They probably think theirs is the only show in town ...'
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
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:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All I'm saying is that there are always too sides to these things. I'm not saying the senior Anglican cleric should have been sniffy towards you - of course not.

But you don't know what 'bad' experiences he may have had - or thought he's had - of Free Church people in the past any more than he doesn't know - or perhaps may not care - what bad experiences you may or may not have had with senior Anglican clerics such as him.

---

I didn't say it was a Bishop lol!

I have to be rather careful here as the issue involves others (pm me if you'd like to know) .... suffice it to say that it was a comment that denigrated Baptists and their beliefs/theology and practices per se, not one particular baptist.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I didn't say you said it was a bishop, Exclamation Mark. You said it was a 'senior' member of your local Anglican clergy. My comment about my wife's reaction to bishops was simply made to show an element of solidarity with you over the issue that some Anglican clergy can be sniffy, pompous and pains in the arse.

I don't think anyone would ever claim otherwise.

But the same thing happens in reverse. I've known independent church leaders scoff at their local Anglican heirarchy for wearing vestments and so on - which they saw as somehow 'superspiritual' - whilst acting more Papal than the Pope within their own constitutuency themselves and wearing posh suits and driving around in flash cars that few Anglican clergy could afford ...

I don't doubt that you'll hear some Anglican clergy speak dismissively of Baptist order and practice - Anglicans are not Baptists, after all, but members of an episcopal church with a particular way of doing things that differs in some respects from how Baptists do things ...

It's not as if I've never heard Baptist ministers speak dismissively of the CofE or even dismissively of the URC or the Methodists come to that ...

It depends on context, of course. I'm happy to accept your version of events, though and may well PM you for the full goss' ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@SvitlanaV2 -

The mileage varies when it comes to liturgy among the Baptists. Traditionally, back in the Geneva gown and meaty sermon days, most Baptist services followed a set pattern week by week ... the 'hymn-prayer-sandwich' pattern that we all know and love or loathe ... depending on which direction we're coming from.

There would always be what was called 'the Prayer' - a time of intercession generally led by the Minister or one of the deacons which corresponded to the intercessions in an Anglican service - except not punctuated by responses such as 'Lord in your mercy ...' etc.

Often this would start global - covering mission, world and political events - and go round the houses until it arrived back at the congregation and its own particular concerns - such as Mrs Jenkins's knee.

Too often, they'd also be thinly disguised sermons or a way of putting people right over this, that or the other ...

There might be a few more liturgical elements around communion but the services weren't 'free-flow' or spontaneous in the way that contemporary worship services often claim to be.

I was involved with Baptists for a while in South Wales and was later a member of a Baptist church for six years. I think your analysis is pretty near the mark - they now occupy the middle-ground evangelical position in the UK but because of that run the risk of the more full-on charismatic people disappearing off to 'new churches' and such or more liturgically-inclined people going into more 'formal' non-conformist settings or into the Anglicans or even up,up and beyond ...

It has become de-rigeur among some Baptist ministers and leaders to develop an interest in more 'catholic' practices - spiritual direction, retreats, pilgrimage etc. On the whole, I think the Baptist set-up works well for those who don't incline to one 'extreme' or other - whether highly liberal or highly liturgical or highly conservative or highly charismatic.

The mileage varies though, and I've known some quite contemporary and ecumenical Baptist churches where people have left because they'd invited an RC priest to lead some Lent talks or because it wasn't conservatively 'Biblical' enough etc. etc.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Thanks to poileplume, Gamailiel, and Mark Betts for your kind words re what I said in my groping towards an understanding of "incarnational".

Thanks to Autenreith Road for reminding me of the heresy I had in mind (Docetism) and of the difference between that and Monophysitism....not always easy to keep one's heresies straight!

Even though I too think "incarnational" is a bit of a trendy buzzword, and susceptible to many different interpretations, (as we've seen here!), thinking about it is certainly interesting, and this discussion is yielding much rich food for thought.

I'm still wondering why Microsoft is telling us it isn't a real word, because I've just checked the OED (the whole fabulous etymological extravaganza is free online with UK library card, does everyone know that? I only learned it recently--wonderful!!) and there "incarnational" is indeed a word.
Definition: "Of or relating to theological doctrine of incarnation." The first citation is from Hegel in 1912.

Microsoft usually does American spelling--perhaps it's not a word in American dictionaries?
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
It may be worth pointing out that I don't think "the doctrine of the Incarnation" and "Incarnational theology" are the same thing.

The doctrine of the Incarnation is as old as Christianity itself, and refers to God becoming man, the Virgin birth etc.

Incarnational theology seems to mean much more than that.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The doctrine of the Incarnation is as old as Christianity itself, and refers to God becoming man, the Virgin birth etc.

Incarnational theology seems to mean much more than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't think I meant "more", but something quite different:

INCARNATIONAL - What does it mean?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0