Thread: Liberal, conservative and pentecostal churches Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025397
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
There is a great article on the ABC website called Plague on both their houses: The real story of growth and decline in liberal and conservative churches. by Christopher Brittain
Contrary to popular opinion in the seventies that liberal Christianity was causing church decline, Evangelicals seem to be having the same problem.
Pentecostals on the other hand are going great guns because they preach a shallow gospel of health and wealth that focuses on "power" and leads to the embrace of modernity and individualism.
quote:
If this portrait is accurate, then it is significant that the relationship between church membership in these Christian churches and the culture surrounding them is not so different from those which Douthat criticizes in liberal churches, and which Hauerwas criticizes in conservative evangelical churches. In all three situations, the most significant concern is that such expressions of Christianity fail to distinguish their Christian identities from their cultural and economic environment. The problem, it would seem, goes much deeper than the failings of liberal Christianity - or, for that matter, any other particular expression of Christian church.
Some other interesting observations:
- Liberal Christianity generally appeals to disaffected conservatives rather than people with no Christian background.
- One of its biggest problems is transmitting itself to subsequent generations.
- The homosexuality issue is not the cause of church decline as some have previously thought.
quote:
Enormous theological, ecclesiological and missiological energy is being directed towards "winning" the battle over how to interpret same-sex relationships; meanwhile, both liberal and conservative churches are in sharp decline in the Global North. Both sides tend to explain the failures of their opponent as resulting from their problematic attitude towards homosexuality.
It is now clear, however, that such diagnoses are well off the mark. Articulating the "correct" position on homosexuality will not turn the tide of church decline. Should conservatives and liberals begin to admit this reality, perhaps then the ecumenical task of analysing the decline of Christianity in the Global North can finally truly begin.
As a liberal myself I can certainly relate to a number of things the article says and it seems to hit the nail on the head with alot of the pentecostal stuff too.
The link to nationalism in Evangelicals seems to me to be mainly a US phenomena but I suppose one could argue Evangelicals get individualistic and conform via the whole work ethic thing (*shrug* - not really my area).
Just thought it was an interesting article.
Anyone agree/disagree with the points it raises?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Speaking from a British perspective (and having a degree in Anthropology and Sociology of Religion), I think he's got it right. Particularly I like "it is significant that ... such expressions of Christianity fail to distinguish their Christian identities from their cultural and economic environment". Evangelicalism is just as nuanced by culture as liberalism; it is certainly not (as I once heard someone say) "totally separated from the world".
I also think that individualism lies at the nub of the situation: "Increasingly, Christians (liberal or otherwise) believe that they have the right to decide for themselves what they will or won't believe, and whether they will or won't show up for a worship service. For many, identifying one's identity as "Christian" does not necessarily commit oneself to a particular belief or practice".
However this comment intrigued me: "It is perhaps thus unsurprising that, generally speaking, individuals in less developed countries, particularly those making the transition from rural areas to large urban centers, are most likely to attend neo-Pentecostal churches". It will be interesting to see what happens here, as this seems to shadow what happened to "enthusiastic" religion in Britain at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. As the developing countries mature in their industrial and urban economies, this may change in the next generation.
It strikes me that faith is always worked out in a cultural context, and that it faces a huge problem. If it embraces the "zeitgeist" it may be tremendously attractive for a while but eventually lose any distinctiveness; if it challenges or resists the spirit of the age it risks irrelevance and marginalisation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
this comment intrigued me: "It is perhaps thus unsurprising that, generally speaking, individuals in less developed countries, particularly those making the transition from rural areas to large urban centers, are most likely to attend neo-Pentecostal churches". It will be interesting to see what happens here, as this seems to shadow what happened to "enthusiastic" religion in Britain at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. As the developing countries mature in their industrial and urban economies, this may change in the next generation.
The authors of God is Back (one of whom is former editor of the Economist Bill Emmott) put this in similar but slightly different terms, identifying the rise of Southern nation pentecostalism with the corresponding rise of modernist cultures, as opposed to the postmodernism that's now firmly entrenched in Europe.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I saw the article by Linda Woodhead.
quote:
"In this light, the recent YouGov survey conducted by Linda Woodhead in the UK is of most interesting. The survey suggested that 50% of British Anglicans seldom attend church, but that they continue to affirm the beliefs of their denomination. In an article for the Church Times, Woodhead argues that such "nominal" Anglicans are actually a sign of the church's strength, and should be viewed as the "most real Anglicans." "
It is rubbish. She's advocating that the CofE shouldn't mind if people don't take part. It's there for those who don't. So rather than exhort the Laodicean to change their ways and take God seriously, it should rejoice in remaining as Laodicean as possible. It should tacitly hope all the enthusiastic and committed Christians go off and join the Baptists, Roman Catholics or whoever.
At the bottom of her argument is the pernicious notion, that as a state church, it is there to serve the people and give them what they want. If they want a platitudinous faith that keeps God safely at arms length, she thinks that's what the CofE should give them. She appears to be blind to any notion that the CofE is answerable to God - there to call people back to him - rather than the state or 'what people appear to want'.
Christopher Brittain's comment is entirely valid.
quote:
"While this contribution offers a helpful corrective on the tendency to equate a church's vitality or relevance to counting the number of people at a Sunday service, it is rather difficult to agree that non-attendance can be considered an asset for any church. Presumably, those Anglicans who no longer attend services did so at some point in their lives - at least, for a long enough period to acquire a sufficient sense of the tradition with which they continue to associate. With fewer people now attending long enough to develop such an identity, however, there will be a steady decline in even the number of these "nominal" Anglicans. The promising demographic that Woodhead identifies is thus an endangered species."
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
This idea about the rise in evangelicalism being linked to such things as moving from rural to urban, industrial revolutions, etc, has intrigued me.
Could this kind of study be extended to discover what kind of church culture works best, historically, in different kinds of community?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This idea about the rise in evangelicalism being linked to such things as moving from rural to urban, industrial revolutions, etc, has intrigued me.
Could this kind of study be extended to discover what kind of church culture works best, historically, in different kinds of community?
Some studies state that the movement from rural to urban living also explains the decline of religious observance in certain contexts, so the issue isn't a simple one.
The studies I've seen claim that class and social status influence the kinds of churches that people attend. This is a major reason why I feel uncomfortable with discussions here that condemn 'emotionalism' in worship, because they seem to pay no regard to the contexts in which many ordinary people live and experience their faith. In fact, one might see a certain elitism in such arguments. Pentecostalism is depicted as a crazy youthful phase best put aside; this may be a relevant comment in some cultural/social contexts, but clearly not in others.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This comment intrigued me: "It is perhaps thus unsurprising that, generally speaking, individuals in less developed countries, particularly those making the transition from rural areas to large urban centers, are most likely to attend neo-Pentecostal churches". It will be interesting to see what happens here, as this seems to shadow what happened to "enthusiastic" religion in Britain at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. As the developing countries mature in their industrial and urban economies, this may change in the next generation
Whether the developing world will mirror what's happened in Britain is questionable. The contexts aren't entirely the same, especially since 'the developing world' encompasses a large number of different countries, and Western culture, though influential, is less and less able to impose itself as a unified global norm.
There was a very interesting essay online about whether Africans are as 'incurably religious' as they have been depicted, but it seems to have been removed.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Pentecostals on the other hand are going great guns because they preach a shallow gospel of health and wealth that focuses on "power" and leads to the embrace of modernity and individualism.
I suppose the question is whether that's a fair characterisation of Pentecostalism.
(I understand you're reporting what the article says, not necessarily your own views.)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Adopts Travis Buckle voice, 'Are you talkin' to me?'
If, SvitlanaV2, you're referring to the threads where I'm questioning or exploring (rather than 'condemning') emotional responses and emotionalism in worship, you'll find that I'm suggesting the issue isn't clear cut.
I may have moved out of my more youthful neo-pentecostal phase, but I suspect what I've done is channel the emotional/affective element into other directions rather than squished them out of existence.
I do think, though, that Pentecostalism and enthusiastic religion in general flourishes best in communities and settings where people are seeking certainty and a sense of belonging - hence the reason why it appeals in urban settings among both working class economic migrants (or people moving to cities from rural areas) or among middle-class students and young professionals.
That's not to dismiss it. Simply to acknowledge what's going on. All of these things happen in a cultural context, as Baptist Trainfan notes.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...Pentecostals on the other hand are going great guns because they preach a shallow gospel of health and wealth that focuses on "power" and leads to the embrace of modernity and individualism...
I don't think it's fair to say that all Pentecostals preach "health and wealth" - Jimmy Swaggart and co. are passionately against all this "blab it and grab it", although I don't know how it relates to the popularity of his church or TV station.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...Pentecostals on the other hand are going great guns because they preach a shallow gospel of health and wealth that focuses on "power" and leads to the embrace of modernity and individualism...
I don't think it's fair to say that all Pentecostals preach "health and wealth" - Jimmy Swaggart and co. are passionately against all this "blab it and grab it", although I don't know how it relates to the popularity of his church or TV station.
I can't stand the prosperity gospel and i have been quite impressed with Swaggart's 1950s style evangelicalism and his music and his focus on the cross. He seems like a good guy to me - certainly he has an experience of grace to talk about!
Posted by dv (# 15714) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I saw the article by Linda Woodhead.
It is rubbish.
[...]
She's advocating that the CofE shouldn't mind if people don't take part. It's there for those who don't. So rather than exhort the Laodicean to change their ways and take God seriously, it should rejoice in remaining as Laodicean as possible.
I thought Linda Woodhead's article was a sound counterargument to the usual self-interested clerical one that says we need to sit around for an hour and a quarter each Sunday morning to be real Christians. Pew fodder is required if the professional reciter is to have an audience for the read through.
Her survey indicated that many self-identified Anglicans actually found God in more meaningful, less passive, pursuits. I can see that wouldn't play well with those who have a vested interest in trying to maintain the status quo (futile though that is).
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
this comment intrigued me: "It is perhaps thus unsurprising that, generally speaking, individuals in less developed countries, particularly those making the transition from rural areas to large urban centers, are most likely to attend neo-Pentecostal churches". It will be interesting to see what happens here, as this seems to shadow what happened to "enthusiastic" religion in Britain at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. As the developing countries mature in their industrial and urban economies, this may change in the next generation.
The authors of God is Back (one of whom is former editor of the Economist Bill Emmott) put this in similar but slightly different terms, identifying the rise of Southern nation pentecostalism with the corresponding rise of modernist cultures, as opposed to the postmodernism that's now firmly entrenched in Europe.
A few of you have raised this point.
The article speaks to the point here:
quote:
This emerging scholarly consensus on this movement is not unlike Max Weber's interpretation of the rise of Calvinism, which, with its "Protestant Work Ethic," fueled the Industrial Revolution. Leaving criticisms of Weber's thesis aside, if there is anything to the linkage that scholars are identifying between Pentecostalism and global modernity, then the concerns about the weaknesses of liberal Christianity have come full circle. For, according to Weber's thesis, the prosperity enjoyed by the Protestant industrialists spurred on the rationalism, individualism and secularism that have contributed to the decline of Christianity's cultural influence in the Global North.
This is not to suggest that Africa and Latin America are destined to experience the same secularizing trends as the nations of the Global North; but it does raise the possibility that these developments are gradually producing the same kind of individual subjectivity among Christians, with all of its benefits and limitations.
Simply put, if the Christian churches that are currently experiencing significant growth are at the same time helping to spread modern individualism (as well as increasing social mobility and the undermining of local cultures and traditions), then we have every reason to anticipate that the issues Douthat and Hauerwas criticize in American churches will become increasingly prominent in many churches in other parts of the globe - whether they are "liberal" or "conservative." Like so-called "liberal Christians," Pentecostals are increasingly learning to adapt Christianity to their own beliefs and needs.
In other words, if the Global South goes the economic and cultural way of the Global North, there is no reason to suspect their religion won't either.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do think, though, that Pentecostalism and enthusiastic religion in general flourishes best in communities and settings where people are seeking certainty and a sense of belonging - hence the reason why it appeals in urban settings among both working class economic migrants (or people moving to cities from rural areas) or among middle-class students and young professionals.
Agreed. I also suspect that it appeals to those individuals who require emotion and a sense of community to substantiate their beliefs: it is about "feeling" as much as (if not more than) "doctrine" which appeals to the post-modern desire for individual existential authenticity.
Dare I say that it also appeals to those who are stressed and want religion to be a refuge from their complicated lives; or to those who have relegated faith from the public to the private sphere and thus see no need to do the agonising over issues such as poverty and justice that are such a hallmark of the liberal churches?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure that the 'stress' thing applies so well, Baptist Trainfan - at least not in quite the way you've framed it here.
I think that part of the appeal of Pentecostalism in my native South Wales was that it offered temporary respite from forge, foundry or mine - or added colour and excitement to drab Valley life.
You could get a buzz without getting pissed and squandering your hard earned wages.
Speaking for myself, in my neo-pentecostal phase, or my 'new church' restorationist phase, it was precisely when I started to get more stressful jobs and responsibility that I felt increasingly estranged from that kind of church experience.
The higher up the greasy pole I got and the more responsibilities I had with family, mortgage and so on, the less I wanted to go somewhere where I'd be expected to dance, clap or bob money into the offering bucket on cue. I'd have much rather escaped to a Trappist retreat.
When we finally left - and joined a more moderate but still charismatic Baptist congregation - I was struck by how involved people were with things other than church - how some were into lobbying for various causes, some were big into bikes and cycling issues, others were more involved in the arts or with green issues and how still others were into the Northumbria Community thing and had a bent towards more contemplative prayer etc ...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Not so sure that conflating evangelicalism with conservatism is particularly helpful here. The most successful churches IME (in the Anglican church in England admittedly) were evangelical, conservative-but-compassionate on dead horse issues but certainly more concerned about the environment, people trafficking, poverty etc than said dead horses. All gently charismatic but take a stance of 'not cessationist' more than anything else. Interestingly, I see much more concern for social issues amongst Vineyard/New Wine friends than those who go to cessationist evangelical churches. Class plays a role too, though, with social issues being more important to middle-class Christians in general I find. I find this....frustrating.
These are just my observations though, I'm not suggesting anything about actual patterns!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In other words, if the Global South goes the economic and cultural way of the Global North, there is no reason to suspect their religion won't either.
On the other hand:
* Weberian theories were developed in and for a specifically Western context. To apply them to every other context without reservations is a culturally uninformed act that hints at notions of cultural superiority.
* Pentecostalism was born outside Europe, and its greatest successes have been outside Europe. So while secularisation may occur globally, it can't treat global Pentecostalism as a European adversary and expect to have an easy time of it.
* Some see conservative forms of religion as the creation of secularisation, in which case, more secularisation will only create more religion!
* By 2050 Europe will have just 7% of the world's population. Non-hispanic whites will be in the minority in the USA by 2055. There are British cities which are already or almost majority non-white spaces, and there is increasing segregation. In these contexts, 'white', secular responses to religion may seem to be increasingly irrelevant to other people.
* The upcoming struggle for global resources is unlikely to create a world where everyone benefits equally from the fruits of industry and technological developments. There are going to be winners and losers, just as there have been since the beginning of time.
Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics, predicts that the future will belong to the (most) religious, mainly for demographic reasons. I notice that he'll be at Greenbelt this year. He'd be very interesting to listen to.
http://www.sneps.net/
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
They are ALL doomed modernist and anti-modernist movements. As fruitless as the false dichotomy exposed by Kierkegaard in the pursuit of the aesthetic OR the ethical.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If, SvitlanaV2, you're referring to the threads where I'm questioning or exploring (rather than 'condemning') emotional responses and emotionalism in worship, you'll find that I'm suggesting the issue isn't clear cut.
I may have moved out of my more youthful neo-pentecostal phase, but I suspect what I've done is channel the emotional/affective element into other directions rather than squished them out of existence.
I do think, though, that Pentecostalism and enthusiastic religion in general flourishes best in communities and settings where people are seeking certainty and a sense of belonging - hence the reason why it appeals in urban settings among both working class economic migrants (or people moving to cities from rural areas) or among middle-class students and young professionals.
That's not to dismiss it. Simply to acknowledge what's going on.
There will always be people who seek certainty and a sense of belonging. If the liberal churches are unable or unwilling to take these people seriously then nomatter how inclusive such churches think they are, or how much more sophisticated their theology, these people will always go elsewhere. Indeed, a rapidly changing world like ours might make it inevitable that 'Pentecostalism and enthustiastic religion'
will have more to offer than the alternatives, for those who are seeking something Christian.
Your experience suggests that (traditional)Anglicanism is something that one has to grow into, after trying the alternatives. Maybe this is where the future of the CofE lies, rather than in running after 'the yoof'.
BTW, did you pass through Pentecostalism as a member of a Pentecostal family, or were you an individual on a personal quest? Of course, we all journey alone in one sense, and in another sense all Christians are brothers and sisters in the faith, but the experience of my extended maternal family, who were all Pentecostal together, and the experience of an individual who follows without family support, are likely to be different in several ways.
I'm not sure what the catalyst was in my grandparents' case, but it wasn't migration, as they were still living in a rural area.
[ 09. May 2013, 22:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
They are ALL doomed modernist and anti-modernist movements. As fruitless as the false dichotomy exposed by Kierkegaard in the pursuit of the aesthetic OR the ethical.
The anti-modernists are just modernists in drag. The antithesis to the thesis, two sides to the same coin. So of course they will sink together.
So what comes next? (and don't say postmodernism, which is just strawberry flavoured modernism)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I passed through Pentecostalism in its 'neo' form - I was too middle-class to be a proper Pentecostal ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
- although I did hang out with working-class Penties at times.
'A charismatic is a Pentecostal who has gone middle-class'.
Actually, Andrew Walker the sociologist, the son of a Pentecostal pastor, said that and he was right.
The 'new churches' did have a lot of working class people but they also attracted more middle-class former 'renewalist' types.
No, my family background wasn't Pentecostal. My mum's family were sort of folk-Anglican and my Dad's were nominally Baptist. His father was an atheist and freethinker, as many were in the Valleys, partly as a reaction to the Welsh Revival of 1904/05.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Demas, agreed that anti-modernism is the other side of the modernist coin. What comes next IS postmodernism FIRST. That's where I've been catching up to. Thanks to Brian McLaren. Read the whole article after my one liner soundbite and it's superb. Plague on ALL houses that suckle on Caesar's breast while bitching about him.
All we need is love.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...I can't stand the prosperity gospel and i have been quite impressed with Swaggart's 1950s style evangelicalism and his music and his focus on the cross. He seems like a good guy to me - certainly he has an experience of grace to talk about!
Ah, I'm glad someone else gets it - I'm sure we must be both talking about the same experience of Grace which originated almost 25 years ago, which others can't seem to get over.
Anyway, excuse the tangent, but I know if I was a Pentecostal who lived in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that's where I'd go - and not just for the very best of Nashville gospel/country music either.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I was surprised Swaggart made a come-back, to be honest.
But hey ... stranger things have happened.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was surprised Swaggart made a come-back, to be honest.
But hey ... stranger things have happened.
Yes - lesser men would have just given up.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Pentecostals on the other hand are going great guns because they preach a shallow gospel of health and wealth that focuses on "power" and leads to the embrace of modernity and individualism.
I am sure that one of the factors in the growth of the Pentecostal church is the various self improvement elements associated with the movement (not all of them as objectionable as the health&wealth gospel).
I disagree that it's the only one - though yes, it will probably have the same issues with transmitting faith across the generations experienced by other movements.
Research elsewhere has shown that whilst fundamentalism is a turn off, in general churches that grow are those that are distinctively counter-cultural in some way. I'm sure part of the decline in conservative evangelicalism in America (by which they usually mean the American south) is in part because evangelicalism has become seen as part of the establishment - and thereby of the culture.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was surprised Swaggart made a come-back, to be honest.
But hey ... stranger things have happened.
Yes - lesser men would have just given up.
I remember watching the 'I have sinned' tearful confession on a video clip once. The fact that his public sin, his public confession and subsequent ministry are all genuine is a testimomny to the grace of God - what a testimony.
Think of King David.
Think of Peter
Think of others who have had testimonies to the grace of God after a spectacular fall.
The fact that this man preaches Christ crucified and not the prosperity message reveals that his ministry has integrity.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You do know that three years later he was caught with another lady of negotiable affection don't you?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm still very uncomfortable with Swaggart. I can see why Mark Betts and Mudfrog appear to warm to him, though.
Perhaps it says something about them, for all their ecclesial differences ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
More seriously, as they both like 'ole-time religion' (Mark's rather more 'ole-time' than Mudfrog's by about a millenium and a half) then I can see the appeal.
Whether Swaggart has a terrific ministry and testimony isn't really for me to judge.
I can't say I'll be watching his broadcasts anytime soon though.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was surprised Swaggart made a come-back, to be honest.
But hey ... stranger things have happened.
Yes - lesser men would have just given up.
I remember watching the 'I have sinned' tearful confession on a video clip once. The fact that his public sin, his public confession and subsequent ministry are all genuine is a testimomny to the grace of God - what a testimony.
Think of King David.
Think of Peter
Think of others who have had testimonies to the grace of God after a spectacular fall.
Anyone who has testified can claim the same. The club isn't exclusive to big names from scripture. The Fall was spectacular and applies to every one of us. Quite how Jimmy Swaggart's fall give him any additional leverage is a mystery to me.
quote:
The fact that this man preaches Christ crucified and not the prosperity message reveals that his ministry has integrity.
There are many ways in which one can preach the Gospel that have nothing to do with the prosperity message and everything to do with Christ crucified. Swaggart ain't special, but he did perform a fine, tearful breast-beating confession on television.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What reveals that Swaggart's ministry has integrity, in Mudfrog's terms, is that it accords with how Mudfrog sees the Gospel. It's a purely subjective response on his part.
I'd suggest that if we're looking for a 1950s style evangelist with integrity then Billy Graham, rather than Swaggart, is the paradigm example.
Not that I think that 1950s style evangelism is where it's at, necessarily, but of all its practitioners, Graham strikes me as the most on-the-level.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What reveals that Swaggart's ministry has integrity, in Mudfrog's terms, is that it accords with how Mudfrog sees the Gospel. It's a purely subjective response on his part.
I'd suggest that if we're looking for a 1950s style evangelist with integrity then Billy Graham, rather than Swaggart, is the paradigm example.
Not that I think that 1950s style evangelism is where it's at, necessarily, but of all its practitioners, Graham strikes me as the most on-the-level.
They are both cut from the same cloth, yes, except that Jimmy Swaggart has a more Pentecostal background. It could be (though I'm not saying it is) that Billy Graham strikes one as being more on-the-level, simply because he was cleverer and didn't get caught with his pants down (so-to-speak).
I could be completely wrong about Billy Graham of course, but all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Jimmy Swaggart's line now seems to be that if you don't give up on God, He won't give up on you. That's encouraging, if you should find that you've strayed a long way off the straight and narrow and you're now trying to find your way back.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You do know that three years later he was caught with another lady of negotiable affection don't you?
Yes, and did you know that all that happened more than 20 years ago?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
All we need is love.
Well yes, but you can't use this to escape Evensong's trichotemy if it is just an excuse not to answer difficult questions.
Was Mary a virgin? Was the tomb empty? What happens after we die? I'm not going to talk about that question because, you see, love is all we need.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Mark - of course all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God - Billy Graham, thee, me - all of us.
I'm not saying that Swaggart's past misdemeanours preclude him from the ministry, but I do think we can all be guilty of double-standards. I well remember Penties and 'house-church' people bending over backwards to defend Swaggart back in the day yet if a vicar, a priest or a bishop in any of the mainstream churches ever stepped out of line you'd never hear the end of it.
Personally, I'm not in the least bit interested whether Swaggart's preaching, ranching or serving behind the counter at McDonalds. His brand of '50s style revivalism does very little for me. I'm not in the least bit interested.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Could you define '50s style revivalism' please.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Good question.
Short answer:
A mid-20th century development of earlier 19th century revivalist emphases involving a pietistic response to the Gospel - often characterised by a public profession of faith in response to an altar-call or other 'means' of eliciting a public response. It can often be centred on and associated with particular figures and pulpiteers. It tends to be associated with a homely and demotic style, a somewhat literal approach to the Creation stories and so on and sometimes a pre-millenialist eschatological schema - but the mileage varies.
There, that wasn't short ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'd have to go away and think some more in order to give a pithy response.
For my money, the approach has certain strengths and weaknesses and, as always in any sphere, the main strengths can also be weaknesses.
So - strengths:
- Emphasis on personal, individual response.
- Activism.
- Plain and homely style of delivery.
- Broad and engaging appeal.
Weaknesses:
- Can be individualistic.
- Can be simplistic.
- Can be rabble-rousing, demotic and rhetorical in an unhelpful way.
- Can be shallow.
Will that do for now?
There's a place for it, certainly. I've got a soft spot for certain independent conservative evangelical and Free Methodist churches I knew 'up north' which had this kind of 'feel' and were very 1950s-ish. I've even preached in some of them - not that I've done much preaching in my time.
They're quite sweet - he said patronisingly ....
Seriously, there are good folks in those outfits and they mean well and do a good job. But there's more to it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Could you define '50s style revivalism' please.
I had no difficulty guessing what Gamaliel meant even before his excellent explanation.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Absolutely Demas as none of those questions is relevant to that. In fact they detract from it, more being less.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
On the "health and wealth" heresy, it is tripe to suggest that it is held by all or even most penties.
I am one of those "not cessationist, not penty" types, but I have mixed a fair bit with penties over the years, and can say that many of them regard the whole "health and wealth" thing as bullshit.
On the appeal of Pentecostalism to Christians in the developing world, someone once said that "middle class Western Christians made a preferential option for the poor, and the poor made a preferential option for Pentecostalism".
Liberation Theology offered a version of power to the poor too, but who in their right mind would want to find solace from their miserable existence in listening to lectures on neo-Marxian economics, when they could be forgetting their troubles by singing and dancing to worship music?
On conservative churches surviving or thriving while liberal mainstream churches are moribund, I am old enough to just remember when evangelicals were the patronised minority, and defended themselves by saying they were small and unpopular because they remained faithful to Christ by preaching unpalatable truths such as sin, judgement and salvation.
Today, some liberals have claimed that their churches are shrinking because they have remained faithful to Christ by preaching unpalatable truths such as sexism, racism and the decline of the environment.
Whatever one might think about those two lines of defence, the general point remains that growth and decline are irrelevant as evidence of faithfulness to the truth.
In this case at least, size does not matter.
[ 11. May 2013, 12:27: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Good question.
Short answer:
A mid-20th century development of earlier 19th century revivalist emphases involving a pietistic response to the Gospel - often characterised by a public profession of faith in response to an altar-call or other 'means' of eliciting a public response. It can often be centred on and associated with particular figures and pulpiteers. It tends to be associated with a homely and demotic style, a somewhat literal approach to the Creation stories and so on and sometimes a pre-millenialist eschatological schema - but the mileage varies.
There, that wasn't short ...
I'd have to go away and think some more in order to give a pithy response.
For my money, the approach has certain strengths and weaknesses and, as always in any sphere, the main strengths can also be weaknesses.
So - strengths:
- Emphasis on personal, individual response.
- Activism.
- Plain and homely style of delivery.
- Broad and engaging appeal.
Weaknesses:
- Can be individualistic.
- Can be simplistic.
- Can be rabble-rousing, demotic and rhetorical in an unhelpful way.
- Can be shallow.
Will that do for now?
There's a place for it, certainly. I've got a soft spot for certain independent conservative evangelical and Free Methodist churches I knew 'up north' which had this kind of 'feel' and were very 1950s-ish. I've even preached in some of them - not that I've done much preaching in my time.
They're quite sweet - he said patronisingly ....
Seriously, there are good folks in those outfits and they mean well and do a good job. But there's more to it.
Well, your wikipedia-style first paragraph has the aroma of Salvationism in it but I wonder if it takes one or two modern examples and applies them to the entire evangelical culture over the last 150 years in America. In the States there are what they call camp meetings and indeed, this title is applied to some of Jimmy Swaggart's crusades.
The altar call is Methodist in origin or even Scottish Presbyterian - and is certainly part of Salvationist heritage, tradition and methodology.
I'm not sure if a public profession of faith is as undesirable as I infer from your post - especially when the baptist church has this in its baptisms and the liturgical churches are quite good at getting the faithful to confess their personal faith in Christ every time they kneel for the sacrament.
I don't like the rather patronising term 'pulpiteers' instead of preachers - what is being said here? - please expand on it. It sounds quite dismissive of men and women who are sincerely preaching the Gospel.
Homely and demotic style? If that is as opposed to academic lecturing and pious sanctimony then give me homely every time! If demotic means using terms familiar to the common listener then you are going to have to grant that in his use of parables and stories, Jesus himself was demotic in style.
Literal approach to creationism? Always? If so, that's a conservative position but doesn't form the basis and foundation to gospel preaching - indeed, I've never heard Swaggart refer to YEC but I've heard him speak about the saving power of Jesus and the Cross. That's an important message don't you think?
The preachers are not always big names - 50s style revivalism was/is often small town missions on campgrounds.
Eschatology may well have been premillennial - so what? As a matter of fact, TSAS was always, up to one point, postmillennial through and through - even with our revivalism and altar calls.
quote:
Weaknesses:
- Can be individualistic.
- Can be simplistic.
- Can be rabble-rousing, demotic and rhetorical in an unhelpful way.
- Can be shallow.
1. The Gospel needs an individual response. Incorporation literally 'into the Body' can only start after an individual experience of grace.
2. The preaching of salvation to the sinner doesn't need theological lecturing. Deeper Bible study and learning comes later.
3. rabble-rousing - you mean when he congregation shout Amen? Why is fervour expressed vocally a negative?
4. Shallow? Hmmm yes, a a long sermon in evangelicalism is always shallow, while a 3 minute homily during a Mass is going to provide the deepest spiritual nourishment and theological reflection.
Some of the criticism sounds rather like a sniffy 1950s Anglican on his way to Evensong turning his refined nose up at the rousing singing of the Methodists in the chapel belting out a good old wesley hymn.
Give me what you've described over dead (and dead boring) formality any day.
Jesus wants a hot church or a cold church (at least he can heat it up if necessary) A lukewarm moderate church that leaves the soul unmoved is rubbish. I don't think God would even be allowed in. If he was he wouldn't be allowed to do or say anything.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The anti-modernists are just modernists in drag. The antithesis to the thesis, two sides to the same coin. So of course they will sink together.
So what comes next? (and don't say postmodernism, which is just strawberry flavoured modernism)
What do you think?
(I'm still stuck in strawberry flavoured modernism - or modernism without the anxiety)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Homely and demotic style? If that is as opposed to academic lecturing and pious sanctimony then give me homely every time!
Give me what you've described over dead (and dead boring) formality any day.
Why do you assume that the extremes are the only two options?
It's also possible to be simple without being simplistic.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Homely and demotic style? If that is as opposed to academic lecturing and pious sanctimony then give me homely every time!
Give me what you've described over dead (and dead boring) formality any day.
Why do you assume that the extremes are the only two options?
It's also possible to be simple without being simplistic.
I take the point - the problem is that on the ship sometimes one has to over state the argument to get it heard! Whenever evangelicals are described you'd think every ministert was Ian paisley and every congregation handled snakes!
To hear some describe Catholicism, you'd think the Latin-only-speaking Pope had horns.
I hope my preaching is never simplistic - though sometimes even being simple draws down some kind of Gnostic ire as if sermons should be worded in such a way so that only the enlightened may understand them.
...and there does seem to be a lot of Gnosticism here.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You asked me to define it and I outlined what I feel to be some of its defining features. Some positive, some negative. I said it was a 'short' response and therefore it wasn't intended as a definitive statement about every aspect of '50s style evangelicalism.
I also said that I had a lot of time and affection for people who have adopted this form of spirituality.
If you want to infer some kind of value-judgement in every phrase I wrote then you are almost as touchy as EE appears to be.
I'm not knocking Salvationism and I'm not knocking you. If the cap fits though ...
A demotic style isn't a bad thing, necessarily nor did I suggest it was. I've said plenty of times on these boards that when it comes to preaching, in my experience, the Baptists do it best and there's nary a robe nor scrap of linen in sight.
If I was asked to outline my thoughts on 1970s style Anglicanism say or 2000s style Roman Catholicism or 1000 AD style Orthodoxy ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
, I'd make a similar list with a similar list of pros and cons. In fact, I might well do that one day just so you don't feel so got at.
We were talking about Swaggart and the particular tradition that he represents and I listed what I took to be its plus points and its weak-points.
On the whole, despite some emotive language in places ('pulpiteering' rather than 'preaching') I think I've been pretty fair and even-handed.
Also, I made it clear that I was making generalisations in some places - 'the mileage varies' I said, in relation to YEC and pre-millenialism. This had nothing to do with the Salvation Army and its stance on these issues. I'd recognise the Sally Army as sharing some - but not all - of these features and would add that, if anything, the Salvation Army was broader in scope and also had a fantastic track-record on social issues and practical humanitarian work that some more pietistic movements lack.
So don't get all sulky.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry to double-post but while I'm on, Mudfrog, you might be interested to hear that:
- I sometimes visit my local Methodist church and I love Wesleyan hymns.
- I've heard some ultra-short sermons in more sacramental settings that have been naff. I've heard others that have been masterpieces of concision and said more than some preachers could say in 40 minutes.
- I've heard wonderfully engaging sermons in many evangelical settings.
- As well as a penchant for Wesleyan hymns I have a soft-spot for some of the more revivalist or Moody & Sankey style hymns - but some do make me cringe. I particularly like 'At the cross, the cross ...' and 'Years I spent in vanity and pride ...'
- I think there can be a certain amount of 'sacramental' snobbery towards the more 'enthusiastic' types of church - but equally it can work in the opposite direction in a kind of 'inverted snobbery' way in which people think that something is 'dead' or moribund simply because it doesn't conform to what THEY think of as signs of life or vitality.
- Boring is as boring does. Some more liturgical services can be boring. Some Pentecostal, Wesleyan or probably even - shock, horror - Salvationist services can be boring.
I find Swaggart pretty boring. I've heard it all before. The only difference is that he has some kind of exotic past.
And Kaplan's right, most Penties rightly reject the health-wealth malarkey - at least, most of the 'traditional' Penties do. So there's not even anything distinctive in his approach to that.
In fact, I'm having difficulty thinking of what the guy does have to offer apart from a certain amount of gall, admitted stickability and resilience and presumably a fair amount of funding in order to continue broadcasting.
Ok, so he preaches 'the cross' in the way that you'd approve, but there are plenty of others who do that - as well as others who do a good job in whatever they do without necessarily having the same approach to 'the cross' that you have from your particular tradition.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't think it's fair to say that all Pentecostals preach "health and wealth"
Fair? Its nothing but ignorant prejudice. Some do. Most don't. A few are militantly against it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
This is supposed to be the Magazine of Christian Unrest, not the Magazine of Everything is Smashing and Right and Lovely.
But if I've been a bit harsh in my assessment of 1950's style evangelicalism, I'm happy to balance it out by saying that there are strengths and weaknesses in all traditions and what you gain on the roundabouts you lose on the swings. That's the way it is.
So, for my money, and for what it's worth, here in the UK ...
The Baptists have the best preachers, the Methodists the best hymns, the Salvation Army among the best social and relief programmes (and there's more to them than that too), the charismatics the closest sense of fellowship (but it can get claustrophobic), the Orthodox the best beards and hats and by far the best Easters, the RCs the best 'lectio divina', the Quakers the best silences, the URCs the best of several different worlds (at their best), the Anglicans the best cathedrals and if there's anyone I've left out, let me know and I'll extend them a hug too ...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...if there's anyone I've left out, let me know and I'll extend them a hug too ...
On behalf of my church flavour, I feel left out! What has the Vineyard movement got the best of?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Apologies. The Vineyard movement has the best of a laid-back form of charismaticism and a non-confrontational and somewhat democratic style that makes up for a degree of iffiness in praxis.
Couldn't think of a short way of summarising that.
Perhaps this will do:
The Vineyard movement is the best exponent of California charismaticism in the UK.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gamaliel
quote:
I find Swaggart pretty boring. I've heard it all before. The only difference is that he has some kind of exotic past.
Out of interest, which Pentecostal/charismatic denominations in the UK take an interest in Swaggart? I didn't realise he had much of a following over here. Do British Pentecostals and charismatics all have cable/satellite TV, so they can catch all the famous American televangelists?
A few years ago there seemed to be a wave of big American names (well, the ones I'd heard of anyway) coming to my city for paid appearances. But I haven't heard of anything recently. I read that most of them find the UK very frustrating, so perhaps they've given up.
With the growth of Pentecostalism in the developing world, its biggest stars may soon be coming from countries other than the USA.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Vineyard movement is the best exponent of California charismaticism in the UK.
My thanks, Gamaliel. I'll settle for that!
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I read that most of [the famous American televangelists] find the UK very frustrating, so perhaps they've given up.
This comforts me. I've seen snippets from a few televangelists (mostly while idly channel-hopping) and it ain't my cup of tea, put it that way...
Edited to add the quotation from Gamaliel, seeing as my post started a new page...
[ 11. May 2013, 23:02: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
SCK, I don't have a lot of experience with charismatic denominations but I do appreciate the laid-back and friendly (but not overbearing) approach of the Vineyard church that meets on my uni campus. Definitely a good (and calming, strangely enough) influence on what can be a theologically very dodgy CU too - and this said from an AffCath perspective so if I agree with Vineyard the most you can imagine what the other churches represented at CU are like...!
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Gamaliel
quote:
I find Swaggart pretty boring. I've heard it all before. The only difference is that he has some kind of exotic past.
Out of interest, which Pentecostal/charismatic denominations in the UK take an interest in Swaggart? I didn't realise he had much of a following over here. Do British Pentecostals and charismatics all have cable/satellite TV, so they can catch all the famous American televangelists?
Yes - but his constituency is a mostly aging one, younger people listen to more recent tele-evangelists. You can get a good idea of the TE-de-jour by looking at who God-TV/Revelation-TV etc are broadcasting.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I get Sonlife Broadcasting Network on Sky - along with the dreadful Rory and Wendy from God TV, the tacky TBN, the amateurish Revelation TV, the very odd EWTN and other channels that feature Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn, and others, and other channels that show loud and shouty African evangelists who scream down very cheap microphones in 'churches' that look like they're in an industrial unit in Peckham.
There are some nice programmes occasionally but the are few and far between. Gaither gets shown sometimes and I like that
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
if there's anyone I've left out, let me know and I'll extend them a hug too ...
Ahem, you appear to have inadvertently omitted "best at expounding the typological significance of the furnishings of the Tabernacle"!
"The Brethren, the Brethren, the Brethren are best,
I wouldn't give tuppence for all the rest".
[ 12. May 2013, 02:44: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The anti-modernists are just modernists in drag. The antithesis to the thesis, two sides to the same coin. So of course they will sink together.
So what comes next? (and don't say postmodernism, which is just strawberry flavoured modernism)
Back to the egg.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
So what comes next? (and don't say postmodernism, which is just strawberry flavoured modernism)
What do you think?
(I'm still stuck in strawberry flavoured modernism - or modernism without the anxiety)
My question wasn't socratic - I genuinely don't know.
What I suspect is that we have to face the hard questions and not dodge them. The liberal revolutions in theology studied in seminaries are now half a century, a century old. But what have they changed outside the seminary?
Here's another thought bubble:
Previous theologies changed ecclesiology and church praxis. Without a theology of individualism informed by sola scripture, is congregationalism conceivable? Is a Quaker meeting conceivable without the historical Quaker theological views on sacraments and the holy Spirit?
How has liberal theology changed ecclesiology?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Back to the egg.
Hmm?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Back to the egg.
Hmm?
Orthodoxy.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
I assumed but couldn't get the egg reference
Roundish? Tasty when boiled? Nice with toast?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
I assumed but couldn't get the egg reference
Roundish? Tasty when boiled? Nice with toast?
Source all you cracked people hatched from.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
If we hatched out of you then I'm afraid you're cracked too
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
If we hatched out of you then I'm afraid you're cracked too
Yeah, the metaphor needs some work.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
If we hatched out of you then I'm afraid you're cracked too
Yeah, the metaphor needs some work.
No, I think it's sound. Though it does imply that we've as much chance of restoring the unity of the church as all the king's horses and all the king's men had of putting Humpty together again.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... A few years ago there seemed to be a wave of big American names (well, the ones I'd heard of anyway) coming to my city for paid appearances. But I haven't heard of anything recently. I read that most of them find the UK very frustrating, so perhaps they've given up. ...
Is it our unresponsive lack of emotion, cultural difference, uninterest in young-earth creationism or just that we didn't open our wallets with the desired enthusiasm?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Kaplan, yes, I was aware I'd overlooked the Brethren but it was because I was posting in haste ... I think you've identified their key strength exactly. Spot-on. The Brethren were (are?) brilliant at expounding the typological significance of the tassles on the fringe of the High Priest's robe or the intricacies of the Tabernacle.
They were also highly imaginative (or otherwise) in reading The Book Revelation through the lens of the Readers' Digest.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think I'm going to start a new thread on selective fundamentalism and selective plank-in-our-own-eyes accusations of Gnosticism.
I can see the point Mudfrog was making about some of the more sacramentalist types, or emergingly sacramentalist types, coming across as if they're all Gnostic and know best ... but one might suggest that this is no more Gnostic than the kind of Wesleyan 'assurance of salvation' thing that he espouses.
In fact, I would say that. Not that I'm saying that the Wesleyan or more generally Protestant doctrine of 'assurance' IS actually Gnostic. But by the same token, neither is having a 'higher' view of the sacraments.
It strikes me that we all have planks in our own eyes.
In my more full-on evangelical charismatic days it annoyed the pants off me that Swaggart was given some slack (for literally getting his pants off) on the grounds that 'at least he was preaching the Gospel,' whereas more sacramental or liberal people were cut no slack whatsover.
I'm sure the same sort of thing happens in reverse, of course.
I was surprised to hear that Swaggart was still going and that he even had a following/admirers over here - but then, I don't watch Christian TV. I value my brain-cells too highly to do that.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
How has liberal theology changed ecclesiology?
That's a very, very curious question. One of those questions that is either extremely profound or completely irrelevant. I'm leaning to the former.
I can't get my head around it.
Shall we post it in Eccles?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
If we hatched out of you then I'm afraid you're cracked too
Yeah, the metaphor needs some work.
No, I think it's sound. Though it does imply that we've as much chance of restoring the unity of the church as all the king's horses and all the king's men had of putting Humpty together again.
I'm ignorant on Orthodoxy but I would assume a return to Orthodoxy would imply a return to the authority of the Fathers.
I've heard it said Orthodoxy never experienced modernity.
And that's just wrong.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've heard it said Orthodoxy never experienced modernity.
And that's just wrong.
It's our greatest strength. That and the incense.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Actually, your incense is a lot less 'gaggy' on the back of the throat ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, your incense is a lot less 'gaggy' on the back of the throat ...
Than our lack of modernist taint?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, the lack of modernist taint can be hard to swallow ... because I don't believe it isn't there. You're just trying to disguise it and cloak it with the incense clouds ... meanwhile going away and leading the same kind of modernist lives as virtually everyone else only with more fasting ...
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Are you mistaking modernity with modernism? They are linked, for sure, but they're not the same.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I know the difference, I was teasing Mousethief. I appreciate that the Orthodox are pre-modern and that this, in some ways, resonates well in a post-modern context rather than a modernist one.
But I find it hard to believe that the Orthodox are immune from modernity. It's the culture we all inhabit. It's a bit like trying not to read street or shop signs when you're walking down the road. You can't help but read them. Once you've learned to read, that's it.
The only way you can eschew modernism is by consciously attempting to - which is inevitably going to some forms of compromise or selectivity.
None of us were born prior to 1054 AD or pre-1517 or whatever else.
I've got a lot of time for the Orthodox but they seem, like all of us in different ways, to want their cake and eat it. They want the benefits of a post-Enlightenment society - health-care, science, religious freedom and plurality (except in Orthodox countries that is ... ) yet as little as possible to do with the philosophical underpinnings of the Enlightenment that has made these things possible.
'There was light in the Enlightenment,' it wasn't all nefarious apostosising.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I know the difference, I was teasing Mousethief. I appreciate that the Orthodox are pre-modern and that this, in some ways, resonates well in a post-modern context rather than a modernist one.
But I find it hard to believe that the Orthodox are immune from modernity. It's the culture we all inhabit. It's a bit like trying not to read street or shop signs when you're walking down the road. You can't help but read them. Once you've learned to read, that's it.
The only way you can eschew modernism is by consciously attempting to - which is inevitably going to some forms of compromise or selectivity.
None of us were born prior to 1054 AD or pre-1517 or whatever else.
I've got a lot of time for the Orthodox but they seem, like all of us in different ways, to want their cake and eat it. They want the benefits of a post-Enlightenment society - health-care, science, religious freedom and plurality (except in Orthodox countries that is ... ) yet as little as possible to do with the philosophical underpinnings of the Enlightenment that has made these things possible.
'There was light in the Enlightenment,' it wasn't all nefarious apostosising.
Healthcare was a monastic invention and the vast majority of scientists were clergymen up until the 18th century. Even in the 19th and 20th centuries the likes of Mendel, father of genetics and Lemaitre, developer of the Big Bang theory, were both priests.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That also is true, but it's still true that there was 'light in the Enlightenment' as well as some unpleasant strobe-light effects.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I know the difference, I was teasing Mousethief. I appreciate that the Orthodox are pre-modern and that this, in some ways, resonates well in a post-modern context rather than a modernist one.
But I find it hard to believe that the Orthodox are immune from modernity. It's the culture we all inhabit. It's a bit like trying not to read street or shop signs when you're walking down the road. You can't help but read them. Once you've learned to read, that's it.
The only way you can eschew modernism is by consciously attempting to - which is inevitably going to some forms of compromise or selectivity.
None of us were born prior to 1054 AD or pre-1517 or whatever else.
I've got a lot of time for the Orthodox but they seem, like all of us in different ways, to want their cake and eat it. They want the benefits of a post-Enlightenment society - health-care, science, religious freedom and plurality (except in Orthodox countries that is ... ) yet as little as possible to do with the philosophical underpinnings of the Enlightenment that has made these things possible.
'There was light in the Enlightenment,' it wasn't all nefarious apostosising.
All Christians have to address modernity, of course, but that doesn't mean that we all become modernists. The RC tried with Vatican II but it became possessed, if you like, by the modernist spirit or the Zeitgeist. Part of the confusion is that the Church is entering, or has already entered, the post-Constantinian era, something more akin to the first three centuries after Christ, hence the conflict between the Church, it's faith and the modern world, but then we are only called to be a light in the darkness, in the world but not of it. It does, on the surface, appear to be somewhat of a contradiction, being in the world but not of it. Does that mean everything in the world is bad? By no means. A friend of mine on Facebook quoted to German writer Arthur Moeller van den Bruck on his Facebook wall and I think it sums it up rather well: "[The Conservative] has no ambition to see the world as a museum; he prefers it as a workshop, where he can create things which will serve as new foundations. His thought differs from the revolutionary's in that it does not trust things which were hastily begotten in the chaos of upheaval; things have a value for him only when they possess certain stability. Stable values spring from tradition. We may be the victims of catastrophes which overtake us, of revolutions which we cannot prevent, but tradition always re-emerges."
[ 12. May 2013, 19:29: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes - I think we're entering a post-Christendom phase which is akin to the first three centuries of Christianity - with all the opportunities and threats that this affords. You co-religionist, the academic sociologist and theologian, Andrew Walker, is good on this sort of thing. I'd imagine you'd find him a tad on the liberal side, though,
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
We'll see. I shall see if I can find anything on the internet by him, then I can make up my own mind.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Gamaliel, you seem to be equivocating. "Addressing modernity" and "becoming modernist [in theology and/or religious practice]" have 6 letters in common, but not much more.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Addressing modernity" and "becoming modernist [in theology and/or religious practice]" have 6 letters in common, but not much more.
Even if you were only comparing "modernist" and "modernity", rather than the complete strings, you didn't count very well there... I don't think that Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole can be accused of overt modernism. But while moderns practicing EO may not be engaging in modernism, it is also far from clear that they are always merely "adressing modernity" - rather than slowly implementing it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Addressing modernity" and "becoming modernist [in theology and/or religious practice]" have 6 letters in common, but not much more.
Even if you were only comparing "modernist" and "modernity", rather than the complete strings, you didn't count very well there... I don't think that Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole can be accused of overt modernism. But while moderns practicing EO may not be engaging in modernism, it is also far from clear that they are always merely "adressing modernity" - rather than slowly implementing it.
What I see being implemented by the Orthodox in this country, and I hate it, is signing up for the culture wars and putting the church at the beck and call of right wing politics. Not sure if that's modern or not; the church (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant too) has ever had a pattern of playing the harlot to politics.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Brethren were (are?) brilliant at expounding the typological significance of the tassles on the fringe of the High Priest's robe or the intricacies of the Tabernacle.[?QUOTE]
Were.
Haven't heard any of that stuff for decades.
{QUOTE]
They were also highly imaginative (or otherwise) in reading The Book Revelation through the lens of the Readers' Digest.
Don't know about the Reader's Digest as an eschatology textbook, but as the late Susan Sontag made herself unpopular with her fellow leftists by pointing out, it was a more accurate guide to the realities of the Cold War than many more upmarket publications.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Mousethief ... me, equivocating? I find that very hard to believe ...
@Kaplan, ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What makes you think I don't agree with Susan Sontag? What makes you think I'm a leftist in the turn-a-blind-eye-to-the-deficiencies-of-communism sense?
However you dress it up - and yes the Brethren were pretty good on the typology of the Tabernacle - the Brethren were pretty pants when it came to anything beyond a narrow, pietistic bunker-mentality view of the world.
They weren't, nor aren't the only ones.
But their eschatology was as flakey as flakey could be.
Other traditions had their own weaknesses. I'm happy to point the finger at those too.
And I'm happy to point the finger at Israel - and the Palestinians - and at everyone else.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Kaplan,
What makes you think I don't agree with Susan Sontag? What makes you think I'm a leftist in the turn-a-blind-eye-to-the-deficiencies-of-communism sense?
However you dress it up - and yes the Brethren were pretty good on the typology of the Tabernacle - the Brethren were pretty pants when it came to anything beyond a narrow, pietistic bunker-mentality view of the world.
They weren't, nor aren't the only ones.
But their eschatology was as flakey as flakey could be.
Other traditions had their own weaknesses. I'm happy to point the finger at those too.
And I'm happy to point the finger at Israel - and the Palestinians - and at everyone else.
What on earth made you think I was attacking you, you paranoid omni-fingerpointer?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've heard it said Orthodoxy never experienced modernity.
And that's just wrong.
It's our greatest strength.
How so?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Healthcare was a monastic invention and the vast majority of scientists were clergymen up until the 18th century. Even in the 19th and 20th centuries the likes of Mendel, father of genetics and Lemaitre, developer of the Big Bang theory, were both priests.
So?
Just means they were part of the Enlightenment and modernism.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
Is it our unresponsive lack of emotion, cultural difference, uninterest in young-earth creationism or just that we didn't open our wallets with the desired enthusiasm?
All of the above. Also the Developing World seem more receptive to the Marketing than us cynical Europeans.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, Kaplan, fair call.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Healthcare was a monastic invention and the vast majority of scientists were clergymen up until the 18th century. Even in the 19th and 20th centuries the likes of Mendel, father of genetics and Lemaitre, developer of the Big Bang theory, were both priests.
So?
Just means they were part of the Enlightenment and modernism.
The Enlightenment and modernism began in the 6th century?
[ 13. May 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: CL ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I think we're having trouble with our definitions of modernism.
The article implies it means individualism (coupled with rationalism and secularism) that allows one to "make up ones own mind".
quote:
What is more significant about the results of Woodhead's survey is the fact that this "nominal" demographic - along with another 12% of the "Church-going mainstream" - report that, after consulting with religious authorities and traditions, they "make up their own minds" on matters of belief and morality. Here we get to the heart of the challenge confronting not only liberal Christianity, but also evangelicals and neo-Pentecostals: modern individualism. Increasingly, Christians (liberal or otherwise) believe that they have the right to decide for themselves what they will or won't believe, and whether they will or won't show up for a worship service. For many, identifying one's identity as "Christian" does not necessarily commit oneself to a particular belief or practice.
Liberal Christians are generally singled out for reducing their religious beliefs to their own individual preferences. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that this pattern is far from exclusive to liberals. Among scholars studying the growth of Pentecostalism, a key focus of debate is the extent to which the movement is a product of the development of modernity. According to Rijk van Dijk, the popularity of Pentecostalism lies in its ability to help individuals restructure their identity as they abandon former traditions and social ties and leave their former lives behind. In this view, contemporary Pentecostalism is the quintessential religion of mobility and progress. David Martin offers a similar interpretation, arguing that Pentecostalism "enable[s] marginal people to divest themselves of backward and dissolute stereotypes and leap over the local national environment and embrace global modernity." In short, Pentecostalism is understood as promoting individualism and the reinvention of past traditions on the basis of individual needs.
Returning to Demas' question about what liberal theology brings to ecclesiology, I suppose one answer would be democracy.
Might it be fair to say the Orthodox and Catholic churches are still fairly undemocratic in their ecclesiology?
Perhaps that's what is meant by saying they are pre-modern.
Another thing liberal theology probably brings to ecclesiology is reason. (E.g. there is no reason not to ordain women - tradition as a reason is insufficient). That may be a product of rationalism (and hence modernity)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... A few years ago there seemed to be a wave of big American names (well, the ones I'd heard of anyway) coming to my city for paid appearances. But I haven't heard of anything recently. I read that most of them find the UK very frustrating, so perhaps they've given up. ...
Is it our unresponsive lack of emotion, cultural difference, uninterest in young-earth creationism or just that we didn't open our wallets with the desired enthusiasm?
I think it's that the UK is a very tough mission field.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Kaplan wrote:
quote:
Don't know about the Reader's Digest as an eschatology textbook
I'm unaware that the Reader's Digest ever said much about eschatology. Their Reader's Digest Bible would probably be pretty useless for those pre-mils who like to comb scripture for hidden esoteria, given that it eliminated 55% of the Old Testament and 25% of the new.
[ 16. May 2013, 17:37: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Don't know about the Reader's Digest as an eschatology textbook, but as the late Susan Sontag made herself unpopular with her fellow leftists by pointing out, it was a more accurate guide to the realities of the Cold War than many more upmarket publications.
Partly because it was being fed the odd article from the liberal side of the CIA.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The UK mission field is ripe for harvest. We're just lousy missionaries.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Returning to Demas' question about what liberal theology brings to ecclesiology, I suppose one answer would be democracy.
I wonder. Are 'liberal' church polities (such as denominations we would see as being more influenced by liberal theology) any more democratic?
The CoE isn't democratic. The mainline Protestant churches such as the UCC in the US, the United Church in Canada and the Uniting Church in Oz are maybe a bit more democratic, but I would put that down to the decidedly non-liberal (or pre-liberal?) Puritans who came up with Presbyterianism and Congregationalism and the Gathered Church. Quakers come from the same pre-liberal period.
In so far as there is much democracy in any Christian church, can we really show any historical connection between it and liberal theology?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Don't know about the Reader's Digest as an eschatology textbook, but as the late Susan Sontag made herself unpopular with her fellow leftists by pointing out, it was a more accurate guide to the realities of the Cold War than many more upmarket publications.
Partly because it was being fed the odd article from the liberal side of the CIA.
Really?
Evidence?
Why on earth would liberals (in the bizarre American meaning of the word) want to help the Reader’s Digest?
And why would anyone with two brain cells to rub together need help to work out that communism was a bad thing, anyway?
Sontag was comparing Reader’s Digest with Nation and the New Statesman (that’s right, the same New Statesman which had refused to print Orwell’s exposure of the traitorous behaviour of communists during the Spanish Civil War).
Sontag’s reference to what might charitably be called leftist intellectuals’ “naivete” is reminiscent of Orwell’s comment that, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man [Reader’s Digest subscriber?] could be such a fool”.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Don't know about the Reader's Digest as an eschatology textbook, but as the late Susan Sontag made herself unpopular with her fellow leftists by pointing out, it was a more accurate guide to the realities of the Cold War than many more upmarket publications.
Partly because it was being fed the odd article from the liberal side of the CIA.
Really?
Evidence?
Amongst other things - the book American Dreamers by Peter Canning - the managing editor of the Readers Digest for 25 years.
quote:
Why on earth would liberals (in the bizarre American meaning of the word) want to help the Reader’s Digest?
Because they felt soft power would work - plus it was an easy way of getting their message out to counter what they felt was the 'other side' (of their own side that is).
quote:
And why would anyone with two brain cells to rub together need help to work out that communism was a bad thing, anyway?
It depends if that made one sacrifice journalistic ethics and the truth along the way of propagating a Noble Lie that would serve a greater cause. The RD was known for fairly glowing portrayals of the 'Christian' (or if all else failed 'modernist') values of various tyrants - including Saddam Hussein and Efraim Rios Montt
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The RD was known for fairly glowing portrayals of the 'Christian' (or if all else failed 'modernist') values of various tyrants - including Saddam Hussein
Neither releases of material by the CIA to the Reader’s Digest, nor any support it might have given to dubious figures such as Saddam Hussein (I can’t find anything favorable regarding him by the RD, but I’ll take your word for it) are relevant to the issue of whether or not it took the correct side in the Cold War, which was the only point of Sontag’s comment – I doubt whether she was implying that the RD was beyond reproach in every other particular.
Incidentally, Saddam Hussein was actually quite popular, in Australia at least, with sections of the left, who would have applauded anything positive written about him by the RD.
Given that in the US “liberal” means left-wing, I am still not clear as to why you specified that it was “the liberal side” of the CIA which would have been feeding anti-communist material to the RD.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Neither releases of material by the CIA to the Reader’s Digest, nor any support it might have given to dubious figures such as Saddam Hussein (I can’t find anything favorable regarding him by the RD, but I’ll take your word for it)
This was back in the 80s, during the Iran/Iraq war and at a time when the various uprisings by the Kurds were being put down.
quote:
Given that in the US “liberal” means left-wing, I am still not clear as to why you specified that it was “the liberal side” of the CIA which would have been feeding anti-communist material to the RD.
There were hawkish and less hawkish elements in the government - just as there are in the British FO.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Returning to Demas' question about what liberal theology brings to ecclesiology, I suppose one answer would be democracy.
I wonder. Are 'liberal' church polities (such as denominations we would see as being more influenced by liberal theology) any more democratic?
The CoE isn't democratic. The mainline Protestant churches such as the UCC in the US, the United Church in Canada and the Uniting Church in Oz are maybe a bit more democratic, but I would put that down to the decidedly non-liberal (or pre-liberal?) Puritans who came up with Presbyterianism and Congregationalism and the Gathered Church. Quakers come from the same pre-liberal period.
In so far as there is much democracy in any Christian church, can we really show any historical connection between it and liberal theology?
Perhaps not in ecclesiology.
But in terms of theology - sure. Like I said, the ordination of women, the acceptance of other faiths, tolerance of the different etc are symbols of democracy brought about by liberal theology.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Neither releases of material by the CIA to the Reader’s Digest, nor any support it might have given to dubious figures such as Saddam Hussein (I can’t find anything favorable regarding him by the RD, but I’ll take your word for it)
This was back in the 80s, during the Iran/Iraq war and at a time when the various uprisings by the Kurds were being put down.
It would be necessary to see the article(s).
Straight-out adulation of him, as practised by some sections of the left, would be inexcusable.
On the other hand, a realpolitik argument could have been made that he was preferable to the Iran regime, or that both regimes were abhorrent, but Iraq was weaker, in which case it is always better to support the weaker criminal against the stronger (as in the Western allies' support of Stalin against Hitler, or later on their support of China against the USSR).
quote:
Given that in the US “liberal” means left-wing, I am still not clear as to why you specified that it was “the liberal side” of the CIA which would have been feeding anti-communist material to the RD.
There were hawkish and less hawkish elements in the government - just as there are in the British FO. [/QB][/QUOTE]
That still doesn't make sense.
The hawkish, not the "liberal", element would be interested in fomenting anti-communism via the RD.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Returning to Demas' question about what liberal theology brings to ecclesiology, I suppose one answer would be democracy.
I wonder. Are 'liberal' church polities (such as denominations we would see as being more influenced by liberal theology) any more democratic?
The CoE isn't democratic. The mainline Protestant churches such as the UCC in the US, the United Church in Canada and the Uniting Church in Oz are maybe a bit more democratic, but I would put that down to the decidedly non-liberal (or pre-liberal?) Puritans who came up with Presbyterianism and Congregationalism and the Gathered Church. Quakers come from the same pre-liberal period.
In so far as there is much democracy in any Christian church, can we really show any historical connection between it and liberal theology?
Perhaps not in ecclesiology.
But in terms of theology - sure. Like I said, the ordination of women, the acceptance of other faiths, tolerance of the different etc are symbols of democracy brought about by liberal theology.
I think it's a great pity that the liberal constituency clings to aspects of church practice that seem anachronistic, while at the same time declaring itself to be more theologically up-to-date than everyone else.
There's definitely a gap in provision for theologically tolerant churches that are much more able to engage with whole-body, radical forms of church life and worship. The interesting impression I'm getting from these boards is that some of the charismatic evangelical churches are developing in this direction. However, many of the traditional, theologically liberal churches seem to lack the bravery and the energy to take the appropriate steps themselves.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Svitlana: you seem basically to be chiding liberal, non-Pentecostal churches for not being Pentecostal.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Svitlana: you seem basically to be chiding liberal, non-Pentecostal churches for not being Pentecostal.
Ah, but your assumption here is that Pentecostalism is by definition non-liberal. Maybe this doesn't have to be the case! By the same token, theologically liberal churches may not have to be 'traditional' when it comes to church practice. Those are our expectations, certainly, but I'm not sure why they must be cast in stone.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Svitlana: you seem basically to be chiding liberal, non-Pentecostal churches for not being Pentecostal.
Ah, but your assumption here is that Pentecostalism is by definition non-liberal.
No. I wasn't talking about Pentecostals at all. I was talking about the liberal churches you were castigating for not having the courage to become Pentecostal. What the Pentecostals themselves are, I didn't mention or imply anything about.
quote:
By the same token, theologically liberal churches may not have to be 'traditional' when it comes to church practice.
Also irrelevant to my point. They don't *have* to be anything. But you are slagging them for NOT being what YOU want them to be.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Svitlana: you seem basically to be chiding liberal, non-Pentecostal churches for not being Pentecostal.
Ah, but your assumption here is that Pentecostalism is by definition non-liberal.
No. I wasn't talking about Pentecostals at all. I was talking about the liberal churches you were castigating for not having the courage to become Pentecostal. What the Pentecostals themselves are, I didn't mention or imply anything about.
quote:
By the same token, theologically liberal churches may not have to be 'traditional' when it comes to church practice.
Also irrelevant to my point. They don't *have* to be anything. But you are slagging them for NOT being what YOU want them to be.
I try to use restrained language here, so I don't think it's fair to accuse me of slagging anyone off! The traditional denominations do lots of things well. I was an active member of one of them until quite recently, and I wouldn't have been if I thought they deserved nothing but criticism.
No institution has to do anything it doesn't want to do, and none of them have to pay any attention to what I think! I'm simply saying that, IMO, there needs to be more diversity, not just in terms of theology, but in terms of church practice. The huge and longstanding decline in churchgoing in the UK would suggest that this might be a good idea. The development of Fresh Expressions of church suggest that other people think so as well. But FE doesn't seem to be very widespread. It exists very much on the fringes of mainstream church life and culture.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If you say someone lacks the bravery to do something you are calling them a coward.
[ 18. May 2013, 18:33: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you say someone lacks the bravery to do something you are calling them a coward.
That's a very binary viewpoint... Don't you see bravery-cowardice as a spectrum, whereby lacking the bravery to do a certain thing doesn't mark one out as being a coward?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you say someone lacks the bravery to do something you are calling them a coward.
I think a lack of bravery is a serious problem in lots of churches, to be honest. With my own ears I've heard several clergymen and theologians tell me there are things they can't say or do at church, for fear of offending or alienating their congregations. I've read it in books and on the internet.
I've been a church steward, and I've felt the fear myself. I've never brought the word 'coward' into it, but if you like, you could say that I'm a coward too. Whatever word you want to use, the system seems to be excellent at generating this state of affairs.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Straight-out adulation of him, as practised by some sections of the left, would be inexcusable.
An article which praises his modernism, centring mainly on how he supported women's rights (on the basis that his then wife was formerly a doctor), excuses his dictatorship and doesn't mention his pograms against the Kurds counts as adulation enough to be suspect. Of course, at the time plenty of right wing blowhards were happy to praise him at the time - this kind of thing isn't particular to your left bogeyman.
quote:
That still doesn't make sense.
The hawkish, not the "liberal", element would be interested in fomenting anti-communism via the RD.
I think you need to read a few more history books.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you say someone lacks the bravery to do something you are calling them a coward.
That's a very binary viewpoint... Don't you see bravery-cowardice as a spectrum, whereby lacking the bravery to do a certain thing doesn't mark one out as being a coward?
Tell you what, go to a bar/pub and find a big, beefy guy and say, "Do you lack the bravery to hit me in the nose?" and see what happens.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Mousethief, I've replied in Hell (here) to your previous comment, which just carries on with the binary-ness AFAICT.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Returning to Demas' question about what liberal theology brings to ecclesiology, I suppose one answer would be democracy.
I wonder. Are 'liberal' church polities (such as denominations we would see as being more influenced by liberal theology) any more democratic?
The CoE isn't democratic. The mainline Protestant churches such as the UCC in the US, the United Church in Canada and the Uniting Church in Oz are maybe a bit more democratic, but I would put that down to the decidedly non-liberal (or pre-liberal?) Puritans who came up with Presbyterianism and Congregationalism and the Gathered Church. Quakers come from the same pre-liberal period.
In so far as there is much democracy in any Christian church, can we really show any historical connection between it and liberal theology?
Perhaps not in ecclesiology.
But in terms of theology - sure. Like I said, the ordination of women, the acceptance of other faiths, tolerance of the different etc are symbols of democracy brought about by liberal theology.
But we were talking about ecclesiology! At least I was.
"the ordination of women, the acceptance of other faiths, tolerance of the different etc" are clearly Good Things(TM). Certainly at least in the the case of OoW it is a genuine expansion in the participation of the congregation in the church praxis, so in a sense I suppose that is democratic (or demotic?) Certainly you could argue that the Anglicans are in that sense more democratic than the Romans.
I suppose I'm wondering now of the difference and interface between the Reformed and the Liberals. Is theological Liberalism just historically Semper Reformanda in action? Is that part of an answer to SvitlanaV2's question as why liberal pastors are doing 'anachronistic' Wee Cuppies and Anglican masses and not 'engage with whole-body, radical forms of church life and worship'?
(Though she's ignoring the Emerging Church mob, I think)
From the radical reformation we get women preachers, individual paths to God forming the Gathered Church etc. From Liberalism we get a focus on reason and of embracing not fearing the knowledge of the world we get from science...
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
to your left bogeyman.
Not sure what you mean by “bogeyman”.
If you mean that I am anti-left, I am actually left-wing in a number of areas (most people, except for doctrinaire ideologues, are a mixture of left, conservative and liberal), and admire the liberal or Orwellian left.
If you mean that any fear or criticism of any form of the left is deluded and paranoid, then you need to catch up with the events of the twentieth century.
I think you need to read a few more history books.
The context is Sontag’s quote about the RD, referring to those members of the left during the Cold War who ignored, made excuses for, and in some cases actually supported, communist dictatorships.
quote:
That still doesn't make sense.
The hawkish, not the "liberal", element would be interested in fomenting anti-communism via the RD.
I think you need to read a few more history books.
You are evading the issue.
Either you are using the word liberal in its historical and etymological sense, as used by the Orwellian left, in which case the liberals of the CIA would be just as anti-communist as the rest of the organisation, or you are using it in its American sense of ideologically left, in which case the "liberals" would be less inclined to be anti-communist, and less interested in helping the anti-communist crusade of the RD.
[ 19. May 2013, 06:19: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0