Thread: Definitions of theological positions 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=026637
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I am trying to write a thing, and I want to define - briefly and in generalisations - the three major theological positions: evangelicalism, traditionalism and liberalism.

I fully accept that this is a simplification, and I am exploring this, but I want to put definitions down, in ways that are positive to those who would consider themselves to be covered by these, however loosely.

So could people define what the distinctive attributes of these are? I want to be able to summarise these in a paragraph each.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
The standard definition of evangelicalism is David Bebbington's fourfold emphases:


quote:
"Despite the cultural changes . . . there has been an unchanging core to Evangelicalism ever since the eighteenth century. It is not simply that the content of the historic Christian creeds has been upheld by Evangelicals, although that is true. . . . Beyond that, Evangelicals have consistently upheld certain distinctive beliefs over time. There has been an Evangelical quadrilateral of conversionism, activism, biblicism and crucicentricity. These four elements have been preserved because Evangelicals have recognized their centrality to faith"
As for liberalism, I think you're going to have to decide if you're talking the early 20th c. movement or the more contemporary progressive movement.

[ 25. December 2013, 21:35: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Evangelicalism has those things at it's centre, but around that it is flowing, its expression is different in the UK and USA for instance.

Traditional - Which one? Orthodox? Roman Catholic (Eastern and Western rite)? Non-evangelical protestant? Other?

As for Liberalism, from where I stand on the outside looking in there seems to be even greater breadth in liberalism than there is in Traditionalism and Evangelicalism. It seems more a way of doing theology than a theology itself.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Yes. Liberalism and traditionalism are more ways of holding theological positions than a theological position in its own right.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, each mean different things by "tradition". With overlaps.

O: what was given to the Apostles by Jesus. So it is what is in common to all churches, but everyone except us has accreted lots of heretical junk on top of it.

C: the teaching of the Church developed over time under guidance of the Holy Spirit. Once defined it cannot be changed. You can never be sure of what it is unless you submit to the Pope.

P: ideas, habits, rituals, developed over time by churches and denominations. So it is what is differs between churches. Not neccesarily bad in itself, but superficial, not the core of the Gospel - that core is in the teaching given by Jesus to the Apostles, and in the words given by God to th Apostles, which is written in the Bible and cannot be changed.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Prophets. I meant word given by God to the Prophets, not Apostles. I need to go back to sleep.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I accept that traditionalists are different in different denominations, but I am after what defines them as traditionalists? Is it a focus on the historical interpretation of faith? Is it a belief that the purpose of faith is to keep the traditions alive?

Liberalism - that is the modern day expression of it. What does it mean to be a liberal, irrespective of denomination?

Evangelicalism I would accept as being focused around ""There has been an Evangelical quadrilateral of conversionism, activism, biblicism and crucicentricity" - thank you cliffdweller. Using broad phrases like this leaves them open to interpretation - I would consider myself crucicentric, but that does not mean I believe in PSA as the only viable atonement theology. Some would define evangalicalism in the same categories, but define the belief system more specifically.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
I don't accept that these are the three major theological positions: not in Catholicism or in Orthodoxy, in any event.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
So you'd say that there is no difference in theological position between those who share a traditional stance with Pope Emeritus Benedict and those who hold to Liberation Theology? Can't see that myself.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
So you'd say that there is no difference in theological position between those who share a traditional stance with Pope Emeritus Benedict and those who hold to Liberation Theology? Can't see that myself.
I think the point is that there is a big difference, but Liberation Theology isn't liberal or evangelical. Radical might be an appropriate descriptor.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
One problem with defining liberalism within the Church of England is that positions which used to be considered liberal are now mainstream, e.g. Evangelicals are fairly soft on divorce, preachers are quite happy to give a late date to Daniel and refer to Second and Third Isaiah, and who even remembers that the Church of England used to oppose contraception?

I would bet small amounts of money that The Issue will go the same way.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
What Arethosemyfeet' said. If the descriptions given above are anything to go by, there is absolutely nothing "liberal" about Liberation Theology, which is, in its methods and preferred hermeneutical approaches both radically evangelical and radically traditional. However, Balaam, if you take the trouble to read the CDF's "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation", you'll see that Ratzinger was far from unsympathetic to Liberation Theology, insofar as it remained both radically evangelical and radically traditional. It was, primarily, its insufficiently critical adoption of certain forms of Marxist analysis (hardly liberal) with which he disagreed.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
ISTM that this writer sums up the problem with the use of the words "liberal" or "liberalism" at the moment.

The definitions have become so entangled in world-view and politics that they don't bear any relation to the theological sense that might be made of them.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox, but have friends in each. It does seem to me that Schroedinger's Cat is drawing attention to a particularly Protestant concern when he writes:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am trying to write a thing, and I want to define - briefly and in generalisations - the three major theological positions: evangelicalism, traditionalism and liberalism.

That said, and Trisagion may not agree with me, I do think that there are parallel concerns within Roman Catholicism and in Orthodoxy but which differ in tone and emphasis from what Protestants would be familiar with on their side of the fence/s.

Within Orthodoxy, I detect tensions between fundamentalists and 'zealots' and those with a more nuanced approach. The fundies and zealots can be both home-grown and convert and many Orthodox in the US at least are concerned about an influx of evangelical fundies who are bringing 'Confederate' views such as 'Dominionism' and Pat Robertson-style Religious Right type views into the equation. Many US RCs have similar concerns.

You'll see some US converts to Orthodoxy online posting just as if they were in a Southern style evangelical/fundamentalist church only with bells and smells and beards.

At the same time, they are also concerned about liberalising, modernising and ecumenical tendencies.

Within Roman Catholicism there seem to be pre-and post-Vatican II tensions. I once met a Society of Pope Pius XI (was it XIth?) type Catholic who seemed convinced that the previous Labour Government was the Anti-Christ and that Gordon Brown was out to destroy the Catholic Church (among other things).

I don't know the RC Church very well at close quarters - although our local RC parish is lovely, welcoming and very ecumenical - without toning things down - or so it seems to me.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Gamaliel, the point is that, if, as you suggest, the three positions are true of Protestantism, then they speak to relatively large numbers in each group, whereas those to whom you refer in Orthodoxy and Catholicism represent almost infinitesimally small groups of those way out on the margins.
 
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 
How do you classify the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement, which influences around 150 million people worldwide? At least in Brazil, the largest roman catholic population in the world, this movement acounts for a large part of the practicing catholic population. I know they aren´t exactly Evangelicals, but that´s the closer you can get in the RCC.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
There are always those who are for change and those who are against it. Change can be in various directions, though. It is usually intended to be new and adventurous, and of course it is always new compared to the status quo, but taking a longer view it may be a change back towards an earlier or more deeply rooted position. Traditionalists can therefore sometimes argue for change, though it's more often reformers who do so.

There is also, though, the belief that it's the business of change which is itself the important thing. It's not necessarily going onwards to an improved future or returning to some better past, it's being in flux that gets us close to God. It's change and what it does to us that is good.

That's a position that I think you would find in any denomination and any age, and it's what I would like to call the liberal position.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Liberals read the world through the lens of the Gospels, Evangelicals through the lens of the Epistles and Traditionalists through the lens of the Church.

Howzat?

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
For a comprehensive definition of liberalism you can do much worse than the Affirming LIberalism website.

quote:
“The Liberal tradition has emphasized the importance of the use of reason in theological exploration. It has stressed the need to develop Christian belief and practice in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding and the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom.”


Affirming Liberalism seeks to enhance this ‘enrichment’ of the Christian faith and support ordained and lay Christians of the Liberal Anglican tradition by:

1. Affirming faith in Jesus’ life, teaching, death and resurrection as revealing God’s limitless love for all humanity in this life and the next.

2. Affirming the dynamic action of God’s Spirit in dispersing this divine love throughout the world.

3. Affirming the beneficial insights of biblical, literary and historical criticism for our understanding of Scripture and Tradition.

4. Affirming a free, questioning and philosophical approach to Christian faith through God-given reason.

5. Affirming the profound significance of science and mathematics in forming a Christian world-view and understanding of the universe.

6. Affirming the positive benefits of the social sciences for comprehending human nature and society, and in developing Christian ethics.

7. Affirming appreciation of the distinctive nature of religious language in vibrant worship which connects us to the divine.

8. Affirming the vitality of the performing and creative arts in shaping a dynamic Christian vision of life lived in relation to God.

9. Affirming open, creative conversation between Liberals, Evangelicals and Catholics as a means of enriching our understanding of the Christian gospel.

10. Affirming open, creative conversation with other faith traditions and cultures as a way of deepening our understanding of God.

 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
How do you classify the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement, which influences around 150 million people worldwide? At least in Brazil, the largest roman catholic population in the world, this movement acounts for a large part of the practicing catholic population. I know they aren´t exactly Evangelicals, but that´s the closer you can get in the RCC.
Whatever they are, they are not Evangelicals. Their devotional and liturgical practices, quite apart from their theology, have as little to do with sola scriptura as do mine. That they have given a very seriously enthusiastic turn to the devotional and liturgical life of Catholicism in South America can not be doubted but, so far as I can establish, it is brought to bear on their love for The Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, for his Virgin Mother and for the Angels and Saints, quite as much as on anything else.

As I said above, the three positions Schrodingers Cat outlined simply don't correspond to what I know of Catholicism (quite a lot) or Orthodoxy (not nearly enough). You should note that it was theological positions to which a/he was referring, not preferred styles of worship - and yes, I have heard of lex orandi, lex credendi.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
For a comprehensive definition of liberalism you can do much worse than the Affirming LIberalism website.

Evensong, sorry to be pedantic, but what you've quoted is either a description or possibly a manifesto, but not a definition.

[ 27. December 2013, 08:10: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, Trisagion, I wasn't saying that those people I've met from within the RC and Orthodox who 'map across' - if you like - to the categories suggested here - liberalism, traditionalism, evangelicalism - are anything other than out on the margins.

But surely, within the breadth of Roman Catholicism there are those with more radical positions than others, those with more traditionalist views and those with more liberal views on various issues - and probably people who harbour all these views at one and the same time over various issues?

It strikes me, for instance, that a broad swathe of RC lay-people are far more 'liberal' on sexual issues than the standard 'party-line' if I can put it that way. That doesn't mean, of course, that they 'correspond' in some way with people or groups within Protestantism who may hold similar views.

If you don't like these categories being applied to the RC Church - and there's no reason why you should - then perhaps you might like to enlighten us as to how things work out there in terms of the range of available viewpoints and stances?
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
To me, the 'liberal' position in theology (as opposed to Christians who have some affinity to secular liberal political views of whatever stripe) would be summed up by David Tracy's classic definition of theology as:

quote:

The discipline that articulates mutually critical correlations between the meaning and truth of an interpretation of the Christian fact and the meaning and truth of an interpretation of the contemporary situation. (Talking About God)
In terms of Protestant conversation partners, this makes him more akin to Tillich than Barth. I think this is a basic difference between different ways of doing theology: everyone agrees that revelation helps us understand the experience, but does experience help us understand revelation?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
For a comprehensive definition of liberalism you can do much worse than the Affirming LIberalism website.

Evensong, sorry to be pedantic, but what you've quoted is either a description or possibly a manifesto, but not a definition.
Not even the first paragraph?

Well. Perhaps Unencyclopedia is more helpful for a definition.

Howzabout:

quote:
The faith that worships some of Christianity’s better ideas, but without getting so much into the whole figurehead thing or the “saved by the great blood-spurting wounds of Jesus” fetish promoted by your standard Mel Gibson torture epic.
The doctrine of heaven is particularly helpful I have found:

quote:
When liberal Christians get to heaven, they get very quiet while passing the rooms of conservative Christians, so as not to wreck the conservatives’ fantasy that they’re the only ones who got in, and the extra bonus fantasy that liberal Christians (and everyone else) are off writhing in the pain of hell’s eternal torture.

By staying quiet the liberal Christians ensure the conservative Christians can keep their divine punishment hardons raging for all eternity.
Oh. And what Hart said. (Which was kinda like the first para of the Affirming Liberalism shapeel).
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Thank you for these - I now have definitions of evangelicalism and liberalism that are straightforward and coming from those who would claim those titles (which is important - I don't want to define them from my position, I want something that people would support).

Traditionalists - across Anglican, Baptist, RC, Orthodox, Methodist, Pentecostal or whatever - must also share a definition that makes them traditionalist.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But surely, within the breadth of Roman Catholicism there are those with more radical positions than others, those with more traditionalist views and those with more liberal views on various issues - and probably people who harbour all these views at one and the same time over various issues?
It isn't clear to me what you mean by 'more radical' views. In fact, this is my problem with the whole thread: there is an assumption that three different positions within some parts of Protestantism have some kind of correspondence within other Christian communities for whom the vocabulary simply doesn't fit. In which of Schroedinger's Cat's groups does someone with 'more radical' views fit, do you think?

quote:
It strikes me, for instance, that a broad swathe of RC lay-people are far more 'liberal' on sexual issues than the standard 'party-line' if I can put it that way. That doesn't mean, of course, that they 'correspond' in some way with people or groups within Protestantism who may hold similar views.
In what way are the views of these presumed people theological position? In what sense do those views correspond to, for example, to David Tracy's definition, cited by Hart? It isn't at all clear to me that these views are 'liberal' in a theological sense, although it is clear that they correspond to the views of others who, in an American political sense, would consider themselves liberal.

quote:
If you don't like these categories being applied to the RC Church - and there's no reason why you should - then perhaps you might like to enlighten us as to how things work out there in terms of the range of available viewpoints and stances?
It seems to me that the matrix within modern Catholicism is mapped against a series of axes. One would be an axis that runs from a Magisterially minimalist to maximalist position. It is not clear to me where on such an axis the positions claimed in the OP to be "the three major theological positions" would be. Another axis might be one that defines the normative source of theological data: this might be easier to map an evangelical and liberal position to but since it might run from Divine revelation to Human experience, it is quite difficult to see where the so-called "traditionalist" position would be plotted and you would certainly run up against the "Catholic and" pretty quickly: that is that theological habit of mind that needs to hold in tension a whole series of hermeneutical principles.

I have spent the morning marking undergraduate essays for a Catholic theological faculty. They come from a range of backgrounds and their treatment of the same subject differs widely, nonetheless, I would have difficulty describing any of them by reference to the categories in the OP. I might be able to sustain some kind of analysis that claimed that one candidate sits more lightly with Magisterial ecclesial authority and another is more conscious of the need for Scriptural justification. Yet the former constructs an argument more dependent on Patristic sources: is she a liberal or a traditionalist? The latter is also very concerned to square away the Church's liturgical tradition: evangelical or traditionalist? The categories don't fit because they are predicated on a completely different ecclesial landscape. It is like trying to use the key to the symbols on an Ordinance Survey Landranger Map of Crewe to read an Admiralty Chart of the Channel Islands.

[ 28. December 2013, 11:37: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Liberals read the world through the lens of the Gospels, Evangelicals through the lens of the Epistles and Traditionalists through the lens of the Church.

Howzat?

[Big Grin]
Neat, but false.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
And the trouble with that "affirming liberal" manifesto is that almost all traditionalist Protestants, whether of an evangelical or more catholic flavour, would agree with two or three of the nine, most of us with another two or three, and at least some of us with pretty much any of them.

They do not encapsulate whatever it is that might be distinctive about liberal theology.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Liberals read the world through the lens of the Gospels, Evangelicals through the lens of the Epistles and Traditionalists through the lens of the Church.

Howzat?

[Big Grin]
Neat, but false.
I think any simple definition of any of the three will be false.

I think Trisagion has highlighted some of the difficulties.

But I'd still like to see you try smarty pants. [Razz]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And the trouble with that "affirming liberal" manifesto is that almost all traditionalist Protestants, whether of an evangelical or more catholic flavour, would agree with two or three of the nine, most of us with another two or three, and at least some of us with pretty much any of them.

They do not encapsulate whatever it is that might be distinctive about liberal theology.
The same is true of Bebbington's fourfold definition of evangelicalism. (Which, I think, suggests that we are all closer than we are comfortable admitting). In both cases, what is distinctive is the particular mix or focus, not the individual doctrines per se.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Which, I think, suggests that we are all closer than we are comfortable admitting
That's my perception after a decade or so on the Ship.

[ 28. December 2013, 16:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair do's, Trisagion.

I take your point.

I bow out of the discussion graciously as I don't know what to say next ...
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I suppose it is not strictly "definitions", in the sense of covering everything that is within a position, more "distinctives" in the sense of what it is that, in some way, all who would accept the label would accept.

I think it is absolutely true that this threefold division does not even remotely cover the range of positions, it is still the case that these positions are often used as ways of defining those who are different.

The writing will cover some of this, but if I can get descriptions, and cover these approaches, it will help me.

Thank you.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Liberals read the world through the lens of the Gospels, Evangelicals through the lens of the Epistles and Traditionalists through the lens of the Church.
[Big Grin]
Neat, but false.
A False Trichotomy [Two face]
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
How about:

Liberals accept the modern critique of orthodox theology and try to reconstruct a Christianity that is intelligible to our generation.

Evangelicals a la Barth reject the modern critique of orthodox theology and argue that the Gospel proclaims the limitations of modern thinking and that any "reconstruction" is a betrayal of orthodoxy.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am trying to write a thing, and I want to define - briefly and in generalisations - the three major theological positions: evangelicalism, traditionalism and liberalism.

I fully accept that this is a simplification, and I am exploring this, but I want to put definitions down, in ways that are positive to those who would consider themselves to be covered by these, however loosely.

So could people define what the distinctive attributes of these are? I want to be able to summarise these in a paragraph each.
I don't have any erudite theological comments to make, but I'm curious about the relationship between these terms and ordinary Christians who attend church - or perhaps even those who don't.

How many laypeople who haven't studied theology would align themselves with any of these terms? And if they did, would they mean the same thing as the theologians and the clergy? To me, for example, the term 'traditional' reflects a preference for a certain kind of worship style, not a theological position. (Yes, our theology speaks through our worship, but in many cases I think the connection between the two is unarticulated.) 'Traditional' seems not to be used as a theological marker in the church surveys I've seen.

My point is that (depending on your remit) it might be worth considering how well your categories might be accepted and understood on the ground. For example, none of the ten theological 'approaches to faith' offered by the researchers for the Methodist Church Life Profile 2001 (Phillip Escott and Alison Gelder) was as acceptable to Methodist respondents as 'Don't identify'. I'd say there was a message in that....
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

It seems to me that the matrix within modern Catholicism is mapped against a series of axes. One would be an axis that runs from a Magisterially minimalist to maximalist position. It is not clear to me where on such an axis the positions claimed in the OP to be "the three major theological positions" would be. Another axis might be one that defines the normative source of theological data ...
Thank you for that, Trisagion. It's very helpful (especially for those of us who tend to grasp abstractions better when they come wrapped in a visual image).

This same axis might be useful when writing about other religious traditions, including that assumed by the OP.

[code]

[ 31. December 2013, 06:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Liberals read the world through the lens of the Gospels, Evangelicals through the lens of the Epistles and Traditionalists through the lens of the Church.

Howzat?

[Big Grin]
Neat, but false.
I think any simple definition of any of the three will be false.

I think Trisagion has highlighted some of the difficulties.

But I'd still like to see you try smarty pants. [Razz]
I'd talk about lines of descent and continuing traditions rather than listing character states of various churches or denominations. Evangelical churches are churches whose worship styles and ways of approaching doctrine are partly derived from the Evangelical movements of the 18th and early 19th centuries in English-speaking communities - which themselves were based on various Reformation and Puritan and low-church and broad-church strands of British and Irish Christianity.

("Low" and "broad" church didn't mean quite the same in the 17th and early 18th centuries as they came to mean later - or they had a different range of meaning anyway)

So the word "evangelical", as used to describe churches, doesn't mean anything when talking about churches that are not in or influenced by that ongoing tradition. And we can say that Pentecostalism originated in the evangelical tradition but has perhaps grown into something else (Just as evangelicalism originated in the Reformed tradition, which itself originated in Western Catholicism) I'd prefer a historical definition to an essentialist one.

Of course individual Christians, and churches, and even whole denominations, can move into and out of one of the streams of Christianity. It's not strictly a simple tree structure. There can be a more complex pattern. Maybe most British Methodist churches have ceased to be evangelical - though they still share the origins and the family resemblance. And once pon a time the remnants of the Waldensians, and some of the Moravians, sort of became Protestant and Evangelical, even though in family tree terms they are more the second cousins of the early evangelicals than sister groups. And there are even some Roman Catholics who self-identify as "evangelical" in this sense of the word (and even one RC parish priest I know of)

[ 31. December 2013, 00:05: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
A definition of theological positions would be helpful. However, the terms evangelicalism, liberalism, and traditionalism are too broad to be theological positions. You would need something like a Theological Compass. I've yet to see one that asks comprehensive enough questions to be accurate. I'm guessing upwards of 20 broad theological positions could be defined.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
A definition of theological positions would be helpful. However, the terms evangelicalism, liberalism, and traditionalism are too broad to be theological positions. You would need something like a Theological Compass. I've yet to see one that asks comprehensive enough questions to be accurate. I'm guessing upwards of 20 broad theological positions could be defined.
They are very broad, and deliberately so. I think they work, while acknowledging that I, as an evangelical, find more in common with those who are not evo than with some who are - in particular, the fundamentalist aspect. However, fundamentalism occurs in all three of these, and I find little in common with any fundies.

I am going to cover the variety of belief and understanding, but before I can do this, I need to know that the core definitions or distinctives I have are ones that adherents are comfortable with.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
I think Trisagion has the right of it here.

Two of the most fundamental dimensions on which people's thinking differs are
- tradition vs change
- authority vs freedom
and these apply across a range of subject areas.
The specific historic issue that divides western Christendom is the status of the Bible.

Thus rather than three categories, we have three dimensions along which any particular Christian worldview can be plotted.

Different church communities will contain people with a different range of views.

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
Anglican_Brat, I think that is a useful observation.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0