Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I hope so. The bastards cause so much pain.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Do adulterers go to hell?
But as a theological liberal I don't have traditional views on hell.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I'm afraid he believes that. I'm afraid he means that.
I consider a faithful Southern Baptist, a conservative Anglican, an orthodox Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox Christian all to be “traditional Christians.” <snip> It seems to me that “traditional Christian” is political code for “Christians who adhere to traditional teaching about sex and sexuality.” <snip> When I deploy the phrase “traditional Christians” in my writing, I’m not thinking about ecclesiology, sacramental theology, or any other thing that separates Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. What I’m thinking about — what we are all thinking about — is this: what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
quote:That upsets those who are preventing fences from defying Newton.
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
I don't know why liberal churches need a code word, actually- I think "LGBT-friendly" would do fine.
quote:I think that he is right too.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Is he right? I think he is. It is really interesting that the pollsters have figured out that sex questions can indicate who we'll vote for! It seems so obvious when put that way.
quote:I don't think he's saying that's what it means to be Christian, or that he is equating "traditional Christian" with Holy Tradition. I think he's saying that in common parlance, when people say "traditional Christians" they mean Christians who hold traditional views on sexuality. I imagine he is right.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Not that traditional teaching about sex and sexuality is worse than idolatry. But thinking that's what it means to be a Christian ... that's just wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.
quote:I think it says more about him than it does about the church.
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's what the politically conservative Orthodox commentator Rod Dreher seems to think, anyway.
quote:I'm afraid he believes that. I'm afraid he means that.
I consider a faithful Southern Baptist, a conservative Anglican, an orthodox Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox Christian all to be “traditional Christians.” <snip> It seems to me that “traditional Christian” is political code for “Christians who adhere to traditional teaching about sex and sexuality.” <snip> When I deploy the phrase “traditional Christians” in my writing, I’m not thinking about ecclesiology, sacramental theology, or any other thing that separates Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. What I’m thinking about — what we are all thinking about — is this: what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
Which means that I think he's replaced Holy Tradition with a "traditional teaching about sex and sexuality," and he's replaced the Eucharistic union of the Church with shared beliefs about sex and sexuality.
And I can't decide what I think about that. Other than the fact that I hope his bishop reads this, and maybe talks to him about it. Because I'm afraid what he's talking is, if not idolatry, then perhaps something worse.
Not that traditional teaching about sex and sexuality is worse than idolatry. But thinking that's what it means to be a Christian ... that's just wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.
quote:In which case it's about time the church started talking about other things! If your message is full of the Gospel and of practical care for the community then that's the message the people will see and hear.
Originally posted by Snags:
I would suggest that you'd also get "homophobic" and a lot of other less than glowing terms from many people, most based around matters of sex and gender. Whether it's fair or not, it's the reality around here IME.
quote:Whereas I'm aware of a lot of folk who despise the SA for their homophobia and (they claim) that the SA raises funds for the homeless but requires homeless people to listen to sermons to get help. It doesn't matter how much time you spend talking about it, if your organisation has a fixed doctrine then it IS an issue you care about.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:In which case it's about time the church started talking about other things! If your message is full of the Gospel and of practical care for the community then that's the message the people will see and hear.
Originally posted by Snags:
I would suggest that you'd also get "homophobic" and a lot of other less than glowing terms from many people, most based around matters of sex and gender. Whether it's fair or not, it's the reality around here IME.
The salvation Army has a very traditional view of marriage and sexuality but i never hear it mentioned - and I never preach about it either; it's just not an issue. There's too much other stuff to talk about!
quote:The Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 1998 would agree with you. This is a section of one of their resolutions on human sexuality.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Not that traditional teaching about sex and sexuality is worse than idolatry. But thinking that's what it means to be a Christian ... that's just wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.
quote:Source
There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality of Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given to use in him.
Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" hetrosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humainty in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation.[
quote:The Salvation Army is not homophobic in any way, shape or form, even if we hold to the traditional view of chastity before marriage and fidelity within it; marriage being the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whereas I'm aware of a lot of folk who despise the SA for their homophobia and (they claim) that the SA raises funds for the homeless but requires homeless people to listen to sermons to get help. It doesn't matter how much time you spend talking about it, if your organisation has a fixed doctrine then it IS an issue you care about.
... while I have liberal views on LGBT rights and the ordination of women, I can affirm the Nicene Creed without crossing my fingers...
quote:What, specifically, is homophobic?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's homophobic. Within patriarchal.
quote:Wow, this went dark fast.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:What, specifically, is homophobic?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's homophobic. Within patriarchal.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:It wouldn't, that's the point. "Traditional" is used as a synonym for using religious justifications for treating women and gay people badly, but one can quite happily affirm the faith that the Church considered important enough to put in the Creed without subscribing to the elements the "traditionalists" are so keen to promote.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On your second point, why might believing the Nicene Creed stop you from accepting women priests even without crossing your fingers?
quote:That's very interesting.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think sexual views dictate all other views.
I'm a theological liberal but a social conservative. I believe chastity within marriage and ( to some extent - i.e. promiscuity is not good - regardless of orientation) before marriage is healthy.
quote:then Dreher is pretty much right: the only thing they have in common is men in positions of power attempting to regulate the sex lives of those over whom they have power.
a faithful Southern Baptist, a conservative Anglican, an orthodox Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox Christian
quote:I believe so.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is it really possible to be a theological liberal but a social conservative?
quote:Yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. We have to make do.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Do you see sex before marriage as morally wrong?
quote:I hope so. The bastards cause so much pain.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Do adulterers go to hell?
quote:Ha-ha-ha. That's great.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I hope so. The bastards cause so much pain.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Do adulterers go to hell?
But as a theological liberal I don't have traditional views on hell.
quote:I'm sorry to say that, at least either (1) in the US and/or (2) circa 2001 this wasn't completely the case... Did this change or was it more of a US branch of the SA matter?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Secondly we do not refuse to employ or welcome as a volunteer anyone from the LGBT community.
quote:Yes, I knew about this. You need to read the newspaper report very carefully because what this was actually about was not the hiring of gay people per se but about the extension of employment benefits to the partners of gay people. I don't know anything at all about such US laws and conventions but would I be correct in believing that the married spouse of an employee would be given some kind of financial benefit?
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I'm sorry to say that, at least either (1) in the US and/or (2) circa 2001 this wasn't completely the case... Did this change or was it more of a US branch of the SA matter?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Secondly we do not refuse to employ or welcome as a volunteer anyone from the LGBT community.
quote:As was readily apparent from the main piece, this is not what Rod Dreher is saying. At all. And so says the update he has added: "Approving the comments is frustrating, because no small number of you seem to believe that I think that defining “traditional Christianity” is all about sex. I do not — not in a theological or philosophical sense."
Originally posted by Josephine:
Not that traditional teaching about sex and sexuality is worse than idolatry. But thinking that's what it means to be a Christian ... that's just wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.
quote:Beautifully stated. Thank you!
Originally posted by IngoB:
Second, a war cannot be reduced to its front lines. While it is undoubtedly true that many blows are being traded over "sex" (understood widely enough), this does not mean that the clashes are all about "sex". I would say most of them are about authority and are merely "expressed" in the area of sex. I think the real issue there is that social norms proved stronger than religion.
quote:So right.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For quite some time Christianity has fallen apart internally, but the outer shell of the society it had established carried on, in a fashion at least. Now that this shell is breaking apart, the rotten core of religion is being revealed as too weak to do anything about it. What Mr Dreher is really bemoaning here are the last vestiges of Christendom going belly up. Well, frankly, it's about time that they do and we are freed from our delusions about the state of our civilisation.
quote:Um... no. From the article, and italics mine:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You need to read the newspaper report very carefully because what this was actually about was not the hiring of gay people per se but about the extension of employment benefits to the partners of gay people.
quote:
The Bush administration is working with the nation's largest charity, the Salvation Army, to make it easier for government-funded religious groups to engage in hiring discrimination against homosexuals, according to an internal Salvation Army document.
The White House has made a "firm commitment" to the Salvation Army to issue a regulation protecting such charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and domestic-partner benefits, according to the Salvation Army report.
quote:Yes, both of those comments are the newspaper's own comment on what was happening. As I said, it was basically about employee spouse benefits. If they didn't have gay employees, why would there be an argument about benefits?
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Um... no. From the article, and italics mine:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You need to read the newspaper report very carefully because what this was actually about was not the hiring of gay people per se but about the extension of employment benefits to the partners of gay people.
quote:
The Bush administration is working with the nation's largest charity, the Salvation Army, to make it easier for government-funded religious groups to engage in hiring discrimination against homosexuals, according to an internal Salvation Army document.
The White House has made a "firm commitment" to the Salvation Army to issue a regulation protecting such charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and domestic-partner benefits, according to the Salvation Army report.
quote:You are quite right, but leave it to the hosts, please.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Could we move out of dead horse territory?
quote:Well when the Bible is immoral, yes.
Originally posted by Freddy:
A robust faith should have no trouble demonstrating the difference between moral and immoral behavior. Instead these challenges have shown that there are plenty of ways to dismiss the Bible if that's what we want to do.
quote:This doesn't sound like you.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For quite some time Christianity has fallen apart internally, but the outer shell of the society it had established carried on, in a fashion at least. Now that this shell is breaking apart, the rotten core of religion is being revealed as too weak to do anything about it. What Mr Dreher is really bemoaning here are the last vestiges of Christendom going belly up. Well, frankly, it's about time that they do and we are freed from our delusions about the state of our civilisation.
quote:No, both of those are the newspaper's summary of what was happening. This wasn't an editorial--this was basic news.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, both of those comments are the newspaper's own comment on what was happening.
quote:Except it wasn't--the article mentions those alongside the basic matter of discriminating against gay people in hiring practices:
As I said, it was basically about employee spouse benefits.
quote:"Hiring gays," not "giving benefits to spouses of gays."
George Hood, a senior official with the Salvation Army, said the group never discriminates in services, but on the question of hiring gays, "it really begins to chew away at the theological fabric of who we are."
quote:I'm assuming that's a cross post.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Except it wasn't--the article mentions those alongside the basic matter of discriminating against gay people in hiring practices:
quote:The latter. Our civilisation has been running on that pretence for centuries. If there ever was a good reason for that, its due by date has now long passed.
Originally posted by Evensong:
This doesn't sound like you. Are you being sarcastic? Or are you saying its best we rid ourselves of the delusion that western civilisation is still Christian?
quote:I think that this is Ingo's point. We can best rid ourselves of the strictures of biblical Christianity only by convincing ourselves that the Bible itself is immoral.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Well when the Bible is immoral, yes.
Originally posted by Freddy:
A robust faith should have no trouble demonstrating the difference between moral and immoral behavior. Instead these challenges have shown that there are plenty of ways to dismiss the Bible if that's what we want to do.
quote:BRAVO!
Originally posted by Freddy:
A robust faith should have no trouble demonstrating the difference between moral and immoral behavior. Instead these challenges have shown that there are plenty of ways to dismiss the Bible if that's what we want to do.
quote:Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
quote:BRAVO!
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Chastity and fidelity aren't arbitrarily conservative. They are rational, humane, therefore faithful.
quote:Biblical Christianity is essentially a religion of the poor and oppressed. Quetzalcoatl's example shows Christians being rich and oppressors. Seems to be very un-Biblical and conforming to the world to me.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
quote:That seems a perculiarly rural England thing to me, "More tea Vicar?" and all that kind of stuff.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
quote:I agree, but sometimes things are accepted norms in the world because they're right. It makes no sense for things that are right to be eschewed by Christians just because they're 'of the world'.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The basic message of the Old testament and the laws it espouses is this: Be different.
Israel was called to be different to the nations, the tribes, the people around them. Different in religion, culture, morality.
The Church is the same - we are called to be different - for that is the root meaning of the word 'holy'.
When the church decides what is right and wrong by asking what the world thinks it should do, then it has lost its way.
we are not called to ask the world for permission to hold certain beliefs. We are not called to reconcile our traditions with the way a godless world thinks; we are not called to modify what we are so as not to upset those who have invented their own morality and ideology.
The church is different. You might disagree. Worldly philosophy might disagree. But that's been the lot of Israel and the church all along - as Jesus said, the world will hate us but hey, that's nothing new.
We do not conform to the pattern of this world.
quote:So being rich automatically = being oppressive?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Biblical Christianity is essentially a religion of the poor and oppressed. Quetzalcoatl's example shows Christians being rich and oppressors. Seems to be very un-Biblical and conforming to the world to me.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
quote:Yeah, that bloke was a nightmare. But then, how many people have said stuff that is now 'out there' which would have been forgotten about or unheard in the pre-media days?
Originally posted by Snags:
And if you're going to bang the drum for the SA, you should pay heed to how often that clip about the bloke in Australia comes around on social media. I see it in different areas a good two or three times a year. Doesn't matter that it was a mis-representation and out of context, people at large have a major downer on the SA and paint with a very broad brush ...
quote:I'm asking if those things I described show someone conforming to the world, which is the phrase you used. It strikes me that they are, and that plenty of Christians find a nice niche within capitalism. How is this not conforming?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
quote:Conforming to the world is what happens when as well as 'having' money, one starts to 'love' it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I'm asking if those things I described show someone conforming to the world, which is the phrase you used. It strikes me that they are, and that plenty of Christians find a nice niche within capitalism. How is this not conforming?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
quote:I did not say you were rich, did I?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:So being rich automatically = being oppressive?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Biblical Christianity is essentially a religion of the poor and oppressed. Quetzalcoatl's example shows Christians being rich and oppressors. Seems to be very un-Biblical and conforming to the world to me.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
Sounds more like marxism to me.
I reject it.
I am not rich - far from it!
I am not oppressed.
quote:But obviously we're in an oppressive position - the point isn't to make ourselves not oppressors (usually not possible on an individual level), the point is to try to change the system and at least be aware of the ways in which we can lessen our oppression.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unfortunately, we're all 'oppressors' here, in the sense that we're benefiting from a political and financial system that depends on other people having less than we do, even if we don't drive a Lexus, etc.
If everyone lived like an average American we'd need to multiply the Earth by four to manage it. If everyone lived like the average person in France we'd need to multiply it by two and a half:
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2012-10/daily-infographic-if-everyone-lived-american-how-many-earths-would-we-need
As for the link in the OP, it's not terribly original, is it?
quote:Talking about 'Africa' as a homogenous mass and 'Africans' as if they're all destitute victims is incredibly racist. Many, many Africans are wealthy and successful in a worldly sense, and many African countries are flourishing financially. Please stop othering Africa.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Conforming to the world is what happens when as well as 'having' money, one starts to 'love' it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I'm asking if those things I described show someone conforming to the world, which is the phrase you used. It strikes me that they are, and that plenty of Christians find a nice niche within capitalism. How is this not conforming?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
I have a thousand times more money that someone in Africa. Am I suddenly not a Christian because I have a fridge and food in it?
What do you want me to do, live without it in solidarity with an African in a township? Or shall I just send it over there?
quote:Um, not many people in rural England driving Lexuses - Land Rovers and Volvos more like. Have you actually ever been to rural England? You seem to have a very inaccurate view of it
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:That seems a perculiarly rural England thing to me, "More tea Vicar?" and all that kind of stuff.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:It is presumably for some reason that it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So being rich automatically = being oppressive?
quote:Yes, I have been there. I was born in England and lived there for many years before I moved to live among my mother's kin.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Um, not many people in rural England driving Lexuses - Land Rovers and Volvos more like. Have you actually ever been to rural England? You seem to have a very inaccurate view of it
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:That seems a perculiarly rural England thing to me, "More tea Vicar?" and all that kind of stuff.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Discussion of homophobia/discrimination against gays/whether anti-gay church policies exist or are unjust BELONGS IN DEAD HORSES. There should be no more discussion of these issues on this thread.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
Mea culpa!!
quote:I don't want you to do anything. I am just disputing your previous claim that Christians do not conform to the world. I expect some of them do not, but in my experience, a lot of them do. I grew up in a very poor area, with very few religious people. Then I went to a very posh public school, with lots of wealthy kids, and hello, there were quite a lot of Christians, and their dads were doing very nicely thank you very much. How is this not conforming to the world?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Conforming to the world is what happens when as well as 'having' money, one starts to 'love' it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I'm asking if those things I described show someone conforming to the world, which is the phrase you used. It strikes me that they are, and that plenty of Christians find a nice niche within capitalism. How is this not conforming?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
I have a thousand times more money that someone in Africa. Am I suddenly not a Christian because I have a fridge and food in it?
What do you want me to do, live without it in solidarity with an African in a township? Or shall I just send it over there?
quote:The confusing thing is that Christians created the very 'world' that some people now want them to reject. The Protestant worth ethic, anyone?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am [disputing the] claim that Christians do not conform to the world. I expect some of them do not, but in my experience, a lot of them do. I grew up in a very poor area, with very few religious people. Then I went to a very posh public school, with lots of wealthy kids, and hello, there were quite a lot of Christians, and their dads were doing very nicely thank you very much. How is this not conforming to the world?
quote:People who were adherents of some form of Christianity helped make the world as it is--that doesn't mean it was "Christian" in the genuine sense. Surely people aren't defending the Protestant work ethic?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The confusing thing is that Christians created the very 'world' that some people now want them to reject. The Protestant worth ethic, anyone?
quote:Preach it, sister!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tsk, tsk, quetzalcoatl. You are forgetting the 1st letter of Paul to the Thatcherites.*
"And I say to you,
you may ignore previous scriptures
regarding the poor.
For these are obviously not meant to apply
to you.
For, in your righteousness, you are rich on the
backs of the poor in their sin.
That this is so is obvious, for if they were
righteous,
they would not be poor. QED."
*New Monetary Edition, Reagan translation.
quote:So how's your claim holding up that Christians are not conformed to the world? You seem to be deflecting attention from this quite cleverly, so well done there. Heaven forbid that you might have to say that you were wrong!
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isn't it interesting that it's the 'rich, middle-class Christians' that you despise sooooo much that make up the churches in the UK?
And is it no interesting that most of the community work done in this country - from mother and toddler groups, lunch clubs through to food banks - all done in churches, by Christians?
And isn't it interesting that the people most likely to give to charity are Christians?
And isn't it interesting that the people who give most money per head are...yes, Christians?
quote:So the future of the church is what for you?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:The latter. Our civilisation has been running on that pretence for centuries. If there ever was a good reason for that, its due by date has now long passed.
Originally posted by Evensong:
This doesn't sound like you. Are you being sarcastic? Or are you saying its best we rid ourselves of the delusion that western civilisation is still Christian?
quote:The "world" in Christian jargon is not simply the (social) environment. What is meant there is a systemic, external challenge to Christianity. Just like the "flesh" is not the meat on our bones, but a systemic, internal challenge to Christianity. The "world" in Christ's days were the Romans and Greeks in their pagan cultures, and in a different but at least as threatening sense, the Pharisees and Sadduccees and the Temple hierarchy in their corrupted Jewish culture.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how's your claim holding up that Christians are not conformed to the world? You seem to be deflecting attention from this quite cleverly, so well done there. Heaven forbid that you might have to say that you were wrong!
quote:I suppose many people would defend it, up to a point. At any rate, there seems to be little clear enunciation of the alternatives.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:People who were adherents of some form of Christianity helped make the world as it is--that doesn't mean it was "Christian" in the genuine sense. Surely people aren't defending the Protestant work ethic?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The confusing thing is that Christians created the very 'world' that some people now want them to reject. The Protestant worth ethic, anyone?
quote:Sorry, I wasn't trying to squeeze you into shoes that do not fit. My point was merely that many Christians now wear these sort of shoes, and that one can very well see that - rather than Western middle class status or other socio-economic privilege - as "the world".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Fair enough, although describing me in terms of 'practical charity is the only thing that matters' is rather peculiar, since I am fairly allergic to most charities. I also don't really see good sexuality as hedonism; however, these are 'fresh woods and pastures new' perhaps.
quote:No, actually it isn't. First, most merely means greatest number. We've had this discussion here, and the gap isn't that great.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isn't it interesting that it's the 'rich, middle-class Christians' that you despise sooooo much that make up the churches in the UK?
And is it no interesting that most of the community work done in this country - from mother and toddler groups, lunch clubs through to food banks - all done in churches, by Christians?
And isn't it interesting that the people most likely to give to charity are Christians?
And isn't it interesting that the people who give most money per head are...yes, Christians?
quote:Hmm. Pope Frank has hammered pretty hard on the economy. But then you've said before that he's wrong about a lot of things.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are hence quite right, most Christians are conformed to the world. Most Christians are like you now. And Mr Dreher is quite right, one of the best ways to ferret out such worldy Christians is to see whether they aid and abet the neo-pagans in redefining good sexuality as hedonism with consent. Another good way is to check whether they have forgotten the spiritual works of mercy over the corporal ones (or indeed, if they even know what I'm talking about there).
In theory at least, as we build the Kingdom Christianity just becomes the (social) environment and the world is driven back. In practice, we are nowhere near that yet. And no, that's not simply proven by the continued presence of "the poor". The poor, as a wise man once said, will always be with us. It's not the economy, stupid.
quote:Jesus Christ and Karl Marx had a similar hair style, but they are not the same person.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's what Jesus said. Justice, righteousness IS economics. It's ALL economics.
quote:Indeed. Just for clarity, by US standards I'm a socialist bordering on communist as far as economics goes. I think the German "social market economy" has grown far too market and too little social. The new economy that I would like to see trialled is distributism and I think the best reason for world government is so that the multinationals can be controlled properly instead of playing government against government. I'm no friend of unbridled capitalism or the prosperity gospel, at all.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hmm. Pope Frank has hammered pretty hard on the economy. But then you've said before that he's wrong about a lot of things.
quote:Unfortunately from this point of view, Germany is not the entire world. In America, we do indeed need an emphasis on helping the poor, as people calling themselves Christians replace Christ's emphasis on the poor with Ayn Rand's spite for the poor. It's growing like a cancer, as compared to, say, homosexuality, which is holding pretty steady.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But in fact we do not need a particular emphasis on "helping the poor" right now.
quote:Sorry, I guess that was misleading. I tend to forget that there are people who are seriously trying to revive some kind of pagan religion. For me the real "neo-pagans" are simply the post-Christians apathetics that you will meet everywhere in the West. They are not pagan in the sense of actively reconstructing a pagan religion, but by passively defaulting back to something that starts to resemble more the pre-Christian Greco-Roman culture. (A culture, BTW, that had many virtues... as well as many vices.)
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find it odd that you hammer so much on the neo-pagans, even up to the point of considering them a threat. To me they are a slightly quaint little group with no real influence, that's all.
quote:The original post had to do with how you can tell, looking at a group, whether they are holding fast to the core of the traditional Christian religion. The person cited thought it was your attitude about sex. Some of us think it's your attitude about money, in part because of the horrific things people are saying about the poor, all in the name of Christianity.
Originally posted by HCH:
The original post had to do with Christianity and sex (reality, public perception, etc.). The discussion has turned into Christianity and money. What does that say about the Shipmates participating in the discussion?
quote:The neo-pagans are frankly a much tinier minority than any group of churchgoers. And I honestly believe we Christians of whatever stripe have a lot more in common with neo-pagans than we do with, say, atheists or other anti-supernaturalists.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The "world" these days in the West is likewise on one hand the neo-pagan "post-Christians" that are inoculated against the gospel
quote:If this were really dominant, apart from various specifically theological matters, I think life would be vastly better for everyone than it currently is.
and on the other hand the liberal, cafeteria, "practical charity is the only thing that matters" Christians
quote:Then we need to do a better job. At least in the US there's a terrifying situation with the attitude of Ayn Rand under the guise of the Christian church.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
At any rate, there seems to be little clear enunciation of the alternatives.
quote:Speaking of Christians doing a better job,
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pope Frank has hammered pretty hard on the economy.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Pope Francis. quote:Heh. I hadn't actually read this post before starting my big response one here, so the "Randism in the name of Christ" is not merely my own perception...
Originally posted by mousethief:
In America, we do indeed need an emphasis on helping the poor, as people calling themselves Christians replace Christ's emphasis on the poor with Ayn Rand's spite for the poor.
quote:Something good, I would hope, though talking and doing are two different things, and thread drift is perhaps not a great thing.
Originally posted by HCH:
The original post had to do with Christianity and sex (reality, public perception, etc.). The discussion has turned into Christianity and money. What does that say about the Shipmates participating in the discussion?
quote:Glen Moray or no Glen Moray (what is that, a carnivorous eel that lives in Scottish forests?),
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So fuck the obscenity of meaningless holiness, helpless privilege other than making that right.
quote:I deny that any such exist. This is a straw man.
Originally posted by IngoB:
and on the other hand the liberal, cafeteria, "practical charity is the only thing that matters" Christians
quote:Unfortunately, it is quite true that historically orthodox Christians of all traditions are increasingly primarily identified by their opposition to changing sexual mores, but that is not their fault.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The original post had to do with how you can tell, looking at a group, whether they are holding fast to the core of the traditional Christian religion. The person cited thought it was your attitude about sex. Some of us think it's your attitude about money, in part because of the horrific things people are saying about the poor, all in the name of Christianity.
Originally posted by HCH:
The original post had to do with Christianity and sex (reality, public perception, etc.). The discussion has turned into Christianity and money. What does that say about the Shipmates participating in the discussion?
What does that say about us? That we see Christians with distinctly non-Christian attitudes towards money, and think it is a worse witness for the Church than Christians with lenient attitudes towards gay sex.
But surely you can see this, and are asking some other question?
quote:Ha-ha. Great answer! I completely agree.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Sorry, I guess that was misleading. I tend to forget that there are people who are seriously trying to revive some kind of pagan religion. For me the real "neo-pagans" are simply the post-Christians apathetics that you will meet everywhere in the West.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find it odd that you hammer so much on the neo-pagans, even up to the point of considering them a threat. To me they are a slightly quaint little group with no real influence, that's all.
quote:So right.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Unfortunately, it is quite true that historically orthodox Christians of all traditions are increasingly primarily identified by their opposition to changing sexual mores, but that is not their fault...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The original post had to do with how you can tell, looking at a group, whether they are holding fast to the core of the traditional Christian religion. The person cited thought it was your attitude about sex. Some of us think it's your attitude about money, in part because of the horrific things people are saying about the poor, all in the name of Christianity.
Originally posted by HCH:
The original post had to do with Christianity and sex (reality, public perception, etc.). The discussion has turned into Christianity and money. What does that say about the Shipmates participating in the discussion?
On the subject of money, all Western Christians - theologically conservative and liberal, economically socialist and capitalist - fall short of Christ’s radical demands at a personal level, and therefore are in no position to adopt a holier-than-thou, pharisaical attitude toward any other Christian.
quote:In the West? Further marginalisation followed eventually by a kind of secular Dhimmitude. South America is on track to follow the West with a delay of maybe 50-100 years. Africa and Asia are the great unknowns (well, at least to me). Furthermore, it looks like global Islam is going to have a hard population crash within this century, a demographic reality curiously unnoticed. I have no idea how that is going to play for Christianity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the future of the church is what for you?
quote:That's okay; I am. At least on the moral level. I would go so far to say that the extreme right-wing, "fuck the poor" crowd is about a million miles away from anything like Christian charity, no matter how much they invoke Christ for it. But all of that stuff is really over on the "Can the Republican Party be Saved?" thread.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I myself support a soft-socialist, welfare-state position, but I would not be arrogant enough to dogmatise that this is necessarily morally or theologically superior to a more libertarian, minimal-state position, which can also be supported scripturally.
quote:The next generation, perhaps. Most of the current neo-pagan community are themselves converts, and often from a rather nasty form of Christianity, so expecting them to be very open to "the loving arms of Jesus" etc. just brings back bad memories for a lot of them. I am sure God understands their situation.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Whereas the Bible frequently speaks of the way that the Good News will spread among the pagans, the same cannot be said of the neo kind.
quote:It's not "all their money." At least here in the US, we have this horrible 1% thing going on, with many supposedly Christian politicians aggressively trying to destroy every single social program we have. Over in the UK and Europe things are a lot more "civilized" in that respect. Again, please check out the "Can Republican Party be Saved" thread.
Originally posted by Freddy:
I too was surprised and interested at how the topic changed to going after people who have failed to give all their money to the poor.
quote:By which I take it that he's saying that "traditional Christians" and "modern Christians" agree on every other item of doctrine and church life, disagreeing only in their beliefs about sex.
what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
quote:That just seems rather black and white to me. I had a rector, who was fairly high Anglo-Catholic, and also gay. You could say he was fairly traditional in doctrinal terms, but he was not anti-gay or misogynist.
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Reading just the OP, what he seems to believe is this:
quote:By which I take it that he's saying that "traditional Christians" and "modern Christians" agree on every other item of doctrine and church life, disagreeing only in their beliefs about sex.
what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
quote:If I understood him correctly he's saying that this is what is has been reduced to, at least in the public secular sphere.
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Reading just the OP, what he seems to believe is this:
quote:By which I take it that he's saying that "traditional Christians" and "modern Christians" agree on every other item of doctrine and church life, disagreeing only in their beliefs about sex.
what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
quote:Yes. The "in our common discourse" bit provides important context.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If I understood him correctly he's saying that this is what is has been reduced to, at least in the public secular sphere.
quote:In my experience there is some truth in that. Many traditional RC's and Orthodox would, for instance, reject modern economic liberalism, globalism, hyper-capitalism, militarianism, Zionism etc. at least in Europe (can't speak for America which, for the most part, seems an anomaly to me).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes. The "in our common discourse" bit provides important context.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If I understood him correctly he's saying that this is what is has been reduced to, at least in the public secular sphere.
So what he's saying is that when it comes to economics, politics, crime, poverty, international relations et al there's no meaningful difference between the "traditional" Christians and the "modern" Christians. It's only when sex becomes the subject that a difference appears.
quote:He is not even saying that, though I would agree that it is reasonably accurate if you substitute "significant and obvious" for "meaningful", and if your "et al." does not include any ecclesiastic or dogmatic matters. What Mr Dreher was saying is rather that when we (in the West) say "traditional Christian" in public discourse, we practically always have differences concerning sexual morals in mind. We only drag out this particular label when we want to talk about that sort of thing. A sentence that starts with "Traditional Christians ... " will end in something like " ... disapprove of gay marriage." It will not end in "... disagree about the precessions of the Trinity." Because the public doesn't care about that, however true. It will also typically not end in "... disapprove of unemployment benefits." Because they don't, or at least, they don't particularly more so than other Christians. As far as the public sphere with its secular concerns is concerned, the consistent stand out feature of traditional Christianity simply is its take on sexual morals, hence the label basically now indicates that. And this language usage holds true even for traditional Christians in their own engagement with the public sphere. That's what Mr Dreher was saying in his article, and in the snippet provided in the OP, best I can tell.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So what he's saying is that when it comes to economics, politics, crime, poverty, international relations et al there's no meaningful difference between the "traditional" Christians and the "modern" Christians. It's only when sex becomes the subject that a difference appears.
quote:I think it shows that the creedal heresy of a bishop can easily be marginalised and contained, or at least domesticated. That's why theological colleges get away with teaching and writing about things that could never be preached directly from pulpits. But changes in sexual morality are different - they influence whole denominations, and they enter the home very directly. They have practical implications.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
As far as the whole focus on sex thing is concerned...
(trying to avoid being Hellish about it)
... a lot of people left the Episcopal Church over the whole sex thing. They stayed during Spong and an array of other clergy who, bluntly, denied basic Creedal notions, even the Resurrection. What this says about them... I don't know.
I think it definitely says something about where their priorities are when they can swallow the camel of not believing that our God took on being human and died and rose again to save us from our sins, but strain the gnat of who diddles who. It leaves me baffled, flabbergasted, and disappointed. But they've basically left at this point for other churches...
quote:I honestly never got that impression, myself; indeed, ever since I started attending the Episcopal church circa 1985, finding a local church which was basically "orthodox" often involved a lot of hunting and searching. Sadly, I've been used to believing in more than the rector at most places.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But many clergy exercise a degree of self-censorship when it comes to expressing the unorthodox aspects their faith.
quote:Besides Kaplan Corday, who did this?
Originally posted by Freddy:
I too was surprised and interested at how the topic changed to going after people who have failed to give all their money to the poor.
quote:I suspect this is true. I was just thinking that I've come across a lot of Christians who seem to define their faith by their views and practices regarding sex (and alcohol too, a lot of time), but they have nearly all been American conservative Christians. I don't come across it so much here in the UK, although I wouldn't say it's wholly absent here. But it's sort of under the surface here, when it occurs, because, in my experience at least, traditional British conservative Christians don't tend to like to mention sex - the very mention of it can be seen as somehow immoral.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think we have a huge pond divide on this. American conservative Christians are hagridden with thinking about sex. British conservative Christians clearly are not.
