|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Do evangelicals love or hate their Jesus?
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The church historian Stuart Piggin applied the sort of criteria which Gamaliel quotes from Latham to the 1959 Billy Graham Crusade, arguably the most influential religious event in twentieth century Australian history, and concluded that it was indeed a revival.
However, he also pointed out that the overwhelming majority of "converts" came from a mainstream church background, so a non-evangelical could argue that they had actually experienced a deepening of commitment rather than regeneration.
In other words, revival can be a both/and rather than an either/or (this is spooky, I'm starting to sound like Gamaliel!)
Right. I was talking about how the average (evangelical Protestant) American uses the word "revival," in response to Gamaliel's comments on your observation of the strangeness (to others) of announcing that a revival will be held at a certain time and place. In my experience, at least in the Amdrican South, that's the primary meaning of "revival." That's all I was trying to say.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'll return to the OP and reconsider before further posting.
Good.
quote:
Meanwhile, however
Bad. You immediately go on to explain why it's the host that needs to reconsider. I have no alternative but to flag this to the admins.
/hosting
[ 04. August 2015, 06:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ooooh, let's play count the fallacies.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Ummm... As Gamaliel pointed out, the first bit of that sounds like a lot of 'ex-patriate' Orthodox bodies.
1. tu quoque
quote:
As regards "avoid the stain of involvement in greater society and politics" - do you mean you'd rather we were like that bunch in Munster?
2. straw man
quote:
(Who in turn had actually much more in common with the Orthodox/RCC/original-style-Anglicans/etc than with modern Anabaptism, of course).
3. ad hominem
quote:
No, we're not 'avoiding the stain of involvement' - more avoiding the stain of either innocent blood or the blood of people we should be trying to bring to Christ rather than send into the next world (or hopefully only our prisons). And avoiding the stain of being the coercers, the bullies, in the name of Jesus....
4. Not quite sure how to categorize this one. It has an element of the personal attack (we're not like YOU guys), but I think ultimately I'm going to go with false dichotomy aka black-or-white thinking.
quote:
Yes - that would be the 'completely different' world before the 'Catholic/Orthodox' church of the Roman Empire changed things by disregarding a lot of the teachings of that 'New Testament' in favour of a 'different' way of doing Christianity.... That's a difference the rights and wrongs of which might be worth considering very seriously....
5. straightforward ad hominem, both in the "you guys ruined Christianity" sense and the "you don't consider things seriously" sense.
quote:
I don't suppose we can simplistically restore the NT church in detail - but we can restore its principles like NOT being a 'kingdom of this world', NOT taking the sword, NOT being 'allotriepiskopoi/managers of other people's affairs', and others.
Unfortunately for our tally, "one note opera" is not a fallacy.
quote:
Or indeed, if you think about it, those are the principles of Jesus (the first two) and for RCs, that third one is a principle of the first (alleged) Pope.
6. I'm going to go with non sequitur here because I can't see what this sentence has to do with the rest of the post or indeed the thread at all. Wiser heads may overturn this one, I dunno.
quote:
AIUI, the complaint in the OP is precisely about the evangelicals who DO do "involvement in greater society and politics".
Threads take on a life of their own and are not beholden to anything said in the OP. This is particularly true in Purgatory.
quote:
You might also bear in mind that Anabaptists would mostly have preferred more (though different) involvement in 'the world' - but it was rather difficult while being persecuted by people who were supposed to be their fellow-Christians... hopefully we won't be having so much of that problem in the future....
7. ad misericordiam
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Mousethief, did you miss this host post where I warned about luring Steve into forbidden territory? Because it certainly looks like it.
Also, you cannot have failed to notice that Steve has just been referred to Admin for possible crusading.
We are trying to find the right way to address this issue backstage, and you're stirring the pot instead of giving us space to act. Back off Steve or call him to Hell.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Kaplan Corday - heh heh ... yes, well I think it's implicit in Latham's 'R' categorisations that one of the R's can develop into the next -- R1 into R2, R2 into R3 and so on ...
I don't know a great deal about Billy Graham's mission to Australia in 1959 other than that it had significant impact - perhaps more so than his earlier crusades here in the UK.
Also, given the time/circumstances etc it's hardly surprising that most of those affected will have been at least nominal or 'luke-warm' churchgoers or people with some kind of contact/knowledge of Christian belief. That would have been par for the course back then, more so than it is now.
These days, I'm less inclined to get involved in niceties such as whether these people were already regenerate and were then 'quickened' or vitalised by the mission - or whether they were coming to faith and being regenerated in evangelical terms for the 'first time' as it were - although I don't mean that to imply that you can be regenerated over and over again ...
I'm happy to live with it having significant impact and encouraging many people to own and practice their faith seriously - whether that faith was already 'latent' or something that came to them, as it were, during the mission itself.
@SvitlanaV2 - you seem to be getting into the issue of motivation in your concern about the term 'intentional'.
An intention is an intention is an intention ... although I know the term has specific nuances and meaning in an RC context.
Whether that intention is governed or motivated by noble, principled and prayerful intent, as it were, or simply a reaction to force of circumstances (or both), it still leds towards an intended result.
The context for my comments was the observation that even historic Churches such as the CofE, the RCC and the Orthodox are ultimately heading into more 'intentional' territory -- in a similar way to how the various Free Churches operate ie. by adopting a more 'gathered' or 'intentional' approach.
I'm not saying that the historic Churches capital C are necessarily the only model or even the default one - simply that, under the pressures of secularism, they too are likely - and are already to some extent - to adopt a more 'intentional' approach across the board. Whether that'll be driven by idealistic motives or it's simply an accommodation to the prevailing situation 'on the ground' is a secondary issue - in fact, I'm say that was neither here nor there in terms of the overall point I was making.
Pomona has asked what I meant by 'intentional', whether I had RC religious orders in mind, perhaps - or something like the houses/communities set up by the Catholic Workers Movement and so on ...
Well, yes, I do see initiatives like that as part and parcel of what I'm talking about -- but not exclusively.
As for whether churches like the CofE exist to serve the amorphous mass of the 'uncommitted' as well as their own 'intentional' or 'gathered' communities - well, yes ... most churches, whether 'established' or otherwise have some kind of 'fringe' as well as an inner core ... it's rather like concentric circles radiating out from the centre.
That applies to Free Churches as well as the historic Churches - although, in the case of some of the more full-on Protestant 'sects' (and I use the term in a sociological and non-perjorative way) and indeed, I'd suggest, Orthodox 'convert parishes' - that fringe is thinner than it might be at your average Anglican or Methodist church.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes. Sociologically speaking, isn't the extent of the fringe (or, to put it another way, the strictness of the demarcation between "church" and "world") one of the key characteristics which defines "denominations", "sects" and "cults"?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
Mousethief, did you miss this host post where I warned about luring Steve into forbidden territory? Because it certainly looks like it.
Also, you cannot have failed to notice that Steve has just been referred to Admin for possible crusading.
We are trying to find the right way to address this issue backstage, and you're stirring the pot instead of giving us space to act. Back off Steve or call him to Hell.
/hosting
Mea culpa. I did miss it and do not wish to mess up the hosts' and admins' work. I also failed to take into account the practical implications of the referral you refer to. I apologize.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
This discussion is, apparently, entirely about the CofE.
But you could remember when discussing the CofE and intentionality, that everywhere in the world except England, Anglicanism is intentional and has been for decades -- centuries in some cases.
You are exploring intentionalism as an interesting, radical and possibly dangerous variation ("it will change everything about the ethos of the church"). Well yes, and that's possibly the -- I would say desirable -- point. But please remember it is the norm in Anglicanism (and Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy), and only (some in) the CofE hasn't noticed.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
To be fair, the OP mentioned experiences of evangelicalism that were similarly culture-specific. It may not be the case, for example, that evangelicals in India, Finland, Burkina Faso or Uruguay would uniformly disapprove of the govt helping the poor....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
To be fair, the OP mentioned experiences of evangelicalism that were similarly culture-specific. It may not be the case, for example, that evangelicals in India, Finland, Burkina Faso or Uruguay would uniformly disapprove of the govt helping the poor....
Probably not-- since again, as we have seen, it is not universally true that American evangelicals uniformly disapprove of the govt helping the poor....
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Point taken, John Holding.
I'd also hold that - by and large - the Anglican church here in the UK is also pretty 'intentional' to a greater extent than may appear at first ... even if you still hear comments like, 'No, we're not religious, we're CofE ...' or if people put it down as the default 'religion' on official forms and what-not without necessarily engaging with it in any way.
And no, I'm not using 'intentionality' solely to convey a sense of principled and thought-through involvement in a nobly pietistic and prayerful way ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
To be fair, the OP mentioned experiences of evangelicalism that were similarly culture-specific. It may not be the case, for example, that evangelicals in India, Finland, Burkina Faso or Uruguay would uniformly disapprove of the govt helping the poor....
Only an experience from a single place in India, but the group I visited in India (which would probably be described somewhere on the charismatic and/or pentecostal evangelical spectrum) was very heavily involved in social action: schools, clinics, meals, housebuilding.. all went on alongside village prayer meetings and other spiritual care (by a very large team of dedicated evangelists).
In Cairo, both the Anglicans and St Andrews (which historically was a Scottish congregational church) could be described as Evangelical and both have extensive work with refugees and others.
In fact, my experience around the world is that Evangelicals in Western Europe and North America are unusual in thinking that social action is not expected and/or actually an antithesis of the gospel.
But then, of course, I've not been everywhere..
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Mind you, St Andrews Cairo appears to be a Lutheran church. Maybe my memory is playing tricks.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
We all speak out of our own experience. Regarding the claim that we've focused too much on the CofE, that's particularly evident in the posters who ... live in England! Posters who interact with Anglicanism elsewhere will have other priorities or concerns.
Nevertheless, the CofE is the 'mother church' of the Anglican Communion, and if its future is precarious (with 'intentional' significance or otherwise) wouldn't this be of interest to Anglicans elsewhere? Maybe not.
Regarding intentionality as such, the churches of the Anglican Communion were mostly founded around the British Empire as de facto institutional churches by British colonialists, so if they're now focused on a 'gathered community' this wouldn't always have been the case, in theory. The British colonies in the Caribbean, for example, were assumed from the start to be Anglican, and the successes of the other denominations there were seen as unwelcome challenges to that identity.
The other churches of the Anglican communion may well have contemporary lessons to teach English Anglicans about intentionality, however.
[ 04. August 2015, 16:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Possibly. But the Church in Wales doesn't seem to have done much to teach the apparently less 'intentional' Church of England about intentionality ...
Being Established (or Disestablished) doesn't, in and of itself, increase or decrease 'intentionality' - but it is an influencing factor of course.
My point wasn't an exclusively Anglican one - what I'm suggesting is that a degree of nominalism is the flip-side, if you like, of all of the 'historic Churches' ... you hear people talk about 'practising Catholics' for instance in a way you wouldn't hear about 'practising Pentecostals' ... to be a Pentecostal(for instance) it's generally assumed that you are 'practising' one ... however fervent or otherwise you might actually be.
The Orthodox will talk about 'the faithful' - by which they mean those who are faithful in attendance at the Liturgy and at observing the feasts and fasts of the Calendar -- rather than people who are culturally or nominally Orthodox.
What I'm suggesting is that a greater degree of 'intentionality' and the forming of 'opt-in' parishes or congregations - rather than 'assume you are in' - could become more prevalent across all the historic Churches in future ...
Of course, you can't 'legislate' for that or determine at a synod or conference that this is the way it's going to be ...
But in practice, I suspect that'll be the way it'll go as nominal adherents either drift away entirely or else form a more closer fringe or even get more involved.
It's difficult to see how some shows can stay on the road otherwise.
As to whether Anglicans in Australia, Canada or the USA could teach their British brethren and sisteren more about 'intentionality' - well, I'm not sure they could. For a kick-off, whilst recognisable in so many ways - and all sharing the same Western style society -- Australian, Canadian and US cultures are different to our own ... and you will also find nominal or less 'practising' Anglicans in all these places too - not just in the UK.
Anyhow - whatever the case, however we cut it, we are all going to have to develop sustainable 'plausibility structures' in some way. The RCs have typically done that through schools and education ... for the Anglicans it was always the traditional parish system (which is now breaking down of course and has been doing so for some time) ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nevertheless, the CofE is the 'mother church' of the Anglican Communion, and if its future is precarious (with 'intentional' significance or otherwise) wouldn't this be of interest to Anglicans elsewhere? Maybe not.
Pretty much the role of the "mother church" in the Anglican Communion is that it provides a theoretical platform from which the ABC (any recent ABC) can pontificate to the rest of us based on a stunning lack of knowledge about who we are and how we work. Otherwise, no more role than two sisters have for each other -- some affection, but that's the lot.
quote:
Regarding intentionality as such, the churches of the Anglican Communion were mostly founded around the British Empire as de facto institutional churches by British colonialists, so if they're now focused on a 'gathered community' this wouldn't always have been the case, in theory. The British colonies in the Caribbean, for example, were assumed from the start to be Anglican, and the successes of the other denominations there were seen as unwelcome challenges to that identity.
You mustn't over generalize based on fairly sketchy history. What you say is certainly true about the colonies of the Caribbean. Less true (in that there was no official position, or it was so long ago -- centuries in a couple of cases) or utterly irrelevent in the case of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India and so on -- not to mention the (admittedly very small) churches of the communion in Japan, Hong Kong, Mexico/Central and South America and so on.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, all of that is the case, John.
I was quite surprised when I first encountered hostility towards various Archbishops of Canterbury from Anglicans in other parts of the world ...
I'd just blithely, and naively, assumed that they'd all be quite happy to go along with whatever came out of Canterbury ...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
The same thing happens among the Orthodox, it seems, I've been quite shocked at some of the language various canonical Orthodox use when referring to their own Patriarch ...
But yes, guilty as charged - the 'Mother Church' can very often act in a sphincter-tighteningly embarrassing and patronising way towards its daughter (or sister?) Anglican churches in other parts of the world.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
If the Anglican Communion around the world sees itself as sharing very little with the Church of England, whether today or historically, one wonders whether the 'Communion' has much of as future. But then the same could be said of the CofE, whose adherents often appear to have little in common with each other.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I think the thing that is often missed in the CofE is that the CofE doesn't run the Anglican Communion -- it's an equal partner. The rest of us simply aren't interested in being told what or how to do things by a church which is so solidly based in establishment, Englishness and, for some of us, is so stuck in the past that we've long since ceased even waiting for the CofE to catch up with the present.
50-60 years ago it would have been correct to say that many Anglicans regarded the CofE as the "mother church". Now the communion sees its members as sisters of each other, with no one in a superior position to the others.
The idea that without deference to the CofE, the Communion is meaningless is simply wrong.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I didn't say that the CofE's sister Anglican churches should 'defer' to either Englishness, Establishment or Erastianism, John.
I'm not sure anyone else here is saying that either.
It might be how the Church of England 'acts' and comes across at times, though.
Not living in Canada, Australia, the USA, Papua New Guinea, Nigeria or the South Pacific, I have no idea how the CofE comes across to Anglicans in those parts of the world.
Some US Episcopalians strike me as unhealthily interested in the British monarchy and other tokens of Englishness though ...
I have no idea whether that applies to any Anglicans in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else ...
I think SvitlanaV2's question is a valid one - as I've wondered for years how long the CofE can hold itself together as a cohesive unit here in England. Sure, that may or may not have implications for sister Anglican churches overseas, but I can see SvitlanaV2's point ...
Mind you, one might equally ask how Methodists worldwide might benefit from belonging to a worldwide communion or denomination?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
In the context of evangelicanism, The Salvation Army is quite possibly the only church that is solid in its internationalism. In fact, in government, authority and unity, we are probably the only Christian church outside Roman Catholicism that is so centrally unified. Our Soldiers and Junior Soldiers sign exactly the same covenantal promises, whether in the USA or in Eastern Europe, South Africa, or China. Our officers all sign exactly the same Officers' Covenant. The doctrines (expounded in one universally authorised doctrine handbook) are part of these covenants and the English speaking SA even shares exactly the same hymn book, issued on the sole authority of the General.
It is entirely possibly to be perfectly controlled by the centre and yet have local cultural expression.
Actually, our government more or less mirrors Catholic Episcopal ranks - from one General (Pope) down through Commissioners (Cardinals), Divisional Commanders (Bishops) to Commanding Officers (Me, the Parish priest)
[ 06. August 2015, 19:53: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mind you, one might equally ask how Methodists worldwide might benefit from belonging to a worldwide communion or denomination?
Well, judging from what you say above about Anglicans, Methodists abroad don't seem to feel quite as affronted by the leaders of British Methodism. It's not something I've ever been aware of, and I've met a few Methodists from other countries.
Many years ago I was fortunate to be sent to Togo with a small group of other British Methodists in order to participate in the ceremony by which the Methodist Church of Togo became autonomous. A former President of Conference was with us. I didn't expect or experience any kind of resentment or hostility from either side. Everyone was very welcoming. It felt like a Methodist 'family' event, not like a bunch of distantly related people who didn't have much in common straining to be civil....
With regard to the Methodists, I was going to respond to an earlier comment of yours:
quote:
What I'm suggesting is that a greater degree of 'intentionality' and the forming of 'opt-in' parishes or congregations - rather than 'assume you are in' - could become more prevalent across all the historic Churches in future ...
Methodist membership inherently works on a sort of 'in or out' system in a number of practical ways. There certainly isn't an 'assume you are in' concept in terms of serving in an official lay capacity in the congregation, or voting at the church council meeting; you must be a member.
Because Methodism tends to be short of official lay workers and high on official tasks, 'serving in a lay capacity' isn't an exotic idea only for rare enthusiasts; everyone is sized up for their potential. Membership not only binds people to the church but makes it more likely that these positions of responsibility will be filled, so almost any presentable person who attends often enough will be asked to consider it. I don't think this tendency is a new thing in British Methodism either. And of course, the Methodist Church has always been careful to count the numbers of members it has; this is a clear sign of belonging.
It's hard to imagine, actually, how the Methodist Church could become more 'intentional' than it already is, in the sense that you mean. The Methodist penumbra has shrunk faster than its RCC and CofE equivalents. There are, of course, members who no longer attend, but the concept of the nominal, lapsed or non-practising Methodist is rather culturally weak when compared with the RCC and CofE. Where the concept exists, the affiliation will probably be stronger in the Methodist than the CofE case, because those with a weak affiliation will simply stop seeking themselves as Methodists at all. And the antagonistic or conflicted relationship with the Church often implied in 'lapsed Catholic' doesn't exist in the Methodist case, AFAICS.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks both SvitlanaV2 and Mudfrog for those interesting observations.
I'm struck, though that whilst I've met many disgruntled former RCs and disillusioned evangelicals and charismatics - some of whom seem to base their entire identity around not being what they once were, I've not met many former Methodists who make a big deal out of that - although, thinking about it I can think of two ...
I'm not sure whether this tells us anything about 'intentionality' ...
Mind you, I did work with a bloke once whose mother had been an ardent Methodist in her youth but no longer went to church because she believed she'd accumulated sufficient air-miles as it were from that time .
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Togo thing sounds lovely, SvitlanaV2 and I'm sure you'd find that UK Anglicans who'd engaged in similar exchanges or visits to Anglicans in Togo, Africa or anywhere else would have similar reports of finding a shared sense of 'family' and so on ...
I s'pose what I was alluding to is various gripes and grumbles at what we might call an episcopal or jurisdictional level ...
There are also tensions within the Anglican communion as a whole between the older, and generally more liberal, churches in the northern hemisphere with those in the 'southern cone' ... so Nigerian Anglicans, for instance, are notoriously far more conservative than their fellow Anglicans might be in the US, Canada, the UK or Australia ... Sydney Anglicans notwithstanding ...
Added to that, as John Holding has said, some of the Anglican churches feel as though the CofE doesn't bother to try to understand them but simply expects them to do what it does ...
Whether this makes for greater or lesser tensions than are found in Methodism, I don't know ... but what I suspect Methodism doesn't have or suffer from is the same kind of residual notions of 'Englishness' that may grate - understandably so - with Anglicans who aren't from England (or possibly even the UK in general).
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I guess I'd also add that "meaningfulness" is about shared theology and beliefs, and was never primarily about organization and authority. That's why the Anglican Communion is in full communion with the reformed catholic communities in Spain and Portugal and the Phillipines, for example, which certainly share less of a common history than even the US Episcopal CHurch.
Now I grant you that shared theology and beliefs is a difficult one in this day and age, but fellowship with other Anglicans seems to me to be what the communion is about primarily, and that has to do with shared faith to a large degree, and acceptance of being in fellowship even with those (eg Sydney) who seem to some of us to be on the very edge theologically of what "Anglican" means.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
generally more liberal
notoriously far more conservative
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well spotted Kaplan.
Your point?
Would 'notoriously more liberal ... generally more conservative' suit you?
That way it'd be both/and ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think everyone is aware that the liberal North and the conservative South don't get on too well in the Anglican Communion!
My sense is that many conservative Nigerian and other black Anglicans in the UK and the USA, etc. who do remain in the Anglican Communion often do so for familiarity, as one would expect, but also because of the social desirability of being Anglican. This is not to be sniffed at by a group that may already be experiencing social disadvantages.
The theological differences are therefore glossed over, or rather, IMO, there's a certain 'signifying' going on, a spiritual double consciousness, in which white liberality is officially tolerated for the benefits that come along with it, while a conservative personal theology is taken to be more spiritually significant on a personal and cultural level.
(I'm sure something similar happens in Methodism, but there are fewer ethnic minorities in British Methodism than in the CofE. I also have a feeling that congregations united by a shared minority language and/or ethnicity are also more numerous in Methodism. They're certainly growing in number. This means that liberal white clergy will be less of an issue for them.)
Of course, the people who don't want to be doing with this can now switch to any of the more conservative denominations that have appeared in the cities over recent decades. Many are likely to have done so. The largest Pentecostal denomination in the UK is now of Nigerian origin.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Would 'notoriously more liberal ... generally more conservative' suit you?
That way it'd be both/and ...
Oh yeah, baby!
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure something similar happens in Methodism
Here in Australia, the Uniting Church, a 1970s amalgam of Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists, is the main representative of old, moribund, Western, mainstream liberal Protestantism.
It contains a number of congregations of Pacific Islander immigrants, from places such as Fiji which were evangelised by Methodist missionaries back in the nineteenth century.
The UC hierarchy simultaneously celebrates them in line with its support for multiculturalism, and ignores or patronises them for their theological and social conservatism.
[ 07. August 2015, 23:35: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I know I get called up for fence-sitting on these boards, but I do seriously believe that the extreme liberal end of the spectrum and the extreme conservative ends are equally as bonkers.
Where the equilibrium lies ... I have no idea ... YMMV ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In the context of evangelicanism, The Salvation Army is quite possibly the only church that is solid in its internationalism. In fact, in government, authority and unity, we are probably the only Christian church outside Roman Catholicism that is so centrally unified. Our Soldiers and Junior Soldiers sign exactly the same covenantal promises, whether in the USA or in Eastern Europe, South Africa, or China. Our officers all sign exactly the same Officers' Covenant. The doctrines (expounded in one universally authorised doctrine handbook) are part of these covenants and the English speaking SA even shares exactly the same hymn book, issued on the sole authority of the General.
It is entirely possibly to be perfectly controlled by the centre and yet have local cultural expression.
Actually, our government more or less mirrors Catholic Episcopal ranks - from one General (Pope) down through Commissioners (Cardinals), Divisional Commanders (Bishops) to Commanding Officers (Me, the Parish priest)
Notwithstanding the bragging about it being 'the only...' this is a startling bit of info for me. Are there orders or commands from the chain of command you can refuse? Obedience must be a central value; does Jesus command your obedience? Certainly not mine.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Obedience must be a central value; does Jesus command your obedience? Certainly not mine.
Some would say that obedience to God is a central facet of Christianity - although, interestingly, it doesn't appear to be the priority that it is in Islam. Rather, the emphasis tends to be on relationship.
This is a significant difference between the two religions, I think. In fact, would an ordinary Muslim ever ask if an Islamic extremist 'loved or hated' the Prophet Mohammed? The question simply sounds strange. The issue for Muslims seems to be whether or not they're obedient (or feel themselves to be obedient) to Mohammed's teachings.
In the long term the Muslim focus on obedience will probably be particularly beneficial for the coherence of the religion. Despite the violent extremism, I feel that Islam will have a better chance of holding together than Christianity. But that's a big tangent that deserves its own thread.
[ 11. August 2015, 00:53: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, this is bizarre to me; why wouldn't Jesus have my obedience? I mean, as my maker and redeemer, surely that makes sense?
Now it's true that I don't go around all day obsessing about obedience or submission or what have you, any more than my son does with regards to his parents; "love" and/or "respect" is the usual way I name it. The motivation, in other words, rather than the outcome.
But yes, it's still obedience. "If you love me, obey me," said Jesus, and that makes sense, given who he is. Even more so, given the fact that he's commanding obedience for our own good, not his.
I could equally well say this to my kid.* "If you love me as your mother, for gosh sakes obey me and don't be skipping school and doing drugs, you're breaking my heart here." "If you really love me, stop beating up your sister and carrying the cat around by the tail; don't give me flowery Mother's day cards and at the same time ignore everything I've been banging on about for the last zillion years!"
* No, LL has more sense (and love for his mother ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) than to do drugs or torture cats. Don't worry, these are hypothetical cases.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Trust and obey, for there's no other way?
Lamb Chopped, the issue for obedience is that we kid ourselves sometimes. In the extent to which we trust our consciences, those of others, and the accuracy of our own interpretations.
I think learning who and what to trust is the precursor to obedience. There's a line from a Keith Green song that keeps me on track with the tension of these things.
"'Cause it's dust to dust, until we learn how to trust".
The "yes but how" of trusting is a big deal. We trust those we love, until they let us down. Then "trust but verify" comes into play. We navigate between naivety and paranoia!
[ 11. August 2015, 06:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trust and obey, for there's no other way?
Lamb Chopped, the issue for obedience is that we kid ourselves sometimes. In the extent to which we trust our consciences, those of others, and the accuracy of our own interpretations.
I think learning who and what to trust is the precursor to obedience. There's a line from a Keith Green song that keeps me on track with the tension of these things.
"'Cause it's dust to dust, until we learn how to trust".
The "yes but how" of trusting is a big deal. We trust those we love, until they let us down. Then "trust but verify" comes into play. We navigate between naivety and paranoia!
Okay, I must be misunderstanding. When I referred to obedience, I was thinking of the ordinary, everyone-agrees-on-this stuff, such as avoiding backstabbing, hatred, lying, cheating, stealing, greed, etc. etc. etc. Not dead horses, which I'm guessing is in your mind, since you bring up interpretations?
And I was also only referring to obedience to God (that is of course including Christ). Obedience to ordinary human beings is another kettle of fish entirely.
As for trust, I think you can make a case for saying that trust is a form of obedience--or obedience is a form of trust--or both together. They certainly seem to go together in time.
For example, I'm not going to obey God if I don't trust him, why should I? His motives in commanding this or that might be bad ones, or simply harmful to me, regardless of his motives. But if I trust him to a) have my best interests in mind, b) care about me and my best interests, c) be wise enough to know what's best, then obedience is a natural consequence. Or would be, if I weren't a sinner.
Conversely, to trust God is in fact to obey him, as we are commanded to trust him in a bunch of places. "What should we do, to be doing the work of God?" "The work of God is this: to trust in the one he has sent" (John 6).
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, this is bizarre to me; why wouldn't Jesus have my obedience? I mean, as my maker and redeemer, surely that makes sense?
Now it's true that I don't go around all day obsessing about obedience or submission or what have you, any more than my son does with regards to his parents; "love" and/or "respect" is the usual way I name it. The motivation, in other words, rather than the outcome.
But yes, it's still obedience. "If you love me, obey me," said Jesus, and that makes sense, given who he is. Even more so, given the fact that he's commanding obedience for our own good, not his.
Given the context—asking whether Mudfrog could refuse to follow orders of a superior in TSA—I took no prophet's to be asking whether Jesus commands our obedience to religious superiors. Perhaps I misread?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, I think you've put your finger on it. I read:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Obedience must be a central value; does Jesus command your obedience? Certainly not mine.
as:
... Is your obedience [to himself] something Jesus has the right to command?...
and apparently it really meant:
... Does Jesus command [you to give] your obedience [to religious superiors]?
If that's the case, then my confusion was due to a misreading. Thanks much!
[ 12. August 2015, 06:11: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for trust, I think you can make a case for saying that trust is a form of obedience--or obedience is a form of trust--or both together. They certainly seem to go together in time.
I think it's quite easy to prise apart trust and obedience. I will most likely obey a man with a gun to my head, even if I don't trust him for a minute. I trust my wife implicitly, but I don't obey her.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes indeed. Whether one works in terms of theosis (Orthodox) or sanctification, willing and trusting obedience are brought more fully by increasing Christ-likeness. But when it comes to obeying human beings with all sorts of power advantages, superior force is likely to have more influence.
On the way to our ultimate destiny, obedience may be accompanied by gritted teeth of course, given the imperfect understanding by ourselves (and those in authority over us in our churches) of the Divine Will and Divine purposes. Conscience has a proper part to play in all of that.
We all see the sense of these famous sayings.
quote:
“A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still” ― Dale Carnegie
"We must alter our lives in order to alter our hearts, for it is impossible to live one way and pray another.
He who has learned to pray has learned the greatest secret of a holy and happy life.
If you have not chosen the Kingdom of God first, it will in the end make no difference what you have chosen instead.
Humility is nothing else but a right judgment of ourselves." - William Law
[ 12. August 2015, 08:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Aaaarghhhh. MT, that was with reference to Christ--not to any kind of trust/obedience that ever existed.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Aaaarghhhh. MT, that was with reference to Christ--not to any kind of trust/obedience that ever existed.
That wasn't clear to me, especially when you added, "I could equally well say this to my kid."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Heard of analogies before?
Yes. And I've also heard of examples. If it's unclear which of the two a writer is presenting, it's seldom the fault of the reader.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
First rule of hermeneutics: If one reading makes the author look like a raving loon, while the other is mildly reasonable, the second is to be preferred. Unless one is point scoring on Ship of Fools, of course. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Or foolishly thinking that maybe somebody hasn't thought out all the implications of their statements. Which never, ever, never happens here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Well, they are coming back, these not-so-evangelical rellies of mine. Due in just more than 2 days. I have become convinced from the posts on this thread that I have besmirched the moniker 'evangelical' due to lack of understanding how genial and companionable many of you are. Educational. Sorry for besmirching the moniker 'evangelical'. These are merely my 'godless rellies who are somehow into God'.
To prepare, I have changed the wireless network name to "just say no to stephen", meaning Harper, who besides being the prime minister of Canada and campaigning for re-election on 19 Oct, is their like minded conservative in mind, religion, spirit and neckties. (I will have to clear it with the powers that be in this house to see if I get to leave it.) We have planned some activities and food that hopefully will keep the conversation topical to what we're doing, but we are not going to hide the wine this time.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
