homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: Distressed by homophobia (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: Distressed by homophobia
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

It's one thing not to blame current day Christians for the slave holding Christians of the past, unless they are still slaveholders.
It's another to say moving to a new building and generating a new organization doesn't make you responsible for the things you did in the old place and organization.

In this specific case, the most of the leaders of the Church planting probably were part of a parent church. The parent church could have been the institution that oppressed generations.

It's an interesting argument, not least because it puts Christians from postcolonial and other oppressed cultures in a quandary. Not only did their ancestors suffer at the hands of Christians, but by belonging to a historical church (or indeed any church, you seem inclined to say) they're complicit in, and indeed responsible for, their own ancestral oppression! I'll have to run that idea by the one or two of the black theologians I know to see what they think of it.

However, the notion of institutional oppression (especially racism, and now homophobia) within churches and elsewhere is well-known these days. There are individuals within those churches who struggle against oppression, but your argument implies that they remain 'responsible' for that oppression by virtue of remaining part of an institutionalised, global religion, even if they leave one denomination for another. From your perspective, the only liberating option for them is to give up on Christianity altogether. Which some do, of course.

As for your last paragraph, it curiously assumes that church plants are mostly generated by historical churches. I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that new churches tend to be planted by church movements that are often only a few decades old. Certainly, in the UK the historical denominations are closing more churches than they're opening. It's possible that DouglastheOtter is in an Anglican church plant, but I think it would have become apparent earlier in the discussion if this were so.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

It's one thing not to blame current day Christians for the slave holding Christians of the past, unless they are still slaveholders.
It's another to say moving to a new building and generating a new organization doesn't make you responsible for the things you did in the old place and organization.

In this specific case, the most of the leaders of the Church planting probably were part of a parent church. The parent church could have been the institution that oppressed generations.

It's an interesting argument, not least because it puts Christians from postcolonial and other oppressed cultures in a quandary. Not only did their ancestors suffer at the hands of Christians, but by belonging to a historical church (or indeed any church, you seem inclined to say) they're complicit in, and indeed responsible for, their own ancestral oppression! I'll have to run that idea by the one or two of the black theologians I know to see what they think of it.

However, the notion of institutional oppression (especially racism, and now homophobia) within churches and elsewhere is well-known these days. There are individuals within those churches who struggle against oppression, but your argument implies that they remain 'responsible' for that oppression by virtue of remaining part of an institutionalised, global religion, even if they leave one denomination for another. From your perspective, the only liberating option for them is to give up on Christianity altogether. Which some do, of course.

If the the oppressed continue participating in a church which actively continues the oppression then yes, they inherit the patrimony. Ask your Black Theologian friends about those who participate in a church which maintains the colonial or racist oppression against themselves.

I'd rather you not surmise my interpretations since you seem to read my posts very poorly and constantly misunderstand them.

From my perspective, there are two decent options;
move on to another church which denounces the oppression, or struggle actively to change the church so it both no longer oppresses and declares the prior oppression of the institution as an error.
The third option; stay in the church and make pathetic excuses like "it's all part of theological diversity" or "In a modern big city the oppressed within the church can move on to another church" or "a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades" or "It's not so bad anymore but we don't want to confront it and besides it's traditional" then yes, you win the patrimony of your tradition.


quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

As for your last paragraph, it curiously assumes that church plants are mostly generated by historical churches. I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that new churches tend to be planted by church movements that are often only a few decades old. Certainly, in the UK the historical denominations are closing more churches than they're opening. It's possible that DouglastheOtter is in an Anglican church plant, but I think it would have become apparent earlier in the discussion if this were so.

Ah yes;
"a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades"

Yes. So?

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wonder if it makes sense to look at this in terms of repentance? Churches which have fully repented of any slave holding history and which now zealously work against it - give their testimony against it - can be responsible in the sense of responsibly handling their past, being honest in abhorring past mistakes and not covering them up and making sure not to make them again, but are no longer responsible as in immediately culpable.

This is one of the problems I have with approaches to institutional sexism and homophobia which seek to appease people who still believe in it. It's not true repentance for all the damage done over the centuries to gay people and women when you are telling members in good standing in your church that it's fine to keep doing it. Recently another historian was telling me about slave compensation schemes- the equivalent of thousands of pounds in today's money was given to the owners but not a penny to the slaves! Nobody batted an eyelid.

Better than continuing slavery yes, but still a long way short of proper repentance. I suppose it raises the question of what would real institutional repentance for anti-gay teaching over centuries look like? I think pretty obviously not like that church plant... If you're still teaching a variant of it, you're still culpable for keeping the legacy of harm going.

[cross-post with Palimpsest]

[ 26. July 2013, 03:03: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...
This is one of the problems I have with approaches to institutional sexism and homophobia which seek to appease people who still believe in it. It's not true repentance for all the damage done over the centuries to gay people and women when you are telling members in good standing in your church that it's fine to keep doing it. Recently another historian was telling me about slave compensation schemes- the equivalent of thousands of pounds in today's money was given to the owners but not a penny to the slaves! Nobody batted an eyelid.

Better than continuing slavery yes, but still a long way short of proper repentance.



In a slight tangent, Adam Hochschild's history of the British Anti-Slavery movement Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves one of his examples was one of the largest West Indies Sugar Plantation. It was owned by the Society for the Propagation of the Word which used the profits to fund missionary tracts. They, like the other slave owners, were indemnified for the emancipation of their slaves.

I don't know if the society or it's descendants ever acknowledge the error of owning slaves.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If the the oppressed continue participating in a church which actively continues the oppression then yes, they inherit the patrimony. Ask your Black Theologian friends about those who participate in a church which maintains the colonial or racist oppression against themselves.
[...]
From my perspective, there are two decent options;
move on to another church which denounces the oppression, or struggle actively to change the church so it both no longer oppresses and declares the prior oppression of the institution as an error.

From what they've written, the black theologians I know feel that the churches they belong to are still 'struggling' with institutional oppression to varying degrees. This is 'active' oppression in some senses. But they stay and try to deal with it because they clearly feel that these churches have more of value in them than not. The one guy who attends a black church has said that the white (more) liberal alternatives tend to be culturally and spiritually inappropriate.


quote:

I'd rather you not surmise my interpretations since you seem to read my posts very poorly and constantly misunderstand them.

That's because I don't know you. We haven't really engaged before. I don't even know if you're a Christian. But I'm getting more of a picture now, especially with this paragraph:

quote:

The third option; stay in the church and make pathetic excuses like "it's all part of theological diversity" or "In a modern big city the oppressed within the church can move on to another church" or "a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades" or "It's not so bad anymore but we don't want to confront it and besides it's traditional" then yes, you win the patrimony of your tradition.

I'm sorry if you think I've completely misunderstood you again, but what this suggests to me is that you despise the vast majority of Christian churches and see them as more or less irredeemable. The only answer for people who really feel like this is to leave the churches and let them wither and die. Plenty of them do die; the predictions are gloomy for many British churches. Maybe this is payback for centuries of oppression.

For me, the issue of homosexuality in the church has two sides, one of which is pastoral and the other, theological. All churches seriously need to improve their pastoral care, compassion and understanding towards gay people. But this won't necessarily mean that they'll all reach the exact same affirmative theological conclusion about SSM, any more than they have about other aspects of sexual behaviour.

I understand that it's this distinction that you truly hate. If it makes things any better, I don't believe that the state has any obligation to pay any attention whatsoever to any church on these matters. If the society wants SSM then it should happen. And if the society thinks the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then that should happen. The legal equality of SSM isn't about any particular church.

quote:

"a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades"

Yes. So?

Usually when people talk about a 'parent church' they're referring to the founding church of a particular denomination or its institutional headquarters, not the very first church that met in St. Paul's living room, or wherever. But now I get your point.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If the the oppressed continue participating in a church which actively continues the oppression then yes, they inherit the patrimony. Ask your Black Theologian friends about those who participate in a church which maintains the colonial or racist oppression against themselves.
[...]
From my perspective, there are two decent options;
move on to another church which denounces the oppression, or struggle actively to change the church so it both no longer oppresses and declares the prior oppression of the institution as an error.

From what they've written, the black theologians I know feel that the churches they belong to are still 'struggling' with institutional oppression to varying degrees. This is 'active' oppression in some senses. But they stay and try to deal with it because they clearly feel that these churches have more of value in them than not. The one guy who attends a black church has said that the white (more) liberal alternatives tend to be culturally and spiritually inappropriate.

quote:

I'd rather you not surmise my interpretations since you seem to read my posts very poorly and constantly misunderstand them.



quote:

That's because I don't know you. We haven't really engaged before. I don't even know if you're a Christian. But I'm getting more of a picture now, especially with this paragraph:

I am not a Christian. I have an interest because several friends of mine who were Christian were badly damaged by Christian Pastoral care.


quote:

The third option; stay in the church and make pathetic excuses like "it's all part of theological diversity" or "In a modern big city the oppressed within the church can move on to another church" or "a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades" or "It's not so bad anymore but we don't want to confront it and besides it's traditional" then yes, you win the patrimony of your tradition.


quote:
I'm sorry if you think I've completely misunderstood you again, but what this suggests to me is that you despise the vast majority of Christian churches and see them as more or less irredeemable. The only answer for people who really feel like this is to leave the churches and let them wither and die. Plenty of them do die; the predictions are gloomy for many British churches. Maybe this is payback for centuries of oppression.
I don't have the expertise to take a detailed census or know which are toxic beyond redemption and which are can be fixed. For example the Southern Baptists are attempting to deal with the racism that was woven into that denomination at its creation.
The theology of several major churches has changed in the most part so they don't feel the need to kill Jews as part of the celebration of Easter. My own personal bet is that the Mormons are going to do a rapid transition from "Gays can't get married" to "Gays like all other Mormons should get married and raise more Mormons".

But for the ones which are not striving to eliminate their toxicity, yes men of good will should encourage them to wither and die.

quote:

For me, the issue of homosexuality in the church has two sides, one of which is pastoral and the other, theological. All churches seriously need to improve their pastoral care, compassion and understanding towards gay people. But this won't necessarily mean that they'll all reach the exact same affirmative theological conclusion about SSM, any more than they have about other aspects of sexual behaviour.

I understand that it's this distinction that you truly hate. If it makes things any better, I don't believe that the state has any obligation to pay any attention whatsoever to any church on these matters. If the society wants SSM then it should happen. And if the society thinks the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then that should happen. The legal equality of SSM isn't about any particular church.

I agree that churches should be allowed to do or not do same sex marriage, or for that matter, like the Shakers, no marriage at all. As an American I'm still fiddling with the concept of an established church that refuses to marry some citizens but my American outlook leads me to ask why you want an established church rather than compelling it to do anything.
I also feel that any church can pick and choose it's members. That comes with Freedom of Assembly. What raises my ire is the claim that gays should be members of the church but in a restricted role that I've seen damage or destroy gay people just as it would for a church that insists that scriptural wisdom tells them that blacks can be members but not clergy and must be servants.

80 years ago, there was a fad in medicine to treat many things with lobotomies, ranging from headaches to mental illness to being a disobedient child. The medical profession stopped doing that procedure in general and if I saw a doctor talking about how they just didn't use the right kind of ice pick and it should resume, I would have the same ire as I do to your improved pastoral care based on the such toxic theologies.

quote:

"a new church plant that continues the oppression of its parent church is not doing generations of oppression only decades"

Yes. So?

quote:
Usually when people talk about a 'parent church' they're referring to the founding church of a particular denomination or its institutional headquarters, not the very first church that met in St. Paul's living room, or wherever. But now I get your point.
In this case I was in fact talking about the parent denomination church and not the church eternal. The comment about the church eternal was about the hypocrisy of claiming the credit for all good things since the beginning of the historical church but denying responsibility for the bad stuff done last year. But if you are talking about the mother denomination or the church eternal, and claim only decades of oppression I still ask:

So?

[ 26. July 2013, 20:12: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

As an American I'm still fiddling with the concept of an established church that refuses to marry some citizens but my American outlook leads me to ask why you want an established church rather than compelling it to do anything.

I agree it would be better not to have a state church. Ironically, though, there are some British atheists who feel that keeping the fairly restrained, poorly supported CofE is a far better idea than allowing an American free-for-all, which seems to throw up a whole bunch of well-supported and much more conservative denominations.

quote:

What raises my ire is the claim that gays should be members of the church but in a restricted role that I've seen damage or destroy gay people just as it would for a church that insists that scriptural wisdom tells them that blacks can be members but not clergy and must be servants.

I'm still not convinced about the precise theological equivalence of homosexuality and race. I'm told that churches are the most racially segregated places in America - yet the Curse of Ham is supposedly no longer theologically acceptable. Conversely, gay men are said to be statistically over-represented in churches that are still theologically homophobic, as you would see it. A curious state of affairs.

As far as 'restrictions' for gay people are concerned, the CofE is a broad church, and has gay clergy, some openly in relationships. The CofE may be publicly against SSM, but since its own congregations, clergy and theological colleges are are so theologically varied, its leaders can hardly prevent people from living as they choose. There's an issue with gay bishops - but then, there's also an issue with women bishops. (And re patriarchy: it's also true that women are far more likely to attend church than men. Gluttons for punishment, perhaps.)

Regarding the churches in general, you need to remember that Britain is so much more secular than the USA. Many young British people now, whether gay or straight, will have left the church long before the church has 'destroyed' them (that's if they ever attended in the first place). The Anglicans, Methodists and black Pentecostals have lost huge numbers of their young people over the past 50+ years. My own Methodist church closed in 2011. The historical evangelical churches have mostly also declined. The more dynamic evangelical churches often have a high turnover, which suggests that they don't inevitably cling to people who are unhappy to be there. So it may be that the problem of (inherited or actual!) oppression and toxic attitudes in institutional Christianity will be solved by the end of institutional Christianity here. The remaining churches will be so frail and marginal that few will care. Will gay people care more than anyone else? Maybe it will present them with an opportunity to direct the theology of the remaining churches. Or they might simply have other things to think about.

For my own reference rather than yours, this is one evangelical church's summary of the figures:
http://www.amnosministries.org/events-and-news.html

There's also a study claiming that within a couple of decades there will be more practising Muslims than Christians here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100073809/practising-muslims-will-very-soon-overtake-weekly-churchgoers-in-b ritain/

[ 26. July 2013, 22:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I wonder if it makes sense to look at this in terms of repentance? Churches which have fully repented of any slave holding history and which now zealously work against it - give their testimony against it - can be responsible in the sense of responsibly handling their past, being honest in abhorring past mistakes and not covering them up and making sure not to make them again, but are no longer responsible as in immediately culpable...

Better than continuing slavery yes, but still a long way short of proper repentance. I suppose it raises the question of what would real institutional repentance for anti-gay teaching over centuries look like?...

The United Church of Canada has a long history of discussing issues in an open manner, derived from their experience of uniting three disparate denoms into one organization and having to deal with issues as a result.

They were leaders in the Ordination od women; they were leaders in dealing with the problems faced by Aboriginal Canadians, particlularly in relation to the Residential Schools issues.

As a result, they are routinely put down by certain other Christian organisations BECAUSE they accept women as equals and BECAUSE they are sympathetic to natives. How could a Christian organization be so namby-pamby?

Many Blacks were brought to Canada by their Loyalist owners, but slavery became a dead issue quite early in Canada. It was never entrenched in the psyche in the manner of the colonials of the US. However, colour bars of various sorts were normal until at least the 1960's and there is still negative colour consciousness, even on the part of many Christians.

The mainstream churches have all embraced policies against that sort of thing, and have issued formal apologies for past wrong-doings, some of those being a bit grudging and late-coming, but, still, there they are.

I am not sure about the religionists of the governing party. They may just be equal-opportunity "I-don't-like-anybody-very-much"ers

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
I'm still not convinced about the precise theological equivalence of homosexuality and race. I'm told that churches are the most racially segregated places in America - yet the Curse of Ham is supposedly no longer theologically acceptable. Conversely, gay men are said to be statistically over-represented in churches that are still theologically homophobic, as you would see it. A curious state of affairs.


The segregation is still there, and while the curse of Ham has faded the "Separate but Equal" argument has only faded completely in the last couple of decades. Bob Jones University is on the trailing edge, as are the Mormons with their revelation that Negroes can be "priests" in 1978. In general, as described in a recent hell thread, racial separatism is still quite present, but covert and not theologically justified.



As far as 'restrictions' for gay people are concerned, the CofE is a broad church, and has gay clergy, some openly in relationships. The CofE may be publicly against SSM, but since its own congregations, clergy and theological colleges are are so theologically varied, its leaders can hardly prevent people from living as they choose. There's an issue with gay bishops - but then, there's also an issue with women bishops. (And re patriarchy: it's also true that women are far more likely to attend church than men. Gluttons for punishment, perhaps.)

Regarding the churches in general, you need to remember that Britain is so much more secular than the USA. Many young British people now, whether gay or straight, will have left the church long before the church has 'destroyed' them (that's if they ever attended in the first place). The Anglicans, Methodists and black Pentecostals have lost huge numbers of their young people over the past 50+ years. My own Methodist church closed in 2011. The historical evangelical churches have mostly also declined. The more dynamic evangelical churches often have a high turnover, which suggests that they don't inevitably cling to people who are unhappy to be there. So it may be that the problem of (inherited or actual!) oppression and toxic attitudes in institutional Christianity will be solved by the end of institutional Christianity here. The remaining churches will be so frail and marginal that few will care. Will gay people care more than anyone else? Maybe it will present them with an opportunity to direct the theology of the remaining churches. Or they might simply have other things to think about.


Perhaps. However your general argument seems to be that it's only a few gay people who will be damaged by some of the current churches and maybe it fade as the churches eventually die does not reassure me. The churches that do come to there senses need to challenge those who still continue the oppression, just as is done about the race issue.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
<snip>As far as 'restrictions' for gay people are concerned, the CofE is a broad church, and has gay clergy, some openly in relationships. The CofE may be publicly against SSM, but since its own congregations, clergy and theological colleges are are so theologically varied, its leaders can hardly prevent people from living as they choose. There's an issue with gay bishops - but then, there's also an issue with women bishops. <snip>

Outside London, there are enough people within the CofE who will complain to the Bishop if they think clergy are in same sex relationships. Which the Bishop has to investigate and deal with. The Bishop will then have their own views which will affect the outcome. Some Bishops have been patrons of Changing Attitudes (Rt Rev David Stancliffe and Rt Rev John Gladwin were while still in office), some have been outspoken in their views that sexual relationships should only be within marriage (Rt Rev Wallace Benn, for example)

There are enough clergy in the CofE who will denounce homosexuality from the pulpit - Alan Comfort comes to mind.

But the big problem according to this article by Colin Coward on Changing Attitude, written following General Synod this year, where he concludes that:

quote:
There is a solid block in the House of Laity who are going to hold a conservative line towards women and LGB&T people. They think they are defending Biblical teaching and the truth and purity of the church. They are doing no such thing, of course. They are creating a nasty, divided, prejudiced church which looks totally un-Christian to those on the outside (and to many of us within the church).


--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Your general argument seems to be that it's only a few gay people who will be damaged by some of the current churches and maybe it fade as the churches eventually die does not reassure me. The churches that do come to there senses need to challenge those who still continue the oppression, just as is done about the race issue.

When CofE people in this country try to challenge more traditional views about homosexuality this normally means Anglicans squabbling with each other in the media spotlight. Not very edifying, but the good thing about it is that gay Christians are made aware that you don't have to take the traditional view to be a serious Christian. They don't have to suffer out of ignorance of the alternatives, as American Christians might.

Remember also that in England SSM first became a prominent public issue because it was requested by the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jewish groups - i.e. by religious people! Since then, though, most religious pro-SSM commentators have been Anglicans. Secularisation in our country has meant that the public and the media know very little about any of smaller churches, whether ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative. The ordinary guy is far more likely to give a minute's attention to a liberal Anglican vicar than to some liberal person whose church he's possibly never even heard of.

As for challenging other Christians, there's always ecumenicalism, which is of growing importance here, but less so in the USA, I understand. But IMO no Pentecostal or Catholic is going to pay much attention to a crusading Quaker or a Unitarian. Liberal Anglicans are deemed worthy opponents because of the status and prominence of their church, but even so, no religious movement or denomination is obliged follow the advice or recommendations of any other group. The other thing is, the big CofE risks appearing patronising when it throws its weight around. Smaller (possibly declining) liberal denominations that do this risk appearing ridiculous. There are also class and racial divides that separate liberalism and conservatism, and no amount of careful argument or pious invective will magic those away.

[ 28. July 2013, 21:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools