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   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Are the JWs announcing a gospel that can save? (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Are the JWs announcing a gospel that can save?
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

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

On the JW's appropriating evangelical sounding language, I'm not so convinced that this is a conscious strategy or ploy. It's more a case of a kind of parisitic growth outside but alongside more mainstream forms of evangelical-style religion.

Like I said upthread - I wondered on the impact of evangelical media on JWs and similar groups (a while ago I was following some Mormon blogs/forums and so forth and there was a definite converging influence of evangelical media that was at work there - though ostensibly they are at least more mainstream on the surface).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gamaliel wrote:

quote:
On the JW's appropriating evangelical sounding language, I'm not so convinced that this is a conscious strategy or ploy. It's more a case of a kind of parisitic growth outside but alongside more mainstream forms of evangelical-style religion.

Culturally and sociologically, JWs are very similar to the demographic one finds in Pentecostalism and independent evangelicalism. Back in my door-knocking days it always struck me how hard it was to evangelise without coming across like a JW ...

The commonality is probably more down to a common modus operandi than anything else.

Yes. On cursory examination, JW theology and style are pretty close to mainstream protestantism. Jesus is the main guy, he died for our sins, the Bible is an important book, etc etc. As far as I can tell, that's all been part of Witness teaching for a long time, not something they just cooked up recently to look more Christian.

Like I've already said, if they were REALLY trying to hoodwink people into thinking they were no different from Baptists, they wouldn't be so up-front in emphasizing the non-divinity of Jesus, the non-existence of Hell, the theory that Jesus died on an upright stake, and the idea that only a tiny sliver of the saved will get to live in heaven.

[ 02. April 2017, 16:30: Message edited by: Stetson ]

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure, I think that's right, Stetson ... and yes, chris stiles, I would also acknowledge what you said upthread to be the case too ...

Thing is, although the JWs do tend to attract people with a vaguely Christian background ... I've met former Methodists and other mainliners who are JW ... they do set their stall out as being different from the mainstream. They are pretty upfront as Stetson says about the way they diverge from standard Christian doctrine.

So, no, I don't think they are being disingenuous or deliberately appropriating evangelical-sounding language. Rather, as chris stiles suggests, some of that will have filtered into their consciousness by osmosis and, let's not forget - both the JWs and the Mormons had their roots in independent revivalist Protestantism in the US.

In the case of the Mormons this led to a quest for the 'One True Church' to elide the issue of the competing sects and to a whacky alternative narrative which involved pre-Columbus European visits to the New World ...

It's almost as if inherited European forms of religion weren't sufficient. They had to concoct a particularly North American version ...

In the case of the JWs their roots lie in the fervid millenarianism of the 19th century evangelical scene in the USA.

Let's not kid ourselves. Non-conformist or independent forms of sectarian Protestantism have always been prone to schism and to exotic interpretations of scripture.

Read any denominational history - the Wesleyans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists ... and you'll find a catalogue of splits and schisms, many of them around ancient heresies as well as new ones.

I've read a fair bit of primary source 19th century local history, biographies and memoirs and the thing that's struck me most is how church-life for many non-conformists and independents at that time was a constant struggle to deal with this, that or the other heresy.

I've read accounts of Wesleyan ministers who veered off into exotic territory before eventually coming back to a more orthodox position ...

I've read how Christmas Evans the famous Welsh Baptist revivalist veered off into heresy for a time.

The thing is, at this distance we tend - or at least many evangelicals tend - to have a rosy-tinted view of 19th century revivalism. 'Look at all those chapels ... they must have been full at one time ...'

No, the whole scene was a right mess. Sure, there was a lot of good stuff going on at the same time but it was certainly no golden age. There's never been a golden age.

The remarkable thing to my mind isn't how many non-conformists/independents veered off into Unitarianism or whacky forms of Millenarianism and Adventism ... like the Millerites and so on ... but how any of them managed to maintain a semblance of orthodoxy (small o) at all.

To be fair, many of the Baptists were pretty scholarly and autodidactism was a big feature of sectarian Protestant life throughout the period (and I use the term 'sectarian' in a sociological rather than perjorative way).

Sure, a number of revivalists liked to curry favour with the Anglican Establishment to a certain extent in a bid to maintain credibility - but there was also the factor of a shared evangelical identity that was pan-denominational ...

At any rate, I'm not in the least surprised to find Mormons or JWs using language that is reminiscent of evangelical Protestantism ... because that's where their roots lie.

That doesn't denigrate evangelical Protestantism or lead to a kind of guilt by association. No, it's simply an acknowledgement of historical fact.

--------------------
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      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


That doesn't denigrate evangelical Protestantism or lead to a kind of guilt by association. No, it's simply an acknowledgement of historical fact.

Exactly this. Bravo.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... It's a Paschal Wager thing. ....

Best Freudian typo ever.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It's a Paschal Wager thing.

It's an orthographic thing.

I assumed upthread that it was just a typo - hence "the bet at Easter" crack.

Pasch/paschal - Easter, Passover

Pascal - French philosopher

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... It's a Paschal Wager thing. ....

Best Freudian typo ever.
I once preached about Jesus as a sort of cosmic gambler who submitted to the Passion betting on the fact that the Father would bring him through.

This association of Jesus with games of chance did not go down well, I have to say.

Schweitzer saw Christ's cry of dereliction as an acknowledgement that he had wagered and lost.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Blush ... Blush ...

Perhaps I ought to type Schweitzer's Wager in future ...

But what's this? Dearie, dearie me ...

We've got the apparently impeccably 'sound' Kaplan Corday quoting the patently 'unsound' Albert Schweitzer, and in a sermon. Too ...
Whatever next.

--------------------
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
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apropos of our exchange on the relationship of the affective/aesthetic, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, Schweitzer is responsible for a false but admirably powerful and moving piece of writing in his famous quote:-

"Jesus... in the knowledge that He is the coming Son of Man lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution which to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refuses to turn, and He throws Himself upon it. Then it does turn; and crushes Him. Instead of bringing in the eschatological conditions, He has destroyed them. The wheel rolls onward, and the mangled body of the one immeasurably great Man, who was strong enough to think of Himself as the spiritual ruler of mankind and to bend history to His purpose, is hanging upon it still. That is His victory and His reign.”

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose - to state the obvious - orthodox Christianity has changed pretty slowly (in some respects) over the millennia and radicals have always been pushing the envelope as to what is or isn't acceptable. And the various mutations of protestantism, and then Evangelicalism, and then the various sub-strands of that have always been a reaction against the thing that went before.

So what is or isn't acceptable variation from (for example) the creeds or decisions thrashed out more than a thousand years ago to some extent is going to be personal preference.

Whilst it is true that it might be said that Christianity coalesces around the creeds, it is also true that there is considerable variation within those boundaries (to the extent of various Trinitarian groups not recognising others as Christian) and it is also true that at various times different people with variant views have been more-or-less accepted by the majority. I'd also probably say that some groups with fairly insignificant theological differences have been excluded, which at times has pushed them to even more heterodox beliefs - and it is clear that some who refuse to play by the rules still want to be accepted as Christian by the rest of the (let's say) Trinitarian majority.

Unless we all become Orthodox (or RC?) - who might consider everyone else to be variations of wrong - I'm not sure how one really sorts the mess out.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well yes, it'd be easier if there was only one of those - the RCs or the Orthodox - claiming to be the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church, of course ...

The problem with my broadly paleo-orthodox approach is that it leaves me dangling in No-Man's Land to a certain extent ...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not 'against' the various forms of 'sectarian' Protestantism nor more apparently radical forms of Christianity - except that most of them aren't at all radical really, although they may have been at one time ...

But I've been there, done that ...

But the same thing could apply to those who've spent most of their time within one or t'other of the historical Churches ... what looks 'Oh Brave New World' to me wouldn't look like that to them ...

Meanwhile, on Schweitzer - yes, Kaplan, agreed. Although, for all it's capacity to move, it's clearly not an orthodox / Orthodox position ... whereas with Willie Wordsworth he was writing a poem not making a theological statement as such ... but I do take your point.

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you accept the Trinity though?

Yes, although instead of a Trinity of three persons, I believe in a Trinity in a single person.
A trinity of what? Modes? Can they be concurrent? Or do the masks have to take turns? Oooh, and while you're at it, maybe you can reconcile God the Son, or God in Son mode, with the Son of God. No one else here can.
Not a Trinity of anything - modes, masks, persons, or otherwise.

The Holy Trinity is the original Trinity that creates the trinity constituting each each of us: soul, body, and spirit. God the Father is the Divine Soul, which is Life itself. God the Son is Christ as the Divine Body or Logos who manifests God to creation, and God the Holy Spirit is God's effect on creation.

As a finite image and likeness of God, our soul is what allows us to receive a sliver of life from God (without our being aware of it so it feels like our life and so we can't mess it up). Our body is what allows us to manifest that life and decide what we do with it. And our spirit is the life we are living and the effect it has on the world around us.

God is a single Divine Person in the same way each of us is a single person, albeit finite and imperfect. Hence "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?"

What makes you think there's anything to reconcile between God the Son and the Son of God?

W Hyatt. That is a trinity of something. Of substances in fact. Not 'Not a Trinity of anything'. That would be a something of nothing.

God the Son is the orthodox eternally begotten Person of the orthodox Trinity (substance). Son of God is Jesus. What overlaps of the former in the latter? Before, during and after the Incarnation?

If we take what the Father says, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17), then they are one and the same surely?

Taking that literally God the Son in PERSON, not 'just' nature (substance), completely subsumed Himself in, as the human person Jesus.

No?

Anyone?

Any Catholics especially?

Did the second Person of the Trinity collapse to His nature and re-emerge as a human person prior to resurrection?


And this thread also makes me want to spin one off about the creed centred on "one baptism (Ephesians 4:4–5) for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)" thanks to mousethief.

[ 03. April 2017, 14:11: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Al Eluia

Inquisitor
# 864

 - Posted      Profile for Al Eluia   Email Al Eluia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's a Paschal Wager thing.

Would a Paschal wager be what the Roman soldiers engaged in when they cast lots for Jesus' robe?

--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/

Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would say that one of the JW's greatest dangers is the degree of mind control that they excercise, greater than tight evos like FIEC or Plymouth Brethren, with only the Taylorite Exclusives as rivals. And that distorts people.

It comes from insisting on every detail of Watchtower teaching and having a fair number of teachings which are plain bullshit. I don't say that of their Arianism or hyper-Arminian theory of salvation. But there are plenty to go at, and just to take one: their bizarre belief that Christ's body was never raised. This despite the passages in the NT that explicitly teach that it was. I have argued this with JWs and they have no answer, and if free discussion was allowed, it would not survive. This means the Governing Body would have lost control.

Having read David Aaronovitch book on his upbringing in the Communist party, I see a great ressemblance. Like Communists in Stalin's day, they are expected to turn their beliefs on their head if the Watchtower says so. They call it New Truths aka Alternative Facts.

Example: They used to believe that Romans 13 had nothing to do with earthly government - clear tripe but you had to believe it. One fairly prominent Witness felt he had to campaign against that for which he was disfellowshipped. About a year later there was a New Truth saying more or less exactly what the dissenter said. No apology or re-instatement.

A JW I put this to would not admit this had happened and I didn't have enough proof. But he did admit that it could have happened and that the Society was right to condemn him for running ahead of God's Appointed Channnel.

But some folks like to be spoon fed ideas, and each person can guage how dangerous that degree on control is.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't doubt that ...

Although, to be fair, I've seen Stalinist practices put into play within independent evangelical churches and some Anglican archdeacons and so on aren't beyond trying to air-brush out mistakes, changes of plan/direction etc as if they've never happened ...

But yes, from my dealings with the Witnesses - and I had a close friend at school whose mother was a JW and had JWs as neighbours in the past ... I'd agree that the level of mind-control is greater than what might customarily find in tightly-knit or tightly controlled evangelical Protestant outfits such as the FIEC or Plymouth Brethren.

I'd suggest that some parts of Pentecostalism and particularly the health-wealth/prosperity gospel outfits aren't far behind in terms of mind control - and may even be a whole lot worse ...

The JWs have to explain away changes of tack or changes of emphasis ... they don't have to explain away putative prophecies where the results never materialise or promises of healing that never actually take place ...

I've often said that you need a very short memory to hang around in some charismatic evangelical or revivalist circles for any length of 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
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
anteater wrote:

quote:
just to take one: their bizarre belief that Christ's body was never raised.
I have a question.

DO JWs believe that the disintegration and re-materialization of Christ's body counts as a resurrection?

I ask because, from the bit of reading I've done, they do place a pretty strong emphasis on resurrection(presumably because it proves we can all Live Forever In Paradise On Earth), but seem to be especially fired up about Lazarus coming back, not Jesus.

So am I correct in assuming that what happened to Jesus isn't all that significant to them, as far as proving eternal life goes?

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you accept the Trinity though?

Yes, although instead of a Trinity of three persons, I believe in a Trinity in a single person.
A trinity of what? Modes? Can they be concurrent? Or do the masks have to take turns? Oooh, and while you're at it, maybe you can reconcile God the Son, or God in Son mode, with the Son of God. No one else here can.
Not a Trinity of anything - modes, masks, persons, or otherwise.

The Holy Trinity is the original Trinity that creates the trinity constituting each each of us: soul, body, and spirit. God the Father is the Divine Soul, which is Life itself. God the Son is Christ as the Divine Body or Logos who manifests God to creation, and God the Holy Spirit is God's effect on creation.

As a finite image and likeness of God, our soul is what allows us to receive a sliver of life from God (without our being aware of it so it feels like our life and so we can't mess it up). Our body is what allows us to manifest that life and decide what we do with it. And our spirit is the life we are living and the effect it has on the world around us.

God is a single Divine Person in the same way each of us is a single person, albeit finite and imperfect. Hence "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?"

What makes you think there's anything to reconcile between God the Son and the Son of God?

W Hyatt. That is a trinity of something. Of substances in fact. Not 'Not a Trinity of anything'. That would be a something of nothing.
Sort of. Any X such that you can say "God is One, and a Trinity of X" necessarily leads to an irrational mystery. But a Trinity of X, Y, and Z, where X, Y, and Z have no overlap, allows for something rational.

And coincidentally, it's the same issue you are raising about the overlap between God the Son and the Son of God. If there is overlap, then how can the second Person be a single Person, rather than two? And did God the Son change when the Son of God was conceived? How about when he was resurrected? Or was it only creation that changed?

As far as I understand it, my beliefs about the Trinity are not that much different than orthodox beliefs about God the Son.

[ 03. April 2017, 21:49: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
tightly-knit or tightly controlled evangelical Protestant outfits such as the FIEC or Plymouth Brethren.

References in this context to the "Plymouth Brethren" without qualification are meaningless.

Not only are Exclusive/ Closed groups distinctly different from the Open Brethren, but even amomgst the latter there are great differences.

quote:
I've often said that you need a very short memory to hang around in some charismatic evangelical or revivalist circles for any length of time ...
Older RCs could say the same, and might also have something to contribute on "mind control".

Latin liturgy, Limbo, no-meat Fridays and artificial birth control, for example, might not have been dogmas, but they were certainly treated by the hierarchy as pretty non-negotiable within living memory, and experienced as such by the 'laity".

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
tightly-knit or tightly controlled evangelical Protestant outfits such as the FIEC or Plymouth Brethren.

References in this context to the "Plymouth Brethren" without qualification are meaningless.

Not only are Exclusive/ Closed groups distinctly different from the Open Brethren, but even amongst the latter there are great differences.

I agree.
I grew up in an Open Brethren assembly until I moved to another church when I was sixteen. Each assembly ran itself and I would not describe the assembly as tightly controlled by the elders. We did join in with other assemblies on occasion, did support the Billy Graham crusades, and as young people we were encouraged to work with the neighbouring Baptist church on their annual summer holiday CSSM missions.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Older RCs could say the same, and might also have something to contribute on "mind control".

Every religion and every subsect of those religions perform conditioning. Though people generally reference is in a form of irregular verbiage.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Stetson:

JWs believe that Jesus was raised as a pure spirit without his human body. They believe his human life was sacrificed and that it is a permanent sacrifice.

There seems no reason for this since no major aspect of their belief depends on it, so they could change it at any time, and indeed since I last discussed this over 20 years ago, they may already have.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kaplan Corday: Yes I know all that about the Brethren. They were my first port of call. I have followed a practice of using PB to denote the quite closed groups who would call themselves Open, but they are only very slightly open. No insult is intended.

I also do not go along with the idea that many religions have some control so the JWs are no different qualitatively from, say, the RCC.

Firstly, the RCC would never expect you to believe one thing one day and its complete opposite the next.

Second, the RCC does not excommunicate any member who is out of line on any point of doctrine or practice. I have a good friend who is a Catholic who tells everyone who wants to listen and many who do not, that women should be admitted to the priesthood. In the JWs she'd be out the door. You are allowed private doubts, but any open advocacy is out.

Finally there is huge variation of belief wthin the RCC. As IngoB late of this parish observed, the number of compulsory "articles that are of faith" is few.

The RCC and the Watchtower Society are like chalk and cheese.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kaplan, why are you so defensive and why are you so binary?

By suggesting that there could be tight controls within certain Brethren assemblies I'm not suggesting that there have never been equivalents elsewhere - and pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism certainly had more than its fair share of strictures and heavy-handedness.

And yes, I do make a distinction between the Open Brethren and the more exclusive types. Ultimately, though, cut it how we might, any form of 'gathered' community can become insular and controlling.

I notice you didn't get up tight when I listed health-wealth prosperity gospellers among those I considered capable of mind-control.

The fact is, the Open Brethren assembly down the road is just as capable of peer pressure and claustrophobia as the local Kingdom Hall or Fr Lacecuff Aloysius at St Saviour's in The Mire.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Latchkey Kid ... The Brethren I encountered were like that.

These days, though, I don't see supporting Billy Graham crusades or joining the local Baptists in mission as representing the pinnacle of openness and ecumenism ...

All groups draw the line somewhere. Would they have sent a representative on St Saviour's annual pilgrimage to Walsingham? Would St Saviour's have offered Billy Graham members of its choir?

--------------------
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
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Stetson:

JWs believe that Jesus was raised as a pure spirit without his human body. They believe his human life was sacrificed and that it is a permanent sacrifice.

There seems no reason for this since no major aspect of their belief depends on it, so they could change it at any time, and indeed since I last discussed this over 20 years ago, they may already have.

Thanks. But just to clarify further, the belief in the permanent sacrifice IS a major aspect of their belief, isn't it? They do think he died for our sins.

I assume what you mean as the not-major aspect is the raising of Jesus as a pure spirit being. My guess would be thay they teach this in order to be in sync with the gospels, while still holding to the belief that Jesus was really an angel.

[ 04. April 2017, 08:00: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
References in this context to the "Plymouth Brethren" without qualification are meaningless.

Not only are Exclusive/ Closed groups distinctly different from the Open Brethren, but even amomgst the latter there are great differences.

[brick wall]

What is it about the concept of a "spectrum" that you don't understand? I introduced Brethren to this discussion because I believe that they have certain characteristics which are sociologically and historically similar to the JWs. That's as opposed to other conservative Christian groups I could have mentioned - JWs are not really as similar to conservative Baptists, or conservative Presbyterians or other conservative groups within the general understanding of the word "Evangelical".

Closed Brethren are necessarily most similar to Open Brethren in that they share direct lineage. Various Brethren groups use different names - but in this context it doesn't really matter. There are less open and more open Brethren. There are groups who used to be Brethren but are now considered to be general Evangelical or even Charismatic.

I'd also note that even the most Open Brethren would be considered towards the most conservative end of (that part) of Evangelicalism.

I don't understand why this is such a controversial idea for you KC - different groups exist, some are similar other groups and progressively more different to others.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The RCC and the Watchtower Society are like chalk and cheese.

Like brie and camembert actually.

Both are conservative, authoritarian, and produce more - more even then ex-evangelicals, not just ex-mainstream prots - than their fair share of resentful ex memebers.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Like brie and camembert actually.

Both are conservative, authoritarian, and produce more - more even then ex-evangelicals, not just ex-mainstream prots - than their fair share of resentful ex memebers.

I wonder if anyone has ever done proper research into ex-members. I think this statement is highly unlikely.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB] I notice you didn't get up tight when I listed health-wealth prosperity gospellers among those I considered capable of mind-control.
/QB]

That's because there is infinitely more homogeneity in the category "health and wealth theology" than in the undifferentiated category "Brethren".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Closed Brethren are necessarily most similar to Open Brethren in that they share direct lineage.

Statements like this demonstrate that you really don't know what you are talking about.

It's a bit like the etymological fallacy, which is commonly but not exclusively found in bad theology and bad homiletics: "these words have a similar derivation, which therefore proves....."

Despite their common origin nearly two hundred years ago, Open Brethren today share far more similarities with other evangelicals (Anglican, Baptist, etc) than they do with Exclusives.

[ 04. April 2017, 10:05: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:


Despite their common origin nearly two hundred years ago, Open Brethren today share far more similarities with other evangelicals (Anglican, Baptist, etc) than they do with Exclusives.

I have Brethren of various types as well as various kinds of other conservative Evangelical in my family.

Open Brethren are significantly different even to other conservative Evangelicals.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Despite their common origin nearly two hundred years ago, Open Brethren today share far more similarities with other evangelicals (Anglican, Baptist, etc) than they do with Exclusives.

And, y'know, the Brethren in my family have almost nothing in common with the Anglicans. The practices are different, the church organisation is different, the buildings look different, the services are completely different.

In all of those aspects, closed Brethren are much more similar to Open Brethren than any Anglican church.

Even the most conservative Anglican service has almost nothing in common with the culture of a Brethren service - other than it is a meeting of people on a Sunday morning.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Like brie and camembert actually.

Both are conservative, authoritarian, and produce more - more even then ex-evangelicals, not just ex-mainstream prots - than their fair share of resentful ex memebers.

I wonder if anyone has ever done proper research into ex-members. I think this statement is highly unlikely.
As do I. Categorising Roman Catholics as conservative appears to show a lack of knowledge about them. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is conservative. But its members vary considerably as is the case in any large group. Especially those in to which a person is essentially born.
Resentfulness is typically proportional to investment in the thing one is resentful of. In a religion such as the RCC, as in Anglicanism, there will be anything from extremely devout to pretty much atheist.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To be fair, mr cheesy, most of the differences between evangelical Anglicans and Open Brethren folk tend to be more an issue of externals rather than 'essence' ...

I've met former Brethren personnel in almost any evangelical setting I can mention ... not because they've 'fallen out' with the Brethren necessarily but because as they've moved around they've tended to support whatever evangelical expression of church there happens to be or where they feel most at home.

The influence of the Brethren on UK evangelicalism as a whole has always been out of proportion to their actual numbers.

I would agree with you that Kaplan, whether out of a sense of loyalty or out of a misunderstanding of what you are saying, is digging his heels in and refusing to accept what seems pretty obvious to the rest of us - that there's a spectrum/continuum to all of this and that yes, culturally and sociologically there is a lot in common between the further reaches of the Brethren spectrum and the JWs ...

That isn't a doctrinal commonality, of course, but there's a lot of parallels in socio-economic and cultural terms.

I don't see how anyone can deny that.

That said, and there's always a caveat, some of the original Brethren were fairly genteel ...

But if I'd carried out a survey of the Gospel Halls I encountered in my late teens/early 20s and compared it with the local Kingdom Halls I suspect I'd have found a high degree of correlation in socio-economic and demographic terms. The same with the local Mormons.

If I'd have carried out a similar exercise with the local RCs the results would, I think, have been somewhat different ...

On the other hand, my experience has been that people from Brethren backgrounds quickly acclimatise to any evangelical setting - be it Baptist, some kind of 'new church' or restorationist setting or evangelical Anglican ...

Where they'd struggle would be in a liberal theological setting or one with 'too many' bells and whistles from their perspective ... incense, robes etc etc.

FWIW, I'd have the Open Brethren down as within the evangelical mainstream but with an outer perimeter that could have been in danger of toppling over the edge of the spectrum somewhere into Exclusive Territory ...

The fact that they didn't and haven't probably puts them on the defensive and on their guard. The Brethren I use to encounter were always quick to identify themselves as from the more Open end.

It all depends on where you stand.

The Open end of the Brethren looks pretty open to the Brethren, but it would look far from open to someone from a MoTR or liberal setting of course.

Let's not forget, though, that if you go back a generation or two, most churches - not simply the conservative ones - would have looked rather more rigid and constrained than they look today.

Evangelicalism as a whole was a far more strict in the 1950s than it is now. So were most other types of church at that time, within their own particular orbit or spectrum of course.

--------------------
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      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, mr cheesy, most of the differences between evangelical Anglicans and Open Brethren folk tend to be more an issue of externals rather than 'essence' ...

I suppose this depends what you mean. It is certainly true that Brethren-folk end up in many contexts, and it is also true that Brethren influence bleeds into various other evangelical groups. I know an Evangelical church near here with a solid baptist-type background over 100 years which is becoming more like a Brethren congregation (ie no pastor, heavy reliance on visiting speakers etc) because the elders have a Brethren background.

But I'd argue that at a particular point (and I'd agree that one could debate exactly what that point is) people who leave the Brethren cease to be Brethren. Even though the Evangelical church I mentioned above has been influenced by ex-Brethren members it still has various other features which put it solidly into the baptist strand of Evangelical.

Obviously a charismatic church which grew out of a Brethren tradition may retain tinges of the tradition - depending on the length of time, the people involved, the way the constitution of the organisation has evolved - but it isn't just a Brethren congregation which has gone a bit charismatic.

As a base statement, a church which describes itself as Brethren is different in many ways to one that describes itself as Anglican. There may well be some meeting in the middle where the thing is merged, but these things rarely describe themselves as Brethren.

And as a Brethren congregation, whilst there may be some overlap and similarities in some of the associations with some of the more conservative Anglican churches, as a whole they are completely different. You don't get Anglican churches which are like the Brethren, because that's a contradiction in terms.

In contrast, there are a smallish number of Conservative Evangelical Anglican parishes which behave very much like Calvinistic Baptist or Evangelical churches. The ties between those groups are (sometimes) much closer.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure, I'd go along with all of that, mr cheesy.

I suppose if we see the state of 'Brethrenness' as much a state-of-mind as an external organisation as such then we can take the 'Brethren' out of the assembly without them necessarily losing their 'Brethrenness' ...

Or am I missing something?

I've been involved with networks of charismatic evangelical churches which had a strong Brethren influence - and you could always recognise the former Brethren in such circles - and I've seen that in Spain too as well as the UK.

Kaplan probably thinks I have a downer on the Brethren. I don't. I owe them a lot. They introduced me to Bible study and gave me a broad grasp/overview of the scriptures ...

They may well have broadened out by now - I suspect they have - or else morphed into other forms of evangelicalism.

From what I can gather they've dropped a lot of the Dispensationalism and obsession with Eschatology ...

All they need to do now is ... [insert solution of choice] ...

[Biased]

--------------------
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      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I'd go along with all of that, mr cheesy.

I suppose if we see the state of 'Brethrenness' as much a state-of-mind as an external organisation as such then we can take the 'Brethren' out of the assembly without them necessarily losing their 'Brethrenness' ...

Or am I missing something?

Well, I dunno. I'd think there are some distinctive things about being Brethren - so if you've left and decided that those things are no longer relevant to you, then you're not Brethren.

Whilst ex-Brethren turn up in many places, they very rarely bring much with them, in my experience.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, they'd bring baggage with them if nothing else ...

Thinking about it, bearing in mind that the restorationist circles I moved in were essentially a fusion of Brethren, Baptist and Pentecostal emphases - with some Holiness elements thrown into the mix - then one would expect each element to add something to the party.

As a rough rule of thumb, those from a Brethren background tended to be the 'teachers' whereas those with a Pentie background were supposedly 'prophetic' ... with the Brethren and Baptist folk bringing a bit of ballast ... in theory at least.

The Brethren were always supposed to be strong on 'the word' ...

And so they were - comparatively speaking - but by and large, looking back, their grasp of theology was fairly mediocre ... but then, that probably applies right across the board.

Eventually, the Brethren types were smothered/drowned up by hyper-Pentecostal elements ... sadly ...

--------------------
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
Al Eluia

Inquisitor
# 864

 - Posted      Profile for Al Eluia   Email Al Eluia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Since someone mentioned their doctrine that Jesus was not crucified, I must share my favorite verse from the New World Translation, I Cor. 1:18 - "The message about the torture-stake is foolishness to those who are perishing."

I'm curious if anyone knows their rationale for this belief, BTW - as I understand it, crucifixion was what the Romans did to criminals, particularly in the provinces, and stauros was the commonly accepted Koine translation for crux. Jesus was crucified. I'm not sure what theological difference the method of his execution would make, anyway.

--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/

Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've never really understood why they made such a big deal out of that. I've always assumed it was a side issue they'd seized on and made a big issue out of just to be different.

--------------------
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
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And, y'know, the Brethren in my family have almost nothing in common with the Anglicans. The practices are different, the church organisation is different, the buildings look different, the services are completely different.

That bloody idee fixe about buildings again!

You are still generalising inaccurately from a limited sample.

As regards each of the points you mention, you can find Brethren assemblies where in terms of church life and fellowship the differences from evangelical Anglicans are negligible.

I have sat in the Anglican version of today's generic evangelical "family service" and reflected that if I had been taken there bilndfolded I could have guessed that I was in any of a number of denominations - including Brethren.

quote:
In all of those aspects, closed Brethren are much more similar to Open Brethren than any Anglican church.
Again, bullshit.

If by Closed you mean Exclusive, then there is nothing remotely approaching their authoritarianism, centralised leadership, separation from "the world", cultishness, indoctrination, compulsory dress details, or discipline, in any (or at least the overwhelming majority) of Open assemblies.

Differences between Opens and evangelical Anglicans are minimal compared to the gulf between Open and Exclusive.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But if I'd carried out a survey of the Gospel Halls I encountered in my late teens/early 20s and compared it with the local Kingdom Halls I suspect I'd have found a high degree of correlation in socio-economic and demographic terms. The same with the local Mormons.

If I'd have carried out a similar exercise with the local RCs the results would, I think, have been somewhat different ...

There is no reason to suppose that it would have been different at all.

Rcs were and are every bit as predominantly working-class as JWs, Mormons and Brethren.

RCs played a major role in Australian history in the formation of the trade union movement and the Labor Party.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd think there are some distinctive things about being Brethren - so if you've left and decided that those things are no longer relevant to you, then you're not Brethren.

In the Brethren assemblies I have known there were always two types of member: those who subscribed to Brethren distinctives such as ecclesiology and (in those days) eschatology, and those who were not remotely interested in Brethren history or distinctives, but joined them because (unlike the liberal mainstream Protestant denominations they were leaving) they were consistently evangelical.

In other words, not all Brethren were or are Brethren.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Since someone mentioned their doctrine that Jesus was not crucified, I must share my favorite verse from the New World Translation, I Cor. 1:18 - "The message about the torture-stake is foolishness to those who are perishing."

I'm curious if anyone knows their rationale for this belief, BTW - as I understand it, crucifixion was what the Romans did to criminals, particularly in the provinces, and stauros was the commonly accepted Koine translation for crux. Jesus was crucified. I'm not sure what theological difference the method of his execution would make, anyway.

It's the usual restorationist obsession with sniffing out paganism in apostate symbol and rituals. I've just been doing some refresher reading of JW pamphlets, and they say that the cross was a symbol used in pagan sex rites.

As a teenager, I read a book by an ex-Witness who said that they think the cross is specifically a vaginal symbol. The author pointed out that the upright stake could be just as easily interpreted as phallic.

[ 04. April 2017, 23:03: Message edited by: Stetson ]

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Latchkey Kid ... The Brethren I encountered were like that.

These days, though, I don't see supporting Billy Graham crusades or joining the local Baptists in mission as representing the pinnacle of openness and ecumenism ...

All groups draw the line somewhere. Would they have sent a representative on St Saviour's annual pilgrimage to Walsingham? Would St Saviour's have offered Billy Graham members of its choir?

I did not say that they represented the pinnacle of openness (and I wonder who you might think did represent it). I merely said that they were not tightly controlled. When I left the Brethren there was no direction to my family or other church members to have nothing more to do with me. I understand that this happens with the JWs, and this is a cultish behaviour that I would call tight control.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And all this talk of a spectrum is a mis-modelling.
It would be better to talk of a matrix or multi-dimensional graph as there are multiple attributes, and not all are on a scale or even rankable.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kaplan, my guess would have been that the RCs were generally - with one or two exceptions - more working class than the JWs, Baptists and Brethren. They were predominantly Irish.

The JWs would probably have been slightly more working class than the Brethren and Baptists.

Most of the Brethren I knew ran their own businesses - builders, central heating engineers etc. As such, some of them were pretty comfortably off. They weren't posh but they'd done well for themselves.

@Latchkey Kid, yes a matrix model is a good way to look at these things - as well as a spectrum or continuum.

It's both/and. I see no reason why Kaplan or yourself should be so defensive on this issue. I can't speak for Mr cheesy but I thinking in sociological and cultural terms rather than theological ones.

On the theological side, all I'm saying is that Christadelphians, Mormons, JWs and various forms of Adventist - for all the differences between them theologically - represent forms of independent Protestantism that toppled over the edge of received small t tradition into wierd and whacky territory ...

That doesn't mean that those independent Protestant groups that remain this side of the small o orthodox boundary are wierd and whacky - although they can be, ie the Exclusive Brethren - but it does mean that they share certain cultural characteristics in a way they wouldn't necessarily with RCs and Anglicans.

That said, I wouldn't want to overstate that. To some extent - at least until comparatively recently - RCs were quite out on a limb in UK society and shared a degree of marginalisation in common with some of the independent dissenting Protestants.

On the similarities between contemporary Anglican 'family services' and the like with wider evangelical styles and approaches - I agree with Kaplan there and would suggest that we are seeing an increasing homogeneity across the evangelical spectrum in terms of worship style and delivery.

There's not a great deal of difference these days between eco/charismatic-lite Anglican, Baptist and independent Brethren-flavoured churches these days.

So, to that extent, contemporary Brethren distinctives are less distinctive than they would have been even 20 or 30 years ago ... And yes, one could say that whole swathes of Anglican evangelicalism are also less distinctively 'Anglican' than they would have been 20 or 30 years ago.

I know veteran Anglican renewalists who feel they've been left out in a limb and high and dry by the New Wine thing and the dumbing down of charismatic and evangelical Anglicanism with its Messy Church, its balloons and bonhomie.

On the 'tightness' of the Brethren. Sure, the Open Brethren were nowhere near as tightly controlled as the JWs or the restorationist 'new churches' come to that - but things varied from assembly to assembly. It was all relative.

--------------------
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      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, sorry, I don't accept that even the lowest Anglicans are similar to Brethren.

I think there is a messy middle where many denominations merge into very similar space, but Brethren are necessarily not part of it. If they are, then by definition, they're not Brethren.

I can only assume that the situation that KC describes must be different in Australia to that which Gam and I have knowledge of in the UK.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gamaliel , you need to remember that both Kaplan Corday and Latchkey Kid are here in Australia, where the social scene is very, very different to that in the UK generally - and as far as the Catholic Church in particular is concerned, particularly so for Cheshire, so close to Liverpool and the Irish migration.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well to be fair, I wasn't talking about sociology with regard to secular economic class. I don't think there is a major difference between many low Anglican, RC, various non-conformists etc in the UK. Indeed, I think the class thing is more likely to relate to location than denomination.

I was talking about the mindset, the worldview, the way that these groups relate to society, the way that they understand theology, themselves, other groups, practices, etc.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  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