|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: ITTWACW*
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
]There is, IMO, value in understanding other people's positions, even if you don't agree with them.
I agree. But still maintain that people with more extremely positions are less likely to be open.
quote:
I always enjoyed IngoB discussions. He didn't persuade me of the correctness of his positions, but he made a coherent presentation of what they were.
And he could inspire one to more solidly present their own case. Still, IMO his style was necessarily harsh to less robust posters.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So I find the notion that there's no point in engaging with people who hold conservative viewpoints because they'll never change downright laughable.
But I did not say this. I said the person with the extreme view would not have a reason to engage.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Doesn't that imply there's no point in engaging with someone who holds an extreme viewpoint?
Either way, it's still not true that all people with extremely conservative positions can't or won't change their views. I did. My parents did. My cousins who used to be big Rush Limbaugh fans and devoted Fox News watchers did. My young earth creationist cousins are in their way more liberal than they were brought up to be, I think, given their sotto vice asides about their father's belief in the crazy crap he reads on the internet.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Forgive me, but what i meant was, does it not say something worrisome about very liberal forms of Christianity if they are primarily parasitic? I would be wondering why something allegedly so much superior to evangelicalism couldn't açcomplish basic reproduction without the often despised source. To be crass, it would make me wonder about the truth value of liberal Christianity.
IMO the thing to remember is that the highly intellectual, rational theologies out of which liberalism springs don't exist primarily to spread the gospel to the masses, or to establish the 'truth' (since the truth is up for debate). AFAIUI the practical benefit of this kind of training is to ensure the prestige of the clergy, and hence of the denominations to which they belong. The tendency towards liberalisation helps in this process by bringing the values of the church closer to the values of a rapidly secularising society.
Of course, some theologies do aim to be of benefit to non-elites, to the disadvantaged. One well-known example is liberation theology in Latin America. However, although liberation theology opted for the poor, the poor famously opted for Pentecostalism....
[ 15. June 2017, 23:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Either way, it's still not true that all people with extremely conservative positions can't or won't change their views.
I'm not saying they cannot. But the very fact of opening your mind to that change is stepping away from the extreme.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Doesn't that imply there's no point in engaging with someone who holds an extreme viewpoint?
I don't think so. I've made my point and left it in hopes that it might sink in. I know this has happened to me, where I argued something and though about it later and that affecting my position.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Where is this research showing an evangelical to liberal drift was carried out. UK or USA? Also what age groups are we discussing? Because there is a political phenomenon of young people being more radical than their parents and moderating as they get older, eg Labour party members who were student communists. That idealism and black and white view of the world held by teenagers that gets moderated as they encounter more challenges. Why shouldn't that be true of churches too?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be true of churches; I'm just noting that it happens. Young people are indeed often quite radical, often willing to take extreme positions. They may be looking for an identity. Most people who convert to Christianity do so in their mid teens. See the Barna Group's research in the USA, and note conversions in 18th and 19th c. Britain. (The age of conversion in Islam is apparently higher. Various reasons are given here, but the fact that most Westerners aren't raised in a Muslim culture must be relevant.)
Of course, youthful enthusiasm doesn't always last. This is true with regard to institutions. Church-sect theory posits that whole movements drift from high-tension religion at the start towards low tension religion (IOW generally from a conservative towards a more tolerant perspective). This occurs all over the world, but commentators often talk about Christian movements as having a life cycle, which is going to vary from place to place and in different contexts.
Individuals leave strict churches for various reasons. IMO several of these are related to changes in religious fervor. Such churches famously benefit from the Protestant work ethic. The Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and say, late 20th c. Pentecostals in Latin America etc. lived strict, sober lives, which was easier to do if the alternative was poverty. But as their sobriety and industry led to better jobs and more wealth, the impulse for self-deprivation became less. Although the Nonconformist churches adapted to become grand, respectable and less strict some upwardly individuals eventually saw no reason to remain in subordinate institutions. In countries when there was a prestigious state church this would be the obvious destination for Nonconformists who became quite well-off.
In more recent times, especially in the West, there's been a sense that evangelicalism is ill-adapted to a postmodern world which accepts questioning and doubt. This book highlights the challenge of the increasing number of post-evangelicals, and seems to have struck a chord in the UK. It's also an issue in the USA.
Non-evangelical churches don't necessarily benefit from the fallout from evangelicalism, especially if they too fail to address the challenges of postmodernity - although my last link suggests that there are lots of American evangelicals who find their way to non-evangelical churches. In very secular Britain my guess is this kind of switch may now be rarer since many liberal or MOTR churches are relatively small and weak. Maybe the book highlights a movement towards liturgical worship, especially for the older person.
This leads to another issue, both in Britain and the USA; there are probably many churchgoers who attend evangelical churches because they like the energy and atmosphere, and may not be particularly sold on the theology. Such attenders may be around for a while, but their departure may not really represent a 'falling away' of conservative faith, more a realisation that this isn't for them. Strict churches may actually attempt to screen out such people seeing their presence as undermining the cohesive theological position of the church, especially if the church doesn't have the means to disciple and assimilate them effectively. One American pastor actually writes about the importance of keeping growth levels manageable by putting people off! A rare problem in modern Britain, but I understand that Wesley faced similar challenges back in the 18th c.
Apologies for the length of the post. Not sure if it addresses exactly what you had in mind.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
