|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Our Lady's marriage
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
might go beyond one's personal subjective choices.
But I'm not talking about personal subjective choice. Every sub-sect/group or congregation of Christianity makes subjective choices as a group. The choice of how one interprets the Bible is handed down and that become a tradition. Specifying T vs t is sectarian rubbish.
Defending the why of particular traditions is a conversation. As can be the effect of different approaches.
From where I stand, there is good and bad to those differences, but I don't see any inherent superiority.
--------------------
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
This is developing into an interesting Tradition vs tradition debate ...
Has it morphed into a separate thread yet?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This is developing into an interesting Tradition vs tradition debate ...
Has it morphed into a separate thread yet?
I think so. I wish it were possible to port (and not just quote) posts onto a new thread. I suppose it could be done by a host copying the thread, then deleting all the posts that came before the ones you want to port, then renaming the thread appropriately. But that would be a hell of a lot of work and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Me neither.
Nor me ...
How's abouts we create a new thread which references this one?
Your call or mine?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Me neither.
Nor me ...
How's abouts we create a new thread which references this one?
Your call or mine?
Go for it. Remember to quote all of the interesting posts here to give it some firm background.
By the way your PM box is full.
[ 28. June 2017, 18:02: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I'm not talking about personal subjective choice. Every sub-sect/group or congregation of Christianity makes subjective choices as a group.
I don't think that the group making the choice thinks that they're being subjective. And I'm not totally sure that any group making a choice is ever being consciously subjective. Nobody is looking at the available theological choices, saying to themselves that this thing is believable because of the context that they're in, that other options are available and that therefore others should join because this is a nice option from a field of other nice options. They're saying that this thing that they believe in is true and that the other options out there are not true (or some variation of "less true" than the thing we believe in).
quote:
The choice of how one interprets the Bible is handed down and that become a tradition. Specifying T vs t is sectarian rubbish.
I'm sorry that you feel that - and I've admitted that I've had trouble articulating what I'm getting at. However I'm not intending to promote sectarianism, I'm simply trying to suggest that there is a different mindset at play when one is talking about a religion where belonging is about embracing the totality of what that thing means - including the structures, centre of gravity (theologically and in other ways) - and a religion which is at root about choosing and rejecting available bits of religion that are lying about and/or mixing it up with newer insights.
I'm now not sure that the distinction between Tradition and tradition is quite the right way to phrase it, however there still seems to me to be a clear difference.
quote:
Defending the why of particular traditions is a conversation. As can be the effect of different approaches.
From where I stand, there is good and bad to those differences, but I don't see any inherent superiority.
I don't think there is superiority, I'm certainly not trying to advocate that Evangelicalism is superior to Orthodoxy. I'm just trying (and likely failing) to argue that Evangelicalism is a different thing.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible? By which of course I mean (and they practice) a certain way of reading the Bible. A lot of it goes unspoken so it seems like it's not there at all. Which is what allows some people to say absurd things like "You have tradition, I have the Bible." Because some ways of reading the Bible just aren't Evangelical.
I've been trying to think about how to respond to this and not really getting very far.
I think it is more accurate to say that the centre of gravity in Evangelicalism is about a particular interpretation of the bible - in fact a variety of interpretations - which at the root include an insistence that they can be understood outwith of the context insisted upon by the RCC, and by extension the Orthodox.
But even that is a weak gravitational field compared to the centre of gravity of the RCC (or Orthodox) because the exact things which have to be believed to be an Evangelical are so nebulous.
In a much more real sense, I think the centre of gravity within Evangelicalism is about "not being" something else.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not the Bebbington quadrilateral? Even I can sign up to deconstructed, pomo, transcendent biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism and activism. Or must it be modern, i.e. C18th flavours only? The BQ is what I have seen in all four evo congos I've been part of.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think that the group making the choice thinks that they're being subjective. And I'm not totally sure that any group making a choice is ever being consciously subjective. Nobody is looking at the available theological choices, saying to themselves that this thing is believable because of the context that they're in, that other options are available and that therefore others should join because this is a nice option from a field of other nice options. They're saying that this thing that they believe in is true and that the other options out there are not true (or some variation of "less true" than the thing we believe in).
But so what? I might think my choice in tea is objective, but that does not make it so.
If how to interpret the bible were not subjective, there would not be so many variations.
quote:
I'm just trying (and likely failing) to argue that Evangelicalism is a different thing.
I think that there is a difference is pretty obvious. What I am saying is not all the claimed differences are as solid as often represented.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is more accurate to say that the centre of gravity in Evangelicalism is about a particular interpretation of the bible - in fact a variety of interpretations - which at the root include an insistence that they can be understood outwith of the context insisted upon by the RCC, and by extension the Orthodox.
But that's even worse. If the center is a particular interpretation of the Bible, that is a very clear Tradition.
quote:
But even that is a weak gravitational field compared to the centre of gravity of the RCC (or Orthodox) because the exact things which have to be believed to be an Evangelical are so nebulous.
The things that have to be believed to be an Orthodox are basically the Creed. Add the mystery of the Eucharist and you're pretty much at the end of the "you must believe this or else" dogmas. The vast majority of the rest you are free to question, but not to teach the opposite as if it were Orthodoxy.
quote:
In a much more real sense, I think the centre of gravity within Evangelicalism is about "not being" something else.
That's pathetic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible?
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.
Adherents of tradition invariably insist that their tradition is congruent with Scripture, just as liberals will insist that their beliefs are an organic development of Scripture.
Evangelicals, mirabile dictu, no matter what some of them might say, actually believe in and practise prima scriptura, not sola scriptura; actually recognise that they are part of a small-t tradition; and are actually aware of, and grateful for, the elements which they have inherited from the large-T Tradition, such as the Trinitaian and Christological formulations of the early ecumenical councils.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.
Adherents of tradition invariably insist that their tradition is congruent with Scripture
Yes. The Bible is part of our tradition, and we believe our tradition is internally self-consistent. From this it does not follow that the bible is our center of gravity.
quote:
Evangelicals, mirabile dictu, no matter what some of them might say, actually believe in and practise prima scriptura, not sola scriptura;
Some do, yes.
quote:
actually recognise that they are part of a small-t tradition;
Some do, yes.
quote:
and are actually aware of, and grateful for, the elements which they have inherited from the large-T Tradition, such as the Trinitaian and Christological formulations of the early ecumenical councils.
Some are, yes.
These things are by no means true of all Evangelicals.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No it isn't. If you read my post properly you'd see that I was singling out particular types of evangelical not issuing a blanket condemnation.
Sorry, but there is too much of a long-term pattern for me to accept that.
I think you have a blind-spot in this area.
You (and others) constantly refer to evangelicalism in terms of its worst aspects.
I disagree with aspects of RC and Orthodox belief and practice, but if I express my differences from them in my posts, I try to do so on the basis of their mainstream aspects, and not on the basis of their aberrant fringe elements, such as loony right-wing anti-Semitic extremist clergy, or illiterate, syncretistic peasants.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very tired of Evangelicals playing the victim card any time criticisms of Evangelicalism are discussed. Nobody is "carping on" anybody. The conversation between me, Gamaliel, mr cheesy, and kaplan corday has been very civil and not derogatory.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.
I do not see this. There are POV that are targeted, such as many of the DH issues, but I do not think evangelicals as a whole are. For my vantage point; if any group is targeted more than the rest, it would be the RCC. They get more grief and misunderstanding, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Evangelicals, mirabile dictu, no matter what some of them might say,
So, it is everyone else's fault that some do not explain themselves honestly and/or with decent self-knowledge?
For the record, I would say it is obvious that some evangelicals believe as you say. But just as obvious that some do not. This is something that can be said for any group.
--------------------
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
Ok, I'm sorry you feel that way, Kaplan and when I do start a fresh Tradition / tradition thread it'll be with the caveat that it doesn't become a 'Let's knock evangelicalism' thread but a 'Let's explore the issues without becoming defensive thread.'
I agree with Mousethief that the interaction here between him, mr cheesy and myself has largely been positive.
I'm not upset nor 'unrestful.'
That said, as this is the Magazine of Christian Unrest, I tend to use it to bounce unrestful ideas around. Otherwise I'd be in Heaven starting up 'Why I think evangelicalism is so wonderful threads.'
It's all down to context.
If I was Orthodox I'd no doubt be posting 'Why right-wing anti-Semitic clergy and illiterate, syncretic peasants are pains in the arse' threads.
If I were RC I'd be posting 'Why ultra-montane pre-Vatican 2 sticklers for Trent are pains in the arse.'
If I were liberal I'd be posting 'Why Spong and Cupitt are pains in the arse.'
Evangelicalism is the tradition I know best and the one I tend to riff with and react to.
My comments about evangelicalism here aboard Ship have been a lot milder recently than they were in the past and when I was going through my 'transitioning' to post-evangelical or broadly paleo-orthodox phase.
Come on, you've met me in real life. I don't recall spending the entirety of the afternoon dismissing evangelicalism.
I'm not dismissing it now. Anything critical I say here about evangelicalism comes from the perspective of being a critical friend and by virtue of the nature of the medium probably comes across more harshly on the screen than it would in real life.
I certainly recognise your portrayal of evangelicals as those nice people who operate a prima-scriptura rather than a sola scriptura approach and who recognise themselves as part of a small t tradition, but not all evangelicals behave that way.
If they did, I'd be less critical on these boards.
Context, my friend. Context.
--------------------
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
And I should have said that I think the interaction here with Kaplan has been positive too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
It's all very well to argue whether Evangelicals have a tradition or not - clearly they do - but it doesn't change the fact, the very observable fact, that they don't relate to that tradition the way other groups do to theirs. In particular they are very unlikely to be persuaded on a theological matter such as PVM based on an appeal to tradition.
Which is why most Evangelicals would hear, "Luther, Calvin and Wesley all apparently believed [PVM]" and just shrug.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
It's all very well to argue whether Evangelicals have a tradition or not - clearly they do - but it doesn't change the fact, the very observable fact, that they don't relate to that tradition the way other groups do to theirs. In particular they are very unlikely to be persuaded on a theological matter such as PVM based on an appeal to tradition.
Which is why most Evangelicals would hear, "Luther, Calvin and Wesley all apparently believed [PVM]" and just shrug.
But the point of such a reference isn't an argument from Tradition. It is a fairly substantial riposte to the claim that it can't be supported without the catholic understanding of Tradition. In other words, the argument is that given that the person who devised the 'solas' system that you are claiming to argue from could believe it, and believe it as consistent with that system, then how can you claim it as impossible to hold within that system.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not the Bebbington quadrilateral? Even I can sign up to deconstructed, pomo, transcendent biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism and activism. Or must it be modern, i.e. C18th flavours only? The BQ is what I have seen in all four evo congos I've been part of.
I would say the Bebbington Quad is the closest thing we have to an "official" set of defining beliefs, and it is the most common definition used by academics. Lefty evangelicals such as myself like it because it allows us to stay in the tribe despite some real points of tension.
In practice,however, it's fair to say that the average pew-sitters doesn't think of it in those terms and have never heard of Bebbington. Almost all evangelicals will cite "Bible-believing" (biblicism) as a defining believe but in a more specific way than what the Quad really intends, in fact, almost the opposite. Biblicism ought to mean that we so are committed to the Bible as the final, authoritiative word that we'll invest a great deal of time & effort insuring we understand it, are prayerfully considering context, etc. If we've really jettisoned big-T Tradition in favor of a ruthless biblicism, it should mean we are open to new interpretations that may take us surprising places, as long as it can be justified by a thoughtful and respectful, contextual use of Scripture.
Instead, you'll see of course the rigidity of thought that plagues every group. Among evangelicals the biblicism, instead of opening ideas up, seems to shut them down every bit as much as big-T Tradition. You'll get a bit of a jumping ahead-- "I'm an evangelical, we believe in the Bible, therefore I'm opposed to X, or believe Y, or..." without paying any attention (or sometimes even being aware of) those intervening steps between "I believe in the Bible" and "I believe X about dead horse issue Y". Which makes it sound a whole lot like big-T Tradition.
Again, this is being challenged quite a bit among evangelical academics and a few lefty evangelical writers with a following among young, lefty evangelicals, but not as much among older congregants.
ymmv
[ 29. June 2017, 14:00: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, but is it really the case - and this is a genuine question, I'm not taking sides - that Big T Tradition closes things down any more than the various small t traditions?
Ok, it could be argued that the RCC ratchets things up more tightly than the Orthodox do, but as Mousethief says, the nub and kernel of Big O Orthodox Tradition are the Creeds. Beyond that, you don't really have to sign up to an awful lot else - although there are 'extra' bits that evangelicals would certainly have a problem with - be it iconography, the invocation of the prayers of the Saints, the PVM and so on ...
I still haven't got around to creating the new thread I mentioned earlier, but in many ways - from my own observations - one could argue that there is a lot more wriggle-room within an RC parish or an Orthodox one - although some of the convert parishes are quite 'hard-line' being made up of convertski - than you'd find in many evangelical Protestant congregations.
Again, the mileage varies of course - but although I'm still on this side of the Tiber and the Bosphorus, I must admit I do find it strange when I see evangelicals boasting that they've got more freedom or intellectual wriggle-room when the opposite often seems to be the case ...
Before I get taken to task, that isn't a side-swipe at evangelicals. Everyone has their boundaries and all groups have their Group Think.
But it's often easier to see that in operation in other people's traditions and settings than it is in one's own.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but is it really the case - and this is a genuine question, I'm not taking sides - that Big T Tradition closes things down any more than the various small t traditions?
That was really my (long-winded) point-- that the little-t tradition (in this case, biblicism) tends to over time have the exact same effect as the big-T Tradition.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Looks like a false dichotomy line I have the lonely privilege of being above.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
In other words, the argument is that given that the person who devised the 'solas' system that you are claiming to argue from could believe it, and believe it as consistent with that system, then how can you claim it as impossible to hold within that system.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Instead, you'll see of course the rigidity of thought that plagues every group. Among evangelicals the biblicism, instead of opening ideas up, seems to shut them down every bit as much as big-T Tradition.
Both polite ways of saying that people do not generally question what they believe.
Especially regarding religion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Or politics or pseudo-science or any prejudice. It must have survival value, or be the manifestation of something that does. We are so pathetically, helplessly frail in this. In our tiny identities. Makes me wonder what we'll be transcendent. My belief/believing system has been completely overhauled over seven decades but I'm still plagued with intrusive thinking. The grooves cut deep and we cannot escape them even cognitively.
[ 29. June 2017, 15:08: 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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Or politics or pseudo-science or any prejudice. It must have survival value, or be the manifestation of something that does. We are so pathetically, helplessly frail in this.
We are a pack animal. Pert of this is identifying what constitutes belonging and what challenges it.
quote:
In our tiny identities. Makes me wonder what we'll be transcendent. My belief/believing system has been completely overhauled over seven decades but I'm still plagued with intrusive thinking. The grooves cut deep and we cannot escape them even cognitively.
Humans did not evolve to live in cities. We adapted our behaviours to do so. We also fight those modifications though, so...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but is it really the case - and this is a genuine question, I'm not taking sides - that Big T Tradition closes things down any more than the various small t traditions?
That was really my (long-winded) point-- that the little-t tradition (in this case, biblicism) tends to over time have the exact same effect as the big-T Tradition.
Fair enough, but for all its/their faults, I don't see Big T Tradition closing down conversations about evolution, say, or issues around gender and sexuality in the way that I see happening in certain traditions that might pride themselves as not being part of Big T Tradition.
Again, that's not a side-swipe at evangelicals, but whilst the Quadrilaterals and a principled biblicism - which, as you say, isn't always as robust as its proponents would have us believe - allows a degree of wriggle-room they have their boundaries and limitations the same as any other system.
Which again, is, I'm sure, part of the point you were making.
--------------------
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
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
I maintain that tradition or Tradition without grounding in text, regardless of the mental gymnastics theologians/Church Fathers engaged in to arrive at said traditions, is nothing short of creation from whole cloth. It was suggested above that I should read some church history/understand history. I have read histories of the early church. As for understanding history as a discipline, my first two degrees are in history.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but for all its/their faults, I don't see Big T Tradition closing down conversations about evolution, say, or issues around gender and sexuality in the way that I see happening in certain traditions that might pride themselves as not being part of Big T Tradition.
Excuse me? Orthodox and RCC sure as hell close conversations about gender and sexuality. Not to mention the CofE getting a legal exemption from recent anti-discrimination laws on this very thing.
Granted, the RCC Top Dogg is not going down the "your going to BURN IN HELL!" route, these days. But his position isn't completely inclusive either.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but for all its/their faults, I don't see Big T Tradition closing down conversations about evolution, say, or issues around gender and sexuality in the way that I see happening in certain traditions that might pride themselves as not being part of Big T Tradition.
Excuse me? Orthodox and RCC sure as hell close conversations about gender and sexuality. Not to mention the CofE getting a legal exemption from recent anti-discrimination laws on this very thing.
Granted, the RCC Top Dogg is not going down the "your going to BURN IN HELL!" route, these days. But his position isn't completely inclusive either.
I didn't word this very well, I'm not saying that these conversations are necessarily 'lifting the lid' on these issues - but in some of the outfits I had in mind you couldn't even begin to have that kind of conversation in the first place.
It's all relative.
But yes, I chose the wrong example.
If I'd have left out the sexuality / Dead Horse issues then I may have been closer to the mark in terms of what I was trying to say.
Trying a conversation about evolution - even theistic evolution - within some conservative evangelical congregations and see how far you get ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I maintain that tradition or Tradition without grounding in text, regardless of the mental gymnastics theologians/Church Fathers engaged in to arrive at said traditions, is nothing short of creation from whole cloth. It was suggested above that I should read some church history/understand history. I have read histories of the early church. As for understanding history as a discipline, my first two degrees are in history.
Then you should know better, then ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I maintain that tradition or Tradition without grounding in text, regardless of the mental gymnastics theologians/Church Fathers engaged in to arrive at said traditions, is nothing short of creation from whole cloth.
The Bible isn't history. It contains elements of history, but it isn't an historical document.
Objectivity isn't a thing in religious writing, in general, and it is a relatively new thing in writing history.
We are not ancient peoples, so we do not operate in the same cultural context.
So, then, going beyond the text is of strict necessity if one wants to understand the message.
IMO, the concept of Tradition "inventing from whole cloth" is an often inaccurate attempt at dismissal and differentiation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Whereas I would argue that Tradition is an attempt to create something from little or no evidence.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but is it really the case - and this is a genuine question, I'm not taking sides - that Big T Tradition closes things down any more than the various small t traditions?
That was really my (long-winded) point-- that the little-t tradition (in this case, biblicism) tends to over time have the exact same effect as the big-T Tradition.
Fair enough, but for all its/their faults, I don't see Big T Tradition closing down conversations about evolution, say, or issues around gender and sexuality in the way that I see happening in certain traditions that might pride themselves as not being part of Big T Tradition.
Again, that's not a side-swipe at evangelicals, but whilst the Quadrilaterals and a principled biblicism - which, as you say, isn't always as robust as its proponents would have us believe - allows a degree of wriggle-room they have their boundaries and limitations the same as any other system.
Which again, is, I'm sure, part of the point you were making.
Yes. I'm not sure evangelicals are any worse about it, but we certainly are not any better-- despite our pious claims to be "open to whatever God says".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That implies a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.
'Aha! I've got it, we'll tell them X, Y and Z. They'll swallow it whole, the suckers!'
I don't believe that either tradition - small t - or Tradition, Big T, work that way.
Of course, proponents of Big T Tradition would say that oral tradition fed into its development, which is always going to be a difficult thing to prove if that oral tradition doesn't leave a written trace ...
My own take would be that Big T Tradition develops in response to and alongside written texts. In some ways, crudely, we could suggest that it is an attempt to fill tantalising gaps and suggestions left by the written records.
'Scripture doesn't actually tell us how this happened, or why that was, so it might have been like this ...'
With the 'like this' developing into hard and fast accounts or interpretations over time.
I'm not sure how you'd understand the process working if you have two history degrees, but I'd have thought any historiographer worth their salt would envisage some kind of process like that in play rather than the rather blanket - and to my mind rather crude - 'cut from whole cloth' approach which you suggest.
--------------------
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
I don't understand this point about the creeds. Surely to be a communicant within the Orthodox, RCC (Copts etc) one has to accept the authority etc of that church. Whilst I'm sure there is diversity within all of these groups as to what is or isn't acceptable divergence of theology from the central dogmas, it must be true that allegiance to the church is important.
That simply doesn't exist for "Evangelicals" because there is no one central authority, and even if one is forced to leave an Evangelical group, this doesn't mean that one is somehow not then an Evangelical.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the point Mousethief was making was that in terms of belief, little more is required of the Orthodox than a belief in the Creeds.
That isn't to say that there isn't an expectation about attending church services, receiving communion and so on - but the 'requirements' there aren't particularly onerous.
The degree to which individuals adhere to the fasting regime and attend services and so on is pretty much left up to the individual ...
I can see what you are getting at in terms of how this is different for evangelicals ... but in some ways we aren't comparing like with like ...
Meanwhile, I will start that promised new thread at some point ...
But here're some further question for Caissa in the meantime:
Do you not see tradition / Tradition as having a role in the formulation of written sources in the first place?
Do those written sources somehow sit outside the tradition / Tradition rather than being produced / written / interpreted within those traditions / Traditions?
I notice you are an Anglican. I'd have thought the Anglican approach was one of 'The Church through the Bible and the Bible through the Church' - scripture, tradition and reason - rather than an approach were scripture is seen as somehow being separate or distinct in some way - and not part and parcel of the whole kit and kaboodle ...
Which is effectively where Sola Scriptura - rather than Prima Scriptura - takes us ...
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible?
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.
No - for centuries, people couldn't read. Even since the reformation, only a small per centage of Christians read the bible.
[ 29. June 2017, 17:49: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Whereas I would argue that Tradition is an attempt to create something from little or no evidence.
No offence intended, but this seems more based upon prejudice than evidence.
You would have to outline a particular Traditional belief to truly illustrate your claim.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
which is always going to be a difficult thing to prove if that oral tradition doesn't leave a written trace ...
The entire Bible was oral until someone wrote it down. Unless you've dusted for God's actual fingerprints.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible?
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.
No - for centuries, people couldn't read. Even since the reformation, only a small per centage of Christians read the bible.
Good point in there. Most people's "bible belief" is really what their priest/pastor/bishop/etc. had told them the bible says.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
One nagging point about the topic at hand,
If we call Mary, the "Virgin Mary" does that imply belief in her perpetual virginity?
Or, does it only refer to her virginal state at the birth of her Son?
I ask, because as an Anglican, I understand that the Anglican tradition doesn't officially demand belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, but in many liturgies, she is called "Virgin Mary" or "Blessed Virgin Mary".
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
In Nonconformist circles, probably to her state at the Annunciation - and, of course, up to Jesus' birth. But not beyond.
It would not be uncommon to call her the VM, but never the BVM.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
LilBuddha, I think the Tradition of Perpetual Virginity is a good illustration of my argument.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very tired of Evangelicals playing the victim card any time criticisms of Evangelicalism are discussed. Nobody is "carping on" anybody. The conversation between me, Gamaliel, mr cheesy, and kaplan corday has been very civil and not derogatory.
I'm no evangelical. Unless you count the German evangelische that marks a Lutheran.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm no evangelical. Unless you count the German evangelische that marks a Lutheran.
So you're not ELCA? Or are you saying the ELCA isn't Evangelical?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
LilBuddha, I think the Tradition of Perpetual Virginity is a good illustration of my argument.
I think it is a good illustration of the complexity of the T vs t. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly say Perpetual. But inferring that from Mary's special nature isn't outré.
In other words, one can argue that it is a quilt stitched with mixed fibres, but not that is made from 'whole cloth'.
--------------------
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
I'd agree with that, lilBuddha and I've also created a new thread to look at the tradition / Tradition thing.
One observation, though ... Caissa seems to be suggesting that something has to have a 'proof-text' in order to have traction. I'd suggest that there are grades and strands and threads between mixed cloth on the one hand and whole cloth on the other.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very tired of Evangelicals playing the victim card any time criticisms of Evangelicalism are discussed. Nobody is "carping on" anybody. The conversation between me, Gamaliel, mr cheesy, and kaplan corday has been very civil and not derogatory.
I'm no evangelical. Unless you count the German evangelische that marks a Lutheran.
Nevertheless the "boo hoo this ship hates Evangelicals" schtick is fucking annoying.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless the "boo hoo this ship hates Evangelicals" schtick is fucking annoying.
I see that - but at the same time I think a big part of the problem is that people are talking past each other and getting frustrated because the "other" - which is often the Evangelical - refuses to conform to the expectations of the discussion.
I don't see my role here as defending Evangelicals, however it seems to me that it is clearly true that Evangelicals are much more of a target here than others are. So it might be a "schtick", but it is also an accurate schtick.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
