|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is one of the great mysteries to me why some Christians have taken to making sexual ethics the defining characteristic of Christianity. To the point where non-Christians also generally see this as being what the church is about.
'Cause openly hating on brown people has fallen out of fashion. Need another rallying call for the faithful in a secularised world. Need a them.
--------------------
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
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My sense is that Christianity has become more polarised in the Anglophone West as secularisation has increased, and populations are identifying less and less with organised religion.
Some Christians have responded by seeking to align their values more with the wider society, and others by re-stating the values that their churches have traditionally taught.
I appreciate that a lot of religious conservatives see it this way, which presumably is why they are religious conservatives. But isn't this way of seeing things kind of circular -- it *assumes* that the developments that conservatives oppose are rejections of doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith, as opposed to more peripheral doctrines that may be partially or wholly mistaken. History shows that sometimes the secular world gets things right, or at least partly right, and doctrines once seemed essential to the faith no longer seem so essential after they're found to be less than defensible. Saying that these particular doctrines are essential to the faith -- and not the multitude of others that could find support in scripture or tradition -- is an exercise in judgment that inherently requires some kind of justification. Especially when there are compelling reasons arising out of core Christian beliefs to think that these doctrines are mistaken.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings?
I think so, although it's hard to say. The Ship is very much a progressive space - zero Trump supporters (AFAIK), few conservatives, heavily anti-Brexit. The biggest fight I've seen this year was between two branches of the Judean People's Front over Jeremy Corbyn; the dead horse subjects used to generate that sort of anger, but now there's an overwhelming progressive consensus and arguments only flare up occasionally.
Part of this is down to society's DH values shifting leftwards, but I think it's also down to the sorting process which creates echo-chambers. A conservative poster needs to be exceptional to avoid hostility (e.g. Lamb Chopped) and these people are rare. My hunch is that the average conservatives are gradually silenced or driven away and the ones who remain tend to be more hard-headed than most. This then reinforces the negative view of them, creating more hostility, driving more away until finally you're left with a few conservatives who tiptoe around, plus Russ, romanlion et al in a guerrilla war with pretty much everyone else. A similar dynamic happens in right-wing spaces.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
'Cause openly hating on brown people has fallen out of fashion. Need another rallying call for the faithful in a secularised world. Need a them.
You can make that claim about some parts of the US church, but otherwise this comment strikes me as a good example of the sort of hostility the OP and Sharkshooter are referring to.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
People have been imputing me motives, and I am to blame for that because I was probably not clear. I am not asking leave to hate anyone or to promote hatred of anyone here.
I believe we are called to a live of modesty, honesty, integrity, whether married or single, whatever our orientation might be.
My issue here I suppose is the ascetic struggle which is inbuilt in the Christian life and which requires sacrifices on our part, for our own purification, for freeing us for the service of God and the service of our fellow humans.
Of course, there are the official definitions of unrest given here. My unrest is of another sort.
Surely, at some point in one's life, one is faced with the sometimes stern imperatives one finds in the Gospel. How is one to understand them? How is one to take them up and act upon them? Well, God himself will send us his light to guide us. Could God have misled us for so long?
I find comfort in Tradition not because I hate gays, blacks, women, or just people in general - myself being of multiracial (hence resenting Lilbuddha's implications about brown people) background.
I find comfort in it because in it there is a recognition of priorities in the struggle of Christian life, and through it I hear God's voice calling me.
I had thought that over and above our disagreements we might still be able to support one another in the personal struggle for the salvation of our souls.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am not accusing you, personally, of racial predjudice. Nor, even, most "traditional" Christians. I do remember reading somewhere that the focus on homosexuality originated in needing someone new to demonise.
This, if accurate, is an origin. Once something is established, the original reason needn't continue to be present.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is one of the great mysteries to me why some Christians have taken to making sexual ethics the defining characteristic of Christianity. To the point where non-Christians also generally see this as being what the church is about.
As has been said, the creeds don't show an interest in the subject. And yet now people are obsessed. Ironic, in the context of talking about tradition, that the primary concerns seem to have shifted so much.
The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that the understanding of Traditional Christianity has itself been hijacked. Hot button issues have become the whole thing.
I'm Traditional about the Creeds, the Trinity and the Person of Christ. And liberal on the hot button issues. And remain a self-identified evangelical. Go figure!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And, BTW, even if my statement were hostile; it would be me that was hostile, not the Ship. One instance doesn't make a case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I haven't noticed any such increase. Right now a couple of self-proclaimed "traditional" Christians are getting a lot of stick, but I'm not sure it's for their traditionality. Lamb Chopped is about as traditional (theologically conservative) a Protestant as we have on the Ship, and she very, very seldom gets a Hell call or a lot of stick for her beliefs. And it's not like she's a wilting violet. She definitely wades in with both feet. By and large traditionalists who meet with hostility bring it upon themselves by their attitudes and delivery.
God bless you, and it's kind of you to say so. But actually, I HAVE noticed a significant uptick in hostility toward my beliefs, and I've been here what, fifteen years now? (I lurked a bit before signing on)
I now watch myself very very carefully in my Ship interactions whenever I take an unpopular position. Erin used to be the one who would bite people in the ass for dogpiling simply due to content (and not added jackassery), but she's with the Lord now.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
As stated by other further up the thread, the trouble is that there is no agreed set of "traditional" Christian beliefs or values other than those expressed in the Nicene Creed; anyone who tries to claim there are is only seeking to apply their own, or their denomination's, rules, prejudices and preferences.
And it is fair to say that there seems to be a section in many of the larger denominations which seek to make adherence to some antiquated pronouncements regarding same-gender sex the litmus test for proving one is a "true" or "Bible-based" Christian.
When some of us point out the arbitrary nature of this - for example, why don't the same people seek to impose or live by the dietary laws set out in the same part of the OT - we're accused of not "getting" the point and/or of not being "real" Christians.
You may think me eccentric but I'd argue that there cannot be such a thing as a "traditional Christian" since, if you truly believe in following the way of Christ to the letter, then you must be a reformed Jew - after all, Jesus wasn't a Christian so how can it be traditional for a follower of Jesus to label themselves as such?
Equally, it can be argued that much of so-called "traditional Christian" values have little to do with Christ and everything to do with St Paul - so perhaps it might be more accurate for those who self-describe as "traditional Christians" to change that to "traditional Paulines".
As for hostility, I think it may be more accurate to say that some of us are less concerned with casting metaphorical rocks at others for perceived sexual misconduct than in attempting to treat everyone with whom we have dealings with the love and compassion that Christ showed to saints and sinners.
Above all, I find it incredible that some self-described "traditional" Christians seem so eaten up with sexual prurience that they concentrate on that to the exclusion of all other sins and wickedness in the world. Frankly I'd have more time for these so-called "traditionalists" if they concerned themselves more with modern-day slavery, financial malfeasance in the business community, and the levels of casual unkindness in society.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I think so, although it's hard to say. The Ship is very much a progressive space - zero Trump supporters (AFAIK), few conservatives, heavily anti-Brexit. The biggest fight I've seen this year was between two branches of the Judean People's Front over Jeremy Corbyn; the dead horse subjects used to generate that sort of anger, but now there's an overwhelming progressive consensus and arguments only flare up occasionally.
I agree entirely with this and with the rest of your post.
I find the OP slightly disingenuous though in that it is referring to 'traditional Christianity' but actually talking specifically about What Do We Think About The Gays. I think I would have more sympathy with the OP if the post just said what it meant.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What Do We Think About The Gays. I think I would have more sympathy with the OP if the post just said what it meant.
The fact that the thread has run to two pages without getting sent to DH is a sign that it might be about a bit more than that. I suggest not pushing it over the edge.
/hosting
[ 26. July 2017, 05:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As stated by other further up the thread, the trouble is that there is no agreed set of "traditional" Christian beliefs or values other than those expressed in the Nicene Creed; anyone who tries to claim there are is only seeking to apply their own, or their denomination's, rules, prejudices and preferences.
I wonder how many of the fundamentalist churches, particularly those with only the one church, even know of the Nicene Creed, let alone recite it regularly? Is it often done at Hillsong style churches at all?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm Traditional about the Creeds, the Trinity and the Person of Christ. And liberal on the hot button issues. And remain a self-identified evangelical. Go figure!
Same here - though I only use the term "Evangelical" reluctantly, and qualified by "Open", "Broad" or "Liberal".
Regarding the use of Creeds, one must remember that "Old Dissent" (i.e. early Baptists, Independents etc.) consciously did not use Creeds; although they did have "Confessions of Faith" these were not, as I understand, used in public worship. I think this was because they felt they were too constrictive and led towards "unthinking assent" rather than living faith. Admittedly of course this was at a time when there may have been more consensus as to what "orthodox Christian belief entailed". Of course a century later it left those groups wide open to Unitariansm.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I think there is another dimension to this discussion, which also keeps us clear of the Dead Horse trapdoor. A number of us have pointed to the Creeds as summaries of traditional Christian doctrines. The Creeds do not, I think, give us much direct insight into traditional Christian morality. Maybe that was so clearly a given that it did not need to be said?
My personal view is that we are enjoined, above all other things, to follow the teaching and example of Jesus on matters of values and morality. Where he leads, we follow. And at the heart of that is an ethic of love, of God, of neighbour, even of enemies. And the love which is revealed is unselfish, sacrificial, unfailing, of inestimable and eternal value.
Now I think our discussions here are more likely to focus on what we see as the best available version of truth of things. And that of course can give rise to much unrest, many arguments. Outside of Hell, we are prohibited from personal attacks but are free to be as critical as we like about opinions. Also not to take offence to easily if our opinions are rubbished.
For virtually all of us, the critical rubbishing of our opinions is felt initially to be unkind and so may often feel like a personal attack. If we are in need of correction, we would like it to be done gently and with love, please!
But that's not the ethos of the Ship. This is intended to be a more bracing place than that. A more critical environment. Now I like that, which is why I've hung around for over a dozen years. And have learned much from others.
Is it a loving environment? Does it go out of its way to welcome newcomers, make allowances for human failings? Probably not.
But I think the rules of engagement are fair and wise.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
If there is a change, I think it is because gay people have won the argument here on the ship. They've been more eloquent and have better points - so anyone trying to make out that their "traditional" view somehow has validity looks pretty silly.
The strange thing for me is that the Conservatives (of various kinds) seem to want to continue banging the drum and continue making the argument that their morality should be enacted in the public sphere because their understanding is superior - and yet that turns out to be so fragile that when it comes under any kind of rigorous investigation they crumble into "ooo, ooh I'm being persecuted". Of course it doesn't often get to that stage here - once they realise that they're not actually persuading anyone, they tend to piss off.
The one thing I don't really understand properly is the efforts by the most liberal people (on this website, in society in general) to change the practices of churches that they're not even a member of. One thing if you are a long-standing member of a specific church, quite another to be shouting that they have to change from the outside.
For me, I basically like being in a space where there is a marketplace of ideas, even when I know that some of those views I disagree with. And even find personally offensive.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Of course, there are the official definitions of unrest given here. My unrest is of another sort.
And there, I suspect, is your problem.
The 'traditional christian' approach to hot button issues is now in a small minority in society generally (UK). So people go to their 'traditional' Church and find relief and consensus with people who agree with them.
To find a Christian community (the Ship) where most people are liberal and open on DH issues but from every Christian tradition you could name, and none, must be a cultural shock of sorts.
That's why I asked the question right at the beginning of the thread that you define what you mean by 'traditional Christian teaching'.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As a tangent, it came to me yesterday that if Trump was posting in Purgatory (perish the thought) he would constantly be being pulled up by hosts for attacking the person not the issue, and be directed to Hell (he'd probably then dispute the host ruling, be directed to the Styx, refuse to comply, and be banned).
Trump has taken personal attack to new depths, and the result in terms of discussion of the actual issues involved is plain for all to see. Long may we avoid this here.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
There are plenty of non-credal churches. Off the top of my head: the Baptists, the Mennonites, the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, as well as bunches of non-denominational churches, Pentecostal and Holiness churches. To the Catholics and Orthodox, they probably don't seem very "traditional."
What we're talking about here is not traditional Christianity so much as social structures and mores that have changed, changes welcomed and embraced by some Christians and abhorred by others. People who are not on board with the changes seem increasingly distant from a value that is extremely important to me -- not treating certain segments of humanity as second class, which is exactly what so-called "traditional" Christianity does. I don't spend a lot of time in DH anymore because the topics there that interest me the most actually do have answers this side of the grave. Those discussions are, as they should, becoming cultural backwaters, irrelevant to mainstream society.
My hostility toward those views predates the Ship, so no change there -- but I'm certainly less patient now with the people who hold them. Whole bunches of people in and around my age cohort have changed their minds, and new generations of people are growing up without the iniquitous views of women and gay people that used to hold sway. It's time for us to stop giving that shit the time of day.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The Ship is very much a progressive space - zero Trump supporters (AFAIK), few conservatives, heavily anti-Brexit. The biggest fight I've seen this year was between two branches of the Judean People's Front over Jeremy Corbyn; the dead horse subjects used to generate that sort of anger, but now there's an overwhelming progressive consensus and arguments only flare up occasionally.
Part of this is down to society's DH values shifting leftwards, but I think it's also down to the sorting process which creates echo-chambers. A conservative poster needs to be exceptional to avoid hostility (e.g. Lamb Chopped) and these people are rare. My hunch is that the average conservatives are gradually silenced or driven away and the ones who remain tend to be more hard-headed than most. This then reinforces the negative view of them, creating more hostility, driving more away until finally you're left with a few conservatives who tiptoe around, plus Russ, romanlion et al in a guerrilla war with pretty much everyone else. A similar dynamic happens in right-wing spaces.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) I agree with this - I like it here, but do spend most of my time not getting involved. There's a definite group think (no different in that respect to anywhere else) that has the effect of causing most people to conform or leave; or turn into a crusading lunatic who rubs everyone up the wrong way.
I still find virtually every thread on SoF interesting, but struggle to summon the energy to engage. I'll fight my corner on the things I really know about - the military, rural England, Trad ACism, steam engines, but on the things where I've just got opinions I more often than not hold back.
I'm not even *that* conservative.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
My hostility toward those views predates the Ship, so no change there -- but I'm certainly less patient now with the people who hold them.
And that I think is the tragedy of the age. It's caving in to the temptation to fight the nastiness of one side with nastiness of one's own. It ends up attacking the person not the issue.
As I just said over here, I think a lot of moral/theological conservatives are decent people who are blinkered in part because of what they have been taught about authority and respect for it. They are imprisoned.
To put it another way, save your ire for the crooks and ease off on the rubes.
Jesus' teachings suggest there does come a point when one must write people off, but it's a very long way down the line - after the extra mile, the shirt off your back, and seventy times seven. If nobody could be won over, none of us would have been.
In view of this, if there's one value I seek to pass on to my congregation, it's discernment. And attacking people instead of issues, tempting though it is, for me included, doesn't nurture that.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Is it me or has hostility to traditional Christian teaching on the Ship considerably intensified in the past years, including hostility to those who hold such teachings?
It's not just about gayz.
Ten years ago the typical Shipmate was a recovering ex-evangelical, eager to talk about what's wrong with fundamentalism and to explore alternative forms of Christian belief (liberalism, Orthodoxy, Swedenborgianism, whatever).
These days it seems that the typical Shipmate is a world-weary progressive, committed to doctrines of
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
and the general attitude that alternatives to this worldview are long-disproven crap that can be dismissed, part of the Bad Old Days that we're trying to get away from.
I don't know whether it's the same people having found a pseudo-religion to fill the hole, or just a different mix of people.
I don't know whether it's part of a US-led general polarisation of western society, or a result of internet communication both reinforcing views and lowering standards of courtesy.
But you're right, pro-traditional views get less of a fair hearing around here than they used to.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Or it could just be because those who believe in Traditional values talk a load of self-contradictory crap.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Like I say, I'm increasingly convinced that traditional views, especially on moral issues, are bound up with particular concepts of power, and I'd say that covers just about everything on Russ' list above.
It's too facile to say all the arguments are crap or contradictory; not all of them are. Some (Brexit) ignore the facts, as far as I can see, but not all do. But they revolve around certain concepts of power. At the end of the day, I think this is the stumbling-block for many "traditional-view" posters here.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Eutychus
I suppose it is about line-crossing. I'm not much inclined to debate with racists any more, though there was certainly a period in my life where I would trot out "content of character rather than colour of skin" as rebuttal. My wife reckons that the best thing to do with folks stuck in an ideological ghetto is to pray for them. After all, she observes, conviction of sin is the work of the Holy Spirit and sometimes our well-intentioned "helping hands" actually get in the way.
In Ship's terms, if engagement has proved to be a mutual waste of time, scroll past or call to Hell - or debate the limits of jerkiness - seem to be the available options.
But I think mr cheesy has a point on many of the hot-button issues. I said recently in DH that Desmond Tutu's observation "you have already lost" the argument seems to me to apply. Of course that is my opinion and other's MMV.
[ 26. July 2017, 08:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I personally find that there tends to be a sort of "I'm not personally misogynistic, but God is, so he doesn't want any girlies at the Altar, so much as I can't see his reason for that, we can't have them". Or, indeed, "I'm not personally homophobic, but God is, so much as I can't find any rational reason for it, we have to adopt the Australian Philosophers' approach and say No Poofters!"
It's almost like they know that the "progressive" view is the one that makes rational sense, but they're saddled with a God who's got a load of irrational prejudices they have to humour. "Cognitive Dissonance" is, I believe, the phrase. Recognising it is one of the things that brought me out of the Charevo world.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think CS Lewis might be partly to blame for that.
In Perelandra he argues that God might make a rule that is to be obeyed - in Perelandra, the rule not to spend a night on the Fixed Land - merely for the delight of obedience rather than for any utilitarian reason. Which leads back into issues of power and authority.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think CS Lewis might be partly to blame for that.
In Perelandra he argues that God might make a rule that is to be obeyed - in Perelandra, the rule not to spend a night on the Fixed Land - merely for the delight of obedience rather than for any utilitarian reason. Which leads back into issues of power and authority.
Yes, I've had people counter with that. But making up a rule that will cause people anguish just so he can enjoy people obeying it - in the one case where only 50% of the population are affected, in the latter 10% - just seems, well, weird. It's a bizarre argument to make. "God wants the best for you, except don't wear green. Nothing wrong with green, but he's just decided to ban it so that we can all enjoy not wearing green and stoning to death anyone who does."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are plenty of non-credal churches. Off the top of my head: the Baptists, the Mennonites, the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, as well as bunches of non-denominational churches, Pentecostal and Holiness churches. To the Catholics and Orthodox, they probably don't seem very "traditional." ......
I know what you mean.
It seems to me that some churches have replaced the creeds with what they call their 'Statement of Doctrine' or something similar. In effect this has become their creed. Take a look at this (if you dare)
and follow their links to see what they believe about fellowship with other churches, women and gay marriage.
Within the last two days I needed to know what a local FIEC church believed about LGBT issues: I thought I could guess (having once been within the FIEC). Ideally, I would ask the pastor but for a number of reasons I was not in a position to face HIM, thus my search of the FIEC website. I'm sure they would say that their beliefs are 'traditional', i.e. totally based on Scripture, and they do use the word somewhere.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's too facile to say all the arguments are crap or contradictory; not all of them are. Some (Brexit) ignore the facts, as far as I can see, but not all do. But they revolve around certain concepts of power. At the end of the day, I think this is the stumbling-block for many "traditional-view" posters here.
quote:
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
Theologically, our brethren from other countries are our brothers and sisters and deserve the things we take for granted. Economically, the UK needs migrants.
Practically, speaking from the comfort of rural Ireland, one isn't really in a position to make a comment about the value of Brexit.
The reason so many of us here dislike Brexit is because it makes no sense other than as an ideological position.
quote:
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
Theologically there are no male or female in Christ. Historically, almost everyone seems to now agree with universal women's suffrage and education - which is hardly a "traditional value" in the UK (or Ireland). Trotting out a comment about "traditional values" is given the scorn it deserves when the view is hardly "traditional" or really indicative of any kind of ethical value beyond simply trying to put women down.
quote:
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
I don't think I've ever argued for entirely free speech, I don't think that's really a value that is held by the majority of this community. If someone had some reasoning for voting or believing in Trump, that'd be quite interesting. As it is, most of us who have some kind of rational training find the pronouncements coming from the White House bizarre and the defenses thereof seem totally irrational.
quote:
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
I think there is an undercurrent of a form of socialism that isn't in favour of massive profits by corporations. But I've never heard anyone say that all profit is bad or that small businesses should operate with unlimited liability. If that's a view, it is a minority one.
quote:
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
and the general attitude that alternatives to this worldview are long-disproven crap that can be dismissed, part of the Bad Old Days that we're trying to get away from.
I think this one is fairly accurate. But then what counter argument is there? That racism is no big deal, that colonial views are acceptable and should be continued?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
It seems to me that some churches have replaced the creeds with what they call their 'Statement of Doctrine' or something similar. In effect this has become their creed.
The difference between such "statements of faith" and "creeds" is that these days, the latter are a unifying instrument that believers are invited to affirm (incidentally, we were invited to recite the Nicene creed in church last Sunday, which is not something we often do) whereas "statements of faith" are usually designed to keep certain categories of people out.
Whenever I have seen such "statements of faith" invoked it has been by leadership, to remove somebody or keep them out. In other words - again - it's a proxy for power plays.
There are plenty of decent people in FIEC churches (including Ship lurkers, as I know for a fact). They just don't go to war invoking their "statements of faith". The latter are not the sum of the members.
[ 26. July 2017, 09:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
There is a level of unreality that some operate within when talking about the "statement of faith".
The FIEC (and actually a lot of different Evangelical and Conservative groups) is a membership organisation not a denomination. So it isn't really the same as a creed.
Which can mean that one is a long term member of an FIEC church without really having engaged with the statement of faith or really being too bothered about the detail of it.
On the other hand (I can't be sure this happens with the FIEC but am sure it happens with other groups), those who most engage with the organisation are in some kind of leadership role within the church and tend to talk as if the church agrees with them on various issues (which might have never been discussed with the church members). So it is a bit of a self-selecting group making pronouncements about the belief of members without talking to them about it and then making out that this is the thing that all members of those churches have signed up for.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
@ Eutychus: Yes, I'm sure that's right. The Statements don't just say "This is what we believe" but "This what we believe (unlike those naughty people in other churches" and even "This is what we expect you to believe if you want to join us (so there)".
It's a defence mechanism, a portcullis to be lowered if heresy threatens.
[ 26. July 2017, 09:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It's a defence mechanism, a portcullis to be lowered if heresy threatens.
Yes, but as has been observed here, the functional definition of "heresy" has evolved.
Besides, in my personal experience, "heresy" is all too frequently a pretext for a power play. Branding someone a heretic is a great way to curtail their influence.
(not-so-fond memories of having been accused of "encouraging immorality in the church"...)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Eutychus, in general I agree. Yet, IME, people who wish to join such churches have to undergo a set of classes when the beliefs of the church are studied and have to be agreed upon. Yes, it's a way of excluding / including people. So, in that sense the doctrinal statements are a unifying instrument that believers are invited to affirm. They may not go to war over their Statements of Faith but at least their pastors will assume that they believe them!
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Eutychus, in general I agree. Yet, IME, people who wish to join such churches have to undergo a set of classes when the beliefs of the church are studied and have to be agreed upon.
I think you're out of date.
That sounds like a 1980s "R1"-only charismatic-church "commitment course". I've never heard of an FIEC church doing something like that. They might invite assent to a statement of faith, but I very much doubt they'd take someone through the whole thing in the way you describe.
[ETA as stated above, I think most churches with this kind of thing don't say much about it at all until they want to use it to dispose of undesirable elements, when they leaf through it to see what will stick]
[ 26. July 2017, 09:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I dunno, I've certainly heard of churches which have a rigorous teaching scheme for someone wanting to join as a member. I don't know how often this happens now.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm sure it doesn't happen in the contemporary evangelical churches with the biggest influence. Any "joining the church" course will be very corporate, focusing on values and the absolute minimum of conversion, baptism and (depending on the church) baptism in the spirit, and of course giving, rather than on DH topics or indeed Docetism.
In such circles, I think the "traditional" view on actual issues is imposed through six-feet-above-contradiction preaching rather than detailed courses.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
It has been understood in the Christian world for many centuries that marriage is between one man and one woman. The Catholic Church considers a 'marriage' between two baptised people (male and female) as a sacrament, instituted by Christ.
The Catholic Church has never encouraged those who claim to be members to contract a civil marriage and has never considered a civil marriage to be (for a Catholic) a proper sacramental marriage.
Of course in the vast majority of countries those wishing to marry, must have a civil marriage ceremony and generally in these countries the ministers of the Catholic Church will not solemnise a marriage without a previous civil ceremony.
Much has been said about there being little about sex in the teachings of Jesus. Much has been said about what are understood as traditional ideas of sex and marriage really being cultural norms, many of which can be dispensed with. Jesus did mention however that a man and a woman should leave their parents and cleave together and that what God has joined together no man should put asunder. This is the basis for a Catholic marriage.
In the eyes of the Church nothing else is a Catholic marriage.
There is nothing in Catholic teaching which says that we should hate those who disagree with these teachings. A good Catholic, even one of a 'traditional' mould, can accept fully Catholic teaching AND con centrate on trying to love ,as far as possible, all their fellow creatures, whatever their standpoints on various ethical issues are.
Yes, I know that some Catholics,(not all that many that I know) are obsessed with maintaining traditional points of view on sexuality and gender which have more to do with culture than with Christianity. Perhaps they are rightly criticised for being narrow minded.
We can, however sometimes see the same sort of blind bigotry in those who claim to be 'progressive', those who will not accept any other point of view but their own as having any value.
I may be biased but I did not see in the OP any indication that Gottschalk hated gays.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
That's not the point. If he's insisting that the state not allow them to have civil marriages (and I know he's not confirmed that) because of his religious views, then it doesn't matter whether he hates them or not; he's still enforcing his morality on them and tough titty if they don't like it. It may not be hatred, but it might as well be.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Eutychus, in general I agree. Yet, IME, people who wish to join such churches have to undergo a set of classes when the beliefs of the church are studied and have to be agreed upon.
I think you're out of date.
That sounds like a 1980s "R1"-only charismatic-church "commitment course". I've never heard of an FIEC church doing something like that. They might invite assent to a statement of faith, but I very much doubt they'd take someone through the whole thing in the way you describe.
[ETA as stated above, I think most churches with this kind of thing don't say much about it at all until they want to use it to dispose of undesirable elements, when they leaf through it to see what will stick]
I'm probably back in the 1950's as regards the FIEC and, as you say, in the 1980's as regards the new churches. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
However, it surely must be the case that an individual congregation wishing to join the FIEC must adhere to the doctrines and teachings espoused by the FIEC? Doesn't mean, of course, that the pastors will discuss these things with their members, although I would hope they would.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Forthview: quote:
Yes, I know that some Catholics,(not all that many that I know) are obsessed with maintaining traditional points of view on sexuality and gender which have more to do with culture than with Christianity. Perhaps they are rightly criticised for being narrow minded.
Perhaps they just have a very odd idea about what (or who) a 'traditional Christian' actually is.
The first four of the Ten Commandments are all about God and our relationship with him. How many of your "traditional" Christians who get all hot under the collar about Teh Gayz think it's OK to shop on a Sunday? How many of them say 'Christ' or 'OMG' when they're upset or annoyed about something?
The only mentions of sexual morality are number 7 (Do not commit adultery) and number 10 (Do not covet your neighbour's wife...). Neither of these admonitions has anything to do with men having sex with each other.
The Nicene Creed doesn't mention sex at all.
I fear the 'traditional' Christians have fallen into the contemporary trap of thinking that sex is more important than anything else we do. Ironic, then, that they accuse more socially liberal Christians of being slaves to the Zeitgeist.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
@ Mark Wuntoo: I think that many "main line" (i.e. BUGB rather than FIEC) Baptist churches expect prospective members do go through some sort of course: here is one example. I doubt though that these are as rigorous as the 1980s R1 Discipleship Courses. Many of the folk who take these courses might well have already done "Alpha" or "Christianity Explored", of course.
[ 26. July 2017, 10:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I fear the 'traditional' Christians have fallen into the contemporary trap of thinking that sex is more important than anything else we do.
I realise we are in danger of leading ourselves into the Cemetery Stable ...
I think though that it goes much wider: "traditional" Christians are wary of accepting interpretations of anything that falls outside the "accepted views" or hermeneutic. The big no-no is to question those views.
[ 26. July 2017, 10:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I know (from experience) that some conservative evangelicals would say that the presenting issue of our time is sexual ethics, which is why they major on it - the argument being that if it was slavery, then they majored on slavery.
That's fine as far as it goes, though when I ask them whether they'd be throwing their theological weight behind the anti- or pro-slavery side (which many 18th century 'traditional' Christians did), they tend to go a bit purple.
I'm traditional enough to think that yes, sexual ethics is important: I've impressed on my kids that their relationships should be exclusive, monogamous, and based on mutual love, trust and respect. I expect them, in due course, to get married to their partners rather than live together.
I've not proscribed the gender of their partners, because that's completely out of my control. (Nor race, class or religion. Though I will be very disappointed if they marry a Tory.)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks for those who provided detail on the role of the Creeds in evangelistic churches. Much of the FIEC's statement seems to me to be a dumbed down version of the Nicene Creed; but of course there's nothing in that Creed, nor in the Apostles' and Athanasian either, about the role of women or sexuality. I did not delve more deeply.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My sense is that Christianity has become more polarised in the Anglophone West as secularisation has increased, and populations are identifying less and less with organised religion.
Some Christians have responded by seeking to align their values more with the wider society, and others by re-stating the values that their churches have traditionally taught.
I appreciate that a lot of religious conservatives see it this way, which presumably is why they are religious conservatives. But isn't this way of seeing things kind of circular -- it *assumes* that the developments that conservatives oppose are rejections of doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith, as opposed to more peripheral doctrines that may be partially or wholly mistaken. History shows that sometimes the secular world gets things right, or at least partly right, and doctrines once seemed essential to the faith no longer seem so essential after they're found to be less than defensible.
I didn't use the term 'essential to the Christian faith', or anything similar to it.
I don't approach this subject in terms of who does or doesn't belong within the Christian family. Firstly, it's not my decision to make. I'm neither God, nor a theologian, nor a church official tasked with accepting or rejecting requests for membership. Secondly, I've spent all my life worshipping in moderate churches whose perspectives have shifted. It would be hypocritical of me to declare that the people alongside me are not 'essentially' Christian.
I find the sociological perspective more interesting. The sociology of religion routinely posits religious groups as either in low or high tension with the surrounding culture. Indeed, there's a spectrum between the very high tension sect and the low tension church.
These days, almost all of the groups under discussion on the Ship are churches, i.e. they are highly organised hierarchical groups with property, training for their clergy, status in ecumenical settings. About half the time the discussions addresse mainstream historical denominations, and the focus is almost entirely on Christianity in the Western world. IOW, almost all of these churches are in secularised settings, and are basically negotiating their response in a low tension direction. Some are going further and faster than others (or else fussing and dragging their feet); this is where the window of disagreement and 'unrest' lies.
Although I do have sympathy with what the OP is getting at, it could be argued that the Ship is quite a 'traditional' place (sociologically speaking) in its role of moving Western churches into a low tension relationship with the culture. An emphasis on tolerance, acceptance, questioning, personal choice and freedom; all these take us along the same road.
Moreover, the website has English origins, and the dominant church in England is the CofE, a state church whose very purpose is to represent and include a vastly heterogeneous populace; low tension should, in theory, be its modus operandi. So at its most 'traditional' the CofE shouldn't be doing or saying anything that puts it into a confrontational relationship with the (largely secular) public. Perhaps the Ship has absorbed a similar outlook in a more general sense.
[ 26. July 2017, 10:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
*snip* My hostility toward those views predates the Ship, so no change there -- but I'm certainly less patient now with the people who hold them. Whole bunches of people in and around my age cohort have changed their minds, and new generations of people are growing up without the iniquitous views of women and gay people that used to hold sway. It's time for us to stop giving that shit the time of day.
I'm not sure that I agree- in my experience one of the reasons that whole age cohorts have shifted on this issue is because there were people who gave them the time of day and who spent the time to work through the issue(s) with them.
But Sharkshooter has a point--responses which shipmates make out of a particular local or national debate, and are directed to another shipmate in another setting, sometimes seem aggressive or inappropriate. I have run into situations where a form of discourse, entirely customary in an English or US setting as an opening gambit, can seem to a Canadian to be intolerant and aggressive, disrespectful of the other interlocutor, and intended to shut down debate. And I wouldn't be surprised if others viewed our chewing through an issue as a form of passive-aggressiveness.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think CS Lewis might be partly to blame for that.
In Perelandra he argues that God might make a rule that is to be obeyed - in Perelandra, the rule not to spend a night on the Fixed Land - merely for the delight of obedience rather than for any utilitarian reason. Which leads back into issues of power and authority.
Yes, I've had people counter with that. But making up a rule that will cause people anguish just so he can enjoy people obeying it - in the one case where only 50% of the population are affected, in the latter 10% - just seems, well, weird. It's a bizarre argument to make. "God wants the best for you, except don't wear green. Nothing wrong with green, but he's just decided to ban it so that we can all enjoy not wearing green and stoning to death anyone who does."
The thing about the Island is that it is an equal opportunities island. It may be inconvenient but it offers the opportunity to all and sundry to practice the virtue of obedience. The thing about the hot button issues is that it is largely people who are not remotely inconvenienced by them who get to lecture other people on knowing their limits and the joys of the celibate lifestyle.
As we are invoking C. S. Lewis here I remember that he remarks somewhere that he rarely commented on homosexuality and gambling as he was not remotely attracted to either, and as a soldier on the Western front in the First World War he had never enjoyed exhortations to courage and perseverance from people safely at home in Blighty.
If we were to decide what the components of Christian discipleship were on a spectrum with enjoying Christmas carols at one end and sell all thou hast and give it to the poor and martyrdom at the other; then opposing gay marriage and supporting traditional gender roles is closer to the enjoyment of Christmas carols end of the spectrum; and women denying themselves the exercise of vital powers, that men take for granted, and gays denying themselves the possibility of a loving relationship, that straights take for granted, closer to the sell all thou hast bit.
Diogenes, with his lantern, would struggle to find a traditionalist with the honesty to admit this, though. Hence, I think, a certain amount of, shall we say, liberal impatience with their positions.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
I cannot conceive of unrest apart from the consciousness of my own sinful state and shortcomings. The Church - my church -, and Christ, through it/her offers me a path of reconciliation and healing through the sacraments, fellowship and the recognition of the daily struggle. Practically and pastorally, this may not always be evident, but it is here.
The issues of personal salvation are as pressing as those of "social justice". They have to go together - the spiritual life and the works of corporal and spiritual mercy.
Our adversaries accuse us of being culturally-conditioned, of trailing outmoded relics from a supposedly discredited past. I don't see how, as humans we can escape from being inserted in culture of some sort, and I don't see how this insertion invalidates our hermeneutic of obedience to God.
I very much doubt whether healing and reconciliation are ever achieved by retributive and supposedly corrective measures, that bear all the marks of spite and anger and the passions. - As much as I doubt in the efficacy, usefulness and goodness of a traditionalist restoration on political lines.
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Jane R - I agree with what you say.
However I do still think that there is something special about the love between a man and a woman within the relationship of marriage. It is the principal way in which the human species is propagated.
Human beings can and do both love and lust after others, persons of the opposite and the same sex ,as well as other animals and objects. For Christians, the supreme law is one of love. It is clear that since time immemorial some human beings have loved ( and found sexual satisfaction with) those of the same sex. There are many noble stories of homosexual love just as there are many ignoble stories of heterosexual love and lust.
There is no reason to suppose that all of those who support the idea and the ideal of a Catholic sacramental marriage are necessarily inimical to or obsessed with hatred for gays.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
