|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Warning: may contain heresy
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I was thinking of a few things that had been written here recently - and was reminded of something I read decades ago. It made me wonder if it was just me or whether anyone else periodically has similar thoughts.
Just to be clear, the following may involve heretical thoughts.
A long time ago when I was a teen I read a sci-fi novel, possibly by Isaac Asimov. This novel was set over multiple generations of lives of individuals in a particular species.
I can't remember the detail - if it was Asimov he may well have been making a point (he was quite anti all things religious) - but basically what happened was that there was a charismatic individual who said and did a load of stuff which was passed down the generation in such a garbled form that it became something else altogether.
Anyway, I haven't consciously thought these things for many years, but does anyone have the feeling that some of the things we think Christianity is all about are not actually what it is all about and that we're following some garbled version of the message that is about as similar to the original idea as chalk is to cheese?
I think as Protestants we're staking some kind of claim on the Reformation, at least to some extent thinking that what went before was in need of reform - and yet how do we know whether the reforms tilted the thing back towards the original or wildly off in a different direction?
I'm not an RC but presumably there is something similar going on there (albeit further back) where the identity is staked on a claim in particular point in time. How do we know that the original idea was to have a Pope and how do we know whether that was a garbled version of the intention?
I'm just using those as random examples, so not intended to be seen as an attack on Protestants or RC, I think we're all really staking a claim on something whilst saying that what-ever-it-is is from the New Testament, we're actually staking the claim on some other, later idea or interpretation of it.
Maybe the origins are so lost in the midst of time that we can only go so far back before we get to people trying to make sense of a thick fog of gibberish as best they can.
And before anyone says it, I can absolutely believe that this isn't a particularly profitable thought-process to walk down.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Anyway, I haven't consciously thought these things for many years, but does anyone have the feeling that some of the things we think Christianity is all about are not actually what it is all about and that we're following some garbled version of the message that is about as similar to the original idea as chalk is to cheese?
Yes, this is why I haven't worried about not considering myself a Christian for some time.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I remember reading about the Investiture Controversy, a few years ago, which loomed as large in the 11th century as, say, Brexit does today. It's now completely forgotten. Which made me wonder which of our current concerns would go the same way.
There is something to be said for Queen Elizabeth's remark: "There is only one Christ, Jesus, one faith. All else is a dispute over trifles. "
--------------------
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
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Yes it is quite possible that the shape of our faith today is not what was originally imagined.
The church is nothing at all like it was imagined. In fact, it is barely like it was 100-200 years ago.
I take the view that my faith is based on the scriptures we have, the stories we have and interpretations through history, and these help us understand the world.
I think this is why - these days - I have little patience for those who argue that "Christianity means x" when x is an oppressive or abusive thing to someone else.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Red Dwarf (Novelisation)?
Alternatively Foundation has a deliberately garbled science cynically used as religion (and similarly naturally occurring in other parts)
In any case both the Protestant and Catholic (and probably the Orthodox) have made several changes in the time since the reformation as well.
That said, we (more or less) have much the same (written) information of the early church that the church after Constantine (for the sake of picking a date) had of the early church*. So at whatever point the verbal tradition is considered unreliable we do have a textual anchor that reaches back. Although one that can be and is filtered by current and previous bias and interpretation.
And similarly for more modern aspects. Although Rowan William's or Ian Paisley's view of what Luther meant might be different from what Luther thought he meant, we do still have the 95 thesis to reread.
*including of course Acts.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
And similarly for more modern aspects. Although Rowan William's or Ian Paisley's view of what Luther meant might be different from what Luther thought he meant, we do still have the 95 thesis to reread.
That's true, and quite a good illustration. If we can't be sure of something much closer to us in history when we have written records, how much harder is it to be sure of something so much older?
[ 09. August 2017, 21:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
Well, you can call me a heretic or a Progressive christian, but in my 85th year I've thrown out most of accepted christian doctrine.
As one writer titled his book, I follow Jesus without worshiping Christ.
The creeds have nothing to say of Jesus' life and teaching, just a comma where it would be in the middle of statements formulated long after his death.
So if I'm not a Trinitarian, where is my place?
Currently in a small suburban Presbyterian church where we don't fuss about what members 'believe' (and that's a word that has layers of meaning), where a bunch of them went happily off to a six-session Alpha prayer course while three of us went to watch a series of Crossan videos. And while we have so far spent two years looking for a minister who will have us, or we her/him, we are very happy with our Lay Supply leader, who explains Progressive theology and uses words like 'myth' without alarming anyone. And with other like-minded folk, some not so far from my position and some who have abandoned the supernatural altogether but go to a church like mine because they are comfortable there with its familiarity.
My problem. I imagine a great cathedral, with bishops and clergy robed and be-hatted, and I imagine Jesus walking in. What would he think? Wouldn't it look just like the temple and its priests that so angered him? Would he recognise any of what was taking place there?
Okay friends; join me or throw me out (I won't go – I know I'm not the only one.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Are you sure you weren't watching Life of Brian? Cuz it sounds a lot like the hilarious scene when Brian's on the outskirts of the crowd half-listening to the sermon on the mount: "blessed are the cheesemakers..."
More positively, this would be my view:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I take the view that my faith is based on the scriptures we have, the stories we have and interpretations through history, and these help us understand the world.
I think this is why - these days - I have little patience for those who argue that "Christianity means x" when x is an oppressive or abusive thing to someone else.
As a good Wesleyan I would add my experience of the risen Christ and what through him I have come to understand as the character and nature of God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I suspect most people's Christianity contains heresy after we get beyond the basic idea of acting lovingly and decently with each other, and not being a Donald or Judas
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
mr cheesy
Faith means accepting that we weren't around 1000s of years ago to see what happened, and that the written accounts we have come with any number of errors and agendas. It means tolerating the fact that generations of Christians have believed and interpreted the faith in different ways. If all this is an insurmountable problem for people then faith obviously won't be sustained.
It'll be interesting to see how things turn out in the future, but even in the British present 'heresy' doesn't seem to be a big thing. The CofE and others seem more concerned about how to get people to engage with the church than in repelling 'heresy'. The word doesn't routinely appear in arguments about the topic of the moment, SSM.
Perhaps we're all heretics in some form or other. Some would argue that the clergy have led the way.
[ 10. August 2017, 00:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I sufficiently agree with what Schrodinger's cat said not to quibble, but that's just a cover in case I think of a quibble later.
Don't people say that Scripture has to be grappled with and interpreted anew by each generation? Someone said that. Likely someone with reformist tendencies I suppose.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Well, one could also ask oneself if what Jesus Himself intended is what should be. Maybe, instead of arguing whether or not this or that church practice is what Jesus really meant, we should consider if what Jesus really meant is necessarily itself good or true, or if some of it is and other parts of it are not.
But even if you believe that everything that Jesus did and taught was good/true, then there is the possibility that most or all Christians either got some of it wrong for decades/centuries/millennia or that there were important parts of it they did not know but that they do know now.
Maybe, if Jesus' intentions were all good and true, it was His intention that the first Christians not completely understand His message, and that the Church would come to understand more and more of it over time (with occasional movements in the opposite direction). Or maybe not.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just to be clear, the following may involve heretical thoughts.
there was a charismatic individual who said and did a load of stuff which was passed down the generation in such a garbled form that it became something else altogether.
some of the things we think Christianity is all about are not actually what it is all about and that we're following some garbled version of the message that is about as similar to the original idea as chalk is to cheese?
Maybe the origins are so lost in the midst of time that we can only go so far back before we get to people trying to make sense of a thick fog of gibberish as best they can.
Yawn.
Sounds more like the Spongy stock in trade of the common or garden variety village atheist, than courageous, subversive, cutting-edge, iconoclastic "heresy".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Sounds more like the Spongy stock in trade of the common or garden variety village atheist, than courageous, subversive, cutting-edge, iconoclastic "heresy".
Lot of that around.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Sometimes, I think that we've got it all wrong, and Jesus was just trying to teach us how to live.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Yawn.
Sounds more like the Spongy stock in trade of the common or garden variety village atheist, than courageous, subversive, cutting-edge, iconoclastic "heresy".
What a surprise: you can't handle doubt and spin it as atheism.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Cliffdweller - yes, my current experience is also important, but I interpret that in terms of my understanding of the Bible.
I should point out that I consider myself theologically evangelical. I believe that the Bible was written as intended, and that much of it records historical events. But that it records them through the medium of individuals who were present (and sometimes, reinterpreted later).
I would also say that I have been saved through Jesus sacrifice on the Cross. But what I mean by that is intensely complex, and is not PSA. I believe in Heaven and Hell, but they are not the focus of my faith.
Most of all, I believe in a divine being - God - who is personal, trinitarian and loving. All of which seems to me perfectly orthodox evangelical. Or did until a few years ago.
But - and this is crucial - any particular aspect of my faith is quite open to challenge and change. So many things that I have believed on my journey I no longer accept. But I have moved beyond, rather than turning my back on, these ideas. And I have moved on by learning, engaging and thinking, something that seems to be distinctly lacking in certain areas of faith today.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I believe in a divine being - God - who is personal, trinitarian and loving. All of which seems to me perfectly orthodox evangelical. Or did until a few years ago.
I'm not sure I quite follow you here - you seem to be suggesting that Evangelicalism has moved away from this formerly-orthodox understanding of God, while you have remained with it (albeit with changing insights and perspectives). Is that what you mean?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Where's the heresy? Foundation. The Seldon Plan.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The church is nothing at all like it was imagined.
This. I am fond of saying that the Church as an institution is little more than a huge misunderstanding. But we can't unmake history.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This. I am fond of saying that the Church as an institution is little more than a huge misunderstanding. But we can't unmake history.
I suppose the scary thought is whether this matters. Does it matter if we're making the best of things whilst living out a delusion?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That's almost a Good News translation of simul iustus et peccator, I think.
At the end of the day I go pretty much along with QE1, as Callan said. It's about priorities.
--------------------
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 Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
A bit of Micah 6: 8 goes a long way:
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
[ 10. August 2017, 09:18: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
This is all sounding quite emergent!
Brian McClaren suggests in his book 'A new kind of Christianity' (and probably in loads of others i havent read) , that the Church understands itself by looking backward, and defines its thinking through the lens of the ideas of key influencers , Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, Paul, who are by definition bringing their own worldviews to the table, and therefore muddying the water (he doesnt exactly say 'poisoning the well' but i think he may mean that). He argues that the ideological frame work of the Church is Greek Dualism rather than Jewish Holism , and consequently the God a lot of Christians worship is a character more like Zeus, than Yahweh.
McClaren suggests we are better to try reading the bible 'forward' as unfurling event/story/drama. (I can tell he was an English teacher).
Quite a 'Year Zero' approach to the faith, i find.
[ 10. August 2017, 11:57: Message edited by: beatmenace ]
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It'll be interesting to see how things turn out in the future, but even in the British present 'heresy' doesn't seem to be a big thing. The CofE and others seem more concerned about how to get people to engage with the church than in repelling 'heresy'. The word doesn't routinely appear in arguments about the topic of the moment, SSM.
Funny you should say that because last couple of days I've been (sort of) following an argument on the blogosphere regarding what counts as "orthodox", and whether being for e.g. pro-SSM disqualifies you i.e. is heresy.
It started with this post. Here are a couple of responses.
Of course this is not in a specifically British or CofE context, so your comments are still probably valid. But I thought it noteworthy all the same.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, I'm sure there are such discussions going on somewhere, especially in the USA. But the point is, AFAICS, it doesn't really seem to matter anymore. If you have to leave one church in disgust there are twenty more that'll gladly have you.
Even the strict churches that shock Shippy sensibilities have very little control over the minds of members who decide they don't give a toss. The turnover is often high; surely that's a sign that we all just want to follow our own path.
Some scholars believe that church is more about community than theology these days.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Quite a 'Year Zero' approach to the faith, i find.
That brings its own problems: look no further than the contemporary evangelical movement, which tends to think of itself as Acts 29 and ignore the whole of church history between the end of Acts 28 and now.
Mrs Eutychus and I had breakfast with McClaren some years ago and while he was a very nice guy, he came across as far more traditional evangelical than I'd suspected from his writings. This suspicion was confirmed for me when, if memory serves, Time named him as one of Christianity's 50 most influential evangelicals.
I'm indebted to Gamaliel for the following pithy insight: the trouble with "liquid Christianity" is that it tends to congeal.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The turnover is often high; surely that's a sign that we all just want to follow our own path.
Or perhaps it's a sign that we're far too picky, far to me-centered to accept a church with warts and settle down for a spell.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I believe in a divine being - God - who is personal, trinitarian and loving. All of which seems to me perfectly orthodox evangelical. Or did until a few years ago.
I'm not sure I quite follow you here - you seem to be suggesting that Evangelicalism has moved away from this formerly-orthodox understanding of God, while you have remained with it (albeit with changing insights and perspectives). Is that what you mean?
I am saying that this position - the whole lot of what I wrote, not just the final statement - was until 5+ years ago within the remit of what would be considered evangelical.
These days, I feel that the heart of evangelicalism has move to a far more fundamentalist position, away from where I stand. I have tended to draw the other way. So I find myself today in stark contrast to many evangelicals. I feel it is they who have moved thouhg, more than me.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Jesus said "come to me who are weary and heavy laden, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light"
We say "come to us and let us load you up with guilt for being a sexual being; let us load you with prohibitions based on your sex, especially if you're a woman. Let us enforce celibacy on you if you are gay. Let us tell you what you must believe and threaten you with hellfire and accusations of heresy should you differ. Let us fill you with horror at the eternal Hell which awaits most of humanity, including those you hold dear, and you, should you be crushed by our burden"
Something had gone very wrong. Or so says this heretic.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I believe in a divine being - God - who is personal, trinitarian and loving. All of which seems to me perfectly orthodox evangelical. Or did until a few years ago.
I'm not sure I quite follow you here - you seem to be suggesting that Evangelicalism has moved away from this formerly-orthodox understanding of God, while you have remained with it (albeit with changing insights and perspectives). Is that what you mean?
I am saying that this position - the whole lot of what I wrote, not just the final statement - was until 5+ years ago within the remit of what would be considered evangelical.
These days, I feel that the heart of evangelicalism has move to a far more fundamentalist position, away from where I stand. I have tended to draw the other way. So I find myself today in stark contrast to many evangelicals. I feel it is they who have moved thouhg, more than me.
Thank you.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Fostering guilt,Karl. Both an individual and an institutional fault in Christianity. Definitely a heresy, too. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin. Giving the HS a hand in that role is sheer presumption. Not helpful, not charitable, not wise. One finger points at the other person, the other three point at us.
Hardly rocket science to be able to see that, but it seems remarkably easy to forget.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Reminds me of an impressive scene in the original movie of 'Twelve Angry Men'. A conversation between an elderly juror and a younger one (played by E G Marshall) in which the elderly juror looks at a key bit of evidence and simply asks questions. The movie shows conviction dawning on the face of the other juror. But at no time is he accused of judgmentalism, or jumping to conclusions. He is given space to reconsider.
--------------------
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
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jesus said "come to me who are weary and heavy laden, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light"
He did say that. He also said you should love your enemies, always* forgive someone who sins against you, not even look at a woman lustfully, chop off your arm or gouge out your eye rather than do bad things with them... And a bunch of other stuff that amounts to a very very high bar.
With a very high bar comes inevitable failure. With failure comes guilt. Whether it's intended or not.
I'm not in favour of deliberately creating an environment where people are "loaded up" with guilt, but I think given the source material, it's understandable why it happens. And it's certainly not the case that Jesus said only nice fluffy things and the church came along and added a bunch of harsh and difficult stuff. The hard stuff was there from the beginning.
(*or "seventy times seven" as he put it)
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The guilt's there regardless. In a morally developed person. The feeling, which is shame really, as well as any juridical pronouncement. The impossibly high bar was always there, regardless of Jesus pointing it, the blatantly obvious, out with hyperbole.
Don't blame Him.
[ 11. August 2017, 08:45: 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
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some scholars believe that church is more about community than theology these days.
Probably true but that doesn't mean theology isn't important at all.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Sorry, Svitlana - do you mean that"some scholars of today are of the opinion that the church is more about community than theology ...! or that "some scholars think that, while theology was once the most important thing about church, these days community is actually the primary thing...". There is a slight (perhaps hair-splitting?) difference.
In any case, could you give some "chapter and verse"?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I am struck by the Jewish concept of 'Not in Heaven'. The Torah is God's revelation but once the revelation has been given, there is no further 'authentic' interpretation of the Torah beyond what the Jews themselves make of it.
There is even a story in the Talmud where a voice from Heaven tries to intervene in a rabbinic dispute, and receives the response that since the Torah is not in Heaven, the voice from Heaven is inadmissible as evidence.
By analogy, I think we cannot talk about what Christianity 'ought' to be all about separately from what Christians have made of Christianity.
--------------------
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
Wow. That's really interesting.
It takes me back to the old "logos" vs "rhema" disputes of the early charismatic movement, where the written word was argued by some to be (boring) "logos" and today's prophetic word was supposed to be (exciting and authoritative) "rhema".
Except that here, there is a (Scripture-based ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) ) rationale (if not a God-given imperative!) for ongoing human interpretation that nonetheless holds the original revelation to be something unique and distinct. I find that to be a fascinating idea.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Nothing to add here but to echo Eutychus; thanks Ricardus - very interesting.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Another fine false dichotomy you've got me in to.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
You can thank the concept of the canon for 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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
One I used to fiercely defend. As I now do historical criticism. With a soft spot for concentric circles of faithful witness, inspired in uninspired enculturation, edited of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
One I used to fiercely defend. As I now do historical criticism. With a soft spot for concentric circles of faithful witness, inspired in uninspired enculturation, edited of course.
And a full stop (if not all of the parentheses... more or less agreed upon by around the fifth century.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Gosh, that Talmudic quote ...
Thanks Ricardus!
That bit where the rabbi asks the prophet Elijah what the Holy One made of it all and he replied that the Almighty laughed with joy, saying, 'My children have defeated me!'
There's something so very playful about Judaism. We need to be reminded of that and how it plays into our shared Judeo-Christian heritage.
Wowser!
Ought to go in the quotes file. I love the Jewish audacity of it.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The turnover is often high; surely that's a sign that we all just want to follow our own path.
Or perhaps it's a sign that we're far too picky, far to me-centered to accept a church with warts and settle down for a spell.
I think people want to give their time, money and emotional engagement to something that meets their needs. People will come, or stay, as long as they feel they're getting something out of it. Tradition or duty alone won't cut it.
More broadly, short-termism is experienced by many people in their secular lives today. They don't expect to give their loyalty to a single institution over a period of many years, and neither do institutions give such loyalty in return. In any case, although individuals may leave churches, whole churches often cease to exist, casting their members to the four winds.
Perhaps we need to develop an explicit theology of boredom, or even of low expectations....
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Sorry, Svitlana - do you mean that"some scholars of today are of the opinion that the church is more about community than theology ...! or that "some scholars think that, while theology was once the most important thing about church, these days community is actually the primary thing...". There is a slight (perhaps hair-splitting?) difference.
In any case, could you give some "chapter and verse"?
Many would agree that community has always been a significant factor in the appeal of church life, regardless of theology. OTOH, I assume that in a crowded and buoyant religious market new Christian groups in the past have had to stand out from others by emphasising their theological distinctiveness. And I imagine that doctrinally strict churches can still benefit from their strictness, under certain conditions.
But my comment above was largely a reference to David Voas, who talks about the importance of community over theology.
There's also research, again by Voas, suggesting that it's not theology that makes a church grow but a serious desire and effort in a congregation to create growth. I imagine that such churches have to be places of welcome and community if theology isn't the decisive factor.
Otherwise, there seems to be some suspicion (apparent often in discussions about American megachurches but also with regard to some popular British churches) that the success of certain congregations is less to do with their theology (which may or may not be quite superficial) than with their lively, fun atmosphere.
Like attracts like, as many churches know; having young people makes it more likely you'll attract more. No one wants to feel out of place in a 'community', regardless of what the theology is.
I think this is evident on the Ship as well. A number of people here seem to attend evangelical churches, not so much for the theology (which is usually too conservative for them) but for less explicit reasons. One reason is surely that people want to stay with their friends, or just with a more compatible demographic group than the more tolerant church down the road offers.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Thank you too, I'll look up the references - tomorrow!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2
I'm about to see how the Community vs Theology thing will work out.
We are finally to get our new minister; I'll be in hospital when he preaches for the call but it's clear that nearly all the Parish Council and selection board like him, and I've heard several reports from people I like who are very positive about him.
That leaves about four of us who are confirmed Progressives in our theology who are waiting to see what we will do. After almost two years of Progressive preaching, how much traditional theology can we sit and listen to?
Myself, I've been a part of this community for 50 years and at 84 I don't think I'd walk. There is one church at this end of the city where two others might end up. I'm more likely do stay where I am (and maybe see whether the new minister can handle a bit of personal discussion) go to the Ephesus gathering fortnightly on a Sunday evening, maybe go some Sunday mornings to the church where our Lay Supply's wife is the minister.
We'll just have to see.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
A theology of boredom - hmmmmmm, interesting!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
