|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What puts you off from setting foot inside a church?
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The two things that a church has to do, to stay live, is to retain its current members and to get in new ones. Unfortunately this does lead to several kinds of services. Old-fashioned ones for the elder end of the demographic, and worship bands for the younger ones. In our church we've noticed that this can get very fragmented, everyone in the family peeling off to 'their own' service.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think that's certainly the case, Baptist Trainfan ...
As for Shippies not being prepared to 'set foot' in Pentecostal settings, I'm not sure you're right, SvitlanaV2.
But there are different kinds of Pentecostalism. The denomination I was referring to is non-Trinitarian.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I would struggle to set foot in a church which I knew to be non-Trinitarian, excessively fundamentalist or syncretistic, or which espoused the Prosperity Gospel.
That's for worship, of course - things would be different if it was a secular concert or a political meeting, say.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, Non-Trinitarian Pentecostalism would be a no-go area for me.
So, yes, you're right, I wouldn't set foot there.
Whereas I would set foot in a Quaker meeting, even though a lot of Quakers aren't Trinitarian. So there are inconsistencies in my approach.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There's a difference between a church which is itself non-Trinitarian, and one which is non-dogmatic and therefore where some of its members may be.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I'd agree with that. Without getting into what does or doesn't constitute a church, I tend to regard the Quakers as a society or religious association rather than as a 'church' in a more technical sense ... Whilst maintaining they do maintain and retain church-like features, if that makes sense.
I hope that doesn't mean I'm excluding or de-churchifying them.
In the case of a non-Trinitarian outfit like the Unitarians, or a non-Trinitarian Pentecostal church, I'd regard them as having some family resemblance but beyond the pale in fundamental respects.
There was always an odd 'Jesus-Only' fringe just below the horizon if you looked out across the gunwales of traditional Pentecostalism, but most Penties knew where the horizon lay and how to navigate a course that didn't lead towards that particular Scylla or Charybdis.
Other no-nos for me would include excessive fundamentalism, syncretism and the Prosperity Gospel. So my list is similar to Baptist Trainfan's.
--------------------
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
The British Quakers today seem inoffensive, educated, middle class, and no doubt committed to caring and sharing. And they don't preach their 'heresies'. Non-Trinitarian Pentecostalism is culturally very different, let alone theologically, so is understandably less congenial.
I've worshipped several times with the latter, but not the former. It helped that I was taken along by relatives. I'm not sure I'll ever worship with the Quakers; I don't know any, and I'd feel rather awkward, turning up alone and not knowing the ropes.
[ 21. December 2016, 11:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In the case of a non-Trinitarian outfit like the Unitarians, or a non-Trinitarian Pentecostal church, I'd regard them as having some family resemblance but beyond the pale in fundamental respects.
You are aware that the formal name for the Unitarians is 'Unitarian and Free Christian Church'
The Free Christians are basically ones who believe that you should not have to sign up to a doctrinal basis to belong to a church.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Interestingly I know of one Minister who explicitly sought to promulgate the "Free Christian" ethos in his church and found it extremely hard going.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ISTM that if congregations are not bound together by a shared theology then they need something else around which to unite. The CofE obviously has the advantage of heritage, status and visibility; the smaller British churches simply don't have any of this to the same extent.
The other possibility is for churches to focus on providing an attractive community rather than emphasising religion (see David Voas). Unfortunately, though, churches that tone down their theological distinctives often end up with very little to hold members together. This means that theological unity is often better at creating a sense of community than theological diversity is.
In the right setting, though, anything is possible.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, yes, but call me 'unfree' if you like, I happen to regard the Nicene Creed as normative ...
I'd have said the same when I was a member of a Baptist church and also in my 'new church' days.
I can understand why some might want to sit loosely to creedal formularies but I can't really see the point. It's a bit like saying that we don't have to pay taxes or can ignore stipulations about the wearing of seat-belts or drinking and driving ...
Ok, I know that's not directly analogous but ...
It simply strikes me as being awkward for awkward's sake.
@SvitlanaV2, sure there are big cultural differences between Quakers and Non-Trinitarian Pentecostals of course. From what I can gather, most Non-Trinitarian Pentecostals here in the UK are Afro-Caribbean. I've only come across one such congregation in my time, perhaps I've led a sheltered life. I had a good chat with them - they were out evangelising in the city centre - but I've not been to one of their meetings.
I also met some of them who had moved on to Trinitarian Pentecostal settings, which made me wonder how much of a big deal the Non-Trinitarian thing was to them ...
As far as I could gather, these people hadn't necessarily moved on because they wanted something more explicitly Trinitarian, but I didn't probe to find out as I thought it might be rude to do so.
The Non-Trinitarian Pentecostals I used to hear about from traditional Pentecostal friends in South Wales were always somewhere else ... and, I would imagine, white-working class.
On the Quaker thing, well, I've only attended four Quaker meetings - one full-length one, two short evening 'epilogues' and one half-length midday morning session (the morning the US election results were announced, which was interesting ...)
I was made very welcome and there was no problem about learning the ropes as there wasn't a great deal of rigging. There are far more ropes to get hold of in sacramental or liturgical forms of worship than there are amongst the Friends, although a quick scan through their very helpful introductory material in advance does help.
As it happens, I did 'minister' (as they put it) or share some thoughts on the Trump election occasion - which was interesting - and although I wasn't sure whether I'd breached protocol, I was assured that I hadn't.
As with anything else, it's a case of 'come and see'.
If you want to understand the Quakers, attend their meetings. If you want to understand the RCs, attend a Mass. If you want to understand the Orthodox attend a Vespers or 'The Liturgy'.
If you want to know how the URC roll, then roll with them ...
As I've said, I'm happy to put my big toe across the threshold of any avowedly Trinitarian church or to knock around with the Quakers if I have occasion to - and I was at a residential at a Quaker Study Centre recently for non-Quaker purposes ...
What I'd be less happy doing would be to put my big toe over the threshold of anything that had anything to do with Hagin, Copeland or the Word of Faith crowd, or anything too charismaniac or rigidly fundamentalist - or anything that had a label on it that said it was avowedly non-Trinitarian.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, where did 'midday' come from? It wasn't 'midday' at all ... what I meant was half-length ie. it lasted half and hour.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Non-Trinitarian Pentecostals I used to hear about from traditional Pentecostal friends in South Wales were always somewhere else ... and, I would imagine, white-working class.
The church I attended in Partick, Glasgow, in the mid-70s had a "Jesus Only" pastor. They only got to know about his theology when they heard him using a rather unusual baptismal liturgy - and then they sacked him.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
I have been following this thread avidly and it has made me ponder long and hard about this... I think over the last 10-15 years I have attended services at most of the mainstream denominations...but not all(for example been to an AoG but not an Elim Pentecostal)
I am happy to visit and observe at most places of worship both Christian and those of other faiths.
But engaging and then making somewhere my spiritual home is quite another matter.
Nowhere is perfect but what drives me away most is noise:
Amplified music (I have never enjoyed loud gigs but will happily engage with rock style music as long as I have some control over the volume!)
Preachers shouting also send me running especially when they get you to repeat their words for effect
People chatting instead of engaging really grieves me too
I am also wary of places where you can be ambushed by prayers and words from people you have not asked to be involved with you. I've always had a thing about leaving control in the hands of the person "responding" and even when I was involved in charismatic circles I would only speak when given permission by the other person.
Finally, being welcomed and then being sensitively supported during life's curved ball times are I think two of the most attractive features that any community of faith could offer.
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
I'm sure modern Quakerism is very interesting, and I might go for a special occasion, but it doesn't really grip me spiritually. I wouldn't fit in there any better than with the 'Jesus Name' Pentecostals, but at least with the latter I have a connection.
For me it's not necessarily about theology but it may be about atmosphere. Many congregations are small, and as a visitor unfamiliar with the tradition I wouldn't want to stand out too much. (I do understand that this doesn't bother you.) But in a large congregation, which of course is likely to be charismatic of some type, it may be easier to blend in.
So, for example, I'd be fairly unwilling to go to a small spiritualist church, but I would attend a large 'prosperity' church. Besides which, prosperity teaching interests me on various levels, whereas spiritualism doesn't.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Y'see, in this day and age, and given the potential impact, I'd see Prosperity teaching as a more pernicious heresy than the various heresies around the Trinity.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I suspect that in some cases there may be some influence of the former on the latter.
However, you do highlight the probable reality, which is that many modern British Christians, including many who see themselves as 'CofE', are likely to be too theologically fuzzy or diverse to be strongly wedded to Trinitarianism. There are liturgies, but they seem to be only advisory these days. And Trinitarianism isn't one of those topics that stimulates much discussion, IME.
As you imply, social concerns (e.g. the prosperity doctrines) rather than theological abstractions are what people are focusing on now.
[ 21. December 2016, 14:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I don't think I would have allied the phrases "social concern" and "prosperity Gospel" ... although I recognise that the latter flourishes in conditions of deprivation.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't think I would have allied the phrases "social concern" and "prosperity Gospel" ... although I recognise that the latter flourishes in conditions of deprivation.
I'd have said they're at opposite ends of a spectrum.q
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Don't misunderstand me, I don't find Quakerism particularly nourishing in and of itself.
I couldn't become a Quaker, I'm far too sacramentally and liturgically inclined for that, I think - although I do admire them as individuals and feel that they are 'onto something' to a certain extent ...
But it's a something I'm happy to dip in and out of rather than to pursue, as it were.
I have a friend who currently feels drawn that way, and that's great ...
But I can't say that it would do for me ...
Although I have a lot of respect for Quakers and for Quakerism.
I can see what you're saying about Trinitarianism, but I s'pose my contacts with Orthodoxy have rubbed off on me insofar as I don't see a concern about the Trinity as some kind of cerebral or abstract theological concept but a living reality.
When I first encountered Orthodoxy the thing that really struck a chord and resonated with me was the strong Trinitarian emphasis. Not that I wasn't used to that already, but it somehow seemed more 'realised' if I can put it that way - and yes, largely because it's such a big feature in their Liturgy.
So, I'm as Trinitarian as they come. It runs through me like a stick of rock.
That's why I'd roll my eyes at the creedal 'lightness' of something like the Unitarian Christian Church or whatever it calls itself - and why I think that various non-conformist groups can find themselves teetering close to the edge when it comes to their lack of creedal discipline and formality - if I can put it that way.
The history of the Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Baptists is riddled with schisms and down-right apostasising over this issue - the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.
No, I'm not saying that Baptists are heretical, but they can be creedally compromised if they aren't careful.
Of course, Anglicans and people from other older churches and denominations can be too - I'm sure there are plenty of clergy who are nominally Trinitarian as well as many people in the pews.
I can't speak for them. I can only speak for myself. I am inveterately Nicene.
Here I stand, I can do no other ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't think I would have allied the phrases "social concern" and "prosperity Gospel" ... although I recognise that the latter flourishes in conditions of deprivation.
Well, it's a 'concern' for some. Karl said it had a 'potential impact', and I'm assuming he meant something more significant to society than a raised eyebrow at a theological college!
But maybe not. Despite the distaste with which other Christians view the prosperity teachings perhaps it's difficult to argue that its social impact is a significant problem. 'Conditions of deprivation' can lead to loss of hope, family breakdown and criminality, which are far more nefarious than this doctrine.
Some disadvantaged church members will be disillusioned if the prosperity gospel fails to meet their expectations, but disillusionment is a problem that all forms Christianity in the West have to deal with.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This discussion is interesting. I suspect I'm fairly close to Gamaliel in much of this.
However, I'm curious about how one could be a non-Trinitarian Pentecostal. I'm not sure I've ever encountered one. It seems a bit of a contradiction in terms. What do they believe and do? As Pentecostals, presumably they believe in charismatic gifts. If they aren't Trinitarian, who do they imagine brings the gifts?
Are they modalists? Or is it about something else? And what is it that would make a group adopt a peculiar explanation of Christianity rather than the more normal one(s). If you are a Pentecostal, what purported benefit does not believing in the Trinity bring you?
Or is it just about the baptismal formula from which they've developed a series of doctrines that don't quite hang together to justify deviating from everybody else?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
So would I be correct in concluding,
1. Yes, they are at root modalists,
2. In their praxis, they have a pronounced Pelagian tendency, and
3. There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why a person should choose to be one rather than a conventional Pentecostal?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I must be honest and say I don't really understand the Jesus Name (or Oneness, or Apostolic, etc.) doctrine myself. My mother used to emphasise the baptismal formula, so that distinction was obviously what remained uppermost in her mind as a result of her upbringing. The main denomination is the United Pentecostal Church International.
I remember once on a visit to my grandparents, who were in their late eighties or early nineties, I joined them for their devotional time. I was asked to pick something from their hymnbook. I chose 'Holy, Holy Holy, Lord God Almighty'. That was fine - until we got to this bit: 'God in three persons, blessed Trinity'!! (In their book, I think this line only appeared at the end.)
I think there is (or was) a dislike within the movement of man-made materials that could lead people astray. This means that a lot of the serious work available on the movement is written by its detractors, some more sympathetic than others. The main texts I've heard of are David A Reed, 'In Jesus Name - The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals' and Thomas Fudge, 'Christianity without the Cross; A History of Salvation in Oneness Pentecostalism'. The latter is apparently very critical, as the title suggests.
[ 21. December 2016, 17:39: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The landscape is confused to some extent by ostensibly Trinitarian Penties who used a 'Jesus-Only' baptismal formula.
As far as I can make out, 'Oneness' Pentecostals believe it is Jesus who confers the charismatic gifts, as the Holy Spirit is 'the Spirit of Christ' - essentially, as Enoch has identified, they're Modalists.
Every now and again in very Reformed evangelical magazines there'd be outraged articles about them ...
You'd also find standard Pentecostals warning people off them, rather in the same way as the canonical Orthodox will warn people off the non-canonicals ...
On the Prosperity Gospel, there is an element of empowerment there which working class or marginalised groups find attractive. It's no accident that 'prosperity teaching' first caught on amongst poor white Pentecostals in post-Depression Oklahoma and is popular among some African and Afro-Caribbean churches today.
The Prosperity Gospel didn't 'start' among these groups but it gained traction among them.
Most preachers I've come across who've espoused versions of the Prosperity thing had working class backgrounds and couldn't understand middle-class squeamishness about the issue.
Some of these fellas literally went to school with cardboard stuffed in their shoes to keep out the wet. Their parents couldn't afford to buy them new shoes. For them, Pentecostalism offered a way out.
As much as I can't stand the Prosperity Gospel, I can see how it holds out some hope to those at the margins.
Where it does 'deliver' it's a form of self-fulfillng prophecy as it inculcates enterprise and self-improvement.
It also eats its children and causes casualties, encourages rapacious, rip-off pastors and scams.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
And we're now back into doctrinal argument - which the one thing more than any other that the unchurched find off-putting when they make an occasional foray into a service.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This discussion about non-Trinitarian Pentecostals has scratched a vague memory from over 45 years ago. Does anyone know if this shack is one of these?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And we're now back into doctrinal argument - which the one thing more than any other that the unchurched find off-putting when they make an occasional foray into a service.
Agree that doctrinal argument has no place in worship services. The unchurched are unlikely to subscribe to serious theological journals.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The history of the Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Baptists is riddled with schisms and down-right apostasising over this issue - the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.
That's true, as I understand it, of English Presbyterianism, but I'm not sure it's particularly true of Presbyterianism elsewhere. The many splits and schisms have, for the most part, related to other things.
The first congregation in America to officially adopt Unitarianism was an Anglican congregation.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Congregationalism in the USA fed pretty directly into Unitarianism (pace your example of King's Chapel). During the early 19th century, all the Congregationalist churches in Boston went Unitarian, with the exception of Old South. Indeed, the United Church of Christ (the largest Congregationalist denomination in America) has a warm relationship with the UUA, and no doubt harbors plenty of Unitarians within its tent.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Congregationalism in the USA fed pretty directly into Unitarianism (pace your example of King's Chapel). During the early 19th century, all the Congregationalist churches in Boston went Unitarian, with the exception of Old South. Indeed, the United Church of Christ (the largest Congregationalist denomination in America) has a warm relationship with the UUA, and no doubt harbors plenty of Unitarians within its tent.
Oh absolutely. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. That's why my main comment was limited to Presbyterians. The King's Chapel reference was intended more as an aside. Sorry if in my haste I didn't make that clear.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Some would argue that Unitarianism isn't far below the surface in many Protestant traditions. I'd argue that many contemporary evangelicals and charismatics are functionally modalist.
I'd agree with Nick (now where have I heard that before?)to an extent but don't think Presbies are immune either.
As for South Chard ... My understanding was that they went in for a 'Jesus-Only' baptismal formula but weren't officially modalist or Unitarian.
They had a big influence on the early house-church scene but are something of a shadow of their former selves from what I can gather.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
. . . but don't think Presbies are immune either.
Nor do I. I've encountered functional modalism from time to time—mainly among some in the pews rather than clergy.
My point was simply that when you said Presbyterian history "is riddled with schisms and down-right apostasising" over differences on the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, I think that such riddling was mainly among English Presbyterians, not Presbyterians generally. Recent splits here where issues of the divinity of Christ has been asserted as an issue have, I think, largely used that as a smoke-screen for dead horse issues. Otherwise, we've tended to split over other things—not the least of which has been politics.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I took your point about the Pond difference, Nick. Other than in Scotland and Northern Ireland - and Wales to an extent - Presbyterians are thin on the ground here.
Lots of URC people have Presbyterian backgrounds, of course.
On the issue of doctrinal spats being a turn-off for outsiders or newcomers. Well yes, but the OP was asking what might put us off - as most posters here presumably attend some form of church.
But yes, doctrinal infighting is a big turn-off for those who might want to take a closer look.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Don't assume younger people will come out for worship bands. That was actually a boomer trait. I find young people prefer a balance of contemporary and traditional. That balance can vary depending on location.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Nick Tamen I think the presbyterian splits you recall were in Scotland. IIRC, the Church of Scotland split into the Free Church, that in turn into the Wee Frees and so on, down to the extremely free church of the McIntosh family around the corner. Many of these bodies merged their way back up the ladder eventually. The McIntosh family became practising atheists save for weddings and funerals.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Nick Tamen I think the presbyterian splits you recall were in Scotland.
Yes, I was thinking both of splits in Scotland and in the US. We've had our fair share here, some of which have healed and some of which haven't. Of those splits that haven't healed, some are quite old (including some with roots in Scottish splits) and some are very recent.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Don't assume younger people will come out for worship bands. That was actually a boomer trait.
The megachurches in this country aren't boomer churches. They're millenials.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I'd be less happy doing would be to put my big toe over the threshold of anything that had anything to do with Hagin, Copeland or the Word of Faith crowd, or anything too charismaniac or rigidly fundamentalist - or anything that had a label on it that said it was avowedly non-Trinitarian.
I'm surprised, then, that you speak so highly of the Quakers when they are far from Trinitarian
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
after all, we are addressing the Most High God. But our words must also convey meaning.
Don't we do that all the time?
That said, I'm with you on the trendy vicar thing.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I is an anomaly, EM, and I've addressed it to n earlier posts to some extent.
But there is nothing to say that you couldn't be Trinitarian and be a Quaker, whereas if you went regularly to a non-Trinitarian Pentecostal church or to the Unitarians it actually says on the tin that you aren't expected to be Trinitarian.
There is stuff that gets on my wick about the Quakers, though and as I've said,I ain't going to become one. Nor would they expect me to, unless I was led that way.
That doesn't stop me from looking for the good and for where the overlaps take place. With each and every religious group I look for the common ground whilst being alert to the differences.
I've not said anything about whether I'd attend a service in another religion entirely. I've only attended Jewish worship never Hindu or Muslim or anything else. I would certainly visit given the opportunity.
Where I would feel mist uncomfortable, I think, is with groups that have explicitly disavowed Nicene Trinitarian Christianity - like the Mormons, JWs and Big U Unitarianism, rather than simply deciding to sit loosely by it. Jengie suggests that the Unitarians have done the latter but I'm more wary than that.
There are explicitly Trinitarian groups I feel uncomfortable with - and some of the Prosperity Gospellers fall into that category, particularly people like Hagin nand Copeland who I believe to heretical on aspects of the Trinity.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've not said anything about whether I'd attend a service in another religion entirely. I've only attended Jewish worship never Hindu or Muslim or anything else. I would certainly visit given the opportunity.
Tangent alert//
I think there is an immense difference between "visiting" or "observing" the worship of another faith, and "agreeing" with it, "participating" in it or making that faith one's spiritual home.
//Tangent ends.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've not said anything about whether I'd attend a service in another religion entirely. I've only attended Jewish worship never Hindu or Muslim or anything else. I would certainly visit given the opportunity.
Tangent alert//
I think there is an immense difference between "visiting" or "observing" the worship of another faith, and "agreeing" with it, "participating" in it or making that faith one's spiritual home.
//Tangent ends.
Exactly what I think and was attempting to express in my post earlier on on the thread.__
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thinking about what one wouldn't want even to go to, rather than be happy to observe but not participate in, I think there are probably three things I'd really be uncomfortable with and want to keep away from:-
1. Anything a bit creepy, like spiritualism.
2. Over passionate, pressurising or emotionally manipulative preaching, even if orthodox, and whether aimed at my soul or my pocket.
3. Paganism, and especially if it involves idolatry or sacrificing animals.
I've been to a Quaker Meeting. Like Gamaliel, I wouldn't want to be one, but I enjoyed it, and was impressed with their friendship with each after before and after the meeting itself.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Enoch wrote:
quote:
I've been to a Quaker Meeting. Like Gamaliel, I wouldn't want to be one, but I enjoyed it, and was impressed with their friendship with each after before and after the meeting itself.
So....during the meeting they had a fight? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Perhaps they looked hard at each other? Then when things got really rough, they looked daggers instead?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
After the first Quaker meeting I attended, the Friends had an unseemly spat about how ethical and appropriate it was to bring chocolate biscuits along for the post-meeting coffee, rather than fruit or nuts.
Heck, they weren't even Fair Trade biscuits ...
I was amused by this and quite encouraged. The Quakers were just as petty as the rest of us.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
That settles it. What would put me off from setting foot inside a church is any congregation that could object to chocolate biscuits!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
(I've only attended one Quaker Meeting in my life -- about 50 years ago -- and I don't recall any refreshments following the meeting.)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Quakers were just as petty as the rest of us. [/QUOTE} yet they rather act "holier than thou" in their pacifist views
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
