|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What do we mean by Protestant, or indeed Reformed?
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
should have made clear that' eglise des Reformes' means 'church of the Reformed'
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel: One person's ballast and baggage that can be jettisoned overboard is someone else's precious distinctive - so it is very hard to decide what to ditch - even if it were possible.
So, for instance, to pick a few Shippies at random - Mudfrog would cling to one piece of baggage that Jengie, say, or Ken, say, would be happy to chuck overboard - whilst he would equally be willing to kick other things into touch (to mix metaphors) which they would undoubtedly want to retain.
This doesn't just happen in Protestant circles. It happens all over.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Raptors Eye
The problem with jettisoning the language is we would have to create a new set to talk about these things. No language is going to be entirely neutral and efficient and yes it has a habit of picking up layers but that is a property of language for you not Christianity. I have at times played with using alternative terms but it only works as long as you make a good deal of effort to keep them in people's conciousness.
Jengie
I'm not suggesting that language connected with present-day theological viewpoints is jettisoned, but that which should be consigned to history books such as 'Protestant' and 'Reformed'. As others have mentioned, their continued use brings with it assumptions and prejudices which are at odds with reality and perpetuate perceived divisions which no longer apply.
Happily for me, I was ignorant of the implications of the words when I began to attend church, but it may well be off-putting and hold people back if they're led to believe that these people believe 'x' or 'y'. In fact, from my observation and discussions with people from various denominations, there are a wide variety of views within all churches.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Before I forget, I can think of at least one Reformed innovation in worship that Anglicans use more than Reformed churches.
It is responsorial psalms and the person responsible is Huldrych Zwingli, who banned singing a music from churchh, but wanted the people to participate so this is how he did it! So all you people who say daily prayer and say the psalms responsorially, realise at that point you are using a Reformed practice.
That just illustrates the problem when you are dealing with the Reformed tradition, there is so much more to it than a simplistic theological summary.
Oh and if you want a postmodern take on the Eucharist, just have a go at John Calvin's version of Spiritual Presence. It can be read as higher than Luther or as straight memorialism and the language is the language of sign and symbol.
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
Regarding double-predestination, ISTM that if one accepts predestination to salvation, then there exist only three logical corollaries regarding those not in the set of the "predestined":
1. They are damned (which is indistinguishable from double-predestination -- by selecting members into set A, one is simultaneously selecting members into the set B which is equivalent to Not-A)
2. They cease to exist (annihilation-ism)
3. They don't exist (universalism)
As such, I've never given much credence to people who claim to believe in predestination, yet disavow double-predestination, annihilation-ism, and universalism.
Perhaps one of the ship's Reformed contingent could explain my error?
What the creator of self-illuminating jewels here said. The difference between "not chosen to be saved" and "chosen for damnation" seems esoteric and meaningless to me. It still means that if you find yourself roasting to a crisp in the next life it's because God overlooked you when making his list.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
My NFI lead elder used to say that he was not a Protestant - because he was no-longer protesting. His view was that being a 'Protestant' meant that there was a barrier to fellowship and prayer with Roman Catholic Christians.
I agree with the use of 'Reformed' as an adjective. However the word clearly means something else to Calvinists. Just as Evangelical means something different to Lutherans.
In the Church of England Arminianism and the High Church party have certainly been linked. This was the tradition that Wesley inhabited. I would be happy to take the label Wesleyan, which I would see as reflecting personal encounter with Christ, discipline in prayer and service, and the essentialness of the sacraments. There are historical and relational links between Wesleyanism and the Oxford Movement.
Wesleyan Eucharistic theology was sacrificial in tone - seeing the Eucharist as 'offering'. If one was trying to divide global Christianity in two I would suggest that is a more helpful line. But it is not very neat as it would run straight through several denominations, Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Before I forget, I can think of at least one Reformed innovation in worship that Anglicans use more than Reformed churches.
It is responsorial psalms and the person responsible is Huldrych Zwingli, who banned singing a music from churchh, but wanted the people to participate so this is how he did it! So all you people who say daily prayer and say the psalms responsorially, realise at that point you are using a Reformed practice.
Yes, but the psalms were sung (or said) antiphonally in the Roman office long before this. Zwingli's only innovation is in forbidding singing; prior to the Reformation, the psalms would certainly have been said antiphonally in situations where singing was not practical or possible.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure that we are in a position to consign some of these issues/divisions to an interesting keynote in ecclesiastical history, Raptor Eye. Just because you think they are off-putting and not important doesn't mean that they aren't important to other people's self-identity or the way they understand and work out their faith.
I mean, I don't see Jengie Jon abandoning the use of the term 'Reformed' any time soon, can you?
That's not to say whether Jengie Jon is right or wrong but Jengie Jon wouldn't be Jengie Jon if she didn't have her particular understanding of these things ...
To that extent, Jengie Jon is living out a tradition ... whether thee, me or anyone else disagrees with that is a different issue.
If Jaroslav Pelikan was right when he said that 'Tradition is the living faith of the dead and traditionalism the dead faith of the living ...' then Jengie, and other Reformed Christians are working out the Reformed tradition in a living way - not in a mausoleum/museum type way.
I would suggest that we cannot consign any tradition to the dustbin of history when it still has living adherents.
The fact that Jengie Jon and others are still finding spiritual nourishment through the Reformed tradition suggests to me that it certainly isn't dead in the water.
As to whether it produces a barrier to outsiders ... well, that could be said of any Christian tradition.
'I don't want to be [Roman Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Pentecostal/Wesleyan/Lutheran/Quaker/etc] - delete tradition of choice - because ...'
We're all part of one tradition or another whether we like it or not.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
But it is not very neat as it would run straight through several denominations, Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran.
Doesn't almost every dividing line in Christianity run straight through Anglicanism?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Before I forget, I can think of at least one Reformed innovation in worship that Anglicans use more than Reformed churches.
It is responsorial psalms and the person responsible is Huldrych Zwingli, who banned singing a music from churchh, but wanted the people to participate so this is how he did it! So all you people who say daily prayer and say the psalms responsorially, realise at that point you are using a Reformed practice.
Yes, but the psalms were sung (or said) antiphonally in the Roman office long before this. Zwingli's only innovation is in forbidding singing; prior to the Reformation, the psalms would certainly have been said antiphonally in situations where singing was not practical or possible.
Yes but laity saying it!
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Just to reiterate that it is an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, to say that Protestant means someone who is protesting.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The loudest voices are often at the extremes. I've been on RC and Orthodox chat-rooms where posters - particularly from the US - have only ever come across particular forms of fundamentalist Protestant and they assume that, for instance, all Reformed Christians are into double-predestination or that all Pentecostals believe that you have to speak in tongues in order to be saved ...
They take some convincing that not all Protestants adhere to this kind of views.
Conversely, others have only come across ultra-liberal Protestants and they seem to think that we're all desperately liberal and out to undermine the faith and so on ...
It all depends on who you've been exposed to the most.
That makes sense.
Also I think churches - like all other organisatons that survive - develop a sort of immune system against their rivals. Habits and traditions and rituals and doctrines that make you less likely go over to the other side. Most European Protestants are very good at not being Roman Catholic. We've had five centuries of practice.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
The anthropology and soteriology of the Thirty-Nine Articles is certainly in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition - see Articles IX to XVIII.
However, a large number of Anglicans wouldn't agree with the bulk of the 39 articles (the Reformed leaning would take exception to what they would see as the Erastianism of certain articles) even assuming they had read them. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I reckon I can sign up to about thirty-six-and-a-half of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
But it is not very neat as it would run straight through several denominations, Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran.
Doesn't almost every dividing line in Christianity run straight through Anglicanism?
Most of them run through our parish. Including that one.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact that Jengie Jon and others are still finding spiritual nourishment through the Reformed tradition suggests to me that it certainly isn't dead in the water.
Not so long ago it managed to produce Karl Barth, the Iona Community, and Taize - as well as Fred Phelps.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Yes, but the psalms were sung (or said) antiphonally in the Roman office long before this. Zwingli's only innovation is in forbidding singing; prior to the Reformation, the psalms would certainly have been said antiphonally in situations where singing was not practical or possible.
Yes but laity saying it!
Jengie
Rare, but not unknown, prior to the Reformation.
--------------------
"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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
The anthropology and soteriology of the Thirty-Nine Articles is certainly in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition - see Articles IX to XVIII.
However, a large number of Anglicans wouldn't agree with the bulk of the 39 articles (the Reformed leaning would take exception to what they would see as the Erastianism of certain articles) even assuming they had read them.
I reckon I can sign up to about thirty-six-and-a-half of them.
In that, I expect you are something of an exception ![[Smile]](smile.gif) For the large number, I suspect that generalisation is accurate.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact that Jengie Jon and others are still finding spiritual nourishment through the Reformed tradition suggests to me that it certainly isn't dead in the water.
As to whether it produces a barrier to outsiders ... well, that could be said of any Christian tradition.
'I don't want to be [Roman Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Pentecostal/Wesleyan/Lutheran/Quaker/etc] - delete tradition of choice - because ...'
We're all part of one tradition or another whether we like it or not.
The tradition I'm a part of has much to do with Christ and little to do with any organised church. I have been and I am nourished through many sources, including the churches, traditional practices and historical writings. I find it offensive when an attendee of any Christian church runs down those who attend any other. Where is the love of one another that those outside of Christianity are supposed to see?
Yes, we have a rich and diverse traditional heritage to be celebrated, which continues to flourish and nourish the followers of Christ, when it isn't being used to deepen or affirm divisions and foster hatred. It's about time the inflammatory words of prejudice and conflict were left behind. That doesn't mean abandoning the current names of the various denominations, but like our surnames whose meanings are rooted in the past, they shouldn't attach fixed labels with lists of ingredients upon people.
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd like to know what tradition that is, Raptor Eye, that has a lot to do with Christ and not a great deal to do with organised religion ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
If there is such a group around then pray tell me about it.
Incidentally, I'm not advocating dissing people on the basis of their tradition, Church, denomination or whatever else. Sure, I can be guilty of doing that.
The point I was trying to make was that we're all part of some tradition or other and we can't pretend otherwise. I'm not saying that you are - but I know plenty of people who claim to sit lightly by the 'traditions of men' and so on and who simply concoct other traditions of their own which they don't recognise as such.
We all do it.
All the time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know plenty of people who claim to sit lightly by the 'traditions of men' and so on and who simply concoct other traditions of their own which they don't recognise as such.
We all do it.
All the time.
Yes, it's a temptation - to recognise as being of God only those people and things that come clothed in the traditional ways in which we - our group - talk of and think of God.
But it seems to me that there are those who don't have "holding lightly to the traditions of men" as an ideal.
You can't be tempted to fall short of an ideal you don't hold.
The man who falls short of the principle he professes doesn't invalidate the principle.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd like to know what tradition that is, Raptor Eye, that has a lot to do with Christ and not a great deal to do with organised religion ...
If there is such a group around then pray tell me about it.
Incidentally, I'm not advocating dissing people on the basis of their tradition, Church, denomination or whatever else. Sure, I can be guilty of doing that.
The point I was trying to make was that we're all part of some tradition or other and we can't pretend otherwise. I'm not saying that you are - but I know plenty of people who claim to sit lightly by the 'traditions of men' and so on and who simply concoct other traditions of their own which they don't recognise as such.
We all do it.
All the time.
I understand your points. I hope I don't concoct traditions of my own, and I do recognise that I must inevitably have been affected by the influences of the church on my culture, past and present, and by people I've spoken to over time. That doesn't impart upon me any particular tradition, save that of the C of E, perhaps, ref weddings, funerals etc. As I didn't come to faith via any church or individual connected to one, I perhaps have an unusual angle. While I do regularly attend and I'm heavily involved in a particular church tradition now, I'm ready to move to whichever church God leads me to, regardless of denomination.
I've noticed how rooted some people can be to the tradition of whichever church they attend, and there's nothing wrong with that unless it's used as a means of fostering hatred rather than love. But I'm repeating myself, enough said.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I've noticed how rooted some people can be to the tradition of whichever church they attend, and there's nothing wrong with that unless it's used as a means of fostering hatred rather than love. But I'm repeating myself, enough said.
What about truth?
Many of the things that dictate our 'denomination' or 'tradition' are actually related to what we believe to be true. The ascendency of certain 'truths' above others is actually a tradition in itself. However the recognition of competing 'truths' can be the first step to dialogue.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Don't get me wrong, Raptor Eye (or Russ) - I'm pretty eirenic and don't particularly value any particular church, denomination or tradition over any others - although I would be lying if I didn't admit to becoming more sacramental and liturgical in my approach the older I get.
I think though - and I'm not charging you with this - that it is possible to make a tradition out of not having a tradition - which is to make one's supposed lack of tradition into a tradition ...
I've seen this happen close-hand with the restorationist new churches which claimed not to have traditions and claimed not to be 'religious' but which, if anything, were even more 'denominational' and connectional at times than the denominations they used to rail against.
At least groups like the Vineyard will accept that they are another denomination.
With New Frontiers and some of the other restorationist groups to accept the 'd' word would be to accept that they had failed.
Being non-denominational is just as denominational as being denominational.
Again, I'm not saying this applies to you, but when I hear people say, 'I am not committed to any particular church or tradition but I am open to being led whereever God may lead me ...' it often seems to happen that the Almighty appears to lead them to something very similar or more-of-the-same in a different setting.
So, if they're charismatic, the Lord will apparently lead them to a charismatic setting in another denomination or 'stream'.
Or if they're an evangelical Baptist they might become an evangelical Anglican or vice-versa.
Sure, you do find people who change emphasis and churchmanship - but it's far more common to find people adhering to those traditions they are familiar with and comfortable with.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong - but often - particularly with evangelicals - you'll find that they swap churches not through doctrinal conviction or a change in churchmanship or approach but because there's better youth-work/closer fellowship/better preaching/better music in their opinion/or whatever else ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
With New Frontiers and some of the other restorationist groups to accept the 'd' word would be to accept that they had failed.
Which is very ironic, since NF have struck me for a long time as being one of the most organised and self-conscious of all the charismatic streams, with quite clear theological distinctives.
quote:
Being non-denominational is just as denominational as being denominational.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Although, in fairness, I do understand why many charismatic types dislike the word 'denomination'. It is a pretty crummy word. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) Classic jargon and Christianese ...
We're all part of the Church. One tree, many branches ... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
More than one person has suggested 'Wesleyanism' be used as a broad term to represent a particular theology that's found across a range of denominations.
This sounds reasonable from a specialist academic perspective, but to most Methodists today the word 'Wesleyan' is used principally as a historical term, not a theological one. The Wesleyan Methodist Church as was didn't cleave more closely to John Wesley's theology than any of the other Methodist churches did. In fact, some might say the Wesleyan Church was less 'Wesleyan' than the later breakaway movements, in certain respects.
As for 'Protestantism', it may become increasingly redundant because of the blurring faultlines in Christianity. IMO there's been an increasing Catholicisation of Protestants and a Protestantisation of Catholics. More importantly, Pentecostalism-charismaticism is becoming the dominant form of global Christian spirituality outside the RCC (and fairly significant within the RCC too), and will mostly engulf traditional Protestant concerns and divisions.
[ 27. March 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
What about truth?
Many of the things that dictate our 'denomination' or 'tradition' are actually related to what we believe to be true. The ascendency of certain 'truths' above others is actually a tradition in itself. However the recognition of competing 'truths' can be the first step to dialogue.
The pursuit of truth should surely keep us focussed on Christ, who is the truth, rather than focussed on others who we think don't have the truth.
Of course we think that whatever we believe is true, otherwise we wouldn't believe it. If those at the pulpit constantly affirm how right 'we' are and how wrong 'they' are, we're not going to expand or challenge our understanding or beliefs, we're not going to grow in faith, and we're not going to love our brethren in Christ as ourselves. I agree that dialogue is important, as is an open mind and readiness to learn and revise our beliefs.
The beliefs that 'dictated' the denomination or tradition we attend when it was first formed is very unlikely to be what 'dictates' it now.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel: Again, I'm not saying this applies to you, but when I hear people say, 'I am not committed to any particular church or tradition but I am open to being led wherever God may lead me ...' it often seems to happen that the Almighty appears to lead them to something very similar or more-of-the-same in a different setting.
So, if they're charismatic, the Lord will apparently lead them to a charismatic setting in another denomination or 'stream'.
Or if they're an evangelical Baptist they might become an evangelical Anglican or vice-versa.
Sure, you do find people who change emphasis and churchmanship - but it's far more common to find people adhering to those traditions they are familiar with and comfortable with. I'm not saying that's right or wrong - but often - particularly with evangelicals - you'll find that they swap churches not through doctrinal conviction or a change in churchmanship or approach but because there's better youth-work/closer fellowship/better preaching/better music in their opinion/or whatever else ...
I agree that we need to be conscious of these dangers as we discern and follow our calling. We don't all get it right all or even most of the time, as it's so easy to go our own way rather than God's. God often leads us out of our comfort zone. I would not have chosen my present church for myself, but I have grown in faith and understanding thanks to it. Interestingly, as soon as I began to grow too attached to it, events led to my having to accept that I must at some point move on again. It's very easy to put something in front of God on our 'order of importance' list.
I know that we do need labels to some extent, but I think we need to be very careful how we use them, and become conscious of our own prejudices. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but when some people speak of 'evangelicals' or 'charismatics' they have straw caricatures in their minds.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course, but how do we know when we are going our own way rather than God's and how do we know whether it is or isn't God's will for us to be in this, that or the other particular expression of church?
Some people feel that God is calling them to become RC, for instance - and yet you'll find that there are plenty of ex or former-RCs in many Protestant churches. Are they wrong and the people who leave Protestantism and become RC right? Or vice-versa?
Laurelin will say that we're all part of the Church - yet to RC and Orthodox Christians no Protestants are part of the Church in an organic and integral sense because The Church is THEIR Church as they define it.
That doesn't mean that they don't think that the rest of us aren't Christians, but they don't think we're part of the ChurchTM.
So we instantly have an issue.
I sometimes wonder whether it really matters that much to the Almighty where we happen to be ... but at other times I find myself wondering the opposite.
Of course, God is involved everywhere and in all places - irrespective of label.
So, it strikes me that if we aren't going to operate by some kind of assessment as to which particular group is THE Church then we are simply going to have to make our own judgements and go by our own tastes and inclinations - and that, being people, we are equally likely to claim God's will or guidance for what are effectively our own personal choices.
To give an example, I remember reading in a New Wine magazine recently how a particular vicar had decided to introduce charismatic practices and charismatic style services and so on at her church because 'I am a God-pleaser and not a man-pleaser.'
I found myself wondering whether it would actually 'please' God more if that church adopted that particular style or whether it went for bells and smells or hymn-prayer-sandwiches or whatever else. Another leader could introduce any one of those styles and approaches and equally feel that they were being a 'God-pleaser rather than a man-pleaser.'
How would they know the difference?
And would God be all that bothered in the first place?
For all they knew God might be better pleased with some other aspect rather than how they did or didn't conduct the worship.
--------------------
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
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@ Gamaliel. Alright Mr G? Streuth - read your last post and agreed with all of it. What's the world coming to?
Responding to your question "how do we know if we're in the church God wants us in/promoting the liturgy he wants etc...
My take on that is that knowing isn't the best place to start. Is there some kind of eternal objective standard we're all measured against for every decision we make? Not convinced. God knows how we'll react in the world he's actualised, given that world is shaped by the decisions of free moral agents.
I reckon he's more interested in our motivations - whether we follow our convictions. Do we recognise our choice of church et al as the place where we do the good works he has prepared in advance for us to do?
I reckon Rev Green is in the zone when he asks us to consider what we regard as "truth". That's important in the context of the o/p.
Reminds me of Michael Harper who left all that great work he did promoting unity and charismatic ministry in C of E to join the Orthodox. Bottom line for him was some essentially standards that the true church had to adhere to.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I found myself wondering whether it would actually 'please' God more if that church adopted that particular style or whether it went for bells and smells or hymn-prayer-sandwiches or whatever else. Another leader could introduce any one of those styles and approaches and equally feel that they were being a 'God-pleaser rather than a man-pleaser.'
I think we can distinguish between two sets of differences. There are differences in style (choice of language, organ or guitars, ornate or plain etc.) that are pretty much entirely personal preference. God wants our best, whatever that may be (and for some people, that might even be ECUSA prayer C ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ), but these things don't, fundamentally, matter.
Then there are the actual theological differences between churches - we understand different things about God. This is important - we are called to know and love God, and to imitate Him to the best of our ability, which requires actually knowing who He is. So we should worry about this, and do the best job we can at understanding God.
But we're going to get some things wrong, because we're people.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, but how do we know when we are going our own way rather than God's and how do we know whether it is or isn't God's will for us to be in this, that or the other particular expression of church?
Some people feel that God is calling them to become RC, for instance - and yet you'll find that there are plenty of ex or former-RCs in many Protestant churches. Are they wrong and the people who leave Protestantism and become RC right? Or vice-versa?
For those people whose relationship with God includes consciousness of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there are more cautions to be employed when discerning God's will than for those who don't have such consciousness. The more we're given, the greater our responsibilities.
Going by my own experience, God doesn't give a fig whether the church is run by the Salvation Army or the Anglicans, United Reformed, Methodists or whoever, God will lead us to where we will serve God's purposes at the time. That will be good for us too, although it might be uncomfortable. If we change labels, it doesn't matter as long as we continue to be willingly in harness to God's will and continue to use discernment.
God's nature doesn't change, it's our interpretations that vary, and in every congregation in every church there are various opinions. Any issue rests upon those with the opinion that lip service must be paid to specific doctrines in order to obtain membership. Honesty, integrity and inclusivity is surely nearer to Christ's teaching.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I am not so sure, being Reformed, the only one I know, goes deep, very deep. It leaves it mark upon people even if they later repudiate it. I do not think God prefers Reformed Christians, I do think he sees them as distinctive from other forms (the way an orange sweet is different from a lemon one).
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I am not so sure, being Reformed, the only one I know, goes deep, very deep. It leaves it mark upon people even if they later repudiate it. I do not think God prefers Reformed Christians, I do think he sees them as distinctive from other forms (the way an orange sweet is different from a lemon one).
Jengie
Do you assume that the experience of God elsewhere does not run deep?
Do you assume that it does not leave a mark on people too, whether or not they later repudiate it?
Each church is distinctive as each one of us is distinctive. God loves us, every one, even though we don't always (or often) get it right.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
No. Just as orange flavour is not necessarily stronger than lemon flavour. All have the potential to be as strong, whether all are I can't say, because I do not know them.
By the way you assume that it is experience of God that differs. I am not happy with that, it is more the ways we understand our experience. That of course shapes it, but God is God, but it also shapes how we understand ourselves, how we think and how we react together. What I notice is that the tensions and themes within the Reformed tradition a hundred years ago, are often reflected today. From within the tradition we are often unaware of it. For instance I thought having a walking group was almost universal in UK churches until I started talking about it to those from other traditions.
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
What I do believe is that traditions are systems that work to create the way people believe. It is therefore a good idea for a person to master one. Just as you need the learn a specific musical instrument (is a violin player better than a flute player?) so you need to learn one tradition. Once you have a degree of understanding of a tradition then learning from other traditions is worthwhile as a critique but blending means that you need to have a good degree of competency in both tradition.
The whole of these two posts are pretty much a standard take, shaped by my background, for someone who is fairly conservative on the liberal side of the Reformed tradition. I am not in the middle, Reformed tradition does not do "middle".
Jengie
[ 29. March 2013, 09:00: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Denominations are good and should retain their identity and their individual ways. People respond differently to different things and there is a tradition that will suit us all.
There is no such thing as One Church - even the Roman Church has different orders; it's almost like having loads of different denominations but with one Pope. (Who may not actually be of your Order).
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
How do we know, how do any of us know, Mudfrog, whether there is or isn't such a thing as One Church?
The RCs have different orders, certainly, but they are not the same as denominations within Protestantism - although there are some similarities in the analogy you've drawn.
The Orthodox would claim to be One Church, of course, although it is a Church made up of lots of Autocephalous Churches - Greek, Russian, Romanian, Finnish etc etc
And then, of course, there are the non-canonical Orthodox who are not recognised as being 'kosher' by the various canonical bodies.
And so it goes on ...
Not to mention the various non-Chalcedonian Churches - Copts, Ethiopians, various Syriac and 'Jacobite' Churches etc.
Pragmatically, though, you are right in that there are loads of different flavours to choose from. Where we align ourselves across the spectrum is a moot point - particularly if you're like me and you like different aspects of all of them (or from what I can tell that is).
I think Truman White has hit on something about underlying convictions and taking a stance somewhere or other based on those. That ain't always easy but I admire those who can do 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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
By the way you assume that it is experience of God that differs. I am not happy with that, it is more the ways we understand our experience. That of course shapes it, but God is God, but it also shapes how we understand ourselves, how we think and how we react together.
Jengie
There are experiences of God which we share, but we don't all have the same experiences. I agree that we learn ways of interpreting our experiences through the language and teaching provided by individuals within the churches and by the traditional liturgies and practices, and that in many ways we are shaped and influenced by them. I don't think that they create the way we believe.
I understand your point about immersing ourselves in one tradition rather than 'dipping', but again this should be under God's guidance. For every thing there is a season. I learned a great deal by 'church-hopping' before being led deeply into a specific tradition. I don't assume that I will remain within it forever, even though I would like to. There is a danger of growing such an attachment that it becomes God in our eyes.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I tend to agree with Jengie. I do think that these things shape and help create what we believe and how we believe and so on ... Christianity is an incarnational faith. It's based on events at a particular point and time.
So it makes perfect sense for God to lead, guide, minister to us etc etc through whatever tradition/specific circumstances we're in. We aren't disembodied spirits floating about the place.
'Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great, God appeared in a body ...'
We're not Gnostics who despise matter. We are Christians who find God in and amongst whatever circumstances we find ourselves in - and that includes churches and traditions.
How could it be otherwise?
I don't see how acknowledging that we each of us interpret our experiences and so on through some particular lens, filter or framework in any way obviates the Godward aspect.
God works in and through these things - perhaps sometimes despite them - but he uses 'means' - and that involves real people in real places at actual points in time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to agree with Jengie. I do think that these things shape and help create what we believe and how we believe and so on ... Christianity is an incarnational faith. It's based on events at a particular point and time.
So it makes perfect sense for God to lead, guide, minister to us etc etc through whatever tradition/specific circumstances we're in. We aren't disembodied spirits floating about the place.
'Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great, God appeared in a body ...'
We're not Gnostics who despise matter. We are Christians who find God in and amongst whatever circumstances we find ourselves in - and that includes churches and traditions.
How could it be otherwise?
I don't see how acknowledging that we each of us interpret our experiences and so on through some particular lens, filter or framework in any way obviates the Godward aspect.
God works in and through these things - perhaps sometimes despite them - but he uses 'means' - and that involves real people in real places at actual points in time.
Is this addressed to me?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If so, where have I suggested that we're disembodied spirits floating about the place, etc.....?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Being non-denominational is just as denominational as being denominational.
This sounds vaguely paradoxical, like the group who are proud of how humble they are, or the group who are intolerant of those who don't live up to their standards of tolerance.
In each case, it doesn't mean that it's impossible - it's not impossible to be humble, tolerant and hold one's tradition lightly.
Having a belief and acting on it are two different things. When we fall short of our own ideals we call it sin and acknowledge our weakness.
But the same thing can happen at the group level - the way that people interact, the way we humans establish and follow and enforce norms of behaviour within groups - is just as fallen as when we act as individuals.
The Reformed tradition arose because people came to believe that the Church had gone wrong, had become corrupted. As all churches do, in different ways.
A shared belief against the particular ways the medieval Christian church had gone wrong is no defence against going wrong in general.
Any database structure which has no process for correcting existing data is heading for trouble, however wonderful it's procedures are otherwise.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Look denominations are just one form (I think largely created by John Knox) but only one possible form. John Calvin had something approaching a Methodist Circuit as the basic unit for a church organisation. Congregationalist of course see the independent congregation as the basic unit. That is only within the Reformed tradition.
Tradition therefore does not equal denomination. I also distinguish between tradition and Tradition. What I am talking about here is a tradition, of which there are many within the Church. These traditions are even less tidy than denominations.
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
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Being non-denominational is just as denominational as being denominational.
This sounds vaguely paradoxical, like the group who are proud of how humble they are, or the group who are intolerant of those who don't live up to their standards of tolerance.
In each case, it doesn't mean that it's impossible - it's not impossible to be humble, tolerant and hold one's tradition lightly.
Russ
I am reminded of Yinger's development of Weber's work on churches, sects, and denominations. Very crudely, 'church' referred to groups which saw themselves as having universal membership within a given society (you were considered in unless you opted out) whereas a 'sect' was a group which one must actively join, and to which entry may be refused. He added a subdivision under 'sect' - the institutionalised sect which has set up a bureaucracy and other organisational support systems.
Between these two lies the denomination According to Yinger the denomination is, in many ways, like a church except in accepting the legitimacy of other similar groups. It recognises that other similar groups offer a route to salvation, as equally valid as its own.
Whilst we may well not use these same terms in quite the same way, they give some insight into the nomenclature current among sociologists.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Denominations are good and should retain their identity and their individual ways. People respond differently to different things and there is a tradition that will suit us all.
There is no such thing as One Church - even the Roman Church has different orders; it's almost like having loads of different denominations but with one Pope. (Who may not actually be of your Order).
If we all share in one bread, ie Christ the bread of life, then we are all members of One Church, ie the body of Christ, whether or not we acknowledge our brothers and sisters in Christ as such. The liver was never supposed to look or feel the same as the hip bone.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Denominations are good and should retain their identity and their individual ways. People respond differently to different things and there is a tradition that will suit us all.
There is no such thing as One Church - even the Roman Church has different orders; it's almost like having loads of different denominations but with one Pope. (Who may not actually be of your Order).
If we all share in one bread, ie Christ the bread of life, then we are all members of One Church, ie the body of Christ, whether or not we acknowledge our brothers and sisters in Christ as such. The liver was never supposed to look or feel the same as the hip bone.
Let me clarify - you state my position too. There is one Church, but I meant that there isn't one organisational church that can call itself the only church with the only way of doing things. In my mind, of course, was the Roman church that says that it is the example of the unified, indivisble church. it cites the many Protestant denominations as being the evidence that we are not part of the one true church - being mere 'ecclesiastical communities.' My mention of Orders was intended to show that just because they have one pope, the RC church is actually a confederations of many different 'denominations' all with differing emphases and disagreements.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
To enlarge a little upon Mudfrog's point:
A recent conversation with a rather scholarly friend at church, whose own views are reassuringly up the candle, bears on this question.
He said that the name "Protestant Episcopal Church" has gone out of favor because of the common feeling that the word "Protestant" is negative. But negativity is not implied in a more historic meaning of the word. According to his analysis (although he didn't say it in so many words), we need to see the "pro" in Protestant. It once meant positive affirmation. "Protestant Episcopal" therefore reinforces "Episcopal." According to him, the old meaning survives in the case of a disputed will. Anyone challenging does not "protest" it but "contest" it. To protest the will means to be in favor of its provisions.
I haven't had a chance to verify his explanations from other sources. Can anyone comment?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I take the points that Russ, Raptor Eye and Mudfrog are making - and Drewthealexander's broad sociological definitions are helpful here too.
I'm not sure, though, that the existence of Orders within the RC Church - or authocephalous Churches within the Orthodox Church - are necessarily analogous to denominations in a Protestant context - although there are parallels to a certain extent.
Equally, would one say that the Church in Wales is a different denomination to the Church of England or that the Scottish Episcopal Church isn't Anglican?
I'm not RC but what the RCs would argue, of course, is that there is an essential unity of faith across the various Orders - irrespective of variants in practice or emphasis - in a way that can't be claimed for the various Protestant denominations. Although, in theory at least, there is supposed to be a degree of commonality and shared belief across the Protestant spectrum ... but it depends on your starting point or where you stand. Many conservative Protestants, of course, would have far more in common with some conservative RCs or Orthodox than with certain types of full-on liberal Protestant ... and presumably vice-versa on the more liberal side of things.
What I was getting at - and I'm not applying it to Raptor Eye particularly - is that you do get the impression with certain Protestants that they feel themselves above and beyond tradition (small 't') and that somehow the ugly 't' word doesn't apply to them but only to everyone else.
So, for instance, particular pietistic Protestants don't realise that they are in fact in line with a pietistic tradition that can be traced back to the 17th century and beyond. They seem to think it's just them and Jesus and them and their Bible. That's not how these things work.
Other forms of Protestant - and Jengie Jon and Mudfrog, I would suggest - are fully aware that they are part of a received tradition and they celebrate and declare that fact - which doesn't mean that they diss everyone else's traditions - just that they are comfortable in their own skins and have made a principled stand on what they believe to be a valid way of doing things.
They don't pretend that traditions don't exist. They acknowledge them and embrace particular traditions and aspects of traditions.
That's what I mean about us not being disembodied spirits. Mudfrog is working out his faith in the context of a Wesleyan tradition as it is reflected and refracted through the Salvation Army. Jengie Jon is expressing hers through a particular standpoint within the Reformed tradition.
So yes, I do believe that the term 'non-denominational' is disingenuous to a certain extent. However non-denominational or non-sectarian we claim to be we will inevitably have imbibed some aspect or other of the various denominations and sectarian expressions that form our outlook.
Having said all that, I am intrigued by the work of the Orthodox sociologist, Andrew Walker who suggests that a 'sectarian' model - shorn of its negative connotations - is a viable - perhaps THE viable - 'plausibility structure' for Christian churches as we enter a post-Christian era.
For Walker this applies to the base-community, the retreat house and monastic community as well as to the local congregation. He believes that the only way for Christianity to survive the onslaught of secularism is to adopt an 'intentional' or sectarian (in the 'gathered' sense) model.
I think this can be done both within the context of historic 'inclusive' Churches as well as more explicitly intentional congregational churches and connexional networks.
I think I've mentioned here before how I've been struck and positively impressed by a group of RC ladies here who gather weekly for 'lectio divina'.
They are a real asset to their parish and have been influenced very positively by fellowship with Pentecostals and Christians from the local United Reform Church.
I'm not saying that this has diluted the Catholicism of their spirituality - it hasn't - but they have been positively influenced by the 'intentionality' (for want of a better word) that they have seen demonstrated among the Penties and the URC.
Sure, as a Protestant I see Christianity in terms of interlocking sectors of a Venn Diagram rather than something which is the particular property of a Capital Letter Church. But equally, I do take a dim view of certain forms of Protestant expression that go off and plough their own furrow without reference to the wider tradition ... although I would accept that experiments of this kind can feed back and enrich the rest of us.
It's hard to strike a balance.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I was getting at - and I'm not applying it to Raptor Eye particularly - is that you do get the impression with certain Protestants that they feel themselves above and beyond tradition (small 't') and that somehow the ugly 't' word doesn't apply to them but only to everyone else.
So, for instance, particular pietistic Protestants don't realise that they are in fact in line with a pietistic tradition that can be traced back to the 17th century and beyond. They seem to think it's just them and Jesus and them and their Bible. That's not how these things work.
I'm not sure if the following argument 'works' but is the point that some 'pietistic Protestants' would say they are seeking to get to the heart of what Jesus taught, how the early church operated and so on; and that they build on the efforts of their spiritual predecessors who were trying to do the same thing.
So they are following tradition, but only in the sense of trying to get to the root (hence the term 'radical reformers' applied to medieval anabaptist and other more recent groups) - if they felt a certain practice or doctrine wasn't actually emulating Jesus and the early church then they would reject it, even if it was taught by many of their spiritual predecessor groups.
Hoping this at least makes sense, even if people don't agree with me...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Ok lets try and separate out three of the groups who came from the western church at the time of the Reformation.
There were the Roman Catholic church, and I will leave others to speak of that. Then there were the Protestants. Now you need to split those into two. There were the Magisterial Reformers (Luther, Zwingli et al) and there were the Radical Reformers (the anabaptists).
Now the Radical Reformer did not have any more tolerance from the Magisterial than they did from Roman Catholicism.
However in the UK things got muddied by Anglicanism. The argument between the two national magisterial forms of church government Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism dominated everything. The result in England was that anything that was not Episcopalian was lumped together with Presbyterianism.
Pietism, oh that is a very Anglican Reformed tradition adapted for Lutheranism.
Jengie
[ 02. April 2013, 11:21: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I might be wrong, Jengie, but I've always thought that pietism was a two-way process ... with plenty of Lutheran influences on Anglicanism/Wesleyanism ...
But you're the expert ...
@South Coast Kevin - yes, the argument you've put forward is a common 'Anabaptist' or 'radical reformer' one and variations of it turn up in lots of different places ... whether Quaker, Brethren, Baptist, restorationist 'new churches' or whatever ...
I'd have certainly bought-into that point of view quite strongly at one time.
It's certainly an impetus I can understand and have some sympathy with. However well-intentioned though, I think it does inevitably lead to an us/them approach where one can think of one's own individual group or clique as somehow 'closer' to the New Testament 'norm' as one might imagine it, than anyone else's.
Of course, the same might be said in reverse against those who claim that their Church is the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic ChurchTM.
For my money, Richard Baxter, that most eirenic of Puritans, was pretty good on this sort of thing. He castigates the 'Papists' of his time for believing themselves to be the only ones who would ultimately be saved, the Anglicans and Presbyterians for other ills and the Anabaptists for a kind of 'holier-than-thou' attitude.
Now, that isn't to say that individual RCs at the time wouldn't have been reasonably eirenic - I'm sure some were given the constraints and politics of the time - nor that all Anglicans or Presbyterians would have taken a dim view of everyone else, still less that all Anabaptists would have felt themselves spiritually superior.
What Baxter was suggesting was that each system had its own tendencies towards exclusivity and judgementalism in their different ways.
My own 'take' is that any suggestion that any of us are somehow closer in practice to the NT 'norm' (whatever that might be) is filtered through a thick screen of our own subjectivity. It is all highly selective and subjective. We pick those bits that suit us and reject those aspects which don't.
The weakest part of the late, lamented Arthur Wallis's book 'The Radical Christian' - something of a manifesto for the emerging 'new churches' in the UK in the early 1980s was the chapter where he imagines a visit to a first-century church meeting. It was simply his own congregation in togas ... it was a 20th century charismatic 'restorationist' meeting read back into the pages of the New Testament - complete with lyres instead of guitars and all manner of practices which just wouldn't have fitted a first-century context.
In short, what such group are doing are re-imagining the NT church in their own image.
Now, I'm not suggesting that a church service in 1st century Ephesus or Corinth would have been identical to an RC High Mass or the Orthodox Liturgy of St John Chrysostom - and I don't think the RCs and the Orthodox are suggesting that either (or if they are it's only at the populist level) ... but the fact that all the oldest extant Christian Churches share certain features and patterns in common should tell us something, I think.
That's not to say that I'm seeking to invalidate or dismiss what groups such as the Vineyard, the Baptists, independent charismatics or anyone else are doing - simply that they should recognise that their own 'take' is simply that, a 'take' - and may not be any more authentically rooted in the NT than those traditions which they reject.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's certainly an impetus I can understand and have some sympathy with. However well-intentioned though, I think it does inevitably lead to an us/them approach where one can think of one's own individual group or clique as somehow 'closer' to the New Testament 'norm' as one might imagine it, than anyone else's.
Yes, I'm sure you're right to an extent. I'd like to think it's possible to avoid the us / them approach, though; mainly by just assuming good faith on the part of all the other groups and denominations. Even if the others aren't as close to the NT norm as you (general 'you') think you are, they're either trying their best to get there or they think other things are more important than emulating the NT norm.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My own 'take' is that any suggestion that any of us are somehow closer in practice to the NT 'norm' (whatever that might be) is filtered through a thick screen of our own subjectivity. It is all highly selective and subjective. We pick those bits that suit us and reject those aspects which don't... In short, what such group are doing are re-imagining the NT church in their own image.
Or perhaps (good faith assumption coming up!) groups like this are trying to re-imagine their own church in the image of the NT church. Of course, they'll get it wrong in places, maybe many places, and of course they - all of us - interpret things through a thick screen of subjectivity. But I think it's unnecessarily negative to say that we 'pick those bits that suit us and reject those aspects which don't'.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I was getting at - and I'm not applying it to Raptor Eye particularly - is that you do get the impression with certain Protestants that they feel themselves above and beyond tradition (small 't') and that somehow the ugly 't' word doesn't apply to them but only to everyone else.
I'm pleased to see that you're not applying this to me
Not only do I not identify myself as a protestant with or without a small 'p', I don't think myself above and beyond tradition.
God comes first, however: before every organised church, before the scriptures, before doctrine, and before our own preferences. Unless the Lord builds the house, the masons labour in vain.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I s'pose what I'm getting at is that whilst it is the Lord who builds the house the masons still have to labour with stones taken from particular quarries in particular places at particular points in time - and that these quarries may well have been worked for centuries or else, even if newly dug or blasted out of the earth, they'll contain stone which crops up elsewhere.
I think you're right, South Coast Kevin that it is possible to be in some kind of 'sectarian group' (in sociological rather than negative or even theological terms) and not be sectarian in one's attitudes.
I've cited Andrew Walker the sociologist a few times here. I remember reading something he wrote in relation to Donald Gee, the great Pentecostal 'elder-statesman' of the UK & Ireland Assemblies of God.
Gee was a former Congregationalist and a pretty bright cookie all round. Towards the end of his life he had very fruitful correspondence with Roman Catholics and always maintained respect for the historic Churches - and even knew something of Orthodoxy - presumably its more mystical and hesychast aspects.
So, yes, I believe that those who follow Christ's example in various ways can be found right across the board - among the RC Orders, among the Quakers, Salvationists, the historic Churches, Pentecostals, among all manner of Christians in all times and all places - 'religious' and 'lay-people', monastics, clergy, all manner of bod's ...
Now, even though they have a more 'specific' or 'particular' definition of Church, the RCs and the Orthodox would say the same - just as they believe that it's possible to be part of what they see as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and be a complete bozo. If I understand the RC position correctly then not even the Pope is guaranteed to be 'saved'.
These things cut both ways.
On the one hand you could accuse a group like the Vineyard, say - and I'm just using them as one example of a Protestant 'sect' even though they might wish to disavow the term - of being schismatic or going-it-alone.
You could argue that it is tacit in their approach, 'We meet separately and do things our way, therefore this implies that we believe we are doing it in a way that's closer to the NT ...'
They may not say that explicitly, but you could argue that it's implicit in their modus operandi.
Just as on the other hand you could accuse the RCs or the Orthodox of being sniffy and high-horse-ish about everyone else.
'We belong to the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and you don't, therefore your ecclesial body isn't even worthy of bearing the name church ...'
Now, I appreciate that some RCs and some Orthodox do regard other churches as churches ... only small c churches and not Big C ones. In the same way as they might recognise some Christians as catholic with a small c but not a large C or orthodox (or at least more orthodox than others) with a small o rather than a Big O.
I've come across some pretty dim Orthodox, to be frank, who come out with daft statements to the effect that Anglicans are no closer to Orthodoxy than Muslims are ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But by and large, I suspect most of them would have a sliding scale along which some Christians would be seen as closer to them in belief and practice than others.
Conversely, the same happens in a looser way in reverse. You might have Baptists, for instance, who believe that Pentecostals or Brethren are closer to the NT norm or standard than Anglicans are by virtue of the practice of credo-baptism rather than paedobaptism ...
I submit that all of us make these kind of distinctions, even if we claim not to.
And equally, and I need to be careful here - just because we don't accept a particular label - Protestant say - it doesn't mean that this label doesn't apply to us in some way or other.
Ok, I'm being rather playful and provocative, but I still maintain that we're all part of some tradition or other whether we recognise it or not.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Yes, some quarries will be well dug and deep and produce very valuable stone, but God the builder is above and beyond tradition and may use stone and masons from anywhere he pleases.
I observe the attitudes you describe in some people from each denomination, while others simply try to get on with being Christian and loving others as themselves without trying to label them or deny the validity of their faith.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, but I s'pose what I'm saying is that we can't transcend labels whether we like it or not - there's no such thing as being above and beyond them. By historical and contextual forces we all inevitably wear some label or other.
That's different from using labels to exclude or to condemn. You can acknowledge, say, that you come from the Reformed tradition or the Eastern Orthodox tradition or the Anabaptist tradition or the Roman Catholic tradition or whatever else - without that necessarily meaning that you are wielding that label against anyone else in a condemnatory way.
All I'm saying is that it is unrealistic to claim not to belong or be influenced by some tradition or other.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
