|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is there a future for any church in the UK?
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
This thought is triggered by a number of things:
- from a pilot for a new Radio 4 show called the Skeptic Tank*, which was recorded last night. The introductions were prefaced by a description of what the panel would be discussing as things to be rightly sceptical about: conspiracy theories, old wives tales, religion and homeopathy. The host and two of the panellists (of three) expressed views that religion was totally ridiculous as a given.
- from the Independent leader from Friday 26 July which ended
quote:
This is no swipe at religion, but such matters are a private affair, and spiritual leaders – for all the authority they may have among their own – have no business in mainstream politics. That bishops still sit in the House of Lords is an anachronism that makes a mockery of British democracy. If Archbishop Welby wishes the Church of England to support credit unions, it is his prerogative to act accordingly, but there his legitimacy ends
which suggests that religion has no part of British society, it's a totally private matter and should be kept so. There's a response from Nick Baines, Bishop of Bradford, challenging the views on his blog.
There are other thoughts, but this is going to be long enough as an opening post without adding them.
Does the church, any church, not just the Church of England, have a future in Britain when anti-religious views are being expressed as mainstream?
* I suspect the name will have to change if/when goes to broadcast, as this title is already being used.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Religion is politics.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
But that in itself is surely the 'political' debate? If you consider politics to be about the collection of viewpoints and their debates then you cannot remove something from the realm of politics simply because you don't like it as an idea. That would be a dis-service to politics, and it wouldn't be true politics either, but manipulative governance.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I've noticed that the 'Independent' is bashing religion recently; I take it with a pinch of salt. It is cool and trendy amongst some people to bash religion, but I find them rather pompous often. Also they are often rather ignorant about what religion - or Christianity - is.
The 'public square' issue is a case in point, as to me it sounds a very confused message. Do they mean that religious people should stay silent about politics? Why?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It is perfectly right to be sceptical about religious claims. A couple of points.
1. There are loads of mutually exclusive religious claims; indeed, in many cases the claims explicitly insist that nearly all other claims are false. So if say 90% of religious claims have to be false, because of mutual incompatibilities, it follows that scepticism is a rational default position on any given claim;
2. Ignorance about the minutiae of religion amongst its opponents doesn't really matter much; if the fundamental point - the reality of supernatural divine entities - is deemed preposterous, or at least unevidenced, then the precise nature of these entities is completely moot. It's a bit like arguing that I'm wrong to be sceptical of the Loch Ness Monster because my default image of the beast is of some kind of plesiosaur, whilst you happen to believe it's an ichthyosaur.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I really don't know where people get this idea that Christianity can be practised as a private spirituality. It's never been that. Part of Christianity is about building the kingdom of God, imposing the kingdom of God on the kingdoms of the world, whether the kingdoms of the world like it or not. Whenever I hear someone say that religion is fine as long as it's practised behind closed doors, it sounds to me like, "Wanna fight?"
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But in a society when 6.3% of the population attended (a Christian) church on Census Sunday in 2005 how much weight is going to be given to voices trying to sway opinion from among those church leaders?
I do think religion should have a place. A return of Christian values to Government (helping the sick, poor, prisoner, immigrant) and banking would not be a bad thing. "There's no such thing as society" has worked really well so far for the rich, but the divides are getting deeper and wider.
I am really asking what when this anti-religion commentary is mainstream and growing, what chance of those religious values keeping any foothold.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
"That bishops still sit in the House of Lords is an anachronism that makes a mockery of British democracy."
I'd agree with this sentiment 100%, but not that religion should be a purely private matter. Those with religious belief should have just the same rights and methods by which to express their views as those with no religious views. As others have already said, there's simply no way religious belief (at least not Christian belief) can be kept private.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It is perfectly right to be sceptical about religious claims... [Arguing otherwise is] a bit like arguing that I'm wrong to be sceptical of the Loch Ness Monster because my default image of the beast is of some kind of plesiosaur, whilst you happen to believe it's an ichthyosaur.
Ha ha, that's a great analogy! Bang on the mark, IMO.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I really don't know where people get this idea that Christianity can be practised as a private spirituality. It's never been that. Part of Christianity is about building the kingdom of God, imposing the kingdom of God on the kingdoms of the world, whether the kingdoms of the world like it or not.
Might be worth qualifying what you mean by that Ads, as there are certainly some people within Christianity of whom I'm very wary when they say that sort of thing.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But in a society when 6.3% of the population attended (a Christian) church on Census Sunday in 2005 how much weight is going to be given to voices trying to sway opinion from among those church leaders?
I do think religion should have a place. A return of Christian values to Government (helping the sick, poor, prisoner, immigrant) and banking would not be a bad thing. "There's no such thing as society" has worked really well so far for the rich, but the divides are getting deeper and wider.
I am really asking what when this anti-religion commentary is mainstream and growing, what chance of those religious values keeping any foothold.
I think that the "anti-religion commentary" is rather concerned (as would I be) that "a return to Christian values in government" means restricting gay rights, censorship, officially endorsed indoctrination and general stigmatisation of those whose sexual morality conservative Christians do not approve of.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also they are often rather ignorant about what religion - or Christianity - is.
I've seen you make this observation quite often, along with other Shipmates. I can understand how annoying it must be for theists to be asked to defend straw men, but I wonder if you've considered how much it actually matters whether people are technically correct in whatever they think religion or Christianity is. In this case, as per the OP, people are questioning in principle the role religion should play in our modern civic lives. Does it actually matter if they don't understand exactly what religion is, technically speaking?
[crossposted with KLB, who put it beautifully]
[ 29. July 2013, 10:10: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yorick
I'm not sure how 'technical' some anti-theists' ignorance about religion is!
However, yes, it is a bit off-topic.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think that the "anti-religion commentary" is rather concerned (as would I be) that "a return to Christian values in government" means restricting gay rights, censorship, officially endorsed indoctrination and general stigmatisation of those whose sexual morality conservative Christians do not approve of.
That's a problem, yes. But what if a return to Christian values meant putting down the mighty from their thrones and exalting the humble and meek? What if it mean scattering the proud, sending the rich away empty and filling the hungry with good things? What if it meant doing justly, and loving mercy? I'd say it should be the rich and powerful who should be afraid of Christians, not those who have already suffered oppression and injustice.
As for the numbers that Curiosity killed... mentioned, well so what? There was a time when Christians accounted for about 0.00001% of the Roman Empire. The kingdom of God is not a democracy, it's a revolution.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One thing I find curious is how right-wing the UK has become, or is becoming. The Labour Party is pretty much a centre-right party, newspapers like the Independent and Guardian strike me as having moved to the right.
There is therefore ample space for radical Christians to oppose the excesses of capitalism. Talk about 'the public square', where religious people should not tread, just seems pompous and censorious to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yorick
I'm not sure how 'technical' some anti-theists' ignorance about religion is!
However, yes, it is a bit off-topic.
It doesn't need to be technical. If it's about the existence of a supernatural deity they want to see evidence of the existence of said deity before they're interested in what you think said deity is like.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Make that "was a revolution". There's nothing revolutionary about the "comfortable pew" Christianity of the moment.
Why was St. Paul's the focus of the Occupy crowd?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
In this case, as per the OP, people are questioning in principle the role religion should play in our modern civic lives. Does it actually matter if they don't understand exactly what religion is, technically speaking?
You can't build up an argument against a principle if you do not understand the technicality of what you are speaking on.
If as a technicality being a Christian is about living one's faith, and acting in the world, then you cannot have a discussion based on the fact that Christianity should be a personal matter (manifested internally and without manifesting itself in acts of social action) since that stands in contradiction to the technical basis of being a Christian.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by CK:
quote:
I am really asking what when this anti-religion commentary is mainstream and growing, what chance of those religious values keeping any foothold.
I think that's also a question about the way that politics is moving in this part of the world too. There is an alarming desire to be exclusivist in politics - something the church mirrors too, sadly.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
In this case, as per the OP, people are questioning in principle the role religion should play in our modern civic lives. Does it actually matter if they don't understand exactly what religion is, technically speaking?
You can't build up an argument against a principle if you do not understand the technicality of what you are speaking on.
If as a technicality being a Christian is about living one's faith, and acting in the world, then you cannot have a discussion based on the fact that Christianity should be a personal matter (manifested internally and without manifesting itself in acts of social action) since that stands in contradiction to the technical basis of being a Christian.
Yes, good point. All this talk of the private sphere and public sphere, and that religion belongs to the former and not the latter, seems bizarre to me, and also censorious (and quite pompous). Obviously, there is a strand of Christian thought which opposes injustice and oppression and cruelty in social existence - why should it be silent?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
In this case, as per the OP, people are questioning in principle the role religion should play in our modern civic lives. Does it actually matter if they don't understand exactly what religion is, technically speaking?
You can't build up an argument against a principle if you do not understand the technicality of what you are speaking on.
So what? You're right of course, but that's irrelevant here.
Religions inevitably decline and fall into redundancy as their power to draw followers wanes. I don't see how the cult of Minerva should rightly claim a mandate for policy change in a modern democratic government, given its current demographic status in the electorate. Irrespective of whatever they might actually be to technical experts, religions are apparently becoming less popular in the developed (Western) world, and so their role diminishes accordingly. Rightly so, I'm sure you'd agree.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
All this talk of the private sphere and public sphere, and that religion belongs to the former and not the latter, seems bizarre to me, and also censorious (and quite pompous). Obviously, there is a strand of Christian thought which opposes injustice and oppression and cruelty in social existence - why should it be silent?
It shouldn't.
But I think the objections to "religion in politics" aren't about religious people contributing their (religion-inspired) views to the conversation, they're about religious people trying to use their concept of God to force their views on everyone else.
There's nothing wrong with a Christian saying "I think we should do [x]", and arguing that point in the political arena. There is everything wrong with a Christian saying "God demands that we do [x]" and refusing to countenance any other view.
Christians in politics too often tend, as Adeodatus commented, to be all about imposing the kingdom of God on the kingdoms of the world whether the kingdoms of the world like it or not. Is it any surprise then that the kingdoms of the world (read: anyyone who isn't Christian) really aren't interested in allowing Christianity to have political power?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by Yorick:
quote:
...religions are apparently becoming less popular in the developed (Western) world, and so their role diminishes accordingly.
Is it not that the whole of western 'developed' society is on the wane? Personally I think it has happened already - we now live in the shadow of the East, and it will be that way for many decades to come, it's just that most of us haven't woken up to that yet.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Make that "was a revolution". There's nothing revolutionary about the "comfortable pew" Christianity of the moment.
Why was St. Paul's the focus of the Occupy crowd?
It wasn't. The object was the exchange, and Paternoster Square, from which, it being private property, the protesters were excluded, forcing them to the adjacent churchyard.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
OK, so should the question be:
How do the Christian churches believably promote the Christian (and Jewish) values of support for the weak, the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner, and an ethos that says it's wrong to exploit those weaker than ourselves in our society?
Particularly when far too many religious leaders are espousing stances that are demonstrably oppressive to women and LGBTs. And doing so with invidious comparisons to the Holocaust when they meet criticism.
And how can any church maintain credibility, so a future, in this climate?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I think the majority need to find their voice. It's the minority that hold the hard line views that bring shame to Christianity, yet they always manage to shout the loudest. The flip side is that for those pushing the 'secular agenda' they will always want to highlight and point to the right wing and extremist stuff because it suits their agenda, and they will want to present it and point to it as being mainstream. I'm not so sure how you tackle this problem.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: It is cool and trendy amongst some people to bash religion, but I find them rather pompous often. Also they are often rather ignorant about what religion - or Christianity - is.
Oddly, I sometimes (not on SoF, of course) meet pompous Christians and sometimes they seem rather ignorant of the world in which most of us live. Some years ago I attended a service at Durham Cathedral. One of the prayers was for farmers who were, as so often, struggling to survive. The priest asked God to 'particularly remember' (does God do degrees of remembrance?) the tenant farmers of the Cathedral, some of whom were finding it hard to pay their rent. The priest implored God to help them to find a way to pay so they could stay on their farms. I doubt any shipmate would defend such a prayer (please don't prove me wrong) but Christians do sometimes make it easy for their detractors.
The ethical values of Christianity, including giving, community, inclusiveness, focussing on the needy appeal to many of us but we feel no urge to discuss or petition beings we don't believe in, especially using metaphors which seem redolent of the sycophantic court of some petty tyrant. And many Christians make it clear that belief is ultimately what counts, saying (and believing) the right words is the most important thing there is. So we don't join because we'd have to lie. To me it seems a loss to all of us.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: It is cool and trendy amongst some people to bash religion, but I find them rather pompous often. Also they are often rather ignorant about what religion - or Christianity - is.
Oddly, I sometimes (not on SoF, of course) meet pompous Christians and sometimes they seem rather ignorant of the world in which most of us live. Some years ago I attended a service at Durham Cathedral. One of the prayers was for farmers who were, as so often, struggling to survive. The priest asked God to 'particularly remember' (does God do degrees of remembrance?) the tenant farmers of the Cathedral, some of whom were finding it hard to pay their rent. The priest implored God to help them to find a way to pay so they could stay on their farms. I doubt any shipmate would defend such a prayer (please don't prove me wrong) but Christians do sometimes make it easy for their detractors.
The ethical values of Christianity, including giving, community, inclusiveness, focussing on the needy appeal to many of us but we feel no urge to discuss or petition beings we don't believe in, especially using metaphors which seem redolent of the sycophantic court of some petty tyrant. And many Christians make it clear that belief is ultimately what counts, saying (and believing) the right words is the most important thing there is. So we don't join because we'd have to lie. To me it seems a loss to all of us.
Could I ask why you found the prayer for the farmers objectionable? I agree with your post, I'm just puzzled as to why praying for struggling farmers shows that the church is out of touch? Wealthy farmers do exist of course, but most farmers are just ordinary people who really struggle to make enough to survive. Or did you mean that the priest should have prayed for the farmers in a different way, like their rent should have decreased? I'm just a bit confused here.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could I ask why you found the prayer for the farmers objectionable? I agree with your post, I'm just puzzled as to why praying for struggling farmers shows that the church is out of touch?
They were tenant farmers of the cathedral, meaning that the prayer was esentially saying "grant them the ability to pay what I'm demanding of them, so that I'm not forced to kick them off their farms and onto the street".
One might say that a more authentically Christian response to the farmers' hardship might have been to not worry about collecting the rent for a few months...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think the majority need to find their voice. It's the minority that hold the hard line views that bring shame to Christianity, yet they always manage to shout the loudest. The flip side is that for those pushing the 'secular agenda' they will always want to highlight and point to the right wing and extremist stuff because it suits their agenda, and they will want to present it and point to it as being mainstream. I'm not so sure how you tackle this problem.
Is there a majority voice that says something different any more? Or is it that the way the churches are changing is leaving a dedicated rump of Christians who are convinced of their rightness?
When we are being pushed further and further into lay ministry (Transforming Presence from Chelmsford Diocese) as a way of tackling the reduction in clergy then what I am seeing here is those lay people with the energy and dedication to take on these roles have a deep commitment and faith that does follow those Bible based values - or certainly those are the ones who shout the loudest - and I, for one, do not want to put my name to what is being said, so have walked away. From reading the Ship, I'm not the only one.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think the majority need to find their voice. It's the minority that hold the hard line views that bring shame to Christianity, yet they always manage to shout the loudest. The flip side is that for those pushing the 'secular agenda' they will always want to highlight and point to the right wing and extremist stuff because it suits their agenda, and they will want to present it and point to it as being mainstream. I'm not so sure how you tackle this problem.
Of course, the majority needing to find their voice to counter the overly loud voice of the extreme minority works on both sides. Those most vocally pushing the 'secular agenda' are also from a vocal minority. They probably don't represent the majority of the non-religious population any more than Christian Voice represents the majority of the Christian population.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
Jade: What Marvin said plus why was the plight of the cathedral farmers to be particularly remembered: is God supposed to give them special treatment over the tenants of the un-Godly?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could I ask why you found the prayer for the farmers objectionable? I agree with your post, I'm just puzzled as to why praying for struggling farmers shows that the church is out of touch?
They were tenant farmers of the cathedral, meaning that the prayer was esentially saying "grant them the ability to pay what I'm demanding of them, so that I'm not forced to kick them off their farms and onto the street".
One might say that a more authentically Christian response to the farmers' hardship might have been to not worry about collecting the rent for a few months...
But the cathedral still needs to make ends meet - letting them off the rent for a few months is a nice idea but not very practical. OK, perhaps especially praying for the tenant farmers was a bit tasteless but something like 'we pray for farmers struggling to make ends, including the cathedral tenant farmers' would have been perfectly appropriate.
I agree that the church is often out of touch with people but I'm not sure this is an example of it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
How do the Christian churches believably promote the Christian (and Jewish) values of support for the weak, the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner, and an ethos that says it's wrong to exploit those weaker than ourselves in our society?
I don't think the Christian church has a particular problem promoting those values- the issue here is that it has no exclusive claim to them contingent on belief. There are many people like me who care strongly about oppressed minorities, but we don't believe in god. We don't need religion (which is presumably why its popularity declines, and, along with this, its relevance in politics).
Your problem is to convince the secular electorate that the rather arcane question of whether or not a kind bloke who got executed two thousand years ago subsequently came back to life again matters in how our government should legislate.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Jade: What Marvin said plus why was the plight of the cathedral farmers to be particularly remembered: is God supposed to give them special treatment over the tenants of the un-Godly?
No, but particularly remembering those known to you in your prayers (or those in the care of the cathedral, in this case) is just normal. It's about the priest particularly remembering them, not God. Obviously a cathedral will remember cathedral workers prominently in their prayers, since they know them personally. It doesn't mean that other people don't matter.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Make that "was a revolution". There's nothing revolutionary about the "comfortable pew" Christianity of the moment.
Why was St. Paul's the focus of the Occupy crowd?
If we're not revolutionaries, then perhaps the question becomes, why is contemporary Christianity such a pathetic shadow of what it's supposed to be? And why were prophetic voices not raised to denounce the St Paul's / Occupy business as a disgusting siding of the Church with worldly values? And after so shamelessly advertising is as a temple for the moneylenders, can St Paul's even properly be called a church any more?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
How do the Christian churches believably promote the Christian (and Jewish) values of support for the weak, the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner, and an ethos that says it's wrong to exploit those weaker than ourselves in our society?
I don't think the Christian church has a particular problem promoting those values- the issue here is that it has no exclusive claim to them contingent on belief. There are many people like me who care strongly about oppressed minorities, but we don't believe in god. We don't need religion (which is presumably why its popularity declines, and, along with this, its relevance in politics).
Your problem is to convince the secular electorate that the rather arcane question of whether or not a kind bloke who got executed two thousand years ago subsequently came back to life again matters in how our government should legislate.
That's not quite what the OP addresses, is it? It suggests that 'religion is a totally private matter, and should be kept so'.
I don't really understand what that means, but it sounds very repressive. What is 'totally private'?
I've been an active campaigner for 50 years, on anti-racism, gay rights, women's rights, unionization, blah blah blah.
I don't get up at meetings and say that baby Jesus will cry if they don't agree with me, but I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian. Generally, people are not hostile to that, as I guess they grasp the idea of a coalition of people who agree on something. And some people are interested in the idea of a Christian view which is anti-capitalist.
I suppose if I got up and tried to convert them, that would arouse some ire. I do that in the pub afterwards!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If we're not revolutionaries, then perhaps the question becomes, why is contemporary Christianity such a pathetic shadow of what it's supposed to be? And why were prophetic voices not raised to denounce the St Paul's / Occupy business as a disgusting siding of the Church with worldly values?
What was the fate of most of the prophets? There are such voices but they tend to be - by the very nature of things - a small minority.
The church grew by being revolutionary - but having got power it stays there by kow-towing to the PTB.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Jade Constable originally posted:
But the cathedral still needs to make ends meet - letting them off the rent for a few months is a nice idea but not very practical.
I think the point, though, is that Jesus had more than one story to tell about people forgiving other's debts, and no stories to tell about how to operate to ensure your cathedral's books balance.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And why were prophetic voices not raised to denounce the St Paul's / Occupy business as a disgusting siding of the Church with worldly values?
Well, there were voices who spoke out, and one prominent resignation. However, as the priest involved is of known left-wing tendencies it was all too easy for conservatives (both politicians and clergy) to write off the protest and actions as political rather than theological. I don't agree with that rejection at all, BTW. Giles was quite clear that he acted for reasons of the Gospel.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
why were prophetic voices not raised to denounce the St Paul's / Occupy business as a disgusting siding of the Church with worldly values?
Because it wasn't?
quote:
And after so shamelessly advertising is as a temple for the moneylenders, can St Paul's even properly be called a church any more?
As far as I'm aware, it remains consecrated, still contains the Bishop's cathedra, and the Holy Sacrifice is still offered in it. So yes.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No, but particularly remembering those known to you in your prayers (or those in the care of the cathedral, in this case) is just normal. It's about the priest particularly remembering them, not God. Obviously a cathedral will remember cathedral workers prominently in their prayers, since they know them personally. It doesn't mean that other people don't matter.
Fair enough, I agree.
But is the ethos of Christianity "We feel sorry for you, but we've got a Cathedral to run here. Nasty old world but capitalism's the name of the game". What about going the extra mile, giving you coat as well as your shirt. Sell some bit of silver plate, whatever.
But, maybe I misunderstood. Mine was a small point which sprang to mind as a counterpoint to quetzalcoatl's pompous and ignorant non-Christians. I don't think the church is out of touch.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
Sorry, forgot to add this. You might keep Christianity without religion.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
que sais-je
Would you mind showing me where I talked about pompous non-Christians? I would just like to find that quote.
My memory is that I talked about pompous religion-bashers, not implying of course, that all religion-bashers are pompous; some of them are very amusing.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've noticed that the 'Independent' is bashing religion recently; I take it with a pinch of salt. It is cool and trendy amongst some people to bash religion, but I find them rather pompous often. Also they are often rather ignorant about what religion - or Christianity - is.
Looking at it again, I realise you might have meant that the Independent was pompous. And I also made the assumption that people bashing religion were probably not Christians. Though there is undoubtedly a strand of self-flagellation in some.
But my apologies if I misunderstood or misread what you wrote. My only point was that all of us are sometimes pompous and all of us sometimes fail to fully research what we disagree with.
I think the OP topic is important and interesting. Sorry to everyone if I temporarily strayed off it.
[ 29. July 2013, 14:08: Message edited by: que sais-je ]
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...:
Does the church, any church, not just the Church of England, have a future in Britain when anti-religious views are being expressed as mainstream?
I'm not sure why churches need to be well-spoken of by mainstream society in order have a future. That seems like a rather Anglican idea. Plenty of other denominations have a history of being persecuted or discriminated against. Indeed, some of them grew faster during that period of their history than they did once all of the obvious obstacles facing them were removed.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But is the ethos of Christianity "We feel sorry for you, but we've got a Cathedral to run here. Nasty old world but capitalism's the name of the game". What about going the extra mile, giving you coat as well as your shirt. Sell some bit of silver plate, whatever.
How do you know they haven't helped the farmers out previously by selling off some cathedral valuables? Moreover, selling off silver plate to the highest bidder means engaging in capitalism, not escaping from it. The only way the CofE (or any other church) could escape from capitalism would be by entirely de-institutionalising itself. There would be no place for cathedrals, because these places require lots of expensive maintenance.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
How do you know they haven't helped the farmers out previously by selling off some cathedral valuables? Moreover, selling off silver plate to the highest bidder means engaging in capitalism, not escaping from it. The only way the CofE (or any other church) could escape from capitalism would be by entirely de-institutionalising itself.
OK I give in, they probably did and foolishly I didn't try and find out after the service (to be honest I did wonder if I might be hearing a reflection of some infra-cathedral wrangling).
There would be no place for cathedrals, because these places require lots of expensive maintenance.
There are Mary's and Martha's among us all. I'm not a Christian so, beautiful though they are, it wouldn't worry me if some were sold and the money used to house the homeless, protect widows and orphans, comfort the afflicted and so on. Let me come out here: if selling off all of Durham Cathedral saved a few farmers from suicide and their families from misery I'd consider it. How much is a life worth?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I've long wondered if we oughtn't to hand the cathedral buildings (especially the big touristy ones) over to English Heritage, since that's exactly what they are - historical monuments - and get on with the business of living the gospel.
Probably idealistic. Most of my ideas to make the world a better place apparently are.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Make that "was a revolution". There's nothing revolutionary about the "comfortable pew" Christianity of the moment.
Why was St. Paul's the focus of the Occupy crowd?
If we're not revolutionaries, then perhaps the question becomes, why is contemporary Christianity such a pathetic shadow of what it's supposed to be? And why were prophetic voices not raised to denounce the St Paul's / Occupy business as a disgusting siding of the Church with worldly values? And after so shamelessly advertising is as a temple for the moneylenders, can St Paul's even properly be called a church any more?
No time to explain now, but have a look at what Max Weber says about the priest/ prophet and church/ sect distinctions - there's a good summary, and sympathetic discussion fot he problems that these role raise, in (especially the early chapters of) Robin Gill's Prophecy and Praxis (1981).
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've long wondered if we oughtn't to hand the cathedral buildings (especially the big touristy ones) over to English Heritage, since that's exactly what they are - historical monuments - and get on with the business of living the gospel.
Probably idealistic. Most of my ideas to make the world a better place apparently are.
And the countless centuries of devotion which have infused them? The innumerable acts of worship which have taken place in them? The hundreds, thousands of times the Holy Sacrifice has been offered at their altars? The relentless witness they bear to the hope and soaring grandeur of the history of the Faith?
You'd sunder them from all this, from the living Church and the work of the Gospel, for the sake of economy? Or for what's sake? How would the debasement of these places further the Gospel?
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
que sais-je?
It would certainly be an astonishing gesture for the CofE to make - although some of the farmers might then become suicidal knowing that they were the cause of the CofE losing an ancient, pricelesss and much-loved property to a soulless property developer! Cathedrals are, of course, listed buildings. I shouldn't think they'd be easy to sell at all. I wonder if anyone's ever tried to sell an English cathedral?
I understand from the National Trust magazine that the CofE is leaving huge numbers of historic places of worship inadequately cared for ever year because they're too expensive to look after, and their congregations are small, if they have congregations at all. Many are unlikely be sold for whatever reason, and may simply end up crumbling away. Others will be converted or demolished.
One day the cathedrals may be the only significant physical reminder of the CofE on the national landscape, so it's unlikely that the church will let go of them for the kind of gesture that you suggest, although they might present opportunities for conversion to multi-use communitiy hubs.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
