|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Western Church Decline
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
^ What Lyda*Rose said. I'm not going to admit to not believing in that God stuff, because I do believe in it. I just also don't believe in a God that requires institutional homophobia/sexism/racism etc. Why is that apparently impossible?
And if that was all it was, mainline denominations wouldn't be in such rapid decline. It's not. So, we are.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, if they're keeping something from me, I won't know what it is until I see it, will I??
I can see that no one gets where I'm coming from on this, which is surprising to me but I accept it. The comments I have in mind about the clergy being reluctant to present certain theological material to congregations come from Methodist and URC sources. Other denominations may be different.
I getcha. One of my theological professors whinges the clergy don't do enough of it in sermons even tho they get taught it all through their degrees.
In my diocese however, most good liberal preachers will engage the congregations in higher criticism in sermons or bible studies.
More conservative preachers won't bother because they don't believe the text exists in context and are hermeneutically blinkered.
I currently have a lovely supervisor in the placement I'm in and she went hard core on the differences between Matthew's annunciation and Luke's this morning in her sermon. Then went through the meaning of the genealogies at the beginning of Matthew etc.
A parishioner at morning tea was so enthused he wanted her to start up a bible study. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
^ What Lyda*Rose said. I'm not going to admit to not believing in that God stuff, because I do believe in it. I just also don't believe in a God that requires institutional homophobia/sexism/racism etc. Why is that apparently impossible?
And if that was all it was, mainline denominations wouldn't be in such rapid decline. It's not. So, we are.
So what would be your solution? Serious question.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
the differences between Matthew's annunciation and Luke's
the meaning of the genealogies at the beginning of Matthew etc.
Those are perfectly legitimate issues, with which conservatives would be quite happy to engage not only in a sermon, but also in a Bible College lecture on the one hand, or a weekly Bible Study group on the other.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well then. Conservatives are engaging in liberal theology.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
THE HORROR!
I think you misunderstand conservatives then. We are more than happy to engage in theology and hermeneutics and examining texts. It's just that we also have a hermeneutic of 'God as author' - something that liberal theologians don't have. We are well-prepared to analyse and evaluate texts but we do so recognising that the Bible is more than just an ancient literary document.
[ 22. December 2013, 05:58: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I think that part of the reason for the decline is that over the past 100+ years, the Christian Church has been persistently on the wrong side of any important issue or change in attitudes.
"It's sinful to go dancing"
"It's sinful to go to the cinema"
"It's wrong to to encourage women to seek equality with men"
"Rock music is Satanic"
"It is wrong to subject the Bible to any kind of literary criticism."
"Contraception is sinful"
"Sunday shopping is sinful"
"Homosexuality is evil"
Time after time, the Church has made pronouncements which later have to be backtracked on. Quite frankly, I am astonished that Church leaders like the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury still have the gall to try and make moral pronouncements about anything. We've got it wrong just about every time. No wonder people no longer take us that seriously.
We seem to have taken as our Patron Saint, the Blessed Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff (aka Groucho Marx): "Whatever it is, I'm against it"
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Those are perfectly legitimate issues, with which conservatives would be quite happy to engage not only in a sermon, but also in a Bible College lecture on the one hand, or a weekly Bible Study group on the other.
Really. That must be why the recently retired Baptist minister at our Bible study was so adamant about insisting that both genealogies must be accurate and that the one from Luke HAD to be Mary's. It's pretty hard to have a meaningful discussion when one side won't countenance the possibility of error in the Bible. And uses out of context quotations from the Bible to support that view. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
[ 22. December 2013, 06:39: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well then. Conservatives are engaging in liberal theology.
THE HORROR!
I think you misunderstand conservatives then. We are more than happy to engage in theology and hermeneutics and examining texts. It's just that we also have a hermeneutic of 'God as author' - something that liberal theologians don't have. We are well-prepared to analyse and evaluate texts but we do so recognising that the Bible is more than just an ancient literary document.
This liberal doesn't see the bible as just an ancient literary document.
I suspect the main difference between a conservative and liberal biblical hermeneutic is that liberal's believe Jesus is the eternal word of God whereas conservatives believe the bible is the eternal word of God.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Those are perfectly legitimate issues, with which conservatives would be quite happy to engage not only in a sermon, but also in a Bible College lecture on the one hand, or a weekly Bible Study group on the other.
Really. That must be why the recently retired Baptist minister at our Bible study was so adamant about insisting that both genealogies must be accurate and that the one from Luke HAD to be Mary's. It's pretty hard to have a meaningful discussion when one side won't countenance the possibility of error in the Bible. And uses out of context quotations from the Bible to support that view.
Since I don’t know the minister to whom you refer, I don’t know whether he has formulated a defensible theory about the genealogies on the basis of extensive reading and research, or whether he has retreated into blind dogmatism and obscurantism because he feels confused and threatened.
What I do know, is that if the latter, it is no more legitimate to dismiss conservative scholarship and integrity in toto on the basis of your experience of this single old man, than it is to dismiss liberal scholarship in toto on the basis of its loonier offerings – magic mushroom cult, anyone?
[ 22. December 2013, 08:23: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
"Sunday shopping is sinful"
But Christmas shopping is Hellish.
Happy Yule to all.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think that part of the reason for the decline is that over the past 100+ years, the Christian Church has been persistently on the wrong side of any important issue or change in attitudes.
"It's sinful to go dancing"
"It's sinful to go to the cinema"
"It's wrong to to encourage women to seek equality with men"
"Rock music is Satanic"
"It is wrong to subject the Bible to any kind of literary criticism."
"Contraception is sinful"
"Sunday shopping is sinful"
"Homosexuality is evil"
Time after time, the Church has made pronouncements which later have to be backtracked on. Quite frankly, I am astonished that Church leaders like the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury still have the gall to try and make moral pronouncements about anything. We've got it wrong just about every time. No wonder people no longer take us that seriously.
We seem to have taken as our Patron Saint, the Blessed Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff (aka Groucho Marx): "Whatever it is, I'm against it"
There is something in that, but don't you think that it goes even deeper, that the idea of 'making pronouncements' seems antiquated today? I suspect that most people are postmodernists today; that is, they reject grand narratives and positions of power and privilege. Of course, they don't do this in a thought out or intellectual way, but some kind of revolution has occurred under our noses. I'm not sure what name it might have.
--------------------
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 Evensong:
whereas conservatives believe the bible is the eternal word of God.
I'm not sure this is an entirely helpful characterisation. I've also heard this thrown around in conservative circles at anyone who is more conservative than the current group.
Rather both groups different models of how inspiration works itself out.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
... I suspect the main difference between a conservative and liberal biblical hermeneutic is that liberal's believe Jesus is the eternal word of God whereas conservatives believe the bible is the eternal word of God.
I would hope that we all believe Jesus is the eternal word of God. That is what John 1 says.
Oddly, perhaps, for someone who is theologically fairly conservative with a high view of scripture and its status as authoritative record of the revelation, I try to discourage people from referring to scripture as 'the word of God'. Scripture doesn't so describe itself. It says that Jesus is.
Some of us, though, would say that from a conservative position, the difference between a liberal and a conservative hermeneutic looks more like this. A conservative accepts that as a matter of obedience, one believes in and follows what scripture says about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and how we should live. A liberal regards themselves as free to decide whether to believe in and follow or not, depending on how it suits them. To put it a different way, in the interior debate between oneself and God, one's own wishes and critical faculties take priority over his.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd agree with Chris Stiles ...
On the clergy deliberately withholding some aspects of theology from their congregations for fear of undermining their faith ... I can't speak for the Methodists and URCs but I have heard of a CofE Archdeacon who apparently advocated such a strategy ... to the horror of some of the clergy who heard him.
I really don't think there's any kind of nefarious clerical or ministerial plot out there to deny people access to these things.
Beeswax Altar has already told us how he uses references to 'higher criticism' ie. in order to debunk it.
Whether we agree with that approach or not, what it tells us is that he's presenting it in the light of his own beliefs and convictions. The same as if a more liberal cleric or minister were to present it all as a done deal and worthy of all acceptation.
Would Mudfrog be nefarious, neglectful and delinquent for not presenting 'higher criticism' to the people in his own congregation for fear that they would lose their faith? No, I'd suggest not. What Mudfrog is doing is presenting the Gospel to them as he understands it and no-one could ask any more or less of him.
The same with the evangelical vicar at our local parish here. He's not presenting 'higher criticism' to people because he's unaware of it but because, for whatever reason, he doesn't accept it.
Whereas the liberal vicar further down the road has no qualms at all in presenting higher criticism type views to his congregation because that's what he believes.
I really don't get where you're coming from on this one, SvitlanaV2. Twice over the years, in conversation with liberal clergy, they've loaned me very liberal theological books to show me more about their particular position.
The same has happened in conversations with more conservative church leaders.
Leprechaun is an evangelical minister. If I attended his church I'd expect to hear him presenting material in a way that was in accordance with his particular paradigm. Shamwari is a liberal minster. If I attended his church I'd expect to hear these things presented differently.
Same with Hatless who is a Baptist minister with a liberal theological persuasion.
You're tilting at a straw-man. You think you're missing out or have missed out for whatever reason and are looking for some nefarious clerial or ministerial heirarchy to blame it all on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Rather both groups different models of how inspiration works itself out.
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Some of us, though, would say that from a conservative position, the difference between a liberal and a conservative hermeneutic looks more like this. A conservative accepts that as a matter of obedience, one believes in and follows what scripture says about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and how we should live. A liberal regards themselves as free to decide whether to believe in and follow or not, depending on how it suits them. To put it a different way, in the interior debate between oneself and God, one's own wishes and critical faculties take priority over his.
And the liberal would laugh and say what the conservative accepts as a matter of "obedience" is a matter of his or her own interpretation (or more likely - their churches') and not what scripture says about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The liberal gives more reverence to the scriptures than the conservative because they attempt to understand the scriptures in their own context to know and understand what they meant at the time.
Only then can we extrapolate for our own time.
Because even tho God inspires, humankind is limited by time and space, history and context. Words on a page in a book are HUMAN mediums and therefore subject to HUMAN limitations.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I really don't get where you're coming from on this one, SvitlanaV2. Twice over the years, in conversation with liberal clergy, they've loaned me very liberal theological books to show me more about their particular position.
[...]
You're tilting at a straw-man. You think you're missing out or have missed out for whatever reason and are looking for some nefarious clerial or ministerial heirarchy to blame it all on.
I'm speaking from my own experience, as you are. Ministers and theologians have TOLD me that this has been an issue. I also refer to the discussion I mentioned in 'The Methodist Recorder'.
Perhaps it's a class thing - liberal clergy with largely professional middle class congregations may feel more comfortable encouraging debate. I've heard that one minister whose congregation contained numerous students and lecturers from the local university worried that his sermons weren't intellectual enough for them, and no doubt he tried to do something about it. It seems likely that a good many Shipmates attend such churches and so don't really have much connection with what I'm saying. However, I'd suggest that many churches aren't like that.
I'm glad to hear that many of the churches brought into the discussion so far (including the successful effort I mentioned in my old circuit) are moving forward on this. But it's very late in the day. Many of our churches have declined in the meantime.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...
The liberal gives more reverence to the scriptures than the conservative because they attempt to understand the scriptures in their own context to know and understand what they meant at the time.
Only then can we extrapolate for our own time.
...
We do seem to have a problem with labels, or different experiences. What you have described there has been my experience of the standard evangelical method of exegesis and hermeneutics. Maybe I've been fortunate to have moved in scholarly (mildly-conservative) evangelical circles for most of my Christian experience. I guess I've been fortunate to avoid the literalist mindset that ignores original literary and cultural context. (Incidentally, if you'd like an example, I hope to post imminently on the 'He descended into hell' thread with a good example of what I'm talking about.)
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The liberal gives more reverence to the scriptures than the conservative because they attempt to understand the scriptures in their own context to know and understand what they meant at the time.
Again, what you describe as a 'liberal' position I would see as quite common in conservative circles - outside fairly wooden literalistic circles which are a tiny minority (coinciding with KJV-only quite often).
It is how each group interprets context and how they feel that context can be extrapolated forward is where the difference lies.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2 I'm speaking from my own experience, as you are. Ministers and theologians have TOLD me that this has been an issue.
The problem usually is that in order to properly contextualise HC, you'd need a lot more time (and attention) that most people have available for their sermon. An incomplete relating of HC is worse than no HC at all (you can't just leave with a cliff hangar like "Ezra probably wrote the OT" without a hell of a lot of background, plus a significant amount of discussion of competing ideas).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Not wishing to point fingers at anyone in particular, I'm hearing the sound of hobby horses being ridden. Guess it's difficult for all of us to detach what we personally dislike or think is wrong with the various churches from reasons for long-term decline.
No offence...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've heard that one minister whose congregation contained numerous students and lecturers from the local university worried that his sermons weren't intellectual enough for them, and no doubt he tried to do something about it. It seems likely that a good many Shipmates attend such churches and so don't really have much connection with what I'm saying. However, I'd suggest that many churches aren't like that.
I think that there are loads of Baptist (BU) churches where the Ministers would decry an open-ended and investigative approach to the Bible and (dare I say) tend to preach a pietistic faith rather than one which connects with the issues of the world around - even though they will have been trained to do so at theological college.
I am considered wildly liberal by many of my colleagues, but rather conservative by "card-carrying" liberals! But I do want to be at least mildly intelligent in my approach.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well then. Conservatives are engaging in liberal theology.
THE HORROR!
I think you misunderstand conservatives then. We are more than happy to engage in theology and hermeneutics and examining texts. It's just that we also have a hermeneutic of 'God as author' - something that liberal theologians don't have. We are well-prepared to analyse and evaluate texts but we do so recognising that the Bible is more than just an ancient literary document.
Many liberals engaging in theology DO believe in 'God as author'. Certainly, a lot do not believe the Bible is just an ancient literary document. It is possible to believe in position other than 'the Bible is it inerrant Word of God' and 'the Bible is just an ancient literary document'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Same with Hatless who is a Baptist minister with a liberal theological persuasion.
gentle hostly touch/
Gamaliel, it would lead to a lot less potential for misunderstanding if you could refrain from asserting what you think other posters are in real life, what their standpoint is, and what their views or practices can be expected to be - sometimes even when they are not on the thread. The above is just one of many examples of this - there are two more in the same post!
Even if these things are no secret, it's not up to you to speak on their behalf. You have plenty to contribute on your own account without having to tell us what you think others think.
/gentle hostly touch
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The liberal gives more reverence to the scriptures than the conservative because they attempt to understand the scriptures in their own context to know and understand what they meant at the time.
Only then can we extrapolate for our own time.
Because even tho God inspires, humankind is limited by time and space, history and context. Words on a page in a book are HUMAN mediums and therefore subject to HUMAN limitations.
So how do you explain the BIG coincidence of opinions about anything between liberals and non-christians? If liberal theology is really developed from the bible (which it isn´t), then why does it always get to the same conclusions as atheists and other who have never claimed the Bible as a source of inspiration? The Bible is not necessary for the liberal world view. It is only necessary for liberal pastores to keep their jobs cause they would be dropped if they openly admitted they don´t believe it.
[code decline]
[ 22. December 2013, 20:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The liberal gives more reverence to the scriptures than the conservative because they attempt to understand the scriptures in their own context to know and understand what they meant at the time.
Only then can we extrapolate for our own time.
Because even tho God inspires, humankind is limited by time and space, history and context. Words on a page in a book are HUMAN mediums and therefore subject to HUMAN limitations.
So how do you explain the BIG coincidence of opinions about anything between liberals and non-christians? If liberal theology is really developed from the bible (which it isn´t), then why does it always get to the same conclusions as atheists and other who have never claimed the Bible as a source of inspiration? The Bible is not necessary for the liberal world view. It is only necessary for liberal pastores to keep their jobs cause they would be dropped if they openly admitted they don´t believe it.
There is more than one liberal worldview and liberal theology. As myself, Lyda*Rose and others have said, many liberals consider the Bible and God to be essential or at least important. And not all conservatives come to the same conclusion about the Bible - there are many areas in which liberals and conservatives agree. There are many areas in which liberals and atheists/other non-Christians disagree. Why the generalisations?
[more code decline]
[ 22. December 2013, 20:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, thanks for the nudge, Eutychus.
What I should have done was to make the same point but without using real-life Shipmate examples. Although I felt I was on safe ground using Hatless as an example as I've met him real life and know the position he holds because he's told me.
But I take the point and will refrain from this sort of thing in future.
--------------------
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 gorpo:
So how do you explain the BIG coincidence of opinions about anything between liberals and non-christians? If liberal theology is really developed from the bible (which it isn´t), then why does it always get to the same conclusions as atheists and other who have never claimed the Bible as a source of inspiration? The Bible is not necessary for the liberal world view. It is only necessary for liberal pastores to keep their jobs cause they would be dropped if they openly admitted they don´t believe it.
You keep coming back to this same bullshit strawman. I don't accept the premise of the question. Liberal views sometimes align with atheist ones, sometimes they don't. The same is true of conservatives. There are more than a few Rand fans among conservatives, both Evangelicals and Roman Catholics (watching the apoplexy resulting from the Pope's recent comments on capitalism was hilarious). It is possible for people to arrive at the truth independently of the Bible (though not independently of God, who is the source of all truth), and possible to arrive at falsehood in spite of the Bible.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Indeed
Both the religious right and religious left have sanctified the political opinions of their atheist allies. Both religious right and religious left have made politics more important than the gospel. The right obsessed over Dead Horse issues to such a degree that nothing else mattered and in so doing lost their credibility. Jesus told us we can't serve God and Mammon. For the left, I sometimes wonder what their faith consists of apart from political ideology. For them, the welfare state is the Kingdom of God.
[ 22. December 2013, 21:57: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Amazingly easy to say that "they" (the ones I don't agree with) aren't basing their conclusions in the Bible, innit?
How about allowing that people have actually thought about things, using the same texts as you did, but they came up with different answers? If you seriously want to debate/discuss, then you'll have to work with some form of expecting different answers.
I know, ITTWACW, but there are clearly a lot of ways of doing Christianity, and most of those ways aren't exactly like yours.
I actually came in here to point out bilgrimage's posting on what the take-away is for Church doctrine.
Following the link in his blogpost, one finds that:
quote:
• only 9% of self-identified Catholics think that the use of contraceptives warrants guilt; the percentage rises to 12% amongst churchgoers
• almost 90% of British Catholics agree that an unmarried couple with children is a family
• two-thirds say that a same-sex couple with children is a family
• British Catholics are in favor of permitting same-sex marriage by a margin of 3%
• only a third of British Catholics approve of the Church’s policies on women
• only 19% of British Catholics support a ban on abortion
• over half of British Catholics under 50 say that "same-sex marriage is right," compared with 16% of over-60s
• support for a ban on abortion has fallen to 14% among under-40s compared to a quarter among over-60s
• only 36% of Catholics say that the Church is a positive force in society
• just 8% of Catholics say they look to "tradition and teachings of the Church" for guidance as they make decisions and live their lives, 7% to God, 2% to the Bible, 2% to the religious group to which a person belongs
• zero percent report that they look to religious leaders for guidance as they make decisions and live their lives
That last one is a bit of a shocker for the professionals in this business, I'll bet.
But I doubt that you'd find the average British RC is "liberal", unless you are comparing to certain high-profile Evangelicals in the US
I came to respond to Oscar the Grouch's comment upthread, but seem to have got into a tighter spot!
And I would say that the slide away from "being churchy" was built seriously in the aftermath of WW1, and was polished up for better sliding by WW2.
Who would want to accept "the authority" from the people who did much of the cheerleading for the wars?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
For them, the welfare state is the Kingdom of God.
I would suggest that seeing (to an extent) the hungry fed, the naked clothed and the sick healed is but a glimmer of a reflection of the Kingdom of God. It would be great if it happened spontaneously and didn't require taxation to fund it, but it's closer to the Kingdom than the other options that have so far been tried.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
My observations from where I've lived in the US is that a lot of people have grown up now having been raised "spiritual but not religious." Some of these people identify as having no religious affiliation (and therefore get put in the same category as atheists and agnostics in religion surveys- the "nones" (the fasted growing group in this country which now outnumbers evangelicals)). Many of these people "believe in God" and in an afterlife but either don't want to be pressed on the details or have a confident set of beliefs but don't feel a need to have churchy fellowship with people who believe similar things.
Others of these "spiritual but not religious" people identify as Christian when you ask them but don't attend church or feel any need to. The younger ones were probably raised in a family that called itself Christian but never attended Church. Some might be evangelicals who are perfectly happy with a Bible to read and don't need to go anywhere on Sundays, but many are people who don't even feel much need to read the Bible or believe in the finer points of Christian doctrine. They want to go to Heaven to be with Jesus, and they're perfectly happy in believing little more than that.
I was basically raised as one of the latter at first, but then became one of the former before I decided - much to the confusion of my parents - to become a practicing Roman Catholic (which was the religion most of my family originally came from). My attempts to avoid being a heretic only lasted a few years, and now I'm perfectly comfortable being a cafeteria Catholic who still goes to Church every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, engages with Scripture and Church tradition, prays, tries to stay active in my parish, etc. I grew up as a lonely shy only child, so I felt a need for community that I found at church. Most of my peers who were raised in spiritual but not religious households like mine, though, have had relatively little difficulty having a social life without going to church.
You could add that the culture people my age (28) and younger were brought up in (at least in the upper middle class) was all about fluid identity, choosing one's peers, having little social niches based on specialty interests, etc. Baby boomers were also spiritual seekers, some of whom filled the pews of megachurches - but people my age don't seem to want to "find ourselves" - we're too jaded from too young of an age to be that ambitious- we just want to explore moving from one identity to the next while living a reasonably comfortable life (since many of us have given up on getting richer than our parents because of the dearth of jobs in the current economy). Give us food, sex, friends, fresh air, and some cool spiritual experiences from time to time (which could be as simple as climbing a mountain, doing some yoga, or visiting a Cathedral on vacation), and we'll be happy enough. There really is no need for traditional religious membership in this framework.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I think that speaks to the real issue. It's not theology, because most people--even the regular churchgoers--don't actually understand or even care much about the nuances of that (the Ship is a very atypical sample). It's the failure of churches to create a community (any church is to some degree a granfalloon, though it can be more). People adhere to a denomination (even if they don't call it that) because it gives them an identity and a feeling of belonging. That's harder to get in late-capitalist societies (see Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam). The churches that have grown have been those that created some sense of group identity. I suspect the evangelical megachurch phenomenon will be petering out soon, as people come to realize that being a member of a 10,000 member church is like being a "member" of Sam's Club*--you're really just a customer.
I do think the anti-gay stance of some churches is a factor--as more people, especially young people, have openly gay friends, they are unlikely to want to join a community that excludes the people they are close to.
*For non-US shipmates--Sam's Club is Wal-Mart's wholesale buying division--you pay your dues and get to buy less-crappy merchandise at nearly reasonable prices.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
^ What Lyda*Rose said. I'm not going to admit to not believing in that God stuff, because I do believe in it. I just also don't believe in a God that requires institutional homophobia/sexism/racism etc. Why is that apparently impossible?
And if that was all it was, mainline denominations wouldn't be in such rapid decline. It's not. So, we are.
So what would be your solution? Serious question.
For TEC?
I don't know that there is one. I'll wait and see what's left when the current generation of leaders finally retire. The current batch just doesn't get it. We are so focused on being inclusive of everybody but political conservatives that we've neglected to provide a reason why anybody would want to be included in the first place. In my opinion, we got rid of that reason to attend long before we started including everybody. Don't know if that can be reversed. It will take a miracle.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And I would say that the slide away from "being churchy" was built seriously in the aftermath of WW1, and was polished up for better sliding by WW2.
The effects of the twentieth century’s two world wars on Christian belief in the West is difficult to assess.
Some see WWI as a salutary antidote to glib, nineteenth and early twentieth century, progressivist optimism, both secular and liberal Christian.
The emergence of Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy, being discussed on another thread, is sometimes seen as evidence of this return to a more lapsarian anthropology.
There was certainly a feeling of cynicism about the war, in view of the horrific four years of losses coming straight after the unrealistic jingoism which accompanied the war’s outbreak, and the seeming failure of the war to achieve anything worthwhile.
How much of this involved anti-church sentiment is hard to say.
WWII, however, was viewed from the start as an unpleasant necessity by nearly everyone, Christian and non-Christian – the only significant group to oppose it were communists supporting the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
In Australia, at least, the gradual decline in church-going since the 1890s plateaued out between the end of the war and the 1960s, with Sunday Schools bursting at the seams with “baby boom” kids.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I understand that, in England at least, the highest year for church-going (expressed as a percentage of the population) was around 1904 (i.e. it was already in decline before WWI.
According to Callum Brown's book "The Death of Christian Britain" there was a mini-return to the churches in the 1950s which (from memory) I think he ascribes to a strong desire to go back to a mythic "status quo" that was presumed to have existed before WW2. But the seeds of decline were already present, in moves to overthrow established authority and in the changing relationship between genders.
If he is right then the reasons for decline largely lie outside, rather than within, the churches - which means they can do little to stop it. I would have thought that "liberal", questioning expressions of faith would fit in well to the current intellectual milieu; my impression though is that people want "simple-answer" and introvertedly pietistic churches as places of refuge from a confusing world.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that - people who do want straightforward answers find that in some parts of the church as you describe; the vast majority of people IME don't, or at least are unconvinced by religious ones. They are not particularly drawn to churches generally because of a number of factors (a) they think all churches do try to offer straightforward "fundamentalist" answers; (b) they don't think that churches have answers at all, straightforward or otherwise; (c) they aren't very interested in religion, or find its exclusiveness problematic - they're unconvinced that anyone can really make a claim that their God, amongst the millions that are and have been worshipped down the years, is the real one.
--------------------
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 Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
... I suspect the main difference between a conservative and liberal biblical hermeneutic is that liberal's believe Jesus is the eternal word of God whereas conservatives believe the bible is the eternal word of God.
I would hope that we all believe Jesus is the eternal word of God. That is what John 1 says.
Oddly, perhaps, for someone who is theologically fairly conservative with a high view of scripture and its status as authoritative record of the revelation, I try to discourage people from referring to scripture as 'the word of God'. Scripture doesn't so describe itself. It says that Jesus is.
Some of us, though, would say that from a conservative position, the difference between a liberal and a conservative hermeneutic looks more like this. A conservative accepts that as a matter of obedience, one believes in and follows what scripture says about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and how we should live. A liberal regards themselves as free to decide whether to believe in and follow or not, depending on how it suits them. To put it a different way, in the interior debate between oneself and God, one's own wishes and critical faculties take priority over his.
This liberal would say that he cannot make himself believe something as a matter of "obedience" or anything else, and I can no more make myself believe an explicitly outlandish statement (e.g. "go and commit genocide against the Amelakites; that's a really good thing to do") than I can make myself believe that grass is blue. Don't have the mental furniture for it. Never have had.
In other words, if the Bible says something wrong, it's still wrong, even though the Bible says it.
[ 23. December 2013, 09:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Triple posting - and perhaps it's my hobby horse out for its daily canter - but the main reason for decline in the Western church IMNAAHO is that it's generally as boring as fuck if you don't want a social club specialising in beetle drives, garden fetes and coffee mornings for the elderly.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Karl wrote:
This liberal would say that he cannot make himself believe something as a matter of "obedience" or anything else, and I can no more make myself believe an explicitly outlandish statement (e.g. "go and commit genocide against the Amelakites; that's a really good thing to do") than I can make myself believe that grass is blue. Don't have the mental furniture for it. Never have had.
In other words, if the Bible says something wrong, it's still wrong, even though the Bible says it.
I'm echoing you really. It baffles me how one can believe out of obedience. Presumably, this is not carte blanche, is it? Does anybody believe that one should strike one's hand off, after masturbating?
Then I looked at the title of the OP, well, hmmm. Maybe here is a possible cause of decline - I don't think people today are prepared to believe anything out of obedience, or because someone else believes it. Most people are postmodernists today, without realizing it.
--------------------
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
I'm not sure it's about postmodernism. Fact is that it's hard to not notice these days that for virtually any religious belief you might mention (except possibly "God exists"; can't remember the figures on that, and it depends how narrowly you define "God"), most people don't believe it. Folk know that there are loads and loads of different religious beliefs, some contradictory, and no-one really knows, because there's no particularly compelling evidence for any of them. How do you convince someone that your particular collection of religious beliefs are worthy of their serious consideration? Buggered if I know.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, I mean a kind of unconscious postmodernism, which just rejects grand narratives. I think people today are suspicious of any narrative, whether political or religious.
But I think some people are drawn to certain images, rituals, and so on, so that will probably continue, in a diminished form.
And I even think that there is a sort of God-shaped hole in some people, or transcendence-shaped hole, but it can be satisfied by different things today.
I was just thinking about my friends, and they are mostly fairly spiritual/religious type people, but only one of them is a Christian. It's too off-putting.
[ 23. December 2013, 10:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
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
Heh. I wonder if anyone on this thread has asked people who don't go to church why they don't go to church? Might be an interesting exercise. From the people I know I think the answers would be along the lines of:
1) Priests are a bunch of child abusers
2) My religious parents made my childhood terrible
3) Do you have any evidence this God person of yours really exists?
4) I'm gay, and my/my partner's family take every opportunity to tell us how we're evil and going to Hell
5) I can think of at least four better things to do on a Sunday morning
6) The vicar's a cunt who wouldn't let my father have the headstone he'd chosen when he knew he was dying
7) Meh
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
8. It's so boring.
--------------------
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
Yeah, but that's my Hobby Horse and mentioning it too often upsets people.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How do you convince someone that your particular collection of religious beliefs are worthy of their serious consideration? Buggered if I know.
Perhaps a trite answer but, as Jesus is recorded as saying, hopefully our good deeds and the way we love one another will show that there's something special and indeed unique about our particular collection of religious beliefs!
This is my particular hobby horse (Russ was on the money upthread, I think) - that people without a personal / family heritage of Christian belief will only bother checking out what we have to offer if they see something distinctive about us and our communities. Otherwise, like Karl says, Christianity is just one worldview among many.
--------------------
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
You know, I post on two main fora - this one, and one almost entirely composed of atheists, many of them quite virulently anti-religion.
I don't see any more love, care or compassion on this one than that. Less, quite possibly. They don't need a Hell board, for starters.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know, I post on two main fora - this one, and one almost entirely composed of atheists, many of them quite virulently anti-religion.
I don't see any more love, care or compassion on this one than that. Less, quite possibly. They don't need a Hell board, for starters.
Yes they do - every forum needs a hell board!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I am no Calvinist but there are three verses that intrigue me:
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." John 6 v 44
"And when he (The Holy Spirit) comes, he will convict the world of its sin, and of God's righteousness, and of the coming judgment." John 16 v 8
"And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." Acts 2 v 47
Taken together they tell me that people come to salvation firstly because the Holy Spirit who reveals sin in their lives, then the Father reveals Jesus to them as their Saviour, then he brings them into the life of the Body of Christ.
I have been coming to the conclusion for a long time now that the reason the church is unpopular, irrelevant and ignored is down to one fact: people no longer believe they need salvation and redemption from sin.
Until and unless they have that inner conviction anything the church says about morality and sin is going to sound judgmental and proscriptive - understandably so because we are talking to the mind and not to the heart.
I think therefore we have a spiritual problem.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
But the full outworking of your model there, Muddy, is that it's the Holy Spirit's fault for not convicting people of sin ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
