|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One-dimensional anthropology?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Over on the vestments thread in Ecclesiantics ...
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008015;p=2#000076
... Trisagion asserted that if we don't take a full-on sacramental approach to life then our faith might be deficient in a number of ways.
A non-sacramental approach, he suggests, raises problems other than those it would seek to resolve:
"such as how we encounter Christ after his ascension, except in an extrinsic and subjective manner. That might be enough for you: I think it fails to take seriously account of our bodily nature and collapses the beautiful complexity of the Church's anthropological teaching into something hollowed out and distortedly one-dimensional."
I'm intrigued by that.
In fact, I find myself in broad agreement - although, obviously, not being RC I don't go the whole hog ...
I can certainly see how more 'minimalist' and puritanical traditions can end up with a somewhat distorted aesthetic and, more seriously, a distorted anthropology.
But is this necessarily the case?
What do Shipmates think?
To what extent does a less-realised sacramental approach distort our view? Or does it, rather, enhance it?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
"how we encounter Christ after his ascension, except in an extrinsic and subjective manner."
What does that mean?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's Trisagion's phrase, but I take it to mean that unless we have a more realised view of the eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ - which we physically imbibe - then we are necessarily going to have to rely on notions of Christ that are 'extrinsic' and 'subjective'.
As I'm not RC and so not wedded to notions of transubstantiation - although I do believe in the Real Presence in some sense - then I wouldn't go quite so far. But I can see what he means.
Others, such as Quakers (and I think I'm right that you are a Friend) would obviously argue the opposite. That we recognise the True Light wherever it glows.
I'd agree with that too ... but again, as I'm not a Quaker - not to the full-on extent that Quakers might.
Charismatics and Pentecostals would say that the presence of Christ within them can be experienced and 'felt' in some way ... and some would describe an experience of 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' as they might call it where this was consciously apparent and may have been accompanied by particular manifestations of the Spirit - tongues etc.
What, I think, Trisagion is suggesting is that these might be all very well and good as far as they go, but they still rely on extrinsic and subjective criteria.
Whereas for him (and not just him but the Church as he defines it) what happens in the sacraments is an objective reality.
Trisagion can correct me if I'm wrong.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
One could argue - and I would be among them - that the record of the more sacramental churches in anthropological terms hasn't always been positive ...
Although I'd imagine that Trisagion would argue that has been adjusted and corrected over time.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Charismatics and Pentecostals would say that the presence of Christ within them can be experienced and 'felt' in some way ... and some would describe an experience of 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' as they might call it where this was consciously apparent and may have been accompanied by particular manifestations of the Spirit - tongues etc.
What, I think, Trisagion is suggesting is that these might be all very well and good as far as they go, but they still rely on extrinsic and subjective criteria.
Whereas for him (and not just him but the Church as he defines it) what happens in the sacraments is an objective reality.
But if the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer is considered to be subjective, then the same must apply to "what happens in the sacraments", because the latter cannot be proven to be real by the (presumably empirical) criteria by which the former is assessed to be subjective. If we are not assessing the reality of these various elements by empirical criteria, then the Holy Spirit is as objective as "that which happens in the sacraments".
Whichever way we look at it, Catholic sacramental theology is as subjective or objective as Pentecostal pneumatology. We cannot apply different epistemological theories to different theological positions.
Of course, the Church simply declaring something to be 'objective', makes a mockery of the term. We need a bit more to go on than that.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
That's Trisagion's view to which he is entitled. Care is needed lest it be pushed into exclusitivity - ie "...what I do is right and I'm ok .... if you don't then you're wrong and outside .... something" (whatever it might be".
Trisagion is putting out what is pretty much the accepted view of the RCC, of course.
A fair chunk of the protestant church would disagree wholeheartedly which means that, as with the wearing of vestments, mileage varies.
On a personal level I can grasp the numinous and the transcendent even in my (dodgy to some) Baptist forms of worship. I can't see there being anything better until I am at one with Him in heaven. But I wouldn't want to knock the means by which Trisagion or others find their way to the same place. Personally I just don't need it like that - for me the sacrament is also objective reality but I suspect that others wouldn't agree.
But hey, I'm a post modernist and it works for me.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
ISTM that this question is controlled by the speaker's faith, and, as such, is not arguable for that person by someone else.
It is possible for one to try to explain to another why it works for the one, but faith is just that, faith, and therefore unprovable, so it can't be imposed on someone else.
Transubstantiation is an item of faith that the non-RCs have decided doesn't work for them.
"in my Father's house..." implies that there is latitude for a range of sincerely-held beliefs.
As opined in the OP, the Quakers or Salvation Armyists might not agree with the RCs, but, quoting the Pope, "Who am I to judge?"
or go back to Abou ben Adhem
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@ExclamationMark ... sure, I'd agree that communion in a Baptist setting is an objective reality too. I've never said otherwise.
I'm not RC so I don't get into what does or doesn't constitute a 'valid' eucharist.
FWIW, if we're talking about more vatic or 'mystical' experiences, one of the most memorable 'epiphany' type moments for me occurred in a very plain, unadorned and simple Baptist communion service in South Wales. No flashing lights or heeby-geebies but a tremendous 'weight' and consequence about it ... as I realised that what we were commemorating/celebrating or 'representing' as it were had cosmic implications ...
So yes, I agree that there's an objectivity about the sacrament or ordinance - call it what we will - that 'grounds' us and which ultimately prevails irrespective of how good, bad or indifferent the rest of the service was.
I don't know about you, but I can be in services that otherwise set my teeth on edge, but if there's a communion element to it I never go away feeling 'short-changed' ...
I know I'm putting that in irreverent terms, but you get the gist.
On the issue of subjectivity/objectivity then EytemologicalEvangelical has raised an interesting point - and one I'd anticipated that he'd raise to be quite honest.
How can we claim any objective reality for the eucharist - which can't be 'proven' - and yet deny (if we are so inclined) the objective reality of a putative Pentecostal experience?
It's a good question.
I'd be interested in Trisagion's response to that one.
My own would be that the Pentecostal 'manifestation' - be it a 'tongue', a 'prophecy' or some other apparently inspired contribution, may or may not be the genuine article. The contributor may have eaten too much cheese the night before.
But with the eucharist, irrespective of how we 'feel', always points beyond itself to a higher reality and in some mysterious way conveys that reality to us.
Now EE is going to challenge me on that and ask how I know that to be the case ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the 'church deciding' thing ie. the church (or Church) decides that something is objective - therefore it is ...
Well, I don't think one has to be Catholic or High Church in some way to see this playing out.
ExclamationMark, and presumably the church of which he is a pastor/minister, recognises an objectivity in the Lord's Supper, communion, eucharist [delete as appropriate].
Why?
Various reasons. They are going by similar criteria to what all of us use, whatever our tradition or affiliation ... some variation of the scripture, reason and tradition thing ... with experience in there too.
Obviously, in the case of the RCs this will be more 'developed' or 'realised' ... but it's a similar principle at work - on a macro, rather than a micro scale.
The communion in ExclamationMark's church has objective status as communion because everyone there accepts it to have that status.
An RC might claim that it doesn't because, as ExclamationMark has mentioned upthread, they make more exclusive claims ie. ours is objective because we know by what authority we can declare it so. We don't recognise the 'authority' of your schismatic group so we can't extend the same recognition in your case.
Ok. We have a problem.
But it's a problem of a different order, I would suggest, to the issue of judging or assessing whether something is indicative of the work of God the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer.
On one level, it's not for me to decide. How God chooses to work in people's lives is nothing to do with me.
On another level, if someone were to get up and shout 'Yarroo-ba sundera hundera shallabamabandana ...' or similar during a worship service then we have to deal with it some way.
How we do that is going to depend on a whole raft of criteria based on our tradition, our tradition's understanding of scripture, our own nous, our common sense and yes, the whole 'discernment' thing ...
That's very different, I would suggest, to agreeing that the bread and wine served during a eucharist or communion service - of whatever stripe - somehow represents/conveys and 'reminds' us of what it depicts or symbolises ... or makes 'present' if you're a full on sacramental type.
Anyway, my concern on this thread is about the 'anthropology' of all this. Trisagion has suggested that if we are not fully sacramental then we are in danger of having a one-dimensional anthropology and a purely extrinsic and subjective approach to spiritual reality.
I'm interested in exploring that. If Pentecostal gifts and so on can be discussed as part of this, then fine.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
My own would be that the Pentecostal 'manifestation' - be it a 'tongue', a 'prophecy' or some other apparently inspired contribution, may or may not be the genuine article. The contributor may have eaten too much cheese the night before.
But with the eucharist, irrespective of how we 'feel', always points beyond itself to a higher reality and in some mysterious way conveys that reality to us.
I don't know why you focused on manifestations, when I was talking about the experience of the Holy Spirit.
As for "eating cheese", it's funny how no one ever uses that kind of argument when referring to the feelings one has for a friend or loved one: "Oh, darling, I really have intense feelings of love for you, but it's probably because of the Gorgonzola you dished up earlier. If I switch to Edam, I am sure I will feel that you are completely repulsive..." Yeah, sure...
But anyone who dares to talk about their experience of God has to run the gauntlet of this kind of (non-)argument.
As for transsubstantiation: well, the only evidence for it is a particular interpretation of the Bible, and we all know what your views are about hermeneutics: "Don't be so cut and dried about your particular take on what the Scripture says..." So I am rather confused as to your position on this doctrine.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I just happened to pick as an example a particular 'manifestation' - that of glossolalia - that is popularly purported to be a gift of the Holy Spirit when it occurs in church settings.
The same phenomenon is popularly supposed to be something else again when it occurs in non-church or non-Christian settings ...
But that's a different issue, of course.
So, no, I wasn't picking that as an example to wind you up because we've clashed over it in the past, nor to suggest that this is necessarily what you had in mind.
I simply used it as an example of something that might occur and to which we would have to respond using objective criteria to the extent that we can do.
The 'cheese' reference was a jokey, tongue in cheek one - almost proverbial. Rather like saying, 'Before you can say Jack Robinson.' Why Jack Robinson?
So it wasn't necessarily anything to do with what you might mean by the experience of the Holy Spirit. As it happens, I know you wouldn't restrict that to issues such as tongues.
I'm more than happy for people to 'dare' to talk about their experience of God, as you put it.
That's not the issue here. The issue is whether having a highly sacramental view - such as Trisagion's, necessarily equates to an equally high anthropology.
And whether the reverse is the case. Trisagion has suggested that others, such as South Coast Kevin, who take a lower view of the sacraments might end up with a 'one-dimensional anthropology'.
That's what I'm interested in exploring. Is the Salvation Army's anthropology, for instance, any less 'developed' or lacking in dimensions, as it were, than that of the Roman Catholic Church?
That sort of thing.
I don't know what you think my views are on hermeneutics nor why you should presume to speak on the behalf of other Shipmates in that respect either.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for transsubstantiation: well, the only evidence for it is a particular interpretation of the Bible, and we all know what your views are about hermeneutics: "Don't be so cut and dried about your particular take on what the Scripture says..." So I am rather confused as to your position on this doctrine.
In point of fact, the 'only evidence' for transubstantiation isn't simply a particular interpretation of the Bible but the witness and beliefs of a particular tradition - ie. the Roman Catholic Church.
The Orthodox Church also believes in the Real Presence on the basis of certain verses in John Chapter 6 but it doesn't define its belief in the same way - ie. they don't define it in terms of transubstantiation yet for them the consecrated elements ARE also the Body and Blood of Christ.
As for what I believe on this particular issue ... I'm an Anglican, allow me some wriggle room ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's Trisagion's phrase, but I take it to mean that unless we have a more realised view of the eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ - which we physically imbibe - then we are necessarily going to have to rely on notions of Christ that are 'extrinsic' and 'subjective'.
This may be a matter of technical theological terminology with which I'm not familiar. I can see how a RCC eucharist may be considered "objective" as opposed to "the experience of Christ amongst us" (while I might want to discuss that). I'm not sure how they can be "intrinsic" as opposed to "extrinsic"?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Trisagion doesn't appear to be around - perhaps he has a life? - but he would need to expand on this 'extrinsic' point ...
My guess would be that because the RCC believe that the elements really do become the Body and Blood of Christ we absorb those into our physical systems - we literally eat his flesh and drink his blood and so 'absorb' Christ intrinsically - and are joined to him in some physical as well as mystical way.
Incidentally, I only realised recently that the RCs believe that they are eating and drinking the Body and Blood of the risen and ascended Christ - rather than, say, cannibalising a 1st century body.
It all makes my brain spin ...
It's not so much the transubstantiation aspect that I'm focussing on though ...
ExclamationMark considers there to be an objectivity to communion and he's a Baptist, and therefore not given to a 'high' view of the sacraments. Which doesn't mean, as he's said himself, that he isn't aware of the mystical and the numinous during the Baptist way of worship.
It's all a question of degree, I suppose ... but I'd be interested to have Trisagion come and expand a bit on what he's getting at.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I do have a life, Gamaliel, but I can steal away occasionally. We've got people arriving shortly and I don't think I'll be free much in the next 72hrs, nonetheless, here goes:
1. By extrinsic, I meant a notion of grace that acts on us from without - like a TV remote.
2. The anthropological point was that we are a unity of body and soul and that our religious practice needs to recognise that.
They've arrived. Te Deum one and all. Prayers for a blessed 2014.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I do have a life, Gamaliel, but I can steal away occasionally. We've got people arriving shortly and I don't think I'll be free much in the next 72hrs, nonetheless, here goes:
1. By extrinsic, I meant a notion of grace that acts on us from without - like a TV remote.
2. The anthropological point was that we are a unity of body and soul and that our religious practice needs to recognise that.
They've arrived. Te Deum one and all. Prayers for a blessed 2014.
I can't see that there's anything in SCK's (or a Quaker, for that matter) understanding of Grace to assume that it doesn't act "from without".
I'm happy to accept that we're a unity of soul and body. By the same token, whatever we do will express that unity. No?
(Blake, I think: the body is the soul perceived, the soul the body perceiving...)
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I've always felt the notion of 'being really present' and transubstantiation as being different is a bit of a nonsense. It's like arguing whether or not God (yes, that transcendent, omnipresent lad) is sitting on the chair to my left or the chair to my right and claiming that depending on which chair he sits in it makes a huge difference.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I can't see that there's anything in SCK's (or a Quaker, for that matter) understanding of Grace to assume that it doesn't act "from without".
That was rather my point. They seem to be notions of grace working extrinsically on us, with no explanation of how that happens. I think that's problematic since I am convinced that we can only experience God - or anything, for that matter - through our senses. The extrinsic notion makes of us, in some way, hollowed-out automata, directed, like the TV, by some remote source. I just don't see it like that.
quote:
I'm happy to accept that we're a unity of soul and body. By the same token, whatever we do will express that unity. No?
(Blake, I think: the body is the soul perceived, the soul the body perceiving...)
But this is to miss the point. Liturgy is not something we do but something God does in, with, through and for us. I would argue that the structure of our human nature and the way God mediates his life (i.e. grace) to us according to and respecting that nature, which, after all, he gave us, requires/demands the sacramental system.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I just happened to pick as an example a particular 'manifestation' - that of glossolalia - that is popularly purported to be a gift of the Holy Spirit when it occurs in church settings.
The same phenomenon is popularly supposed to be something else again when it occurs in non-church or non-Christian settings ...
But that's a different issue, of course.
As I said, I was talking about the experience of the Holy Spirit, or rather, the experience of God through the Holy Spirit. Of course, there are manifestations, and the fact that such manifestations can be counterfeited in no way undermines their validity, just as we don't reject all coins and notes because someone has manufactured some fakes. This is all rather painfully obvious, and I must admit it does really surprise me that some people deploy the "manifestations in a non-Christian setting" argument to cast doubt on the genuine. We never use that kind of reasoning with regard to anything else, so why use it in this case?
But really, if we must use this kind of reasoning, then, of course, it applies to the use of the sacraments. I am sure there are mafiosi who take mass, and then continue in their nefarious ways. Would we say that anything spiritually objective has happened to these characters when they partook of the consecrated elements? If it had, then it would result in some kind of spiritual - and therefore, moral - change.
quote:
The 'cheese' reference was a jokey, tongue in cheek one - almost proverbial. Rather like saying, 'Before you can say Jack Robinson.' Why Jack Robinson?
So it wasn't necessarily anything to do with what you might mean by the experience of the Holy Spirit. As it happens, I know you wouldn't restrict that to issues such as tongues.
I'm more than happy for people to 'dare' to talk about their experience of God, as you put it.
I know that the cheese reference was tongue in cheek, hence my response in kind, but the point I was making is that the moment anyone refers to that dreaded word 'experience' in connection with spiritual things, then another word rears its head, namely, 'emotionalism'. It seems that anyone who gives any validity to spiritual experience(s), is simply drifting on feelings, which could come from anywhere, including his last meal. But we rarely use this kind of argument when referring to basic human experiences, such as love for one's wife or respect for one's parents etc. These are experiences, are they not? But we don't say: "I am filled with feelings of respect and love towards my parents, because I regularly eat fried chicken, and it induces these feelings in me."
So why is this "emotionalism-cum-naturally induced feelings" argument used when trying to explain a person's claim to experience God? The use of this argument has all the hallmarks of a rather nasty put-down. After all, is our 'relationship' with God entirely cerebral? Is God really nothing more than an idea? If that is what Christianity is about, then it is a view of reality with which I certainly cannot relate at all.
quote:
I don't know what you think my views are on hermeneutics nor why you should presume to speak on the behalf of other Shipmates in that respect either.
Well, you have often made it clear that we interpret the Bible through the lens of our own tradition, and that the Bible contains a great deal of ambiguity. So I find it difficult to believe that you would consider the sacramental interpretation 'objective', rather than just another opinion drawn from Holy Writ.
quote:
In point of fact, the 'only evidence' for transubstantiation isn't simply a particular interpretation of the Bible but the witness and beliefs of a particular tradition - ie. the Roman Catholic Church.
Exactly. Therefore it is not objective, by any stretch of the imagination. Any viewpoint generated by means of institutional authority, rather than by reason and evidence, can only be normative for those who choose to conform to that authority structure and tradition. That decision is (in the absence of independent verification) necessarily subjective, although I will grant that a genuine experience and conviction of the Holy Spirit could serve as verification, and then we come full circle back to my original point!!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Oh, I nearly forgot... Happy New Year, Gamaliel, and everyone else.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Happy New Year EE. I'll respond properly when I have more time.
Meanwhile, you may have noticed that Trisagion is suggesting that we can only apprehend God by physical or experiential means ... hence the need for sacraments ...
So in different ways, you and he are probably saying similar things.
By the way, 'experience God through the Holy Spirit' ... the Holy Spirit IS God. So to experience the Holy Spirit is to experience God.
But you knew that already ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok ... now I can reply in more detail.
Firstly, Happy New Year.
Secondly, let's get this straight - I do believe in religious experience. I have never said otherwise.
I am not calling for a purely cerebral approach but one that involves our whole beings.
'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and strength' ... every fibre, the soul, the spirit, the mind, the body, the intellect, emotions ... the whole thing.
On the 'tongues' thing, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make but I won't rehearse an argument about that old chestnut all over again.
Suffice to say that I believe that these things can be real and can be valuable, but by and large they tend to be products of wishful thinking, copy-cat or learned behaviour and a rather harmless zeal and misdirected enthusiasm - looking for love in all the wrong places. But that's by the by.
What I was getting at was that some people immediately assume that these things taking place in a Christian context must be genuine, and that those that take place in a non-Christian one aren't. I'm suggesting it's not as simple as that. For the most part these things are purely human responses and purely human behaviour. It's the context that gives them meaning and value not any intrinsic value they necessarily carry in and of themselves.
But it's tricky to separate the wheat from the chaff in this respect.
On the Mafioso thing - well yes, but we do have those rather scary verses in 1 Corinthians about people partaking unworthily or 'without discerning the body' and so 'eating and drinking judgement upon themselves' as it were.
I'm sure there are all manner of people partaking of eucharists unworthily every single Sunday. And always will be.
Just as people who have 'born-again' experiences and who practice spiritual gifts aren't always moral exemplars either. I could give instances ...
I'm sure we all could.
On the 'emotionalism' thing - no, I don't believe that all reports of religious experiences are the products of emotionalism or manipulation, wishful thinking etc. Far from it.
Yes, I do believe that religious experience can be emotional - we are sensory and physical beings so it'd be more surprising if these things weren't emotional in some way.
I didn't mention anything about 'emotionalism' upthread so I'm not sure why you've introduced it here.
On hermeneutics. I've said that we all filter our interpretation of scripture through the sieve of our own particular tradition. Of course we do. That's a truism. Are you saying that we don't?
I really don't see the problem here. Trisagion would freely admit that he interprets scripture through the lens of his Roman Catholic tradition - which he believes gave us the scriptures in the first place.
So what's so iffy about evangelicals admitting that they read the scriptures through the lens of their evangelical tradition?
How could they possibly do otherwise?
None of us approach scripture in a vacuum.
The Bible contains ambiguity. Well, yes, it does. Which is why there are so many different interpretations of certain aspects. I don't have a problem with it containing ambiguity. I can live with the ambiguity. Nobody thinks they've got every last dot and tittle of the scriptures sussed ... most of us, whatever our tradition, are happy to acknowledge that we 'know in part' and that we'll only fully understand some aspects when we get to heaven ...
I don't see what' so extraordinary about acknowledging as much. It's not as if the scriptures collapse into a useless heap if we do so.
On your 'reason' and 'evidence' thing - these don't exist in a vacuum either. Reason and evidence tends - unless I'm very mistaken - to operate within the framework of received and acknowledged bodies of knowledge and observation. They aren't applied in isolation.
On the institutional authority thing - well, yes. Trisagion submits to and acknowledges the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Consequently, he accepts that Church's view on transubstantiation and much else besides. Is the Pope a Catholic?
What's so surprising about that?
You are doing a similar thing but in a looser way. You're not sat in glorious isolation with your Bible and personal conviction, you are operating in a particular framework and context - which happens to be an evangelical charismatic one with particular Arminian emphases. Consequently, your views and approach are in line with that paradigm.
That's hardly surprising either.
Trisagion may very well believe - I don't know - that he has what you call a 'genuine experience and conviction of the Holy Spirit' to back up his claims.
You would suggest otherwise. You don't share those convictions.
So which one of you is right and which one of you is wrong? Or are you both right, but in different ways?
You see, it isn't cut and dried is it?
On the issue of 'objectivity' when it comes to the eucharist. Well, I do think there's an objectivity there ... insofar as it is possible to be objective about these things. But ultimately it's a faith position.
I can't pull the eucharist to pieces and isolate the components that go into making it 'objective'. Heck, ExclamationMark recognises a level of 'objectivity' in it and he isn't a high sacramentalist by any stretch of the imagination.
What I mean in this instance is that whereas a prayer, a 'tongue', a prophecy or whatever else there might be in a service may or may not be the genuine article - the eucharist remains what it is and what it represents.
I can say no more than that.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Gamaliel -
Thanks for the long response, and I hear what you are saying.
But it still doesn't answer the question as to how a sacrament can be 'objective' in any meaningful sense, while the spiritual experience of the Holy Spirit (say, in a Pentecostal setting) can only be 'subjective'. From what you have written, it seems that sacramentalism is as subjective as Pentecostal-cum-Charismatic pneumatology.
[ 01. January 2014, 17:06: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's why I'm struggling to express myself and am guilty of lengthy posts ...
As well as being a wind-bag, of course ...
I'm not suggesting that what happens in Pentecostal style settings is necessarily subjective. It can be.
I'd suggest that there is something about the emotion (not necessarily emotionalism) and style of such gatherings - particularly on the larger scale - can militate against the sharp exercise of discernment. I've been in gatherings where people have apparently miraculously risen from wheelchairs - to much rejoicing - only for it to transpire that it was some kind of temporary adrenalin rush. They were back in their wheelchairs shortly afterwards.
No - what I'm suggesting is that there is an objectivity about communion however we celebrate it - and that would be true in a Brethren setting or a Baptist one like ExclamationMark's.
Why? Because we are taking time to focus on the objective reality of what Christ has achieved for us through his self-sacrifice at calvary. It reminds us - or 're-presents' for us, the saving acts of our Faith.
That's where the objectivity comes in.
It's got nothing to do with how we 'feel' or whether we have conscious spiritual experiences or not - but of course it doesn't preclude those things either.
Is that clearer?
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
No - what I'm suggesting is that there is an objectivity about communion however we celebrate it - and that would be true in a Brethren setting or a Baptist one like ExclamationMark's.
Why? Because we are taking time to focus on the objective reality of what Christ has achieved for us through his self-sacrifice at calvary. It reminds us - or 're-presents' for us, the saving acts of our Faith.
That's where the objectivity comes in.
It's got nothing to do with how we 'feel' or whether we have conscious spiritual experiences or not - but of course it doesn't preclude those things either.
What you are describing is really the lowest common denominator form of the eucharist, which is really nothing more than symbolism or memorialism. Is this really sacramental theology, or just a visual aid extension of Bible study?
Certainly the Methodism that I was brought up on was not sacramental, with communion only being observed once a month. But that practice fits into your scheme.
This understanding of the eucharist is really no more 'objective' than the use of a national flag, say, our Union Flag, to symbolise our nation. It's a modest physical object that is invested with meaning, and it points beyond itself to something greater.
I think the eucharist is far more than that, and I certainly think that this sacrament is important - in fact, central to worship. But I cannot understand how - in spiritual terms (rather than mere symbolic terms) - this rite can have the term 'objective' hung over it, while a living experience of God the Holy Spirit (and yes, I am well aware that the Holy Spirit is God) is relegated to the merely 'subjective'. Either both are objective or both are subjective, because from a spiritual point of view - rather than merely cerebral - both rely on a reality that is grasped by faith. So, in fact, it really comes down to how we describe faith epistemologically.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, so I was using the lowest common denominator approach here for the purpose of illustration - and to find common ground, if you like, across the denominations.
I'd agree that the eucharist is more than a memorial, but whatever our views of it, it's certainly not 'less than that' - so it seemed appropriate, for the purpose of the point I was making to go for the lowest common denominator - even though, like you, I think there's more to it.
I'm not sure that makes sense, but it's the best I can do at the moment.
As for the following ...
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think the eucharist is far more than that, and I certainly think that this sacrament is important - in fact, central to worship. But I cannot understand how - in spiritual terms (rather than mere symbolic terms) - this rite can have the term 'objective' hung over it, while a living experience of God the Holy Spirit (and yes, I am well aware that the Holy Spirit is God) is relegated to the merely 'subjective'. Either both are objective or both are subjective, because from a spiritual point of view - rather than merely cerebral - both rely on a reality that is grasped by faith. So, in fact, it really comes down to how we describe faith epistemologically. [/QB]
... Where have I said that a living experience of God the Holy Spirit is relegated to the merely 'subjective'?
Show me where I've written that.
I've said that charismatic experience CAN be subjective. Of course it can. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an objective reality behind some of it. Of course there is.
Very 'high' sacramentalists would argue, of course, that participation in the eucharist is itself a 'living experience of the Holy Spirit' as the Holy Spirit has 'fallen' upon the elements and formed them into the very Body and Blood of Christ.
It seems to be axiomatic that as sensory, creaturely beings we are going to apprehend the divine through physical acts of some kind - be it listening to scripture being read or preached on, be it by singing songs or saying prayers, be it in silent meditation or by eating the consecrated bread or wine ...
And yes, by the exercise of spiritual gifts too, in whatever way we understand those to operate.
This, I imagine, is what Trisagion is meaning when he says that these things are 'intrinsic' rather than 'extrinsic' ... it's not as if we are zapped by an impersonal faith force or 'grace force' as though by a divine remote-control TV channel changer ...
Which is an interesting observation from Trisagion, don't you think, as Roman Catholics are sometimes accused by the Orthodox and some Protestants of having a very 'impersonal' view of grace ... as if grace is some kind of 'commodity'.
We could get into the whole 'essence and energies' thing here ...
I'm reluctant to use the 'tongues' example as it's a hot potato as far as you are concerned. But what I'm suggesting is that participation in the eucharist - whether understood in a memorialist or symbolic sense or in a more fully orbed sacramental sense is indeed in some way more 'objective' than someone going, 'Shee-na-na-na-bandannah!' in a church service or meeting and expected that to be taken seriously as some kind of supernatural language.
Or indeed, someone going, 'I was reading Leviticus the other day and it struck me that the tassles on the High Priest's garment symbolise the countries of the European Union and if you take every second verse, divide it by two and add 46 you end up with 666 ...'
Now, that doesn't mean that I believe that all examples of glossolalia are 'phoney' (whatever that means in practice) or that there is no room for personal Bible study and reflection.
Far from it.
But what it does mean is that the 'collective' activity of celebrating the eucharist - which is both agreed on by the participating congregation and supported by scripture, reason and tradition - does trump what may or may not be subjective observations and outpourings.
How does that dismiss or downplay the validity of anyone's experience?
Sure, charismatic experience exists, people's experience of the Holy Spirit exists ... I've had experiences of this nature. Plenty of them.
But they aren't the be-all and end-all (and I know you're not saying they are) and, when genuine, they serve to support what might be considered the objective aspects of what is portrayed, represented and ministered to us through the eucharist.
Does that make sense?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
