|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should Christians be respectable?
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
In what I will admit was partly an off-topic rant in the Ecclesiastes thread "So, what can I expect at a Church of England Service?" I lamented the passing of good old days in which the Church of England and TEC were known for "decently and in order." I lauded the influence that they once had by that means, not only on their own members,
but on the practices of other ecclesial communities aspiring to "social respectability,"
and from there on society at large.
In reply, Enoch asked a good question: "Is respectability an heroic Christian virtue or even something to be proud of having encouraged fellow Christians to aspire to?"
This question is thought-provoking and duly Purgatorial. After due consideration, however, I'm not ready yet to eat my words. Yes, generally speaking (and assuredly when it comes to conducting onself decently and in order), it
is appropriate to aspire to respectability, and to encourage fellow Christians towards it-- or even better, to help them become respectable.
Fairly fundamental these days in TEC are "our baptismal vows," including the promise "to respect the dignity of every human being."
Of course, having been baptized and confirmed in the "good old days" I was pining over, I find no evidence of having made this vow either personally or vicariously. But no matter. I have subsequently affirmed it and am glad to subscribe to the principle.
Why give respect to others? It seems to me that this is good for us incidentally, but primarily it is good for those whom we respect. Having lived through a couple relatively mild periods of being generally disrespected, I have some sense of how demoralizing this can be. For anyone deficient in anger control, being "dissed" is liable to provoke violence. This reaction may not
be tolerable, yet it is understandable.
So, should we good-little-Christians be content with fulfilling our vows in respecting others, or should we wish for respect to be more widespread, for the sake of those respected? If the latter,
then we confront the question of respectability. Like it or not, some people don't live by our rules, and grant respect only when it is earned. This circumstance is even implicit, for
that matter, in our own vows: respect the dignity... Etymologically at least, the concept of worthiness comes into play.
So respectability is not a heroic virtue. But,
like money, it can be used for virtually heroic
ends. I gave the example of Bishop Paul Moore of
New York, who had tremendous respectability upon ordination and consecration, and willingly sacrificed it in causes such as civil rights. At
the same time, Wikipedia describes him as a "fierce traditionalist" when it came to liturgy and the creeds. In other words, he was a rebel decently and in order, a man after my own heart.
Well, enough for an O.P. Your thoughts?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Haha - what an excellent question!
Are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control *repectable*?
If so then yes.
If not then no.
I have a long long plane journey ahead - I will contemplate your OP while flying ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
To some extent, respectability is a relative term. Respectable to whom, what is their frame of reference? It was respectable to keep slaves at one time, or go on the Crusades. Focussing on respectability can be a dangerous thing - especially if it's confused with morality.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
To some extent, respectability is a relative term. Respectable to whom, what is their frame of reference? It was respectable to keep slaves at one time, or go on the Crusades. Focussing on respectability can be a dangerous thing - especially if it's confused with morality.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think this is where the huge diversity of how one can live out one's faith comes into play.
I think I've told this story before, but I used to know a couple in which the husband was a police officer and the wife an anti-nuclear campaigner. They once found themselves at the same demonstration at Greenham Common, on opposite sides. There is a role for the "respectable" and the "non-respectable" here.
Another key consideration is whether "respectable" means "having disrespect for the non-respectable". Jesus seemed to do pretty well at not doing this.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
a couple in which the husband was a police officer and the wife an anti-nuclear campaigner. They once found themselves at the same demonstration at Greenham Common, on opposite sides. There is a role for the "respectable" and the "non-respectable" here.
which would you consider "respectable" and which not?
reminds me of the so-called "pleb-gate". I don't know who I mistrust most, the police or a politician!
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In an English context, I have found respectability to be something quite suffocating. For example, in a working class environment, it led to a kind of one upmanship which was ghastly to behold, and also to a sort of censorious attitude to anybody a bit different.
For example, when I was a kid, there was a divorced woman in the area, who was viewed with great suspicion, as a sort of scarlet harlot, and definitely not respectable.
But I suppose the term could be construed in a different way, in relation to respecting people. My experience is that the respectable didn't do that, but wanted to wall people off who were not like them.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
One cannot request or demand to be respected. Respect is something that other people GIVE to you.
The only part of respect that you can do is to respect others.
A Christian, one who follows Christ, is, ISTM, obliged to respect others, particularly those to whom respect is not offered in the general sense...prisoners, ex-prisoners, the poor, the disabled, all those described in the Bible (or the Koran, for that matter).
"Respectability" is all too often desired by those who do not want to work on respecting others. "Look at me" has all the marks of Pharisaism and is one source of the general distaste for Christians.
Did you never have a schoolteacher who demanded "respect" while brandishing a cane or strap or otherwise became angry? Why do you think that teacher did not receive respect?
Be respectable, for certain, in your actions. Do NOT talk about or even think about your own respectability.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, there's a confusion between respectable and respectful. My own experience is that the former were not the latter.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Wait, I though us Presbyterians had copyrighted "decently and in order"...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I identify with Bishop Richard Holloway in one of his books where he says that becoming Anglican makes you learn respectability. I learn the difference between 'dinner' and 'lunch' and which wine goes with what food. But that is more about class.
Jeffrey John remembered his first encounter with anglo-catholics, saying that they were 'fun' and 'normal' because they smoked, drank and swore.
Jesus's disciples were certainly thought NOT to be respectable and I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were before deciding whether it was truly 'catholic'.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Is it the duty of Christians to be respectable? Or to imitate Christ?
As it's used where I live, "respectable" means conformity to the prevailing social norms of one's peer-group. IOW, a lower-middle-class family like the one I grew up in avoided publicity, peace-disturbing activities, followed the prevailing norms and customs in dress, manners, and the observance of assorted taboos, etc.
As portrayed in the Gospels, Jesus --
-- attracted so much publicity he had a hard time getting five minutes to himself, with crowds chasing him all over
-- did plenty of peace-disturbing (or at least such inspired those trying to hear him to do so. (Have you cut holes in any roofs recently?)
-- flouted social norms and customs by dining with prostitutes and tax-collectors and encouraging vagrancy & homelessness, at least amongst the 12 closest followers
-- railed out loud and in public against prevailing religious customs like praying aloud in public, ostentatious acts of charity, etc.
Should Christians be respectable? Nope; not seeing it.
A better question might be, "How do Christians adhere to the narrow way without also becoming narrow themselves?"
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were before deciding whether it was truly 'catholic'.
That seems far too extreme to me. For one thing, there are a great many areas that simply won't have any Christian ex-offenders, etc. in residence. What are they supposed to do - go out and kidnap a few from other areas so that they can meet your standard for approval? Or maybe just Shanghai a bunch of non-Christian disadvantaged people into their services to make up their quota?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
As has already been suggested, in British usage, "respectable" often relates to a matter of mere appearances: the starched shirt, neat suit, and well-polished shoes worn by the wife-beater or child-abuser. I'm quite sure that Christians should not be "respactable" in that sense of the term, which is, after all, mere hypocrisy.
I think we should, however, endeavour to earn genuine respect by the quality of our lives, and primarily by the way we relate to others.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's a fascinating semantic cluster - respect, respectable, respectful, and of course, street slang, respect!, which almost means deference.
I do remember going to a posh school, where the Christians were respectable in a cringe-worthy way, kind of smarmy. FFS, they were all prefects! No respect for that, dude!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were before deciding whether it was truly 'catholic'.
That seems far too extreme to me. For one thing, there are a great many areas that simply won't have any Christian ex-offenders, etc. in residence. What are they supposed to do - go out and kidnap a few from other areas so that they can meet your standard for approval? Or maybe just Shanghai a bunch of non-Christian disadvantaged people into their services to make up their quota?
How out of touch are you?
Do ex-cons go to some specific areas
I can point you to 6 parishes within a square 3 miles who all have them.
Is your part of the midlands some how swept clean?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were ...
How would you know?
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Nope. Don't try to be respectable. Try to have fun, a lot of fun. And involve others in your joy. And go out of your way to help others, particularly if they have shortages of fun and joy. Skip the respectability entirely. I tried it, it's over-rated.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jeffrey John remembered his first encounter with anglo-catholics, saying that they were 'fun' and 'normal' because they smoked, drank and swore.
Can Christians be "normal" - if they are new creations? I suppose it depends by whose standards you define normal.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jesus's disciples were certainly thought NOT to be respectable and I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were before deciding whether it was truly 'catholic'.
Yep tick all of those boxes in the New Jerusalem - I'd also add more than 20 nationalities and a fair number of people with mental health "issues" together with a smattering of sex workers.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I'm reminded of Paul who said that to Jews, he was a Jew, but to Gentiles, he was a Gentile.
I think Christians should be mindful of context in their mission to the world. For example, when ministering in a retirement home, I don't think it is a good idea to say "Fuck ya, Jesus loves ya." Not that there is anything wrong with saying that, but to characterize the Christian message that way to an audience where people don't usually drop f-bombs in normal conversation, would be to have people focusing on the "F" word" and not on the message of Jesus Christ.
Similarly, I don't think one should dress in fancy expensive suits when ministering to a poor, urban city with a lot of homeless people.
So, be respectable if it serves the mission of Christ. Don't be respectable if the respectability asked for, is a hindrance or an avoidance of the gospel.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were ...
How would you know?
If you've turned up out of the blue you wouldn't know, but some churches run social projects aimed at people in specific need, and they may even attract new members this way. If you're aware of a church's weekly ministry and context you'll just be able to tell whether or not any of these folk are represented in church on Sunday. The British tend to notice class markers and racial markers best, so this sort of game works best in an obviously mixed church; white middle class 'transgressors' aren't easy to spot in a roomful of other white middle class people!
Many churches end up becoming unrepresentative of local communities because of social change; congregations may move away and return on Sundays to worship. For some smaller denominations this difference occurs because they don't have many churches and so expect their members to be willing to travel some distance to attend. This is harder for people with little money who lead chaotic lives.
The CofE is (almost) everywhere so it's perhaps the obvious site for Christian social diversity in the church. But the most diverse church I know is Baptist. (Actually, I think the minister would like a few more nice young Christian families so his young kids can have some 'respectable' playmates, but you can't have everything!)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Respecting others and being respectable aren't the same at all.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'd say it depends on why a person is unrespectable. If they are unrespectable because they are trying to follow the Gospel, and making unpopular choices in order to do so, then yes, they should be unrespectable.
If on the other hand they are unrespectable because they are doing something selfish or otherwise immoral and have thus attained some kind of notoriety, then of course they should not be so.
Or in other words, to ask this is to ask entirely the wrong question.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were ...
How would you know?
If you've turned up out of the blue you wouldn't know, but some churches run social projects aimed at people in specific need, and they may even attract new members this way. If you're aware of a church's weekly ministry and context you'll just be able to tell whether or not any of these folk are represented in church on Sunday. The British tend to notice class markers and racial markers best, so this sort of game works best in an obviously mixed church; white middle class 'transgressors' aren't easy to spot in a roomful of other white middle class people!
I can't see how race comes into this or why 'transgressos' would be easier to spot in a mixed race congregation. Or class either, unless being lower class is also a transgression. Ex-offenders, LGBT people, unmarried mothers and people claiming benefits can be found everywhere.
I'm especially interested in the assumptions which designate benefit claimants as 'transgressors'. And for every unmarried mother there's an unmarried father who presumably is also seen as transgressor.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Hopefully Leo isn't saying he requires all of those people to be present. I do agree with him that if everyone at a church is safely respectable, I don't think the church is doing their job in that respect.
Someone spoke in church about this issue - and how once her purse was stole at church. She called the police and they said "How terrible, what kind of person would steal a purse while attending church?" And she said her response was "The kind of person we need to be doing a better job reaching out to!"
I'm sure it wasn't as pat and perfect as that, but she makes a good point. If your local church only has perfectly well behaved upright citizens, then it's not reaching out to the wider community because that's not what the world actually looks like.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Hopefully Leo isn't saying he requires all of those people to be present. I do agree with him that if everyone at a church is safely respectable, I don't think the church is doing their job in that respect.
Someone spoke in church about this issue - and how once her purse was stole at church. She called the police and they said "How terrible, what kind of person would steal a purse while attending church?" And she said her response was "The kind of person we need to be doing a better job reaching out to!"
I'm sure it wasn't as pat and perfect as that, but she makes a good point. If your local church only has perfectly well behaved upright citizens, then it's not reaching out to the wider community because that's not what the world actually looks like.
Amen! (I hope whoever stole my coat in church actually wore it. And I am thankful that I could afford to replace it soon even though it was a coat I wore more for style than because it was my only coat. It wasn't.)
Like Leo I do try to notice that sort of thing in churches. Have ever since I was a college student at church and a woman began to take over prayer time in a way that made it clear that she was not mentally normal, and probably not functional. When I later commented that I was surprised at her prayer, I found out that church was one of the things she lovd most in life. Since she couldn't drive, people took turns giving her rides every week to church even though it was half an hour's drive out of anyone's way. Y was not a "productive" member of the congregation, her outburst of what she called prophecy were sometimes offensive* but she was a true Christian and a loving person. The whole church accepted her as a member and was glad she was there. I realized that my childhood church had no one like that. The mentally ill were shunned and gossipped about not welcomed, etc. So yes, churches need people like Y. I just hope I can be as whole-heartedly devoted to the church as Y was.
*and I highly doubt they were from the Holy Spirit
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were ...
How would you know?
By going a few times but not committing myself too soon.
I'm still not sure how you'd know, even after going a few times. The categories you've mentioned wouldn't necessarily look any different to anyone else. I'm intrigued to know what 'people on benefits' look like, for example.
I'm also not sure how this fits in with respectability. I can see how the first three categories might be linked with ideas about transgression but I can't see how this would apply to people on benefits.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were ...
How would you know?
By going a few times but not committing myself too soon.
I'm still not sure how you'd know, even after going a few times.
Because, maybe, you haven't been interested enough to know what to look for.
Do you ever have those conversations where someone asks you 'What do you do?' and being rebuked for assuming that everyone has a job and is defined by it?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I think it depends on whose respect you're trying to earn.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were ...
How would you know?
By going a few times but not committing myself too soon.
I'm still not sure how you'd know, even after going a few times.
Because, maybe, you haven't been interested enough to know what to look for.
So what do you look for in order to determine how many people in a congregation are claiming benefits?
I'm interested in how you link respectability with the categories of people you listed and in particular how this applies to people on benefits.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... I would look at a congregation, before joining it, to see how many ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on 'benefits' etc. there were ...
How would you know?
If you've turned up out of the blue you wouldn't know, but some churches run social projects aimed at people in specific need, and they may even attract new members this way. If you're aware of a church's weekly ministry and context you'll just be able to tell whether or not any of these folk are represented in church on Sunday. The British tend to notice class markers and racial markers best, so this sort of game works best in an obviously mixed church; white middle class 'transgressors' aren't easy to spot in a roomful of other white middle class people!
I can't see how race comes into this or why 'transgressos' would be easier to spot in a mixed race congregation. Or class either, unless being lower class is also a transgression. Ex-offenders, LGBT people, unmarried mothers and people claiming benefits can be found everywhere.
I'm especially interested in the assumptions which designate benefit claimants as 'transgressors'. And for every unmarried mother there's an unmarried father who presumably is also seen as transgressor.
In the average urban inner city environment, I imagine that asylum seekers are more likely to be black or brown than white. From their phenotype, clothing and/or accent it might be possible to tell where they come from, assuming that you're aware of these things. Certain groups in society are also more likely to on benefits, in single parent households, or to have had been in prison.
White middle class people have all kinds of experiences too! But it's less obvious, as I said. An Oxford graduate back living with his solicitor parents might be on the dole, but his situation won't be as obvious as someone much older who appears short of cash and is on disability allowance. There are upper class ex-fraudsters, but they're unlikely to be attending church support centres to help them re-integrate into society, as their needs are probably different from those of the average ex-con.
As for 'trangressors', that was obviously an easy but controversial short-hand, which was why I put it in scare quotes!
We obviously shouldn't go to church planning to 'expose' other people! I'm just saying that if the church is in a certain kind of area and has a certain kind of community ministry, then there should be diverse vibes in the congregation, rather than a surface 'respectable' uniformity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
If you are known for love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, then you will probably be respected by most.
You better mess around with poisonous snakes and not be harmed by their bites to make sure you're in like Flynn with the rest.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the average urban inner city environment, I imagine that asylum seekers are more likely to be black or brown than white. From their phenotype, clothing and/or accent it might be possible to tell where they come from, assuming that you're aware of these things.
But what does this have to do with respectability?
Certain groups in society are also more likely to on benefits, in single parent households, or to have had been in prison.
People with low incomes are more likely to be on benefits but I don't think they constitute a 'group'. AFAIK most families who receive earnings related benefits are those where at least one parent is working. Most single parents households are created by divorce or separation which isn't confined to any group in society. Men are more likely than women to have been in prison or convicted of some crime but that's half the population.
White middle class people have all kinds of experiences too! But it's less obvious, as I said.
Less obvious than black middle class people?
An Oxford graduate back living with his solicitor parents might be on the dole, but his situation won't be as obvious as someone much older who appears short of cash and is on disability allowance.
It seems your frame of reference is one that connects lack of money and disability with lack of respectability.
There are upper class ex-fraudsters, but they're unlikely to be attending church support centres to help them re-integrate into society, as their needs are probably different from those of the average ex-con. Those who work with ex-offenders and provide support within churches are expected to maintain confidentiality and it shouldn't be obvious to everyone in a congregation if someone has been in prison.
As for 'trangressors', that was obviously an easy but controversial short-hand, which was why I put it in scare quotes! Shorthand for not white, not middle class and not on benefits presumably.
We obviously shouldn't go to church planning to 'expose' other people! I'm just saying that if the church is in a certain kind of area and has a certain kind of community ministry, then there should be diverse vibes in the congregation, rather than a surface 'respectable' uniformity.
We shouldn't go to church with preconceived ideas about the people we meet there. I'm not sure what you mean by 'certain kind of area' and 'certain kind of community ministry' but I'll take it as meaning a poorer area, perhaps somewhere where a lot of people live in social housing. I go to a church in such an area and its community ministry includes a range of social activities, some specifically for the elderly, some for children and teenagers, along with involvement in local schools and in charitable work with other churches. It seems to me to be an inclusive, non-judgemental and highly respectable community. As for anyone being an ex-offender, LGBT, unmarried mother or claiming benefits I think this is none of my business unless someone chooses to disclose it.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Justlooking
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I'm neither white nor (at least from a financial point of view!!! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) middle class. And I worship in inner city, urban churches, some of which do a lot of social outreach. Moreover, I'm not the one who brought 'ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on "benefits"' into a thread about respectability; Leo did that.
I actually referred to Leo's post, and yours, with a particular inner city church in mind. I thought about this church's outreach work, the community around it, and the comments made by the minister about the church's incredibly diverse makeup. Visiting that church, I'd naturally want to pick up some idea of that diversity in its congregation. Not because I want to judge people, or to label them. But to get the sense of a genuinely broad community that matched up with what the minister had said.
As for individuals going to church and minding their own business, this is probably a question of church culture. Confidentiality is one thing, but being utterly private probably isn't a huge priority in this church, partly because many new attenders will have developed a relationship with the church through sharing their issues on various social projects. (It's not a big church, and it is evangelical.) As for me, I've only been there as a visitor, although I do know a handful of the members a little bit. I don't go there to pry.
Regarding my use of the word 'transgressors', which was slightly mocking, let me be clear: I am a miserable sinner, and nothing good lives in me. My flesh and my spirit are always at war, as per Romans 7:18. In no sense am I positing myself as a better Christian than anyone else, or even as an equivalent. If we want to get back on topic we could say that none of us are 'respectable' in God's sight.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say it depends on why a person is unrespectable. If they are unrespectable because they are trying to follow the Gospel, and making unpopular choices in order to do so, then yes, they should be unrespectable.
If on the other hand they are unrespectable because they are doing something selfish or otherwise immoral and have thus attained some kind of notoriety, then of course they should not be so.
I agree completely. In particular, I'd have no use for an attempt to be respectable that involves snobbishly shunning others. Our Lord didn't do that, and for that reason was unrespectable in the eyes of many; but on the other hand. He had numerous admirers and followers. Even Pontius Pilate (so the gospels tell us) respected Him enough not to want Him executed.
A few weeks ago, Fr. Lloyd preached a wonderful sermon on the Gospel passage where, upon learning that Herod had killed John the Baptist, Jesus "withdrew to Galilee." This phrase has the unfortunate implication that He was retreating from trouble. Actually, He was deliberately walking straight into trouble. In fact, he was out to make trouble. He took up where John had left off, proclaiming that the Kingdom of God was at hand-- to the extent that some thought that John the Baptist had come back from the dead. (But is this tantamount to His actually trying to be unrespectable? I don't see it that way.)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say it depends on why a person is unrespectable. If they are unrespectable because they are trying to follow the Gospel, and making unpopular choices in order to do so, then yes, they should be unrespectable.
If on the other hand they are unrespectable because they are doing something selfish or otherwise immoral and have thus attained some kind of notoriety, then of course they should not be so.
I agree completely. In particular, I'd have no use for an attempt to be respectable that involves snobbishly shunning others. Our Lord didn't do that, and for that reason was unrespectable in the eyes of many; but on the other hand. He had numerous admirers and followers. Even Pontius Pilate (so the gospels tell us) respected Him enough not to want Him executed.
A few weeks ago, Fr. Lloyd preached a wonderful sermon on the Gospel passage where, upon learning that Herod had killed John the Baptist, Jesus "withdrew to Galilee." This phrase has the unfortunate implication that He was retreating from trouble. Actually, He was deliberately walking straight into trouble. In fact, he was out to make trouble. He took up where John had left off, proclaiming that the Kingdom of God was at hand-- to the extent that some thought that John the Baptist had come back from the dead. (But is this tantamount to His actually trying to be unrespectable? I don't see it that way.)
I think, though, that Our Lord's followers were urged by the Holy Spirit more than Him being outwardly respectable. It's also our job to be followers rather than to have followers. Our doing the Lord's work is not reliant on people following us or liking us or respecting us.
Indeed, the Anglican church being the bastion of social respectability in the past is partly behind the drop in church attendance - the local priest was seen as in cahoots with the squire and other oppressive local figures. I'd argue that a socially respectable Christianity has rather lost its saltiness and is hiding its light.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think what got Jesus his disreputablity is instructive. In the eyes of the self-proclaimed respectable it was his tendency to associate with the "riff-raff". Also this strange ability to administer effective put-downs to those who gave themselves airs.
It tends to get you black-balled if you try to join any kind of overtly "Moral Vigilance" society; what Adrian Plass memorably called the "spot it and stop it" brigades. The poor and the outsiders seem more likely to hear you gladly however. They think you get their plight and the fact that mostly they don't think too much of themselves.
I think that's a pretty good sort of disreputability to aim for. If it makes us "of no reputation", or "despised and rejected of men", perhaps we shouldn't get too worried about that? Looks like we might be following a good example?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Another instructive image is William Stringfellow, who went from Harvard to Harlem, renting a small apartment with a clogged toilet, a stove that didn't work, and crawling with cockroaches. It was no worse than how most people lived, he reminded himself.
From there he went out to represent in court clients so universally disreputable that his colleagues wouldn't touch them.
But people said his shoes were always polished.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Justlooking
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I'm neither white nor (at least from a financial point of view!!! ) middle class. And I worship in inner city, urban churches, some of which do a lot of social outreach. Moreover, I'm not the one who brought 'ex-offenders, LGBTs, unmarried mothers, people on "benefits"' into a thread about respectability; Leo did that.
I actually referred to Leo's post, and yours, with a particular inner city church in mind. I thought about this church's outreach work, the community around it, and the comments made by the minister about the church's incredibly diverse makeup. Visiting that church, I'd naturally want to pick up some idea of that diversity in its congregation. Not because I want to judge people, or to label them. But to get the sense of a genuinely broad community that matched up with what the minister had said.
Yes, it was Leo who brought in the idea of diversity as relevant to respectability and from your own posts I get the impression you see some relevance too. I can see the relevance if we take the view that respectability can be determined by adherence to a social norm. It's what constitutes that social norm I find interesting. From Leo's list it seems respectability involves being law-abiding, or at least not being convicted(ex-offenders), not having sex outside marriage, or at least not making it obvious by having a child (unmarried mothers), being heterosexual with no desire to change,(LGBT)and having enough money to avoid the need for any kind of welfare benefits. From your own posts race also seems to have some relevance. You don't have to belong to the group that sets the social norms in order to accept them as authoritative.
All these were factors in the prevailing ideas about respectability I grew up with. They were at least understandable in the context of those times when society's norms and values were largely framed by the interests of white, middle-class males.
quote:
As for individuals going to church and minding their own business, this is probably a question of church culture. Confidentiality is one thing, but being utterly private probably isn't a huge priority in this church, partly because many new attenders will have developed a relationship with the church through sharing their issues on various social projects. (It's not a big church, and it is evangelical.) As for me, I've only been there as a visitor, although I do know a handful of the members a little bit. I don't go there to pry.
The important point for me is in personal choice. If someone chooses to share private information then that's no problem. It becomes a problem when private information is sought or when assumptions are made about someone's circumstances.
quote:
Regarding my use of the word 'transgressors', which was slightly mocking, let me be clear: I am a miserable sinner, and nothing good lives in me. My flesh and my spirit are always at war, as per Romans 7:18. In no sense am I positing myself as a better Christian than anyone else, or even as an equivalent. If we want to get back on topic we could say that none of us are 'respectable' in God's sight.
The OP asks whether Christians should be respectable which raises the question of how respectability is defined. I agree with you that it may easier to cover up sinful behaviour in an homogenous middle-class environment where money and status can be used as shields. Those who have less to protect them from public scrutiny are more likely to have their sins exposed. This is at the root of an attitude that conflates poverty with sin and wealth with virtue.
[ 21. February 2014, 09:54: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
If someone chooses to share private information then that's no problem. It becomes a problem when private information is sought or when assumptions are made about someone's circumstances.
It occurs to me that many churches might try to establish (hopefully in a non-threatening and unobtrusive way) the kinds of people who attend.
For example, a church planter or evangelistic body might be aiming to reach a particular group in society, and they or their sponsors would try to establish how successful this missionary activity had been. A congregation that had to send regular financial contributions to a central office might claim that they should send a reduced figure because their membership consisted largely of unemployed or low-paid people. And I also get the feeling that preachers/clergy just like to have some idea of the kinds of people they're preaching to.
The CofE, which sees itself as being there for everyone, perhaps doesn't think of itself as needing to differentiate in this way, but the smaller denominations obviously do develop constituencies among particular social groups, and their geographic presence and even their theology move in a certain direction as a result. So, expectations of respectability (however defined) are likely to be a bit different from denomination to denomination.
[ 26. February 2014, 23:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
As baby-boomer teenagers during the Sixties, we consciously rebelled against the aspirational respectability of our working-class parents’ generation who then dominated our denomination.
After wearing boots and overalls during the working week, they liked to put on a well-pressed suit and polished shoes on Sundays, employ exaggeratedly correct ( no dropped gs or hs!) and slightly archaic English in their very formal (though non-liturgical) worship with its old-fashioned hymns, and then go home to a meal (meat and three veg; no foreign muck) at which they sedulously observed their table manners.
We thought this was a great joke and because, unlike them, we had completed secondary education and gone on to university, we felt entitled to patronize them, and demonstrate how liberated we were by flouting their conventions.
However, while we could rattle off the systemic reasons for the bourgeois hegemony which oppressed them, and other poorer members of society, they had an embarrassingly greater capacity than we did to actually relate to, and evangelise, other working-class people, as well as what were then known as “down and outs”, their respectability notwithstanding.
The concept of respectability is now moribund, but no doubt future generations will identify some value system to which we now unconsciously subscribe, and will one day seem quaint or ridiculous.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The concept of respectability is now moribund, but no doubt future generations will identify some value system to which we now unconsciously subscribe, and will one day seem quaint or ridiculous.
How about the new guide promise, worthy but platitudinous and ultimately circular?
quote:
"to be true to myself and develop my beliefs"
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Seems to me a certain man was severely criticized for eating with tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners because "respectable people" did do that once.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Seems to me a certain man was severely criticized for eating with tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners because "respectable people" did do that once.
There's respectable and "respectable", isn't there?
The Hyacinth Bucket notion of "respectability" that involves shunning anyone who appears a little bit vulgar is clearly something that we should avoid.
The obvious virtues - things like being honest, trustworthy, kind and considerate - are clearly things that we should cultivate.
But there are plenty of other things that are "respectable" that I would argue that Christians should aspire to. Things like maintaining the appearance of your home may sound terribly "respectable", but it's really about consideration and respect for your neighbours. You keep your bit looking clean, he keeps his bit looking clean, and you end up with a neigbourhood that appears well-kept and pleasant to live in, rather than a shithole.
And that, I would argue, is also the Christian thing to do.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The concept of respectability is now moribund, but no doubt future generations will identify some value system to which we now unconsciously subscribe, and will one day seem quaint or ridiculous.
How about the new guide promise, worthy but platitudinous and ultimately circular?
quote:
"to be true to myself and develop my beliefs"
and inclusive rather than blocking our non-believers.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
