|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: traditional Christianity = sex
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find it odd that you hammer so much on the neo-pagans, even up to the point of considering them a threat. To me they are a slightly quaint little group with no real influence, that's all.
Sorry, I guess that was misleading. I tend to forget that there are people who are seriously trying to revive some kind of pagan religion. For me the real "neo-pagans" are simply the post-Christians apathetics that you will meet everywhere in the West.
Ha-ha. Great answer! I completely agree.
Except for one thing.
Whereas the Bible frequently speaks of the way that the Good News will spread among the pagans, the same cannot be said of the neo kind.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The original post had to do with Christianity and sex (reality, public perception, etc.). The discussion has turned into Christianity and money. What does that say about the Shipmates participating in the discussion?
The original post had to do with how you can tell, looking at a group, whether they are holding fast to the core of the traditional Christian religion. The person cited thought it was your attitude about sex. Some of us think it's your attitude about money, in part because of the horrific things people are saying about the poor, all in the name of Christianity.
Unfortunately, it is quite true that historically orthodox Christians of all traditions are increasingly primarily identified by their opposition to changing sexual mores, but that is not their fault...
On the subject of money, all Western Christians - theologically conservative and liberal, economically socialist and capitalist - fall short of Christ’s radical demands at a personal level, and therefore are in no position to adopt a holier-than-thou, pharisaical attitude toward any other Christian.
So right.
I too was surprised and interested at how the topic changed to going after people who have failed to give all their money to the poor.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the future of the church is what for you?
In the West? Further marginalisation followed eventually by a kind of secular Dhimmitude. South America is on track to follow the West with a delay of maybe 50-100 years. Africa and Asia are the great unknowns (well, at least to me). Furthermore, it looks like global Islam is going to have a hard population crash within this century, a demographic reality curiously unnoticed. I have no idea how that is going to play for Christianity.
As far as the gatekeepers of tradition are concerned: I predict massive problems for Eastern Orthodoxy, as their home base continues to secularise and eventually will dump cultural Orthodoxy. Furthermore, their uptake of Protestants in the West will lead to major internal conflict down the track. Best I can tell they are woefully unprepared for this. As far as the RCC is concerned, the only reason why I doubt that a major schism is coming is that the Church is too weak. It probably doesn't have the energy left to explode with its factions. The best case scenario is I guess a kind of soft takeover of Rome by Africa & Asia within a century or so. The worst case scenario is basically ecclesiastic anarchy, with an Orthodox-like falling apart into quasi-national domains which all do their own thing while maintaining "communion" as a kind of diplomatic relations exercise.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I"m trying to figure out where I fit in. I mean, I"m Orthodox, and therefore pretty much by definition "traditional". But I'm also extremely politically liberal (primarily socially--slightly more moderate fiscally).
My initial reaction was that indeed, attitudes about sex are markers of "traditional" christianity. Not that this is the one thing that defines these churches, but rather it's the one thing which tends to identify a whole host of other issues (those other issues will vary by church.. but within the scope of each church's tradition).
But then I thought about myself, and many other individuals I know, and our beliefs, and realised that in fact this is NOT true for me, and for many of them. I tend to be theologically fairly conservative (or "traditional"). i believe wholeheartedly in the Orthodox teaching on the eucharist, in our interpreation of salvation, sin, Christ, the resurrection, and while I'm a bit agnostic on some issues such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, I'm certainly accepting of the official church position (it just doesn't much matter to me one way or the other). No, I don't agree with the teaching on male only clergy.. but I don't feel that change needs to be forced (I think it will come, when the time is right.. which won't be in my lifetime, or my grandchildrens). while I disagree with the teaching on homosexuality overall, I also don't find it to be as objectionable as some I have heard, and certainly not something that I have frankly EVER heard preached about one way or the other. I know what the psotiion is, but it's just not an issue, ya know? we have gay people in my congregation. I don't know how they deal with the issue during confession (not my busness to know), but I know that they are active in the church, and appear not to feel alienated.
So, I don't belive that my own (liberal) beliefs on issues of sexuailty define my theological beliefs one tiny bit. does the same apply to churches as a whole? not sure. but I don't thin k it's as clear cut as the person quoted in the OP states. I think there are churches with "traditional" beliefs (as defined withinb their own tradition) which have fairly liberal attitudes on issues of sex (or at at least don't make much of a big deal about those issues).
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I myself support a soft-socialist, welfare-state position, but I would not be arrogant enough to dogmatise that this is necessarily morally or theologically superior to a more libertarian, minimal-state position, which can also be supported scripturally.
That's okay; I am. At least on the moral level. I would go so far to say that the extreme right-wing, "fuck the poor" crowd is about a million miles away from anything like Christian charity, no matter how much they invoke Christ for it. But all of that stuff is really over on the "Can the Republican Party be Saved?" thread.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Whereas the Bible frequently speaks of the way that the Good News will spread among the pagans, the same cannot be said of the neo kind.
The next generation, perhaps. Most of the current neo-pagan community are themselves converts, and often from a rather nasty form of Christianity, so expecting them to be very open to "the loving arms of Jesus" etc. just brings back bad memories for a lot of them. I am sure God understands their situation.
I absolutely think we have more in common with neo-pagans than with, say, atheistic materialists. We can even perhaps work more on common ground regarding things like stewardship of the Earth.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I too was surprised and interested at how the topic changed to going after people who have failed to give all their money to the poor.
It's not "all their money." At least here in the US, we have this horrible 1% thing going on, with many supposedly Christian politicians aggressively trying to destroy every single social program we have. Over in the UK and Europe things are a lot more "civilized" in that respect. Again, please check out the "Can Republican Party be Saved" thread.
As far as the whole focus on sex thing is concerned...
(trying to avoid being Hellish about it)
... a lot of people left the Episcopal Church over the whole sex thing. They stayed during Spong and an array of other clergy who, bluntly, denied basic Creedal notions, even the Resurrection. What this says about them... I don't know.
I think it definitely says something about where their priorities are when they can swallow the camel of not believing that our God took on being human and died and rose again to save us from our sins, but strain the gnat of who diddles who. It leaves me baffled, flabbergasted, and disappointed. But they've basically left at this point for other churches...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
Reading just the OP, what he seems to believe is this:
quote:
what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
By which I take it that he's saying that "traditional Christians" and "modern Christians" agree on every other item of doctrine and church life, disagreeing only in their beliefs about sex.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Reading just the OP, what he seems to believe is this:
quote:
what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
By which I take it that he's saying that "traditional Christians" and "modern Christians" agree on every other item of doctrine and church life, disagreeing only in their beliefs about sex.
That just seems rather black and white to me. I had a rector, who was fairly high Anglo-Catholic, and also gay. You could say he was fairly traditional in doctrinal terms, but he was not anti-gay or misogynist.
I suppose in reverse, it may work better - those who are anti-gay and misogynist are likely to hold traditional beliefs, on e.g. the virgin birth. But those who are gay-affirmative may hold traditional beliefs, but may also hold librul beliefs.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Reading just the OP, what he seems to believe is this:
quote:
what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
By which I take it that he's saying that "traditional Christians" and "modern Christians" agree on every other item of doctrine and church life, disagreeing only in their beliefs about sex.
If I understood him correctly he's saying that this is what is has been reduced to, at least in the public secular sphere.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If I understood him correctly he's saying that this is what is has been reduced to, at least in the public secular sphere.
Yes. The "in our common discourse" bit provides important context.
So what he's saying is that when it comes to economics, politics, crime, poverty, international relations et al there's no meaningful difference between the "traditional" Christians and the "modern" Christians. It's only when sex becomes the subject that a difference appears.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If I understood him correctly he's saying that this is what is has been reduced to, at least in the public secular sphere.
Yes. The "in our common discourse" bit provides important context.
So what he's saying is that when it comes to economics, politics, crime, poverty, international relations et al there's no meaningful difference between the "traditional" Christians and the "modern" Christians. It's only when sex becomes the subject that a difference appears.
In my experience there is some truth in that. Many traditional RC's and Orthodox would, for instance, reject modern economic liberalism, globalism, hyper-capitalism, militarianism, Zionism etc. at least in Europe (can't speak for America which, for the most part, seems an anomaly to me).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So what he's saying is that when it comes to economics, politics, crime, poverty, international relations et al there's no meaningful difference between the "traditional" Christians and the "modern" Christians. It's only when sex becomes the subject that a difference appears.
He is not even saying that, though I would agree that it is reasonably accurate if you substitute "significant and obvious" for "meaningful", and if your "et al." does not include any ecclesiastic or dogmatic matters. What Mr Dreher was saying is rather that when we (in the West) say "traditional Christian" in public discourse, we practically always have differences concerning sexual morals in mind. We only drag out this particular label when we want to talk about that sort of thing. A sentence that starts with "Traditional Christians ... " will end in something like " ... disapprove of gay marriage." It will not end in "... disagree about the precessions of the Trinity." Because the public doesn't care about that, however true. It will also typically not end in "... disapprove of unemployment benefits." Because they don't, or at least, they don't particularly more so than other Christians. As far as the public sphere with its secular concerns is concerned, the consistent stand out feature of traditional Christianity simply is its take on sexual morals, hence the label basically now indicates that. And this language usage holds true even for traditional Christians in their own engagement with the public sphere. That's what Mr Dreher was saying in his article, and in the snippet provided in the OP, best I can tell.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
As far as the whole focus on sex thing is concerned...
(trying to avoid being Hellish about it)
... a lot of people left the Episcopal Church over the whole sex thing. They stayed during Spong and an array of other clergy who, bluntly, denied basic Creedal notions, even the Resurrection. What this says about them... I don't know.
I think it definitely says something about where their priorities are when they can swallow the camel of not believing that our God took on being human and died and rose again to save us from our sins, but strain the gnat of who diddles who. It leaves me baffled, flabbergasted, and disappointed. But they've basically left at this point for other churches...
I think it shows that the creedal heresy of a bishop can easily be marginalised and contained, or at least domesticated. That's why theological colleges get away with teaching and writing about things that could never be preached directly from pulpits. But changes in sexual morality are different - they influence whole denominations, and they enter the home very directly. They have practical implications.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I honestly think that creedal heresy has profoundly practical implications as well. If I were convinced of the theology some clergy preach or even just write about, my life would be vastly different.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
But many clergy exercise a degree of self-censorship when it comes to expressing the unorthodox aspects their faith. At least, this is what I've been privately told by a number of clergy and theologians. And wasn't the 'Honest to God' controversy partly about some clergy not wanting their congregations to know what they really believed?
Things may be different in some of the openly liberal Episcopalian churches in the USA, but in England, theological liberalism seems to be more of an atmosphere than a definitive teaching or doctrine that's preached from the pulpits.
With the DH issue, though, whole congregations are being expected to change their attitudes and approaches. There's no drawing a veil over what the minister may believe or not believe if it involves a public change of church policy regarding the holding of wedding ceremonies, or what youth pastors are expected to teach young people, or how church leaders are expected to act as role models in their private lives, for example.
Of course, there were evangelically-minded Christians who left their liberalising churches long before homosexuality became a burning public issue. But there are also churchgoers who are fairly 'traditional' without being fixated on doctrines, and there must be a spectrum of issues that could potentially drive them away from their churches. It's unsurprising that sex is one of them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But many clergy exercise a degree of self-censorship when it comes to expressing the unorthodox aspects their faith.
I honestly never got that impression, myself; indeed, ever since I started attending the Episcopal church circa 1985, finding a local church which was basically "orthodox" often involved a lot of hunting and searching. Sadly, I've been used to believing in more than the rector at most places.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I too was surprised and interested at how the topic changed to going after people who have failed to give all their money to the poor.
Besides Kaplan Corday, who did this?
I think we have a huge pond divide on this. American conservative Christians are hagridden with thinking about sex. British conservative Christians clearly are not. British conservative Christians need to realize this and stop making like their experience is applicable over here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think we have a huge pond divide on this. American conservative Christians are hagridden with thinking about sex. British conservative Christians clearly are not.
I suspect this is true. I was just thinking that I've come across a lot of Christians who seem to define their faith by their views and practices regarding sex (and alcohol too, a lot of time), but they have nearly all been American conservative Christians. I don't come across it so much here in the UK, although I wouldn't say it's wholly absent here. But it's sort of under the surface here, when it occurs, because, in my experience at least, traditional British conservative Christians don't tend to like to mention sex - the very mention of it can be seen as somehow immoral.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
