|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Battle for Christianity
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Don't honestly know what the title 'Battle for Christianity' was all about. There is a demand for charismatic worship, there isn't a demand for traditional worship. Hardly worth getting swords out and smoting each other. Besides which in-fighting among Christrians is as old as Christianity itself.
More like the Battle for TV ratings. It was mildly interesting to see how across-the-pond evangelism is faring in the UK, switched it off before the end.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I watched it on the old iplayer, with Children A & B (aged 12 & 10). Their responses were interesting - eye rolling and slow handclapping from the 12 year old at the whole bakery won't bake a cake for a gay couple case. She also said "Enough with the cheesy music already", but then she was watching whilst reading Kerrang!.....
One of the bits that interested me most, perhaps because I was watching with the childer, was the Hillsong East London outreach to the young people; the Fearless project. They had identified low self esteem as an issue for their young people & were working to give them feelings of worth. This is a Good Thing, but the parallels with a lot of Child A's music were quite striking - taking a bunch of misfits & making them feel that they matter. The chief difference possibly being that My Chemical Romance have far better tunes.
Perhaps I am a miserable git. No perhaps about it actually, I am. But what I would also like church to be about is to give people purpose - to move from I am worth something to "and I can do something". It was all very introverted. It's that business of - Ok, we leave these things at the cross, what do we then pick up? This is an ongoing irritation for me at my low CofE place - one of Gamaliel's earlier posts resonated with me. Having dispensed with the lectionary and many other things, we're left with pep talks.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Just realised I meant to say introspective, not introverted, sorry! I'd been reading the introverts hell thread.....
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
The chief difference possibly being that My Chemical Romance have far better tunes.
I think that is one of my problems with this - why would they continue going to this, when they can go and see some professional musicians doing the same sort of think only better?
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I guess Hillsong's answer (to second guess them, which is unfair) would be along the lines that the other identities of outsider / emo / alternative rocker / whatever, are based on passing things, where as their identity is based on Christ. And, again in fairness to Hillsong, their work may go much further than that in terms of teaching & equipping people to go and live the Christian life. That wasn't evident in the telly programme, but may have been edited out.
But the Hillsong work still seems to me to be about identity politics. This istm is incredibly important to many people (at least from my own experience with Child A) - but is it really what church should do? Is the identity stuff another cultural appropriation which risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I'm reminded both of Fr Weber's comment in another thread about the relevance of Christianity
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"Is Christianity relevant?" is the wrong question. The question is whether it is true.
and the good Fr's excellent signature.
[Incidentally, on the musical accomplishment front, I suspect the Hillsong band(s) are very good. Whether it's the type of music I like is best reserved for the DH thread where I may have contributed extensively. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ]
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The programme went out quite late so hardly an attempt to garner TV ratings ... it wasn't prime-time TV.
That said, yes the title was sensationalist but the programme itself wasn't.
Meanwhile, I completely concur with Jemima the 9th.
To be fair, a lot of evangelical churches can marshal and motivate people to get out and do ...but the nature of the subculture is such that church life can take over to the point that people have hardly any time for anything else. Been there, done that ...
Some of the outfits on the programme seemed more holistic than others - but the level of intensity could appear a bit cult-like.
I quite liked the idea of that farm-church Fresh Expression thingy, but would run a mile from those sort of services these days.
--------------------
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
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
I've now finally seen it on iPlayer, and give the programme a positive review. Obviously, it was very pro-Church (with some critical notes), which was no doubt a reflection of the moderator's outlook , but after the full hour I think that this was far more constructive than the usual tear-them-apart attitudes to church that appear to populated our media landscape.
I found the programme's content challenging in as far as it was a cue for me to reflect on what is essential to a Church which aspires to be a force that makes the world a better place, and how I can be part of that with my limited time and energy.
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
One other thing that I wondered about were the bits about the cake and the cinema prayer ad. On the one hand, the Ulster bakery was legally obliged to bake a cake carrying a message (potentially political) with which they did not agree, while the cinemas were able to flatly reject the CoE film on the basis that it was religious/political.
What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
The question over the prayer video is surely this: did the film distribution change its policy after the video was commissioned (in which case it was a "ban") or did the CofE expect them to run it despite its policy?
This article could be of interest.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
One other thing that I wondered about were the bits about the cake and the cinema prayer ad. On the one hand, the Ulster bakery was legally obliged to bake a cake carrying a message (potentially political) with which they did not agree, while the cinemas were able to flatly reject the CoE film on the basis that it was religious/political.
What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander.
A good point!
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What an outrageous FALSE comparison.
Between homophobia and weird, unaware, money burning, Evangelical piety.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
One other thing that I wondered about were the bits about the cake and the cinema prayer ad. On the one hand, the Ulster bakery was legally obliged to bake a cake carrying a message (potentially political) with which they did not agree, while the cinemas were able to flatly reject the CoE film on the basis that it was religious/political.
What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander.
I think, on the face of it, the Ulster Bakery should be perfectly allowed not to take an order that it didn't want. I suspect the truth is that they accepted the order and then refused to ice it as requested. that is a breach of contract.
Of course, CC played it up as an attack on Christianity. But I am not sure that it was in fact about the slogan, it was more about contract law.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What, allowed to be commercially homophobic?
[ 27. March 2016, 12:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
This battle for Christianity is hardly the Reformation relived, thank God. People just want to have a good time, and why shouldn' they.
Ah yes, throw the cake thing in just to stir the shite, that's what programme makers and cutting room bods do best.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What, we should let the Christian shite lie?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What, allowed to be commercially homophobic?
They are allowed to state that they will not take orders for cakes with messages that they disagree with. Just like the advertising agency is allowed to state that it refuses advertising that does not fall within its guidelines.
If a shop were to indicate this, I would not patronise it, and I am sure many others wouldn't. Commercially, it would probably be a disaster.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Er, if it's legal, how come it's ... illegal?
Despite Peter Tatchell's moving change of heart in defense of their right!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
If Asher's bakery had a policy that they did not accept any orders relating to marriage then they would not be in breach of the Equalities Act. But once you discriminate against one particular sort of marriage, and not all of them, you are discriminating on a characteristic on which you cannot do so (in this case, sexuality). The cinema chain has a policy that it accepts no religious advertising, so it is not discriminating against Christians, as the same treatment could be expected by any other faith group. That does not conflict with the Equalities Act.
The law is there to stop businesses refusing service due to a protected characteristic only. Such as the oft quoted example of 1960s boarding houses with "No Irish, No Dogs, No Blacks" signs. Being unreasonable, however, is not protected, so reserving the right not to provide a service for unreasonable customers (i.e. ones who abuse staff) is OK. Political opinion is also not protected, so if the BNP wanted to hire your village hall for a meeting you are at liberty to refuse. Except, of course, in Northern Ireland, where (I believe) political views are also protected, owing to the troubled history of the province.
For me Asher's were being disingenuous, claiming that they didn't want to make a cake that was supporting something contrary to their religious views. I'm sure they have made plenty of wedding cakes for couples remarrying after divorce.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So much of the numerical stability of the churches seems to be from immigrants. I have nothing against immigrants, but I wonder if they will become ghetto churches, catering for particular groups (not unlike the afro-carribean churches have often become).
I'm not sure it's meaningful to say that African Caribbean churches have often become 'ghetto churches'.
Firstly, most of them are part of American denominations which are still largely white in the USA. In fact, some black British theologians think the white American influence - or the inheritance of a British colonial mindset - is a far greater problem than the racial makeup of black congregations.
Secondly, 'African Caribbean' is a label which contains its own diversity. A Jamaican is not a Trinidadian or an Antiguan. Moreover, although these churches often grew as a result of black people joining them, they often claimed to be churches of 'whosoever will'. Some of their members may be uneasy about an emphasis on their church's 'Caribbean/black/black-led' identity.
These days, too, ecumenical relationships are a feature of church life in cities, a reality which works against ghettoisation.
Regarding the TV programme, I've been reflecting on the title. It was presumably meant to refer to a battle for souls (a term Beckford used at one point) and/or the battles with secular society highlighted by the lawsuits mentioned in the show. The problem of empty pews wasn't presented as a battle, though. And perhaps cathedral worship wasn't mentioned because CofE cathedrals don't fit easily into a discourse about battles with the culture?
The emphasis on immigrants, Londoners and well-heeled Brits in the countryside was telling. Worship in Brum was mentioned, but the show implied that the indigenous population in the underprivileged provinces relates to the church as a provider of social rather than religious assistance. One wonders how long the churches in these places will be able to provide such assistance if they're unable or unwilling to make converts. After all, the work doesn't happen by itself.
[ 01. April 2016, 21:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think, in some places, the church has become a "ghetto church" - this is not referring to the afro-carribean churches, but to all of them, including the White Anglican ones.
Svetlana - I do take all your points, but I was partly thinking of a church that meets across the road from me. I know of nobody who goes there, Or who has been there in the past (which in my area, is very unusual - I have connections with all sorts of churches). Most people drive in, and they have a style of worship that would not appeal to me (which is not a criticism, as it appeals to them).
When I used to live in East London, there was another church that was similarly introvert in style, extrovert in worship. I never knew anyone from there either.
I think what I meant by a Ghetto Church is that they focus on their congregation needs, and possibly the slightly wider needs of the social group these people come from. Like many Anglican churches do, in fact. And it is a problem there too.
So I didn't mean it pejoratively with respect to the afro-carribean churches. I know some of the history, and I know who is to blame (us). But it is a bad route to be going down.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I suspect that traditionalist C of E churches, who ask for alternative episcopal oversight, are at particular risk of becoming ghetto churches in the way that Schrodinger's Cat is talking about.
They tend to be much more interested in their own internal order than in the outside world, from my experience. This is indeed one of the main elements that keeps me out of them, aside from certain DH issues.
Sometimes I wonder what such churches bring to the wider church, and indeed the world, and why a church should tear itself apart to facilitate their existence.
I'm not saying that this is a universal characteristic of such churches, but it's what I've seen, and what has made me wonder.
One contrary question that necessarily arises is whether any church has any chance of being anything but a ghetto church, in SC's sense. Are churches permitted by the wider culture to contribute to it in a generous, open spirit, or is the very concept of a church so threatening to that culture that barriers arise before generosity is possible? Has this pitch of paranoia been reached?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think what I meant by a Ghetto Church is that they focus on their congregation needs, and possibly the slightly wider needs of the social group these people come from. Like many Anglican churches do, in fact. And it is a problem there too.
So I didn't mean it pejoratively with respect to the afro-carribean churches. I know some of the history, and I know who is to blame (us). But it is a bad route to be going down.
What you've said reminds me that churches are interesting places in that they reveal how like attracts like, while also offering a mixture of diverse social relationships that you're unlikely to find outside church. This is surely true even for church that appears to attract an exclusive set of people none of whom belong to your own social circle. In a postmodern culture no church is quite as monochrome as it seems from the outside....
I'm also inclined to say that a church which supports and uplifts members of a socially disadvantaged racio-cultural community can hardly be described as a 'bad'. It's been said that such churches have helped to integrate their members into the wider society. These churches also offer a chance for worshippers to validate forms of religious cultural expression that would otherwise be denied and/or denigrated.
As Baptist Trainfan's link shows, if these churches try to tone things down to appeal to white visitors, they may fail to offer the spiritual and indeed societal encouragement needed by their black members. A largely white, middle class congregation is unlikely to face quite the same problem if it decides to 'diversify' (although, of course, changing worship styles is controversial in any church context). A white church may gradually become multi-racial, but becoming multi-cultural is harder.
If we were to discuss what the church's role is regarding 'the community', I'd suggest that although all Christians must be of service, traditional, normative denominations have a different role from that of newer churches with a less advantaged cultural, financial or racial status. The CofE has the history, the cultural permission and (in theory) the money to see itself as the 'provider' for everyone in a particular community. I'm not convinced that all congregations of all denominations should necessarily aim for the same sort of all-purpose, no-strings outreach. It depends on a number of internal and external factors.
That being said, the majority of churchgoers of African Caribbean descent in Britain now attend churches belonging to the historical, traditionally white denominations. The TV show didn't highlight this.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That being said, the majority of churchgoers of African Caribbean descent in Britain now attend churches belonging to the historical, traditionally white denominations. The TV show didn't highlight this.
True, although I can think of a number of such churches which are "new congregations" that have started up within the older denominations - for instance Trinity Baptist in south London and Calvary Charismatic in Poplar.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Digging to find references for something else, I found this (Guardian) article from 2006 by Michael Hampson, discussing his book Last Rites: the End of the Church of England.
His take is that the Church of England has moved from supporting the marginalised and weak (HIV, miners) in the 1980s to being more reactionary than any time since the Civil War. He concluded that:
quote:
This reversal is a tragedy of enormous proportions. A 400-year-old liberal Anglican tradition has been destroyed in 20 years by an entirely novel, entirely alien, evangelical fundamentalism. It is truly last rites for the Church of England ...
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Don't worry, the mantle has fallen COMPLETELY on Steve Chalke from away-with-fairies, magic thinking, pious, platitudinous, homophobic, exceptionalist, gnostic, exclusive, huddled, closed, placist, paternalist, rich, privileged, helpless, crypto-damnationist warmongers.
And yes I am familiar with projection.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Digging to find references for something else, I found this (Guardian) article from 2006 by Michael Hampson, discussing his book Last Rites: the End of the Church of England.
His take is that the Church of England has moved from supporting the marginalised and weak (HIV, miners) in the 1980s to being more reactionary than any time since the Civil War.
That's a very interesting book, but the TV programme was careful to show that the CofE does still care about social things - we were given an insight into a CofE Street Pastors ministry, as well as a type of food bank.
If you're just looking at the homosexuality issue, though, then the CofE has seemingly become more divided. (That a more evangelical denomination like the Baptists is divided over this issue is surely not surprising.)
Unfortunately, though, the numerical and other weaknesses in the CofE are most apparent at the 'non-reactionary' end. It's hard to represent the dominant ethos of your denomination when you're struggling with a range of problems. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that the public image of the CofE is of a solidly reactionary institution. Out of date, boring, middle class, left wingers, Tories at prayer, friendly, etc., are terms that might also emerge from ordinary people who have any thoughts about the CofE at all.
[ 03. April 2016, 12:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I agree with that. As far as attitudes/impressions of the CofE go, there are all sorts of regional variations and socio-economic factors that play into the perception.
For example, I've met plenty of people who aren't aware - or are only vaguely aware - that there is even an evangelical or charismatic element within the CofE. I'm sure there are lots of other examples ...
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
This reversal is a tragedy of enormous proportions. A 400-year-old liberal Anglican tradition has been destroyed in 20 years by an entirely novel, entirely alien, evangelical fundamentalism. It is truly last rites for the Church of England ...
How can any movements retreat within the church be anyone's fault but that movement? Secular theology failed to produce converts and vocations. It failed to envision people to invest time, talents or money.
So whilst I affirm the theological contribution of secular theology it doesn't actually work for parish churches. It's a bit like the cathedral music tradition. Wonderful and enriching in context, but not great in a typical community church (and the same could be said about Contemporary Worship).
In parish ministry I encounter people who have been told that God doesn't intervene in the world, that the scriptures are not trustworthy even within the intentions of the original authors and that the sacraments are just symbols. I am not convinced that it has done them much good.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you're just looking at the homosexuality issue, though, then the CofE has seemingly become more divided. (That a more evangelical denomination like the Baptists is divided over this issue is surely not surprising.)
The majority of Creedal Evangelicals and Catholics in the church support the ordination of women. Catholics tend to see the 'de-genderization' of one sacrament as applicable to another - marriage. I suspect Evangelicals will follow.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
The takeover of the C of E by extremist evangelicals is no more the fault of liberals than is the tendency of Japanese knotweed to take over gardens the fault of the soil in which it occurs. By that, I mean that it's an alien force to which our religious culture had no immunity.
My reaction may sound extreme, but it's my reaction. The liberal turn was, and still in its remaining adherents, an attempt to re-imagine, re-pray, re-express the religious impulse to engage with God and the traditions of the church accumulated over its 2000 year history in ways that engage with the whole of creation, rather than reinforcing the identity and functioning of the church. In its sacramentalist turn, which is what engaged me, it affirms the fundamental link between the sacraments of the church and the everyday experiences of human life, and in particular with psychological processes. This is by its nature a fragile and provisional process, though I believe it has greater capacity for longevity than the evangelical movement because it engages with a far greater part of human reality. In my hopeful moments, because I believe it to be more authentic, I see it outlasting the evangelical turn, albeit in less than full health.
The evangelical movement, in my opinion, is doing the love of God no favour by reinforcing the institution of the church at the expense of nearly everything else. It may even be a faustian pact.
If we can't do better than this, we deserve to fail.
I appreciate this will be offensive to evangelicals, but I can't express in any other way how much of a dead end I think HTB and all its works are, because they reinforce institutional identity and the requirement for individuals to identify with the institutional church above everything else. It recruits many things in support of this process, including the expression of certain emotions, but again these are modified, even denatured, and effused, rather than being engaged and processed.
[ 15. April 2016, 20:05: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Thunderbunk - I'm intrigued by your last paragraph, and by Edward Green's post before, which both happened to touch on some of my own more recent musings. I'll give it some more thought.
But in passing, I think you overstate the position with regard to evangelicalism in the CofE. To take your knotweed analogy further, the reason any plant flourishes to the exclusion of others is due to the absence of effective competition. Knotweed cannot take over the world, but it can make a royal mess of gardens, which are essentially repositories of highly-bred forms of growth unsuited to life in the wild. But don't read too much into any analogy.
In any event, what's with this "foreign" epithet? The CofE effectively has three historical roots, of which the Calvinistic was always one from the start. At certain times it has almost eclipsed the others. It's not my tradition, but whatever you may think of it, foreign it ain't.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
In terms of foreignness, I was thinking more culturally than theologically. It is, at least, foreign to the Church of England's cultural ecology, if not to England's.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
In terms of foreignness, I was thinking more culturally than theologically. It is, at least, foreign to the Church of England's cultural ecology, if not to England's.
OK - you are using "liberal" in its broadest context I assume.
Even so, the relative balance between the different wings of the CofE has not been static. There was the great 18th century evangelical revival in England before it which probably disrupted the existing ecology more than the current rise of evangelicalism has done. It too fell into decline in its own time.
Actually if there is one thing any of these wings show consistently, it is the ability to become self-absorbed and institutionally effete. They all need a good dose of reality from time to time to survive.
I guess I'm saying - be of good cheer! The old may be passing away, but if it is it is because it is fatally attached to something moribund. It's the job of those that remain to prune that off in order to hold on to what is good.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Apologies for the double post, but I'm not saying that I think the liberal movement within the C of E has been any good at all at ensuring its continued progress and even existence. I think Rowan Williams's archiepiscopacy was both typical and a kind of swansong, as we are discovering to my horror.
My feelings on the subject are complex. The typical element was his complete lack of self-confidence and his obsession with only ever listening to those he disagreed with, which completely sapped his confidence in his own position. He also became obsessed with certain elements of the catholic understanding of episcopacy, in particular the role as a focus of unity, which again prevented him from ever actually doing anything. If the liberal turn has a besetting fault, it is that it is afraid of its own insights, and insists on excessive debate before going as far as empirical experience. Also faults of my own.
The wholesale waste of the opportunity of the kind of liberal re-imagining of the sacraments that started in the late 80s and on into the 90s is an opportunity which the church is ruing, and will continue to, because it was the prime opportunity to engage with people who will never be engaged by Alpha and its minions. In the meantime, it has become so much harder from a cultural point of view to develop relational experiences that anything like that seems to be on an indefinite hiatus, though I do find the lack of any kind of vigour in that direction (i.e. a true liberal sacramentalism, as I described before) an occasion for great grief.
I am aware that this is not coherent, and I apologise, but hopefully as the thread develops, so will my coherence.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
So whilst I affirm the theological contribution of secular theology it doesn't actually work for parish churches. It's a bit like the cathedral music tradition. Wonderful and enriching in context, but not great i a typical community church (and the same could be said about Contemporary Worship).
In parish ministry I encounter people who have been told that God doesn't intervene in the world, that the scriptures are not trustworthy even within the intentions of the original authors and that the sacraments are just symbols. I am not convinced that it has done them much good.
As an average churchgoer, though, what I'd like would be a discussion about what secular theology actually is. I didn't know it had a name, despite being in the middle of Tillich's Shaking of the Foundations book, and finding it fascinating, and full of ideas that I have never encountered in my parish church. A couple of years ago, a friend started a Theology Book Club, which is run monthly by a retired priest who remains PTO. I love it. It's hardly undergraduate study level stuff, but we've read Vincent Donovan, Rowan Williams, Tom Wright, Evelyn Underhill, Paul Tillich..... The ideas we discuss are almost never addressed in sermons.
I could be being overly prickly, but I would also like to decide for myself what might be good for me, if that's alright...
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thunderbunk, if you are not too upset by my bluntness, I don't think you're appreciating or engaging with something important that Honest Ron Bacardi has just said about the range of tradition in the Church of England.
The only periods when the sort of theological liberalism whose eclipse you are regretting, achieved much of an eminence in the CofE were the first two quarters of the C18 and the middle two in the C20. It does not, historically have the sort of monopoly you are imagining. Any evaluation of what either the CofE or Anglicanism stand for must include various other strands that go into the tradition.
Perhaps regrettably, I am afraid that also include spiritual complacency.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thunderbunk, if you are not too upset by my bluntness, I don't think you're appreciating or engaging with something important that Honest Ron Bacardi has just said about the range of tradition in the Church of England.
The only periods when the sort of theological liberalism whose eclipse you are regretting, achieved much of an eminence in the CofE were the first two quarters of the C18 and the middle two in the C20. It does not, historically have the sort of monopoly you are imagining. Any evaluation of what either the CofE or Anglicanism stand for must include various other strands that go into the tradition.
Perhaps regrettably, I am afraid that also include spiritual complacency.
The Church of England is a complex entity, or chain of entities, and I make no claim to a great deal of knowledge. I am also very aware that I am talking quite specifically about a moment. My defence for this is that it is the moment mentioned in the original post - the moment characterised by the publication of the Faith in the City report, and the decline that the liberal wing has experienced since then.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Fret not ThunderBunk. God is in the desert.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thunderbunk, if you are not too upset by my bluntness, I don't think you're appreciating or engaging with something important that Honest Ron Bacardi has just said about the range of tradition in the Church of England.
The only periods when the sort of theological liberalism whose eclipse you are regretting, achieved much of an eminence in the CofE were the first two quarters of the C18 and the middle two in the C20. It does not, historically have the sort of monopoly you are imagining. Any evaluation of what either the CofE or Anglicanism stand for must include various other strands that go into the tradition.
Perhaps regrettably, I am afraid that also include spiritual complacency.
The Church of England is a complex entity, or chain of entities, and I make no claim to a great deal of knowledge. I am also very aware that I am talking quite specifically about a moment. My defence for this is that it is the moment mentioned in the original post - the moment characterised by the publication of the Faith in the City report, and the decline that the liberal wing has experienced since then.
I did see the programme quoted in the OP, but I don't remember "Faith in the City" being mentioned, though I guess I must have missed it. But are you simply using that as a marker for a high-water point in your view? "Faith in the City" wasn't a specifically liberal (theologically) piece of work.
Just seeking to understand your point a bit better.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
In parish ministry I encounter people who have been told that God doesn't intervene in the world, that the scriptures are not trustworthy even within the intentions of the original authors and that the sacraments are just symbols. I am not convinced that it has done them much good.
So Edward Green, we certainly shouldn't frighten the children with the truth, and we should go further and lie to them? We should tell them that God DOES intervene in the world, that the bible is inerrant in its plain meaning and that magic happens?
[ 15. April 2016, 22:54: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I think Rowan Williams's archiepiscopacy was both typical and a kind of swansong, as we are discovering to my horror.
Rowan was and is a catholic first and a 'liberal' second. He recognised the way the wind was blowing and has paved the way for closer working relationships between the catholic and evangelical wings of the church, at great personal cost.
Although those two wings of the church have not always held those names, they have been the driving force in renewal of spiritual life in the history of the Church of England. They have not always been distinct either with Wesleyanism having elements of both 'wings'. The Church of England is diverse and complex and has always made space for the broad in its nest, but its essence is in a Reformed Catholic tension - seeking to be modeled on the apostolic church.
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I could be being overly prickly, but I would also like to decide for myself what might be good for me, if that's alright...
Well so would I, but I am under the authority of the church, tradition and scripture! Even when I disagree with the CofE's position I have to make it clear that I am disagreeing with the teaching of the church.
Your theological discussion group sounds like an excellent place that is reading widely. All power to it.
[ 15. April 2016, 22:59: Message edited by: Edward Green ]
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Edward Green, we certainly shouldn't frighten the children with the truth, and we should go further and lie to them? We should tell them that God DOES intervene in the world, that the bible is inerrant in its plain meaning and that magic happens?
God does intervene in the world.
The Bible is trustworthy as intended by the human authors (genre/context/narrative).
The Supranatural happens.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Edward Green, we certainly shouldn't frighten the children with the truth, and we should go further and lie to them? We should tell them that God DOES intervene in the world, that the bible is inerrant in its plain meaning and that magic happens?
God does intervene in the world.
Oh? Can you supply one fact to substantiate that claim?
[ 16. April 2016, 05:56: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There are none whatsoever SusanDoris, as we ALL know. Including Edward Green. But of course I'm the intersection between you and him. Demonstrating that He ... does.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Edward Green, we certainly shouldn't frighten the children with the truth, and we should go further and lie to them? We should tell them that God DOES intervene in the world, that the bible is inerrant in its plain meaning and that magic happens?
God does intervene in the world.
Oh? Can you supply one fact to substantiate that claim?
Yup. The resurrection of Jesus. And we've been over all the evidence for that so don't bother asking me to repeat it all ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 16. April 2016, 10:27: Message edited by: Truman White ]
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I guess Hillsong's answer (to second guess them, which is unfair) would be along the lines that the other identities of outsider / emo / alternative rocker / whatever, are based on passing things, where as their identity is based on Christ. And, again in fairness to Hillsong, their work may go much further than that in terms of teaching & equipping people to go and live the Christian life. That wasn't evident in the telly programme, but may have been edited out.
In fairness they do other stuff - like this
this as a quick example.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
Watching - got to the bit about Fearless.. and there goes the "Lord..." keepalive packet...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I could be being overly prickly, but I would also like to decide for myself what might be good for me, if that's alright...
Well so would I, but I am under the authority of the church, tradition and scripture! Even when I disagree with the CofE's position I have to make it clear that I am disagreeing with the teaching of the church.
I don't think there's any such thing as the settled teaching of the church. Surely, one of the things that the high value placed on the communion of saints, i.e. the life of the Church over the last 2000 years is that just about every possible viewpoint, with some outliers admittedly, has been both orthodox and heretical at some point.
Which is not to say that it's an entire pick and mix, because integrity is vital. It is, however, to say that the franchising of thinking, which is where I see that position going if left unchallenged (if only by the law of the conservation of momentum), is not something which I see the history of the church as supporting. There is near-infinite breadth within the church, and one has to position oneself somewhere with reference to that breadth.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
If there's no 'settled teaching of the church' then there are going to be times when some theologies become more prominent than others. The focus will shift from evangelicalism to something else at some point.
Moreover, church-sect theory argues that evangelicalism eventually loses its strictness and merges into a more moderate position. This will no doubt happen within the CofE eventually.
In the meantime, non-evangelical Anglicans need to do more than blame evangelicalism for their woes. They need to find ways of promoting their own theological perspective that will invigorate their congregations and help them connect more effectively with the wider public.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the meantime, non-evangelical Anglicans need to do more than blame evangelicalism for their woes. They need to find ways of promoting their own theological perspective that will invigorate their congregations and help them connect more effectively with the wider public.
To some extent, I agree. However, it is also legitimate to cry "foul" when people find that their best endeavours are totally rendered null by the activities of apparently all-conquering might/right.
For example, the Alpha Course is doing a huge amount of subtle damage. It convinces people that they know the only authentic form of Christianity, meaning that, if they find that it no longer nourishes them, they reject Christianity entirely rather than exploring other expressions of it.
I want to make it clear that I don't see this as being true exclusively of the Alpha course, or indeed of evangelicalism more widely. It can be true of more or less any relatively brief exposure which is taken to be sufficient and explanatory in and of itself. The problem created by this phenomenon is that it adds huge numbers to the considerable ranks of the unchurched, among whom any kind of spreading of the gospel, however gentle, is just about impossible.
It just so happens that at the moment, the Alpha course is one of the major causes of this phenomenon, which is something which I believe merits serious consideration.
[ 16. April 2016, 14:16: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
