|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Calling the Church of England to Hell
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Or maybe waving as it passes me by on its own little way there.
Now as I have pointed out before, there are many nice Anglicans, and I don't have a problem with them. What I do have a problem with is the system and structure which is a) self-destructive, b) overheavy and so costly and c) populated by some of the most pointless, arrogant, mindless tossers in the world.
It has had its day. Let it die in peace, instead of this pathetic expelling of vomit and crap that it seems to be going through.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Or maybe waving as it passes me by on its own little way there.
Now as I have pointed out before, there are many nice Anglicans, and I don't have a problem with them. What I do have a problem with is the system and structure which is a) self-destructive, b) overheavy and so costly and c) populated by some of the most pointless, arrogant, mindless tossers in the world.
It has had its day. Let it die in peace, instead of this pathetic expelling of vomit and crap that it seems to be going through.
You could say the same thing about most governments.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
populated by some of the most pointless, arrogant, mindless tossers in the world.
You called?
It is all those things, of course, but in the end it is right, because it is English, and so has won first prize in the church raffle of life. And it is right because it is moderate in all things - moderate between believing things and not believing things, for example. Most excellent.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
England conquered the whole of the British Isles so the church wouldn't have a fence to sit on.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
SC, you know I love you, so I'll bite. What exactly is it about the system and structure which is so awful?
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
From the main boards, I thought you were calling the True Church™ to Hell. I can relax now.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
From the main boards, I thought you were calling the True Church™ to Hell. I can relax now.
I'm sure that I could cobble something together given a bit of random googling and more coffee ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
Don't worry Pete, the Religious Society of Friends is above such things.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There's no escaping the fact that there are some right pompous arses in the CofE. You find them everywhere, but the potential heady mix of lace, theatre and the ability to raise the exact manner and order in which things are done which has evolved as a custom over centuries to almost salvific importance seems to attract them like wasps to overripe fruit. We've had a few of them here over the years.
Of course, the spikey end isn't the only natural home for, if I may quote myself, Po-faced miserable fuckers. Reform is chocker with them. If they ever actually got a joke and just enjoyed themselves the shock would probably kill them stone dead.
Not that it matters much; the general picture is of parishes amalgamating allegedly because of a lack of priests, but that's just another way of pointing to the general trend, which is of the remaining worshippers of three existing parishes being able to fit readily into a church built for just one of those parishes when it had a population a tenth of what it is today. And still look as full as a waiting room on a wet Sunday evening on a single-track Welsh railway.
Both the aforementioned groups of PFMFs join forces of course to decry anyone doing anything innovative, interesting, engaging or not frankly fucking hilarious to the population at large. It'd get in the way of enforcing arbitrary rules about headstone size and font on grieving families.
Words and phrases like "dignity", "lowest common denominator", "dumbing down", "want church to be entertainment" will probably make their way onto this thread sooner or later. And then you will know I'm right.
[ 26. June 2013, 11:47: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Lace and theatre - mmm, sounds delicious. Is there chocolate as well?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Lace and theatre - mmm, sounds delicious. Is there chocolate as well?
I think the Religious Society of Friends has a monopoly on chocolate.
I would call to hell for the unelected power it has in the UK (and bishops in the House of Lords means it has political power in Wales and Scotland also) oft used against the less powerful (women, non CoE people, those seeking something other than CoE approved marriage). Do not forget that church authorities (including one missionary society and one bishop) were reimbursed for the freeing of their slaves in the 1830s; it was those on the bottom and outside who pushed for abolition.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
So, Karl, no room in your Brave New Church for people whose spirituality leads them to silence rather than to rock music? No place in the pew for the introvert? The shy? Those who are so fucking sick with the noise and pace of the world that they want church to be a place of refuge from all that? No place for a spirituality of penance, or sorrow for sin, or the downcast eye that feels unworthy to enter the presence of God? - Only rather a place for the spirituality of "Look at me," "God's just that big cuddlebunny in the sky," "We're Anglicans, so we can do whatever we like, and sod scripture, tradition, reason, or anybody who doesn't like us".
Cos if that's how it's going to be, then fuck you and fuck your Church of England.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I'm not Karl, but that's not what I hear him saying. AIUI his point is that just because you don't enjoy such things (and personally, it's not my cup of tea either), there's no reason to judge those who do.
[Edit for deviation from the English language as she usually is spoke]
[ 26. June 2013, 13:04: Message edited by: la vie en rouge ]
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So, Karl, no room in your Brave New Church for people whose spirituality leads them to silence rather than to rock music? No place in the pew for the introvert? The shy? Those who are so fucking sick with the noise and pace of the world that they want church to be a place of refuge from all that? No place for a spirituality of penance, or sorrow for sin, or the downcast eye that feels unworthy to enter the presence of God? - Only rather a place for the spirituality of "Look at me," "God's just that big cuddlebunny in the sky," "We're Anglicans, so we can do whatever we like, and sod scripture, tradition, reason, or anybody who doesn't like us".
Cos if that's how it's going to be, then fuck you and fuck your Church of England.
Nope. I'm an introvert myself and recognise exactly what you're afeared of losing. I have no desire to lose that. Not quite sure how you got all that from my post.
I'm a member of a congregation that appeals to introverts, going by its membership, and quiet, and all the rest. And whenever its existence has been raise on this noble vessel the PFMFs have queued up to decry it.
And I never mentioned rock music. Where did you drag that out from?
[ 26. June 2013, 13:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Not just this thread, Karl. Here's you on a current Eccles thread:
quote:
Relax, grab a decent beer, put on some rock and roll. We can do pretty much what we like in church when it comes down to it without bothering anyone else because there's hardly anyone there.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Not just this thread, Karl. Here's you on a current Eccles thread:
quote:
Relax, grab a decent beer, put on some rock and roll. We can do pretty much what we like in church when it comes down to it without bothering anyone else because there's hardly anyone there.
And I implied that should be the full extent of church expression where, exactly?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Not just this thread, Karl. Here's you on a current Eccles thread:
quote:
Relax, grab a decent beer, put on some rock and roll. We can do pretty much what we like in church when it comes down to it without bothering anyone else because there's hardly anyone there.
And I implied that should be the full extent of church expression where, exactly?
I'd say it's a corollary to your opinion that anybody who doesn't agree with you is a po-faced miserable fucker. Or at least anyone who wants some dignity in church; less dumbing down; or doesn't want the church to be entertainment. (I don't like the phrase "lowest common denominator", otherwise I'd have worked it in, too.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Not just this thread, Karl. Here's you on a current Eccles thread:
quote:
Relax, grab a decent beer, put on some rock and roll. We can do pretty much what we like in church when it comes down to it without bothering anyone else because there's hardly anyone there.
And I implied that should be the full extent of church expression where, exactly?
I'd say it's a corollary to your opinion that anybody who doesn't agree with you is a po-faced miserable fucker. Or at least anyone who wants some dignity in church; less dumbing down; or doesn't want the church to be entertainment. (I don't like the phrase "lowest common denominator", otherwise I'd have worked it in, too.)
Nope. The po-faced miserable fuckers are the ones who decry anything that isn't their way of doing things. Anything different. Anything new. Anything that enables people currently outside the church to engage with it. You can have all the dignity, complexity and whatever you like, but there is room for other expressions. Is all.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
You have one hell of a chip on your shoulder about the C of E Shrodie.
What did they do to you again? I'm sure you told us once in a moment of weakness.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. The po-faced miserable fuckers are the ones who decry anything that isn't their way of doing things. Anything different. Anything new. Anything that enables people currently outside the church to engage with it. You can have all the dignity, complexity and whatever you like, but there is room for other expressions. Is all.
So it's okay for you to despise and insult the po-faced miserable fuckers, because you've condescended to allow them some room in your church? How kind. How generous. How fucking patronising.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. The po-faced miserable fuckers are the ones who decry anything that isn't their way of doing things. Anything different. Anything new. Anything that enables people currently outside the church to engage with it. You can have all the dignity, complexity and whatever you like, but there is room for other expressions. Is all.
So it's okay for you to despise and insult the po-faced miserable fuckers, because you've condescended to allow them some room in your church? How kind. How generous. How fucking patronising.
How utterly unlike anything I've actually said.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Nope. The po-faced miserable fuckers are the ones who decry anything that isn't their way of doing things. Anything different.
So, would decrying old fashioned things count?
[edited to try to correct some of the code which went all wrong]
[ 26. June 2013, 14:42: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: QUOTE]Nope. The po-faced miserable fuckers are the ones who decry anything that isn't their way of doing things. Anything different.
So, would decrying old fashioned things count? [/QB]
Find where I've done that. Find where I've said that we should chuck the liturgy out. Find where I've said no-one should use traditional forms of worship. I'll be surprised if you can. The problem is when people insist that that's how everyone has to do it. And it's they, who throw a fit because someone else is doing something that they don't particularly like, who are the PFMFs.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How utterly unlike anything I've actually said.
Then you need to say it more carefully. Here and in Ecclesiantics.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How utterly unlike anything I've actually said.
Then you need to say it more carefully. Here and in Ecclesiantics.
Well how much more care do you want? Some people do something a bit different. Some people say "great, wish I was there!" Some people say it's not to their taste, but each to his own. Others make out it's the first horseman of the apocalypse, barely able to control the contempt they feel for the non-PLU people who are doing this terrible thing.
The PFMFs are to be found in that last group. The ones who look like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle if anything isn't the way God (i.e. their preference) intended. The ones who slag off churches like mine that do terrible things like make me actually glad to be a Christian and have my children actually wanting to go to church, instead of viewing it the way turkeys look towards the Festive Season, because it isn't How They Do It.
For some reason, you seem to have got it into your head that I regard everyone with a preference for traditional worship styles a PFMF. I'd apologise for giving the wrong impression were we not in Hell.
Comments following mine in Eccles demonstrate that some people at least found me clear enough.
[ 26. June 2013, 15:13: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I don't think there is anything wrong, at least within the context of a particular communion, in insisting that all worship in the way of their fathers, that is, according to that which has been handed down. I would. I'd abrogate all those innovations and anathematise all those who made them.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think there is anything wrong, at least within the context of a particular communion, in insisting that all worship in the way of their fathers, that is, according to that which has been handed down. I would. I'd abrogate all those innovations and anathematise all those who made them.
Yeah, I'm sure you would. Funnily enough you weren't pre-eminent in my mind when I used the term "po-faced miserable fuckers" but feel free to wear the cap if it fits.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: QUOTE]Nope. The po-faced miserable fuckers are the ones who decry anything that isn't their way of doing things. Anything different.
So, would decrying old fashioned things count?
Find where I've done that. Find where I've said that we should chuck the liturgy out. Find where I've said no-one should use traditional forms of worship. I'll be surprised if you can. The problem is when people insist that that's how everyone has to do it. And it's they, who throw a fit because someone else is doing something that they don't particularly like, who are the PFMFs. [/QB]
Uh?
People do things in different ways. You say that people should not criticise others who do things differently. And yet you seem to be criticising others who do things differently to you. At some churches what you describe at your church is the norm and using liturgy is thought massively subversive. So if you want to defend the right to be different in one way, I'm suggesting you should defend the right to be different in the opposite way too.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Except I haven't. I've criticised that irritating core of po-faced miserable fuckers who insist that their way has to be the only way. I have never, at any point, criticised the way they do it. Only their attitude to anyone doing it differently.
I think it's dangerous in this day and age to only have one expression of faith, and I can certainly find reasons why traditional worship forms fail to meet the spiritual needs of a lot of people, but that does not mean I think they should cease, and I've never said they should.
How fucking hard is this to understand?
[ 26. June 2013, 15:38: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think there is anything wrong, at least within the context of a particular communion, in insisting that all worship in the way of their fathers, that is, according to that which has been handed down. I would. I'd abrogate all those innovations and anathematise all those who made them.
Yeah, I'm sure you would. Funnily enough you weren't pre-eminent in my mind when I used the term "po-faced miserable fuckers" but feel free to wear the cap if it fits.
I'm sure you didn't, nevertheless right glory (orthodoxy) begins with the prayer of the Church, which we must get right. It can't be all things to all people.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think there is anything wrong, at least within the context of a particular communion, in insisting that all worship in the way of their fathers, that is, according to that which has been handed down. I would. I'd abrogate all those innovations and anathematise all those who made them.
Yeah, I'm sure you would. Funnily enough you weren't pre-eminent in my mind when I used the term "po-faced miserable fuckers" but feel free to wear the cap if it fits.
I'm sure you didn't, nevertheless right glory (orthodoxy) begins with the prayer of the Church, which we must get right. It can't be all things to all people.
Abject bullshit. That's EXACTLY what the Church has to be. The invitation to the kingdom is open to all; when the church fails to reach entire sections of humanity it's failed. And that's exactly how it's failing here, today.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think there is anything wrong, at least within the context of a particular communion, in insisting that all worship in the way of their fathers, that is, according to that which has been handed down. I would. I'd abrogate all those innovations and anathematise all those who made them.
Back to the Didache! Down with those awful innovators! And let us confess our sin every Sunday when in our Didache-worship we have to acknowledge that a century or more of innovation had already happened that we don't know how to unwind.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think there is anything wrong, at least within the context of a particular communion, in insisting that all worship in the way of their fathers, that is, according to that which has been handed down. I would. I'd abrogate all those innovations and anathematise all those who made them.
But you don't 'worship in the way of [your] fathers', unless you:
- wear first century Jewish clothing
- use Koine Greek (Hebrew is also acceptable) in your church services
- Get as close as possible to the exact same grape and grain varieties as used in 1st century Palestine
I could go on but I'm sure you get my point. All of us, however traditional or groundbreaking, follow some things the earliest church did and ignore others. We just draw the line in different places, that's all. What I think we need is some reasonable basis for where we draw that line.
What's your basis, Ad Orientem? Why don't you wear authentic 1st century middle eastern dress when you go to church? Kudos if you do... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Or maybe waving as it passes me by on its own little way there.
Now as I have pointed out before, there are many nice Anglicans, and I don't have a problem with them. What I do have a problem with is the system and structure which is a) self-destructive, b) overheavy and so costly and c) populated by some of the most pointless, arrogant, mindless tossers in the world.
It has had its day. Let it die in peace, instead of this pathetic expelling of vomit and crap that it seems to be going through.
Don't worry, SC. If you're right about a), b) and c) it'll have killed itself off before the end of the decade, won't it? No organization can be as woeful as you've pitched it and survive. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
This thread seems to be turning into Ecclesiantics from Hell (sometimes that board is more hellish than this one.) I'd call the C of E to Hell (except that as the OP suggests it's already heading that way in any case) for its homophobia, its hypocrisy (OK, Christians are hypocrites by definition, so I probably mean lying through its teeth... like the bishops claiming to have been in favour of civil partnerships all along when they - most of them - did their best to derail the legislation), for its soulless obsession with numbers and bums on pews, for the box-ticking managerial approach of many of the hierarchy rather than acting as pastors. But above all for its addiction to power and status, its bishops in the Lords, its willingness to bless battleships.
None of this applies to most ordinary congregations and parishes that just get on with living the Gospel. Yet without the structures and hierarchy most of that just wouldn't happen. So although it's compromised and needs another reformation, the C of E as an institution doesn't deserve to die just yet.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It can't be all things to all people.
Why do so many people quote St Paul out of context! He was suggesting that's just what he had to be in order to preach the gospel effectively.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It can't be all things to all people.
Why do so many people quote St Paul out of context! He was suggesting that's just what he had to be in order to preach the gospel effectively.
I wasn't quoting the Apostle.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think there is anything wrong, at least within the context of a particular communion, in insisting that all worship in the way of their fathers, that is, according to that which has been handed down. I would. I'd abrogate all those innovations and anathematise all those who made them.
But you don't 'worship in the way of [your] fathers', unless you:
- wear first century Jewish clothing
- use Koine Greek (Hebrew is also acceptable) in your church services
- Get as close as possible to the exact same grape and grain varieties as used in 1st century Palestine
I could go on but I'm sure you get my point. All of us, however traditional or groundbreaking, follow some things the earliest church did and ignore others. We just draw the line in different places, that's all. What I think we need is some reasonable basis for where we draw that line.
What's your basis, Ad Orientem? Why don't you wear authentic 1st century middle eastern dress when you go to church? Kudos if you do...
Sorry, you're being silly here. I never said that the prayer of the Church cannot or should not grow. What I am referring to is the slash and burn approach used by the likes of Pius X, Pius XII and Paul VI, for example, or every ex-hippy modernist since the 60's.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It can't be all things to all people.
Why do so many people quote St Paul out of context! He was suggesting that's just what he had to be in order to preach the gospel effectively.
Well yeah, but what makes you think Ad Orientem is all that interested in the gospel?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
It wasn't until I began to attend a Congregational church semi-regularly that I recognised, by its absence, the belief, implicit in so much of Anglican practice, that shapes most Anglican attempts at accessibility. Bluntly, the Church thinks that ordinary people are lazy and stupid. Christianity is compared to talent shows. To quiz shows. To the kind of thing 'they' like. It seems to be a perfect storm of paternalist Tory incomprehension of the 'other ranks', and old-school Marxist characterisation of the masses as a force to be harnessed for their own good.
It makes sense, if you think like this, to think that if understanding requires effort, they'll leave. But it doesn't make sense that none of the popularising measures the Church has used to try to snare all the lazy, stupid people ever seem to have the slightest effect. Surely if they understood the people whose judgement they patronise, they'd be doing a roaring trade by now?
The Church of England doesn't respect most of the people who turn up; its eyes are always focused, mistily, on the lost mainstream status; the kind of numbers that would restore its dominion over public discourse. A dominion that will never come again. Like England itself in many respects, it understands conspiracy, it understands giving orders, but it has a hard time understanding the free association of equals. Old-fashioned, socially conservative people schlep to church to hear stuff tailored to the imagined tastes of people who don't go to church, and sermons that refer to Richard Dawkins for no reason.
When unchurched people come to church, they come because they want something different from the world. That's why I came. I enjoyed it, but I went in the first place because I thought I ought to. Without that initial 'ought', or sense of need, or sense of urgency, people stay home. If you tell them this, priests think you're proposing complacency. Given the choice between leaving it to God, or rushing around pissing money away on futility, the Church of England will do the latter every time.
Over twenty years of useless CofE marketing ploys have been inspired by the idea that if you disguise church as something secular, all the thick, lazy people will come back. I know from experience of secular people among themselves (ie. when not being tolerant around 'religious' people) that these schemes are seen for what they are – an insult to the intelligence of their intended targets.
Meanwhile, where I live, Catholics can get Mass every day. I can't. One church here is open to visitors every day anyway, so why no service? Priests would have to get off their arses, that's why. I've attended Compline once in my life. It's a beautiful service. Nowhere offers it.
[ 26. June 2013, 18:21: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It can't be all things to all people.
Why do so many people quote St Paul out of context! He was suggesting that's just what he had to be in order to preach the gospel effectively.
Well yeah, but what makes you think Ad Orientem is all that interested in the gospel?
Very interested, why?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
I think the idea, AO, is that if you cared about the gospel, you'd be OK with any amount of snazzing-up.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Snazzing-up? You mean trying to make worship "cool"? Sorry, that's just sad. It's proven not to work.
To preserve that which has been handed down is to preserve the Gospel, for the prayer of the Church is the faith of the Church (lex orandi lex credendi) which has been sanctified by the Holy Spirit through continual use. This is pro-Gospel.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
While we're on worship styles:
Those who stay away, don't, in my experience, do it because they don't like the style or tone of the liturgy, but because they simply don't believe. You can use the 1662, the English Missal, or the work of Jim Cotter, it doesn't make any difference, they're not going to come back to 'check out that new liturgy'. You aren't going to attract people who don't go to church anyway, whatever you do to the language. It's not the style keeping them away, its the semantic content – they do not believe what is stated in the words of the Nicene Creed.
The Church of England would love those people to come anyway in a spirit of 'questioning' and 'inquiry' (money is money), but no dice. Meanwhile, the CofE makes decisive inroads in turning off and losing the remainder who can be bothered. It disregards the people who go to church (they're in the bag, right?), while devoting a great deal of time to asking itself why people stay away and how it can con them into thinking that church is like something they enjoy. When new people come, they're patronised, or invited to make themselves useful, or marginalised. Then they stop coming. Then the church wonders what their problem was. It's wearying.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think there is anything wrong, at least within the context of a particular communion, in insisting that all worship in the way of their fathers, that is, according to that which has been handed down. I would. I'd abrogate all those innovations and anathematise all those who made them.
But you don't 'worship in the way of [your] fathers', unless you:
- wear first century Jewish clothing
- use Koine Greek (Hebrew is also acceptable) in your church services
- Get as close as possible to the exact same grape and grain varieties as used in 1st century Palestine
Oh be fair - perhaps they beat up homosexuals in the first century as well.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't think there is anything wrong, at least within the context of a particular communion, in insisting that all worship in the way of their fathers, that is, according to that which has been handed down. I would. I'd abrogate all those innovations and anathematise all those who made them.
But you don't 'worship in the way of [your] fathers', unless you:
- wear first century Jewish clothing
- use Koine Greek (Hebrew is also acceptable) in your church services
- Get as close as possible to the exact same grape and grain varieties as used in 1st century Palestine
Oh be fair - perhaps they beat up homosexuals in the first century as well.
This means you've automatically lost the argument, I'm afraid.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Snazzing-up? You mean trying to make worship "cool"? Sorry, that's just sad. It's proven not to work.
To preserve that which has been handed down is to preserve the Gospel, for the prayer of the Church is the faith of the Church (lex orandi lex credendi) which has been sanctified by the Holy Spirit through continual use. This is pro-Gospel.
My last post was sent before I read this. I couldn't put it more concisely. It's sad, and it doesn't work. Also, it reflects an idea that form and content are two different things which is about a century or more out of date. An act of worship that looks and sounds like a children's birthday party just doesn't communicate the same ideas as an act of worship that looks worshipful, no matter how similar some of the script may be. Or, to put it another way, let's be seriously modern, and maintain that form ought to follow function.
[ 26. June 2013, 18:57: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
To preserve that which has been handed down is to preserve the Gospel, for the prayer of the Church is the faith of the Church (lex orandi lex credendi) which has been sanctified by the Holy Spirit through continual use. This is pro-Gospel.
So you 'never said that the prayer of the Church cannot or should not grow' but think we should 'preserve that which has been handed down'. Eh? Who decides what should be preserved and what can be permitted to grow? I totally don't understand your basis for deciding which things must be preserved (like the liturgical words, it seems) and which can be updated (such as the clothing we wear and the language we use).
Like Karl: Liberal Backslider has been saying, why can't you get on with how you want to practice the ritual parts of your faith and let other Christians do the same in the way they want?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It can't be all things to all people.
Why do so many people quote St Paul out of context! He was suggesting that's just what he had to be in order to preach the gospel effectively.
I wasn't quoting the Apostle.
No - you were using a cliché based on an out-of-context quote from the Apostle. So you are adding thoughtless use of the English language to your lack of biblical literacy.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
To preserve that which has been handed down is to preserve the Gospel, for the prayer of the Church is the faith of the Church (lex orandi lex credendi) which has been sanctified by the Holy Spirit through continual use. This is pro-Gospel.
So you 'never said that the prayer of the Church cannot or should not grow' but think we should 'preserve that which has been handed down'. Eh? Who decides what should be preserved and what can be permitted to grow? I totally don't understand your basis for deciding which things must be preserved (like the liturgical words, it seems) and which can be updated (such as the clothing we wear and the language we use).
Like Karl: Liberal Backslider has been saying, why can't you get on with how you want to practice the ritual parts of your faith and let other Christians do the same in the way they want?
In practice what it means is that you can insert (not replace) some things, like new feasts and/or prayers, having been approved by the Holy Spirit through time being believed by all the people (which can happen on a local level, hence local variations in feasts and rites). Never slash and burn, replacing the old with the new by the whim of a committee or an eccentric bishop. That which has been sanctified by continual use cannot be abrogated.
If you look at the Roman and Byzantine rites, both ancient and venerable rites. Virtually untouched for a thousand years around the time of the Reformation in the West and the fall of Constantinople in the East. Only one, however, retained its dignity and orthodoxy. The Roman liturgy fell subject to the whim of the popes, was tinkered with, changed and eventually replaced with a demi-Protestant liturgy. The result: liturgical desolation in the West and a loss in faith.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
