homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Comments on Open Letter to the Church from my Generation

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Comments on Open Letter to the Church from my Generation
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello everyone

I have been reading Dinnika Nash's famous "An Open Letter to the Church from My Generation"

http://dannikanash.com/2013/04/07/an-open-letter-to-the-church-from-my-generation/

The writer is clearly liberal in her views and in the letter identifies those she is addressing as 'conservative'. What I find interesting is not the liberal views of the letter, that is to be expected. What I find interesting is the liberal views that Dannika assumes that the 'conservatives' she is address hold liberal views themselves and I would be interested to have people's opinion on whether you think that she is right in this assumption about the liberal views of Christians who identify themselves as conservative.

In the 'letter' she states

quote:
My point in writing this isn’t to protect gay people. Things are changing—the world is becoming a safer place for my gay friends. They’re going to get equal rights. I’m writing this because I’m worried about the safety of the Church.
Now this is obviously written from a liberal viewpoint. 'Safety' is described from a purely earthly point of view, no thought is given to the afterlife and the Church is seen as a purely worldly institution. Its no surprise that Nash would take this view. What is perhaps surprising is that she assumes the 'conservatives' she is addressing take the same view. The more conservative view would be that the Church is a supernatural institution, the Ark of Salvation. It would contain those on the road to Heaven whilst those outside would be on to road to Hell. Her comments about her friends 'safety' make sense only if she assumes that the conservatives she is addressing share the liberal view on his issue. Her friends can hardly be described as 'safe' if they are going to Hell.

quote:
my generation will not stick around to see the church fight gay marriage against our better judgment It’s my generation who is overwhelmingly supporting marriage equality, and Church, as a young person and as a theologian, it is not in your best interest to give them that ultimatum.

Again this doesn't make sense if addressed to someone who takes the traditional view that those who don't 'stick around' are going to Hell.

quote:
if you’re looking for some intelligent biblical liberal opinions on the subject, have a little coffee chat with your local Methodist or Episcopal pastor. Christians can be all about gay people, it’s possible. People do it every day with a clear biblical conscience. Find out if you think there’s truth in that view before you sweep us under the rug. You CAN have a conservative view on gay marriage, or gay ordination.
Again Nash is clearly taking the liberal view here. She does not describe either the 'conservative' or 'liberal' views as being heresy or even error. What is interesting is that she assumes the 'conservatives' being addressed take the same view. No attempt is made to make the case that her views are neither error nor heresy (she simple asserts it without argument). This would only make sense if someone takes the liberal view that this is not important

quote:
Weigh those politics against what you’re giving up: us. We want to stay in your churches, we want to hear about your Jesus, but it’s hard to hear about love from a God who doesn’t love our gay friends (and we all have gay friends). Help us find love in the church before we look for it outside.
Again Nash takes the liberal view that those who are in the Church are not gaining their Salvation and that those who are outside are not losing it. The conservative view would be that it is not the Church that loses out when people are outside the Ark of Salvation but it is those people themselves. The conservative view is also that those that look for love outside the Church will instead find the father of lies.

Once again I am not surprised that Nash takes the liberal view but was does strike me is that she assumes the 'conservatives' she is addressing will take the same liberal views on a number of subjects. Any thoughts from people here?

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The more conservative view would be that the Church is a supernatural institution, the Ark of Salvation. It would contain those on the road to Heaven whilst those outside would be on to road to Hell.

I've always thought that it wasn't so much that people's theology shaped their viewpoint as it was their viewpoint that shaped their theology. The kind of otherworldly "pie in the sky when you die" theology seems like exactly the kind of thing that would best appeal to those who are indifferent to (or supportive of) injustice and cruelty in this world. One of the easiest ways to justify such things is to not justify them directly but to craft an explanation as to why such things don't really matter. Thus the "conservative" view that the church should be unconcerned with injustice in this world because what really matters is the next one. In short, it seems like an hermeneutic deliberately designed to tolerate/support injustice and cruelty.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi there.

I'm not an American evangelical, but it's clear to me that the author is not trying to present a detailed theological or biblical argument. Her main concern is to warn the (older members of the) American church that traditional teachings on homosexuality are alienating younger members like herself, and to let young Christians know that there are less conservative churches they can join where homosexuality is acceptable. I've heard about some of the challenges facing American evangelicals these days, so her perspective is not new. The situation is probably more complicated than she makes it sound, though.

What I thought was odd about the article is how the author refers to churches like hers as 'the church', yet the Episcopalians and Methodists are specifically name checked. It's as though her own conservative faith tradition represents the default that needs no name, whereas these more liberal churches are so distinctive as to require highlighting. But perhaps that's how it is in the American South.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The more conservative view would be that the Church is a supernatural institution, the Ark of Salvation. It would contain those on the road to Heaven whilst those outside would be on to road to Hell.

I've always thought that it wasn't so much that people's theology shaped their viewpoint as it was their viewpoint that shaped their theology. The kind of otherworldly "pie in the sky when you die" theology seems like exactly the kind of thing that would best appeal to those who are indifferent to (or supportive of) injustice and cruelty in this world. One of the easiest ways to justify such things is to not justify them directly but to craft an explanation as to why such things don't really matter. Thus the "conservative" view that the church should be unconcerned with injustice in this world because what really matters is the next one. In short, it seems like an hermeneutic deliberately designed to tolerate/support injustice and cruelty.
Clearly both Nash and yourself take a liberal view on the matter. My point is that Nash is assuming that those she is addressing also take a liberal view.

Try reading the letter from the point of view of someone who thinks that non Christians will be sent to Hell and you'll see what I mean.

What I find curious is why she has made this assumption. Is it in fact the case that most 'conservative' Christians have liberal views on these matters or is she making unwarranted assumptions about the views of her audience.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Hi there.

I'm not an American evangelical, but it's clear to me that the author is not trying to present a detailed theological or biblical argument. Her main concern is to warn the (older members of the) American church that traditional teachings on homosexuality are alienating younger members like herself, and to let young Christians know that there are less conservative churches they can join where homosexuality is acceptable.

I get what she's saying. My point is that what she's saying doesn't make sense unless addressed to people who already share some of her liberal views.

And without wishing to be too pedantic South Dakota is in the West of the US not the South.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry about the geography.

Obviously, young people who don't share her theology aren't included in her reference to 'my Generation'.

As for church leaders and others, she's hoping that at least some of them will be moved by her appeal to their pragmatism, i.e. their desire not to drive a large number of young people from the church.

The point is that churches consist of human beings, and are steered to some extent by circumstances as well as a desire to be pure and holy. Some conservative churches will have turned a blind eye in the past to valued members who were known to be gay. Others may be experiencing a pastoral crisis of suicidal gay youngsters in their midst. Some church leaders may find it easy to condemn homosexuality until it reveals itself in their own much-loved family members.

Theology doesn't exist in a social vacuum, and plenty of conservative churches have modified their teachings as times and circumstances change. Whether they should is another matter, but it clearly happens.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Theology doesn't exist in a social vacuum, and plenty of conservative churches have modified their teachings as times and circumstances change. Whether they should is another matter, but it clearly happens.

In other words plenty of 'conservative' churches are actually quite liberal already. I think that's likely right. Interesting article here that makes this point

quote:
The church that accommodates the Word of God to the painful circumstances of its members in the matter of divorce and remarriage should do so also in the matter of homosexual desire. Fact is, as Smedes shrewdly observes, "The biblical ground for excluding them (homosexuals) from embrace within the church is actually weaker than was its ground for excluding divorced and remarried heterosexuals."

How can ministers and elders say no to homosexual sons and daughters of the congregation, when they have not been able to say no to remarried sons and daughters? Much less, as is more and more the case, when these rulers in the church are themselves remarried...

For the overwhelming majority of Protestant churches approve the remarriage of divorced persons. The overwhelming majority of churches that like to be regarded as conservative -- Presbyterian and Reformed churches -- approve the remarriage of divorced persons and welcome them to the Lord's Table. Their reasons are the same as those that moved the CRC to change its stand on remarriage. And their defense of this wickedness, when they are challenged, is also the same: the wideness of God's mercy.

http://www.prca.org/current/Marriage/Pages%201-58.htm#Chapter 8
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think the use of "conservative" and "liberal" here in relation to church membership is correct.

To my mind, the proposition that you can have salvation outside an institutional church isn't a "liberal" view. It's simply a Protestant one.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think the use of "conservative" and "liberal" here in relation to church membership is correct.

To my mind, the proposition that you can have salvation outside an institutional church isn't a "liberal" view. It's simply a Protestant one.

Well it would simply be a Protestant view to say that you don't have to be a formal member of a specific denomination to be part of the Church and to be saved.

It is clear however that what Nash is talking about is not people who have moved from one form of Christianity to another (according to her argument that wouldn't be a problem at all). What she is talking about is people who have abandoned the Christian faith altogether. The idea that people will be saved as pagans, atheists etc most certainly is a liberal idea.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Universalism has a long history within Christianity and has considerable scriptural support (as, of course, do many other often contradictory points of view). I'm not sure what definition of liberal is being applied here other than "things I disagree with because they don't involve judging other people".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377

 - Posted      Profile for *Leon*   Email *Leon*   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bibliophile:
Looking just at the quotes you've given I think they can be read as making sense from a conservative position. It depends on what you interpret the liberal position as being.

If you assume that the liberal position involves taking the conservative position and bending it to fit with contemporary moral attitudes, your criticism is correct.

If you assume that liberals believe that, given the current structure of society and current state of scientific knowledge, the 'conservative' view on homosexuality is incompatible with the gospel, then there is no contradiction. From this position, the conservative wing of the church is clearly in grave danger since it is doing the work of Satan. If we then assume the obvious fact that there are radically different views on the subject, it might be polite to not use words like heresy or error while trying to engage with Christian leaders who you believe are doing the work of Satan.

(As I say, I haven't read the original letter. I'm expressing my version of liberalism here, which may not be exactly the same as that espoused by Nash)

Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Bibliophile:
Looking just at the quotes you've given I think they can be read as making sense from a conservative position. It depends on what you interpret the liberal position as being.

If you assume that the liberal position involves taking the conservative position and bending it to fit with contemporary moral attitudes, your criticism is correct.

If you assume that liberals believe that, given the current structure of society and current state of scientific knowledge, the 'conservative' view on homosexuality is incompatible with the gospel, then there is no contradiction. From this position, the conservative wing of the church is clearly in grave danger since it is doing the work of Satan. If we then assume the obvious fact that there are radically different views on the subject, it might be polite to not use words like heresy or error while trying to engage with Christian leaders who you believe are doing the work of Satan.

(As I say, I haven't read the original letter. I'm expressing my version of liberalism here, which may not be exactly the same as that espoused by Nash)

I don't see that is what Nash is saying at all. She explicitly says that she thinks the 'conservative' position is theologically possible. Have a read of the letter in the link to see for yourself.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think the use of "conservative" and "liberal" here in relation to church membership is correct.

To my mind, the proposition that you can have salvation outside an institutional church isn't a "liberal" view. It's simply a Protestant one.

Well it would simply be a Protestant view to say that you don't have to be a formal member of a specific denomination to be part of the Church and to be saved.

It is clear however that what Nash is talking about is not people who have moved from one form of Christianity to another (according to her argument that wouldn't be a problem at all). What she is talking about is people who have abandoned the Christian faith altogether. The idea that people will be saved as pagans, atheists etc most certainly is a liberal idea.

Sorry, but it's not clear at all, certainly not from the bits you've actually quoted. You've referred to a passage where she refers to looking for love inside the church versus looking for love outside it, and turned this into a comment about not being outside the church, but being outside "the Ark of Salvation"... and then you've equated that with being outside of Salvation itself.

That simply doesn't follow. Not on a Protestant view of salvation in any case. Just because you interpret "the church" to mean some kind of supernatural body across space and time rather than a physical institution, do you have evidence that SHE is using the term in that fashion?

I don't think you do. I think the whole point is that it is institutional church leaders who are expressing anti-gay positions, when a great many ordinary Christians, particularly young ones, are not. To say that she's expressing worry for "the church" in the sense of the supernatural thingummy is, to my mind, a quite unnatural reading.

[ 10. June 2015, 12:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406

 - Posted      Profile for Erik   Email Erik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:Try reading the letter from the point of view of someone who thinks that non Christians will be sent to Hell and you'll see what I mean. [/QB]
I suppose the question here is 'does being accepting of homosexuality, equal marriage, etc put someone outside the church?' Or to put it another way, is the "conservative" teaching on homosexuality critical enough to the Christian faith that without it someone would no longer be Christian?

For myself, I would say no. I believe that, at a very basic level, what makes someone part of the church is to be searching after God and trying to better understand him. This will lead to trying to understand what he would have us do in this world but such views come out of Christianity rather than define what it is. I don't think any one denomination has all the right answers but I tend to think back to 'love God, love each other' as the basis from which our behaviours and views on social issues builds from.

So in my thinking it is possible to remain in the church, remain on the path to heaven, while seeing homosexuality in a less black and white way than what the author of the letter assumes is the position of those she is writing to.

Thanks,
Erik

--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.

Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Clearly both Nash and yourself take a liberal view on the matter. My point is that Nash is assuming that those she is addressing also take a liberal view.

Depends on what you mean by "liberal". Nash, her intended audience, myself, and most of the posters here come from societies where a good deal of liberty is afforded to citizens. In other words "liberal" societies.

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Try reading the letter from the point of view of someone who thinks that non Christians will be sent to Hell and you'll see what I mean.

What I find curious is why she has made this assumption. Is it in fact the case that most 'conservative' Christians have liberal views on these matters or is she making unwarranted assumptions about the views of her audience.

I'm still trying to parse out what you call the "conservative" viewpoint. As close as I can figure it, it's the belief that the only thing that matters is that people both understand and accept the correct theological position at the time of their deaths. If they don't they'll be tortured horribly by God for the rest of eternity for either not knowing or knowing but rejecting the correct theological understanding. Given this, it's permissible to use any means available in this world to make life unpleasant enough those with different/heretical (because under this understanding anything different is automatically heretical) theological beliefs that they'll change their beliefs in order to avoid the unpleasant things conservatives are doing to them now, and therefore also avoid the even more unpleasant things God will do to them later if they don't recant.

So yeah, I can see why you'd argue that a lot of so-called conservatives are willing to concede liberty (i.e. "have liberal views") on these matters. There are very few religious conservatives in the industrialized West that are willing to openly advocate for the execution or imprisonment of homosexuals any more (at least in their own countries).

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The idea that people will be saved as pagans, atheists etc most certainly is a liberal idea.

Interesting to take this to its logical conclusion. If it's the "conservative" position that the state should not recognize homosexual marriages, should not extend anti-discrimination laws to cover homosexuals, should turn a blind eye to gay bashing, (i.e. not do the things that, in Nash's words, make the world "a safer place for my gay friends") should this also extend to followers of non-Christian religions? Is it a "conservative" position that a couple married by a rabbi (for example) should not have their marriage recognized, either legally or by [conservative] Christians? Would this non-recognition do anything to "save" the Jewish couple in question from damnation? Given the far worse things people have done to the Jews over the centuries, I'd have to guess 'no'.

[ 10. June 2015, 14:37: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:Try reading the letter from the point of view of someone who thinks that non Christians will be sent to Hell and you'll see what I mean.

I suppose the question here is 'does being accepting of homosexuality, equal marriage, etc put someone outside the church?' Or to put it another way, is the "conservative" teaching on homosexuality critical enough to the Christian faith that without it someone would no longer be Christian?

For myself, I would say no. I believe that, at a very basic level, what makes someone part of the church is to be searching after God and trying to better understand him. This will lead to trying to understand what he would have us do in this world but such views come out of Christianity rather than define what it is. I don't think any one denomination has all the right answers but I tend to think back to 'love God, love each other' as the basis from which our behaviours and views on social issues builds from.

So in my thinking it is possible to remain in the church, remain on the path to heaven, while seeing homosexuality in a less black and white way than what the author of the letter assumes is the position of those she is writing to.

Thanks,
Erik [/QB]

If it was simply a matter of people moving from more 'conservative' denominations to more 'liberal' denominations then I don't see much sense in her letter either. Why on earth would Nash be worried about people moving from denominations she doesn't agree with to denominations she does agree with?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Obviously if people are 100% convinced that believing that gay relationships are ok will land you in hell, nobody's going to persuade them to shift on this issue. But people with generally conservative theology who don't think that this particular issue is the most important one within Christianity, might be persuaded to think about how ugly the behaviour of some Christians is towards gay people, who are human beings with feelings. They might be persuaded to actually talk to some gay people, and consider whether everything they've been told about "the homosexual agenda" is actually based in fact. They might think about the fact that presenting the idea of gay people as immoral monsters who are out to take over the world and corrupt our children doesn't work very well with people who actually know some gay people.

Hey, it's worth a go.

--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've never heard of this woman before but I like her comment about churches not being safe.

Homophobic preaching is toxic to LGBT people - for the sake of their spiritual health, they should avoid such churches.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What she is talking about is people who have abandoned the Christian faith altogether. The idea that people will be saved as pagans, atheists etc most certainly is a liberal idea.

I understand it is also a Catholic idea (although strictly speaking they would say 'despite being pagans, atheists etc').

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
'Safety' is described from a purely earthly point of view, no thought is given to the afterlife and the Church is seen as a purely worldly institution.

The existence of things eternal shouldn't blind us to the reality of things temporal.

If the church roof is falling apart, I don't think it's particularly 'liberal' to think we ought to fix it even if we also believe that the risk of being brained by falling masonry is as naught compared to the risk of eternal damnation. And if people are staying away out of fear of the roof, then we definitely ought to fix it for the sake of their eternal souls.
quote:
Again this doesn't make sense if addressed to someone who takes the traditional view that those who don't 'stick around' are going to Hell.
.... in which case you shouldn't be acting in a way that pushes them outside, into the arms of the Father of Lies.

quote:
No attempt is made to make the case that her views are neither error nor heresy (she simple asserts it without argument). This would only make sense if someone takes the liberal view that this is not important
I read her as saying that if you want to know why it's not heresy or error, then go and talk to the Episcopalians or the Methodists. Which may be a cop-out but is a long way from saying truth doesn't matter.

quote:
The conservative view would be that it is not the Church that loses out when people are outside the Ark of Salvation but it is those people themselves.
That seems a remarkably sociopathic view of the Church. When the hundredth sheep went astray, did the Good Shepherd say it was the lost sheep that was losing out, not him or the flock?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406

 - Posted      Profile for Erik   Email Erik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry if I was unclear. My point was not about people moving from one denomination to another but more in line with Ricardus's point below

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Again this doesn't make sense if addressed to someone who takes the traditional view that those who don't 'stick around' are going to Hell.
.... in which case you shouldn't be acting in a way that pushes them outside, into the arms of the Father of Lies.[/QB]
If a groups stance on a single issue, in this case homosexuality, is driving people away from the church I think we need to look at how critical that issue is to the church. I suppose what I am trying to say is, is your (generic you, not you personally) view of gay rights integral to your faith to the point that without it you cannot be a Christian. It is a question of weighing up reconsidering your view in the light of other people's reasoned arguements (or even just keeping your opinion but toning down how you broadcast it) with continuing in vocal opposition at the risk of pushing people away from God.

--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.

Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
The conservative view would be that it is not the Church that loses out when people are outside the Ark of Salvation but it is those people themselves.
That seems a remarkably sociopathic view of the Church. When the hundredth sheep went astray, did the Good Shepherd say it was the lost sheep that was losing out, not him or the flock?
No, the Good Shepherd went to find the lost sheep because it was the sheep that was losing out.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
What she is talking about is people who have abandoned the Christian faith altogether. The idea that people will be saved as pagans, atheists etc most certainly is a liberal idea.

I understand it is also a Catholic idea (although strictly speaking they would say 'despite being pagans, atheists etc').
Well the Roman Catholic church is in the main a liberal denomination and has been since the Vatican II council. It has a reputation for being 'conservative' because of its more conservative stand on some specific issues of sexual and reproductive morality. Apart from those areas it is in general quite liberal.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah well, I for one am not going to be terribly worried about your liberal/conservative definition if that's how far the "liberal" side extends.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You do get people such as Greg Smith, the previous Attorney-General for NSW. Greg is a conservative Catholic, and has similarly conservative views of same-sex marriage, and so forth. But outside those areas he is very liberal. His views on such matters as incarceration of juveniles, or of adults for minor offences, are more liberal than those of his Labor predecessor. It's little wonder that he was not to be the (Oz) Liberal Party candidate at the last election and was rolled by one of the right.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
The conservative view would be that it is not the Church that loses out when people are outside the Ark of Salvation but it is those people themselves.
That seems a remarkably sociopathic view of the Church. When the hundredth sheep went astray, did the Good Shepherd say it was the lost sheep that was losing out, not him or the flock?
No, the Good Shepherd went to find the lost sheep because it was the sheep that was losing out.
Exactly, it wasn't a matter of indifference to the Shepherd that one of the sheep went astray. He wanted the sheep not to be lost. "Almighty God, who desireth not the death of a sinner", and all that.

To that extent, yes the shepherd and the flock do lose out when one member goes missing. Just as any family loses out if one of their members abandons them. Or have you not noticed that the New Testament calls us brothers and sisters?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah well, I for one am not going to be terribly worried about your liberal/conservative definition if that's how far the "liberal" side extends.

To be fair, it is true that on issues such as Biblical interpretation, and God's presence outside Christianity, Catholicism would be seen as quite liberal in some Evangelical circles. Which I think is a reflection on how extreme a lot of Evangelicalism has become. Likewise the 'Catholic social teaching' was I think deliberately intended as a religious alternative to socialism.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, I doubt that a Protestant Evangelical is going to subscribe to the particular view that your salvation depends on church membership.

They will probably agree that church membership is of great value and importance. But necessary for salvation? That doesn't at all sound like anything I've ever heard in the relevant circles.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hm, I see what you mean. I suppose when I moved in those circles, I would have said that although salvation depends on accepting Jesus as your personal saviour, refusing to attend church would be a sign that you didn't really mean it. I don't think our theology had space for people who had repented but refused to attend church for reasons of principle.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can understand that way of looking it. I just recall, at some point, having had this question come up and basically the viewpoint expressed was you can be a Christian without belonging to a church... but it's really, really difficult.

So maybe with a slightly more theoretical bent, whereas you're talking more about the slightly more practical assessment of "well, why would anyone decide not to come to church?"

I think if theology is based on a personal relationship between a believer and God, as Protestant theology generally is, it's pretty difficult to escape the conclusion that church is about reinforcing that relationship rather than actually establishing it.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
The conservative view would be that it is not the Church that loses out when people are outside the Ark of Salvation but it is those people themselves.
That seems a remarkably sociopathic view of the Church. When the hundredth sheep went astray, did the Good Shepherd say it was the lost sheep that was losing out, not him or the flock?
No, the Good Shepherd went to find the lost sheep because it was the sheep that was losing out.
Exactly, it wasn't a matter of indifference to the Shepherd that one of the sheep went astray. He wanted the sheep not to be lost. "Almighty God, who desireth not the death of a sinner", and all that.

To that extent, yes the shepherd and the flock do lose out when one member goes missing. Just as any family loses out if one of their members abandons them. Or have you not noticed that the New Testament calls us brothers and sisters?

I take that point. The tone of Nash's article however (being worried about the 'safety' of the church whilst being unconcerned about the 'safety' of her friends) indicates she meant something different altogether
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah well, I for one am not going to be terribly worried about your liberal/conservative definition if that's how far the "liberal" side extends.

To be fair, it is true that on issues such as Biblical interpretation, and God's presence outside Christianity, Catholicism would be seen as quite liberal in some Evangelical circles.
Exactly. People think of the likes of John Paul II and Benedict XVI as being 'conservative' because they held some conservative positions on what this forum would call 'dead horse issues'. However in other areas they were both liberals.

I think its a sign of how focused 'progressives' are on 'dead horse issues' that , for example, the person who not only took part in but actually organised the 1986 Assisi 'World Day of Prayer for Peace' could be labeled a theological 'conservative'

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think its a sign of how focused 'progressives' are on 'dead horse issues' that , for example, the person who not only took part in but actually organised the 1986 Assisi 'World Day of Prayer for Peace' could be labeled a theological 'conservative'

Yes, no true conservative would ever be in favor of peace!

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or forget what happened 30 years ago. We've also had reference to Vatican II. Vatican II happened before I was born.

If that's what the measure is for slipping into "liberal" territory, then we're talking about a world where I've never known the relevant kind of "conservative" and therefore am not going to pine for it or lament its passing.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think its a sign of how focused 'progressives' are on 'dead horse issues' that , for example, the person who not only took part in but actually organised the 1986 Assisi 'World Day of Prayer for Peace' could be labeled a theological 'conservative'

Yes, no true conservative would ever be in favor of peace!
It wasn't peace traditionalists had a problem with. It was praying with pagans and heretics.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think its a sign of how focused 'progressives' are on 'dead horse issues'

Wait, what?! Who is overly focused on Dead Horse issues? The only reason they are a big deal to progressives is that conservatives are using them to keep rights away from people they don't agree with. If conservatives kept their bigotry to themselves, no one would much care.


quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It wasn't peace traditionalists had a problem with. It was praying with pagans and heretics.

Gotta hate who God hates or God will hate you!

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Again, a complete misrepresentation of the traditionalist position.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, no true conservative would ever be in favor of peace!

It wasn't peace traditionalists had a problem with. It was praying with pagans and heretics.
Okay, so it's peace with infidels that's the problem for conservatives. Gotcha!

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, no true conservative would ever be in favor of peace!

It wasn't peace traditionalists had a problem with. It was praying with pagans and heretics.
Okay, so it's peace with infidels that's the problem for conservatives. Gotcha!
Not even close. But if it makes you feel any better to think that, go ahead by all means.

The problem the traditionalists had was that by praying publicly with them they seemingly were lending legitimacy to false religions.

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Okay, so it's peace with infidels that's the problem for conservatives. Gotcha!

The problem the traditionalists had was that by praying publicly with them they seemingly were lending legitimacy to false religions.
The same argument applies in a variety of contexts though, doesn't it? For example:

Extending legal toleration to infidels seemingly lend[s] legitimacy to false religions.

or

Making peace with infidels seemingly lend[s] legitimacy to false religions.

If you're worried about seemingly lending legitimacy to false religions, I'm not sure there's a clear line you can draw between these various actions that isn't completely arbitrary.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, no true conservative would ever be in favor of peace!

It wasn't peace traditionalists had a problem with. It was praying with pagans and heretics.
Okay, so it's peace with infidels that's the problem for conservatives. Gotcha!
Not even close. But if it makes you feel any better to think that, go ahead by all means.

The problem the traditionalists had was that by praying publicly with them they seemingly were lending legitimacy to false religions.

Exactly, although I think you can strike out the word 'seemingly'.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, a complete misrepresentation of the traditionalist position.

Which part? The second certainly fits some conservatives, but you could begin to argue that it does not fit a particular conservative movement. The first has ample evidence.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I take that point. The tone of Nash's article however (being worried about the 'safety' of the church whilst being unconcerned about the 'safety' of her friends) indicates she meant something different altogether

Fair enough, and I apologise for being sanctimonious about it.

FWIW, I have heard a lot of agonising about How Do We Attract Young People To The Church, to which the answer always seems to be get rid of the organ and put the vicar in a hoodie. The article, to me, is making the point that young people are less shallow and more principled than that. That might just be my history though.

I agree with you that the author does appear to take the view that salvation can be found outside the visible bounds of the Church, but I would have thought that if her audience disagrees with her on this point, that would make her appeal more urgent, rather than less.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, a complete misrepresentation of the traditionalist position.

Which part? The second certainly fits some conservatives, but you could begin to argue that it does not fit a particular conservative movement. The first has ample evidence.
To the second part only where you were replying to me.

If I were to reply to the first part of that post then the RC traditionalist movement (to which I used to belong before I converted to Orthodoxy), for instance, does not believe in religious freedom as you would understand it, whether that be the state or individual.

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, no true conservative would ever be in favor of peace!

It wasn't peace traditionalists had a problem with. It was praying with pagans and heretics.
Okay, so it's peace with infidels that's the problem for conservatives. Gotcha!
Not even close. But if it makes you feel any better to think that, go ahead by all means.

The problem the traditionalists had was that by praying publicly with them they seemingly were lending legitimacy to false religions.

Exactly, although I think you can strike out the word 'seemingly'.
Ah, I see. Lending legitimacy.

There's a certain train of Christian thought that emphasises being separate from the world. I can understand that, honestly I can.

What bothers me, though, is how easily that can turn into making a point about being separate from the world, of making those who are physically around you aware of just how separate you're being, even as you're standing next to them.

And there's another issue which a friend of mine made me aware of last night: if Christians are separate from the world, and have citizenship in heaven... why do they spend so much time interfering in the world's 'local' issues?

It's exactly in this context of the Church's attitude to homosexuality that he raised this with me. He, as a Christian, strongly dislikes the Australian Christian Lobby. It's a LOBBY group, that spends it's time doing nothing else but trying to shape government policy and Australian laws. Ninety percent of its time seems to be spent trying to prevent homosexuals from having equal rights. Equal rights before secular law.

Why? If they know they're right in God's eyes, and it's God's view of things that matters, then why the blazes do they spend so much time trying to dictate to an earthly, secular government? If Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, then why are his subjects spending so much time trying to conquer this world?

I think that's really a big part of where the Open Letter is coming from. No-one's really asking the church to "lend legitimacy" to homosexuals if it thinks that homosexuality is wrong. Mostly people are just asking the church to shut the hell up and spend its time focusing on things that are more theologically important.

In short, there's a difference between "legitimising" people and expressly going out of your way to oppose them.

[ 13. June 2015, 03:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If Christians are separate from the world, and have citizenship in heaven... why do they spend so much time interfering in the world's 'local' issues?

It's exactly in this context of the Church's attitude to homosexuality that he raised this with me. He, as a Christian, strongly dislikes the Australian Christian Lobby. It's a LOBBY group, that spends it's time doing nothing else but trying to shape government policy and Australian laws. Ninety percent of its time seems to be spent trying to prevent homosexuals from having equal rights. Equal rights before secular law.

Why? If they know they're right in God's eyes, and it's God's view of things that matters, then why the blazes do they spend so much time trying to dictate to an earthly, secular government? If Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, then why are his subjects spending so much time trying to conquer this world?

I think that's really a big part of where the Open Letter is coming from. No-one's really asking the church to "lend legitimacy" to homosexuals if it thinks that homosexuality is wrong. Mostly people are just asking the church to shut the hell up and spend its time focusing on things that are more theologically important.

Not all Christian groups are focused on being separate from the world. Some are focused on changing the world (or preserving some aspect of it that risks being changed). And being part of a so-called 'Christian nation' might arguably legitimise the public 'Christian agendas' that any particular Christian group might have. For those who believe in a genuine secular state this is one good reason for knocking the 'Christian nation' thing on the head.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools