Thread: MW: High vs Low, AC vs EP, Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001103

Posted by the Angel of the North (# 60) on :
 
What do we use these terms to mean, please?

I know how I use them.

AC - refers to full scale tat, and a fairly catholic view of communion

ac - refers to moderate tat, and a catholic view of communion.

EP - refers to attitude to communion, liturgy etc.

High and Low - I use with reference to communion, and the model of leadership.

Angel

[ 10. March 2003, 01:47: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Which isn't exactly the same as how I'd use them.

To me, Anglo-Catholic is about the level of ceremony in the service - so incense etc.

Catholic is more about spirituality and the view that God made the world and so that world is to be celebrated not despised.

High is primarily about Sacramental theology, but also includes liturgy - but without the ritual of A-Cism.

Low is again about Sacramental theology and liturgy, and often overlaps with Evangelical but not always. (For example I'd probably say that while the Welsh congregation at Llanbadarn were low, but non-evangelical).

Evangelical [struggles to be objective, having had bad experiences] implies things about attitude to Bible, tends to be low sacramentally and non-liturgical. Also the world is something which we escape from, not something to be celebrated.

Well that's my attempt to capture the connotations those words have for me.

So I'm a high and Catholic Anglican without being Anglo-Catholic.

Carys
 


Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :
 
This concern with labelling strikes me as a peculiarly Anglican thing. Certainly the labels mentioned seem to have an Anglican origin.

As a non-Anglican, non-evangelical I don't fit with any of them, and don't particularly want a label as such.
 


Posted by Steve (# 64) on :
 
I think Weslian has a point, but the same groupings do apply in non-anglican churches. That is why I prefer the terms Evangelical, Traditionalist and Liberal, which ( to me ) indicate where authority lies ( Bible, History, Experience - very simplistically ). These divisions are found in Baptist and Methodist churches, just as much as Anglican.

Then I would use High and Low to describe the style and form of worship, which includes attitudes to communion etc. So High would place a high value of communion, and might therefore surround the service with lots of ceremony. Low would place a high value on community and fellowship.

AC would generally define traditional high, wheras EP would generally define evangelical low. But all combinations are, in fact, possible. I think.
 


Posted by the Angel of the North (# 60) on :
 
Weslian - yet it came out as being needed when discussing the conversations between the methodist church and the anglican church, to differentiate where the methodist church fits, and to realise that it's not a homogenous group.

as for traditional, evangelical, liberal - none of these fit my churchmanship.

Angel
 


Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
as for traditional, evangelical, liberal - none of these fit my churchmanship.

Same here; to me, scripture, tradition and experience interweave in my understanding of my faith, I can't say I emphasise one above the other two.

quote:
Certainly the labels mentioned seem to have an Anglican origin.

Do they? Anglo-Catholic is probably the only specifically Anglican one. Catholic and Evangelical certainly have a wider meaning (and non-Anglican origin) and as Angel's said high and low came up in the Methodist-Anglican thread.

Carys
 


Posted by Steve (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the Angel of the North:
as for traditional, evangelical, liberal - none of these fit my churchmanship.

Angel


Which is why I dislike using these labels of others. I don't generally use them unless I feel people take them to themselves.
 


Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
My dears. There has been simply too much talk about ac and ep and h and l and - and all the while tat is being neglected.

I think we should get back to the central overweeningly important aspects of organised religion, such as 'Who wore rose on Gaudete Sunday'.
 


Posted by the Angel of the North (# 60) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
My dears. There has been simply too much talk about ac and ep and h and l and - and all the while tat is being neglected.

I think we should get back to the central overweeningly important aspects of organised religion, such as 'Who wore rose on Gaudete Sunday'.


i would say that it isn't talked about enough, and that the latter belongs on another thread

Angel
 


Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
I think we should get back to the central overweeningly important aspects of organised religion, such as 'Who wore rose on Gaudete Sunday'.

Shame, shame, Coot! I only asked that silly question because of the tat addiction on this board.

Actually, I do not know that there is a definition for any of these terms today, for all that the lines may have been drawn more clearly a century ago. (I agree that this is an "Anglican thing," particularly because, as far as I know, ours is the only sister church where we glory in that some of us are very Protestant, others very Catholic.) My own definition once would have been that the difference between Catholic and Evangelical was mainly one of emphasis rather than essential belief, and that the former's would be more sacramental, the latter purely scriptural.

However, that was before I joined this forum... quite honestly, though I'm still Anglican and still consider myself very Catholic, and love very formal liturgy (though I am not all that much one for tat), I don't know what definition would even fit myself any longer.
 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
hello Carys, greetings from another high and Catholic (as opposed to high and mighty!) Anglican. I used to be what they call 'middle of the road' but then the goalposts changed, I suppose partly with the rise in informality.

However, although I would not call my churchmanship liberal, it's more of a personal thing: I would describe my approach to Christianity as liberal. Whether everyone else in my church is liberal I am not so sure.

So for me, the high-low definition describes the church; but the liberal, fundamentalist, etc labels describe more how we as individuals think about our faith.

Does this make sense to anyone, or do you think 'liberal' can sometimes be applied to whole churches?
 


Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
Hm. I thought as we already had:
'Evangelicalism/Protestantism for beginners'
'High Church, low church, no church'
'Anglocatholicism for beginners'
the subject would have been milked dry by now. Hmmmm.
 
Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
I have a problem. I want a simple term to describe the approach to worship of my father. You get low and high Anglicans but what of other denominations?

My father is protestant, reformed, or calvinist. He is a continental evanglelical without being a British one. That is to say that he is his theology over liturgy is main stream English (maybe slightly on the liberal side of British) Calvinism.

However it is putting together a phrase to incorporates his approach to this worship in that alludes me. I have tried 'High Calvinism' which got me into trouble as he is not that sort of Calvinist. I tried 'High Church Calvinist' which as in England there are Calvinists whose worship would be familiar to High Anglicans, with slightly differing wording, also causes problems. Main stream approach does not take kindly to overt ritual.

What is so distinctive is the care with which he approaches the ritual of reformed worship. It is an approach that is very exacting though not exhibitionist at all. For instance when I was a child one year we were driven to distraction one year trying to find charcoal grey V-neck jumpers.

Any suggestions for phrases?
 


Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
I would say I am Liberal Catholic. So I value Scripture, Tradition and Reason in a fairly Catholic, but Liberal sense. I am also Post-Modern, that means I do not approach Scripture, Reason or Tradition in a scientific manner.

So I am Post Modern Liberal Anglican Catholic, or Pomolianca for short.


 


Posted by Miffy (# 1438) on :
 
Chorister - Can you elaborate a little on 'middle of the road', please.

thanks
 


Posted by the Angel of the North (# 60) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Hm. I thought as we already had:
'Evangelicalism/Protestantism for beginners'
'High Church, low church, no church'
'Anglocatholicism for beginners'
the subject would have been milked dry by now. Hmmmm.

On which threads terms were thrown around with gay abandon, and no one thought what they actually meant, and how each of us was using them.

Angel
 


Posted by Fiddleback (# 395) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Miffy:
Chorister - Can you elaborate a little on 'middle of the road', please.

thanks


The three traditional defining characteristics of 'Middle of the Road' Anglicanism are traditionally Matins, Masons and Old Maids which may shew why it is becoming an increasingly rare phenomenon. A more modern symptom of this style of 'churchmanship' might be the dreaded "All Age Family Service' (catering for all ages from 65 to 90) on the last Sunday of the month. What does Middle of the Roat Anglicanism stand for? Bugger all, diddly squit, zilch. All it means is " We don't know what we believe, we don't want to believe in it anyway, and we don't care".
 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Miffy:
Chorister - Can you elaborate a little on 'middle of the road', please.

thanks


hello again!, back from my crimbo 'bug' and busyness: 'MOTR'= in the Church of England there is a large number of churches who call themselves 'central', ie. not at the extremes of evangelicalism or a-c but in the 'middle' - some argue this group is getting smaller and smaller now as people tend to polarise towards evangelical or a-c. The type of church which was called central when I was younger is seen as too popish by the low church and too low by the a-c's! so I feel the goalposts have changed as they try to become more acceptable to the others and have lost faith in their own distinctiveness and viability. It is interesting to read the blurb on the Affirming Catholicism website: http://www.affirmingcatholicism.org.uk
which claims to hold the middle ground, but not all would agree with this.

There, now Miffy, and you expected a simple answer!!

 


Posted by Miffy (# 1438) on :
 
Thanks, Fiddleback. Please ignore my classification of myself in MW's Insense thread. I might be middle-aged, but no way am I middle of the road!
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
I thought Middle of the Road Anglicanism was the Eucharist in surplice and stole.It sometimes can be choral.
I do not think somehow - having read S3's post - that I am Post-Modern....
however I take on board what he says about Scripture Reason and Tradition....
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Sorry.....but on second thoughts,perhaps surplice and stole is the low side of middle?
I have also been known to like Mattins on occasion
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
what Fiddleback calls 'middle of the road' regarding 'all age family service' I would call 'evangelical', so it looks like we are still all in a muddle!
 
Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
I would describe our Parish as MOTR.

We attract a wide range of churchpersonships, from Evangelical to Traditional to Anglo-Catholic, who all seem to co-exist with our emphasis on good children's work, all age worship* and multisensory worship#. We have a Family service once a month~

We are growing.

Some people would (have) describe(d) us as Liberal Catholic, although I know many congregants would balk at this label. The clergy all represent the catholic wing of the CofE, although other people strongly involved in the ministry of the church are from a lower church background.

This to me is what being a Parish church is all about. Those who want the "Extremes" have plenty of options in the city.


*All ages are involved in the service, in the choir, as servers, etc. No-one dresses up as superman, although when all our clergy are fully coped one does wonder.

#We have stained glass, congregational and choral music, bells, nice vestments, and we try to make the play smell nice. Sometimes with flowers, sometimes with smoke.

~ This works due to the skill of those who do it. The sermon is usually replaced with an alternative communication method which normally manages to engage everyone, we use a simpler creed, and one of the shorter(ish) Eucharistic prayers.
 


Posted by Sarum Sleuth (# 162) on :
 
I would have thought that celebrating the Holy Communion in surplice and stole is definitely low, rather than middle of the road these days. "Middle" generally means vestments, or at least the dreaded cassock-alb.

However, I suppose a lot depends on the area. If it were in Rochester Diocese, OLSP, Primrose Hill would be screamingly high. In the Edmonton area of the London Diocese it is distinctly low, as it only uses an Anglican rite and has no Roman features. This is with a High Mass with incense every Sunday!


SS
 


Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the Angel of the North:
On which threads terms were thrown around with gay abandon, and no one thought what they actually meant, and how each of us was using them.
Orright Angel, I concede. We hungry little piglets have not yet sucked dry the teat of churchmanship classification.

Anglican Low church as identified by dress, I think can range from alb and stole, surplice and stole, surplice and tippet, and suits with clerical collar or collar crosses can sneak in provided they include most of the prayer book liturgy.

There is in Australian Canon Law what is known as 'Surplice relief' - this is the minimum standard of dress that a bishop can insist on the priests under his oversight wearing. That is, a surplice only. It may be worn over an ordinary suit. I'm not sure what would be thought of a priest wearing a surplice to the exclusion of all else, but I'm sure some fantasise about it when the weather is hot enough.
 


Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarum Sleuth:
I "Middle" generally means vestments, or at least the dreaded cassock-alb.

No, cassock-alb suggests modern roman.
 


Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
What is meant by MOTR depends, of course, one where one is standing and the breadth of one's vision.

In the Western tradition the whole of the Anglican Church can be seen as MOTR, as it stands between the Roman Catholic Church and the more fully protestant Baptist, Presbyterian (and other) Churches. Anglo-Catholics can be regarded as MOTR because they stand between the RC Church and the broad sweep of the Anglican Church. Within the Protestant tradition Low Church Anglicans can be seen as MOTR as they stand between the broad sweep of the Anglican Church and the more fully protestant Churches (partly they are suffering from moving goalposts).

The 1662 BCP can be regarded as MOTR because it is a Protestant prayer book with many Roman Catholic influences.

The language of the BCP and the King James Bible can be viewed as MOTR because it is neither the traditional language of the Church (Latin) not contemporary English.

Of course, this situation is not unique to the Anglican Church, shipmates will be aware that there are groups who do not regard the Pope as a "proper" Catholic (the Pope MOTR, anyone!).

So how to identify MOTR Anglicanism? A few suggestions (and these are only suggestions): -

Holy Communion as the usual service, but no "smells and bells"
Mattins as the usual service (probably too low).
Priest in alb and stole, no use of other vestments etc.
Entrance procession and recession, but no gospel procession.
Acolytes but no thurifer.


MOTR Anglicanism is, of course, as valid a tradition as any other.
 


Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
There's a difference between AC and ac ? I just about thought I had got the hang of what an anglo catholic christian was and then this .

Can someone expound the difference please - more than one opinion welcome . It's probably above but I can't find it amongst all the other 'anglo talk' (I just can't follow it at all).
 


Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Thank you, chorister, for plugging the affirming catholicism website - I am the webkeeper! I don't think the 'middle ground' referred to is the same as 'middle of the road' anglicanism. It is, perhaps, more to do woith a middle ground between Roman and Anglican positions. In former days, the catholic movement within the Church of England had (at least) two strands: one used the Roman rite and ceremonies, outlined in books like Ritual Notes, published by Watts & Co.; the other was often known as 'prayer book catholic' because it kept to authorised liturgies and followed ceremonies laid down by Pearcy Dearmer's 'The Parson's Handbook'. Affirming Catholicism is nearer to prayer book catholicism in tone, though, of course, using mnore up to date liturgy.
 
Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
Indeed Leo, must Liberal Catholic or Affirming Catholic parishes would tend to use Common Worship, and generally the more Roman (Ecumenical?) Eucharistic shape.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I used ac rather than AC because I was lazy and didn't bother to hit the CAps key. However it got me thinking that it's probably the same difference as between Catholic and catholic or Evangelical and evangelical: the capitals seem to denote how much it matters to you over and above everything else, whether the particular practices and beliefs matter a big deal compared with other practices and beliefs. People who are more easy going would use the small letters, the more dogmatic the CAPITALS. e.g. (maybe?) DEFINITELY!
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
I would describe modern MOTR as Eucharist main service, vestments but no incense etc. But that's probably just the way I was brung up. In fact it's probably pretty high for Lincolnshire now let alone in the 1970s.

The terms high and low have also changed over time, and not simply up and down the scale. Until the tractarian and evangelical movements of the C19th it was more to do with politics and the role of the Church in society than our idea of churchmanship. Have a look at your Barchester Chronicles. Archdeacon Grantleigh is described as high but I doubt you could tell the difference between him and Obadiah Slope when they're dressed for church.

The churchmanship which has all but disappeared is traditional low (formal mattins as the main service) leaving older people like my parents high and dry (especially if they like BCP too). Bath Abbey is one of the few churches I've seen that does it with no sense of embarrassment.

Those who want to see the strange sight of a surplice over a suit could try Christ Church, Oxford, where it seems to be the chapel dress of the students (lay dons).
 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
when I went to Bath Abbey I was amazed to see the church almost full for traditional Mattins (a Summer Sunday), most other churches I have been to which still have Mattins the numbers are rather low. How common is it still to retain Mattins?, most Anglican churches high/low/otherwise all seem to prefer the Eucharist/ Communion/Mass nowadays.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Yes,I've been to Bath Abbey too,Chorister.In fact it is the Eucharist that doesn't seem well attended on Sunday.
I think Bath Abbey may well be a bit unusual now although it wouldn't have been so unusual 20 or 30 years ago.....
It took me by surprise at the time I will admit.....
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
It's so unusual that the Abbey has been finding it very difficult to find a new rector. I don't know whether they've succeeded now, but it was vacant for getting on for two years.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Bath Abbey is a particular case - its patrons are the Simeon's Trust, a conservative evangelical body. They know that, with a big church like that, they cannot go 100% along the party line. Gowever, they tolerate surplice and stoles providing that the clergy are 'sound'; in their preaching.

You realise the patronage on occasions like Christmas eve, when the abbey's doors stay locked when some are looking for a midnight mass.
 


Posted by Steve (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Bath Abbey is a particular case - its patrons are the Simeon's Trust, a conservative evangelical body. They know that, with a big church like that, they cannot go 100% along the party line. Gowever, they tolerate surplice and stoles providing that the clergy are 'sound'; in their preaching.

You realise the patronage on occasions like Christmas eve, when the abbey's doors stay locked when some are looking for a midnight mass.


But my church is also a Simeon Trust patronage, and we have always had a First Communion of Christmas on Christmas Eve. We have also had dressed up clergy for a long time, although that is changing ( not because of trustee influence ).
 


Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
[biretta on]

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
the dreaded "All Age Family Service' (catering for all ages from 65 to 90) on the last Sunday of the month. What does Middle of the Road Anglicanism stand for? Bugger all, diddly squit, zilch. All it means is " We don't know what we believe, we don't want to believe in it anyway, and we don't care".

Two things, stop banging on about All Age Worship. Next time take it to Hell where you have a really good whinge about it.

Might be good idea not to be quite so insulting about other groups within the church. It is most definitely not allowed. You have come pretty close to breaking the Third Commandment:

Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed, regardless of the context.

This applies to identifiable groups as well as individuals.

An apology would definitely be in order.

[biretta off]

bb
 


Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I do not know wjhat rules the Simen Trustees operate. They used to insist that Holy communion was celebrated from the North end of the communion table. Perhaps issues like midnight mass are down to ther sort of clergy they appoint.

Re- all age worship, it is not something I enjoy but I have to admit that my church's normal choral eucharist attracts a radio 3 or 4 typle clientele whereas the majority of people are in the Radio 1 category and that when we have a monthly all-age eucharist the church is packed. Is the church a club for the like-minded and middle class or is it an evangelistic organisation?
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Last time I was at the Abbey - and it is some time ago - I think the Eucharist was eastward-facing,but I might be wrong.At any rate I got the impression of a MOTR service;it didn't seem obviously low to me,at least not in the way that Holy Trinity was obviously a teensy-weensy bit High...
 
Posted by Fiddleback (# 395) on :
 
OK Miss Bear, and just whom do you think that I have insulted? There are no 'MOTR' Anglicans under the age of 75, so the likelihood of any of them actually having unpacked their Imacs and switched them on this soon after Crimbo, let alone logging in to Ship of Fools is extremely remote. Even Choristyer has disowned the MOTR. Why on earth shouldn't we discuss the abominations of "All Age 'Family' Worship" on this board? I thought this board was about worship, after all.

And don't you think that ypour assuming an item of headgear, no matter hopw virtual, that you have no right to wear just a tiny bit insulting to us Neanderthals who take such things seriously?

(lowly-contributorly pink jogging suit off)
 


Posted by Fiddleback (# 395) on :
 
And wait just a minute.... I attacked Middle of the Road Anglicanism, which is an issue, rather than Middle of the Road Anglicans who are an idewntifiable group anyway.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
Labels, labels, labels. How we get into trouble when we insist on labelling everything.

Why don't we try this: Describe what you like/do, and then give each of the items in the description a number. Then, you can just join the numbers and describe it perfectly.

e.g.

Tat - Need it - 1
Like it a lot - 2
It's OK - 3
Lose it - 4
Bible - Strict interpretation - 10
Not so strict - 11
Just a guideline - 12
etc...


then you can say, for example, 3,10,...

Saves time, keystrokes and confusion.


 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
...or even 2,11...
Hang on....does that make me MOTR???!!!
 
Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Pah! Count yourself lucky, Stephen Boyo - I'm a 3,11.5 and in serious danger of being run over.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
There's just no answer to that!!!!
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
Would that make "Chick" of "Chick Tract" infamy a 7-11 (standing on the corner of the road, peaching at passers-by)?
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Would that make "Chick" of "Chick Tract" infamy a 7-11 (standing on the corner of the road, peaching at passers-by)?

Peaching??? Sounds like a hairier version of mooning. Try preaching instead.
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
I think the redoubtable Fr.Chick would be a 9,10?
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
How common is it still to retain Mattins?

I can think of 2 parishes in Washington that Mattins on alternate Sundays.

St David's is one. The use of the word "traditional" is interesting:

quote:
Most people are curious about the worship style of parishes. We at Saint David’s are unabashedly “traditional.” That means
we enjoy the more formal worship style and music in a broad church context. Our beautiful buildings lend a stateliness to our
services. Our services follow the prayer forms of both Rite I and Rite II in The Book of Common Prayer. We enjoy the rich
Hymnody of our Anglican/Episcopal heritage. We have vested choirs of all ages and continue to offer Morning Prayer as a
principal service on two Sundays a month. In other words, we offer a familiar atmosphere for the many of us raised in that
fashion.


 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
And wait just a minute.... I attacked Middle of the Road Anglicanism, which is an issue, rather than Middle of the Road Anglicans who are an idewntifiable group anyway.

You know honey, you are right, and I and wrong. A thousand apologies.

I could claim dyslexia as an excuse, but wouldn't change that fact that you were quite within the 10 Commandments, and I made a false call. Profuse apologies.

bb
 


Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
I hope this does not mean that Fr Fiddleback will now put away his pink jogging suit.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
I think he was going to keep it for Gaudete Sunday.....
BTW I hope he lets BB keep her biretta.MW would not be the same without it and I think there is more than one non-graduate of the University of Bologna who assumes it....
Mind you.....how do we know she hasn't got an honorary degree from the aforesaid University????
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I like the numbering system - easier to show a continuum: I seem to be 2.5 and 11.5. Perhaps I'm still MOTR but the definitions have changed.

Re use of word 'traditional' - there is a difference between being a traditionalist in the worship sense and a traditionalist theologically; the first likes old-fashioned services eg. 1662 and King James Bible. the second believes in conservative, fundamentalist viewpoints.

I am more traditionalist in the first meaning but not in the second meaning. My worship preference is fairly traditional but probably my theology is more radical. Any thoughts? MOTR with a camber!
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Hmmm,yes....I'm probably more traditional liturgically than theologically.....
Interesting....
 
Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :
 
Why is it that frequently, those who are traditional in a worship sense are able to be liberal theologically, whereas those who are more experimental in worship often tend to be more conservative theologically?

As someone who is liberal theologically, but wants expermintal, non-liturgical worship, I don't quite know where I fit in the spectrum.
 


Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
I must admit the numbering system confuses me - I don't think that sort of thing can have been invented until the Mesozoic. But the split in the discussion between liturgy and theology is very sensible - the term "liberal" is irrelevant to liturgy. I'm certainly conservative and high on liturgy (although I have to confess that I have found myself saying "you" with the rest of the congregation in some eucharists recently ). As far as theology and general outlook is concerned I only have to see a liberal in mid rant to be relieved that I'm not one.
 
Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
As someone who is liberal theologically, but wants expermintal, non-liturgical worship, I don't quite know where I fit in the spectrum.

Alas I fear there is no such thing as non-liturgical worship, it just depends on how written down you like your liturgy.

I like (written) liturgy and use it in alternative worship. Liturgy is Alternative to me, as I grew up in a "Non-Liturgical" church.

I am however traditional and liberal in both senses. Some would see me as traditional as I like a ancient structure of service, but liberal in the sense I like it to be contemporary. I am traditional in that I believe things like the creeds, Liberal in the sense that I don't attach victorian morality to my faith. For me the term Liberal Catholic sums me up nicely.
 


Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :
 
Yes, sacredthree, I suppose all worship does have a liturgy. In my tradition, non-liturgical is a shorthand for not having a fixed written liturgy; but one that changes week by week. My experience of liberal catholic liturgy is that it is too formal for me, so I still find I have no home within the categories of this thread. Liberal Protestant perhaps; but can someone direct me to a liberal Protestant church that has any life and commitment to it, and is not just Middle of the Road nothingness?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
Why is it that frequently, those who are traditional in a worship sense are able to be liberal theologically, whereas those who are more experimental in worship often tend to be more conservative theologically?

Depends on what you mean by 'Traditional'. See, for example, the Evangelical Movement of Wales, who tend to be traditional on both counts.
 


Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Re use of word 'traditional' - there is a difference between being a traditionalist in the worship sense and a traditionalist theologically; the first likes old-fashioned services eg. 1662 and King James Bible. the second believes in conservative, fundamentalist viewpoints.

Sorry, double post, but I only just picked up on this. I think you have your viewpoints rather muddled here.

'Fundamentalism' only dates back to the close of the last century, and was a response to liberalism. Therefore, it ain't that traditional. And it's Fundamentalists that most often make an issue of preferring the KJV over more recent, more accurate translations.

Evangelicalism dates at least back to Wesley - so, while it's still not in the grand scheme of things that old, it has at least a century on fundamentalism.

And it could, of course, be argued that real theological traditionalists go right back to the church fathers - which evangelicals don't do much and fundamentalists don't do at all.
 


Posted by Steve (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
Why is it that frequently, those who are traditional in a worship sense are able to be liberal theologically, whereas those who are more experimental in worship often tend to be more conservative theologically?

As someone who is liberal theologically, but wants expermintal, non-liturgical worship, I don't quite know where I fit in the spectrum.


Obviously you haven't encountered Small Fire, where experimental worship and theological liberalism seem to co-exist happily. Much to my chagrin, occasionally.

 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
An interesting analysis, Wood, I think the fundamentalists I know (KJV haters) and the fundamentalists (KJV lovers) you know are obviously two different types. Yet more categories! Who is brave enough to categorise fundamentalists??
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:

Originally posted by Weslian:
In my tradition, non-liturgical is a shorthand for not having a fixed written liturgy; but one that changes week by week.

Whereas that is one of the many things that I don't like about that sort of churchmanship. Whenever I have experienced it I have always felt excluded, because it seems that you have to be a member of the club to understand what's going on and there's no book to help you to understand.
 


Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
An interesting analysis, Wood, I think the fundamentalists I know (KJV haters) and the fundamentalists (KJV lovers) you know are obviously two different types. Yet more categories! Who is brave enough to categorise fundamentalists??

Ah, well, you see - the people you're calling 'Fundamentalists' aren't technically Fundamantalists, inasmuch as they don't apply the term to themselves. Technically, I imagine they're actually conservative neo-evangelicals.

If I were to split hairs, I'd say that the only correct use of the term 'Fundamentalist' (with a big 'F') refers to Christian groups which prefer the KJV (even over the use of Greek and Hebrew), and tend to be highly reactionary in their use of scripture and their attitude to worship. Church services tend to be staid and highly structured, and politics are often extreme.

The best example of historical Fundamentalism in the US is Bob Jones University; in the UK, it's the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

On the other hand, Charismatic-influenced Neo-evangelicalism (which dates back to the 60s and 70s) is gradually becoming the evangelical mainstream, and it's probably what you meant. There are tons of groups which share this ethos, but a fairly typical one in the UK would be Pioneer. While evangelical myself, this is not my brand of evangelicalism.

There are a lot of good reasons not to like the KJV (like it being a crap translation and everything), but I suspect that the 'fundamentalists' you've met simply don't like it because it's old-fashioned rather than for any good reason.
 


Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Whereas that is one of the many things that I don't like about that sort of churchmanship. Whenever I have experienced it I have always felt excluded, because it seems that you have to be a member of the club to understand what's going on and there's no book to help you to understand.


I quite accept that this tradition isn't everyone's cup of tea, just as having a book in my hand and making said responses isn't mine. This is a matter of personality, background and taste, the only problem comes when someone tries to tell the other that their way is better per se, rather than a personal matter.

All I ask for, is respect for my tradition, from those who don't share it, and a willingness to enter into it against type on occasion, as on occasion I participate and lead worship with which I am not comfortable to show solidarity under Christ with those of different traditions.
 


Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Ah, well, you see - the people you're calling 'Fundamentalists' aren't technically Fundamantalists, inasmuch as they don't apply the term to themselves. Technically, I imagine they're actually conservative neo-evangelicals.

I'm with Chorister. I would call McLean Bible Church Fundamentalist, in that they describe themselves thus:

quote:
We are convinced that God’s Word, the Bible, is not only divine truth but also conveys God’s warm love for us. We believe that the Bible is infallible and contains answers to problems and burdens which we face each day.

Once you start talking about the Bible as divine truth, and infallible, I think you're a fundamentalist, whatever you call yourself.

And they do not have staid, boring, or structured services there. They wouldn't know the Authorised Version if it sorely bit them upon their... They do have ohps, electric guitars, stadium-style seating, and more emotion than a Italian sentimental opera. They also admonish brides that as wives they must submit themselves to their husband's authority (I went to a wedding at this place which is how I know).
 


Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
I would characterise fundamentalist belief as a combination of acceptance of the inerrancy of the bible with the need for personal salvation and a conservative approach to biblical interpretation.

The one church I have attended (for a few months) that I would describe thus was very keen on the Now Indispensible Version (as they termed it) - shortly after it was first published.

In an ideal world they would have preferred to use the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic scriptures, as these were completely God-breathed and without error.
 


Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
HT, like Chorister, you're confusing 'fundamentalist' (term used by you to describe what looks to me like a fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church) with 'Fundamentalist' (term used by a group with a very specific and strict theology to refer to itself).

There is a distinction - and it's never, ever clear cut. It'd be like me as an evangelical characterising everybody who isn't as a 'liberal' and assuming thy're all the same.
 


Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
HT, like Chorister, you're confusing 'fundamentalist' (term used by you to describe what looks to me like a fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church) with 'Fundamentalist' (term used by a group with a very specific and strict theology to refer to itself).

Very well. I do not think that Chorister and I are confusing anything at all. If anything we are conflating.

However, let's just say that when I say "fundamentalist" I do in fact mean "fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church".

I tried to find some information about the special Fundamentalists to whom you refer, but to no avail. Apparently, a lot of "fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church" also describe themselves as "fundamental", because while a quick internet search on "Fundamental Christian" produced a lot of Baptist sites, and webrings devoted to "fundamental Biblical principles" and so forth. I also checked with the co-worker whose wedding I attended at the aforementioned McLean Bible, and he does indeed describe himself as "fundamental" but did not know what "neo-evangelical" meant.

So assuming that Chorister and I say "fundamental" when you would say "fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church", could you tell us what you mean by "Fundamental"?

Who are these peculiar "Fundamentalists" who do not overlap with "fairly typical charismatic-ish and conservative neo-evangelical church"?

HT
 


Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
Sorry to post twice, but I thought there might be some interest in

What is a fundamentalist Christian?

HT [MW Host]
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
A fundamentalist to me is someone who takes the Bible literally eg believes the Earth was made in 6 days.But I may be doing them a dis-service
At any rate it is not the same as Evangelical although you can have Evangelical fundamentalists.
I suppose you can also have Catholic fundamentalists.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
stephen, that was always my understanding of what fundimentalist ment too...
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
yeah, thanks, HT - that's what I meant (also endorsed by Stephen and Nicole), and in no way suggesting that all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists.

On another thread, and a long time ago, I recommended a book called 'Liberal Evangelism' by John Saxbee (then Bish of Ludlow,now Bish of Lincoln); he argues that the boundaries between Liberals and Evangelicals can and should be blurred. *worth reading*
 


Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
yeah, thanks, HT - that's what I meant (also endorsed by Stephen and Nicole), and in no way suggesting that all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists.

On another thread, and a long time ago, I recommended a book called 'Liberal Evangelism' by John Saxbee (then Bish of Ludlow,now Bish of Lincoln); he argues that the boundaries between Liberals and Evangelicals can and should be blurred. *worth reading*


But, having read this book recently, I t seems to me that he gets "evangelicals" muddled with "those who are committed to evangelism", and the terms are not interchangable in that way!

Neil
 


Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
A fundamentalist to me is someone who takes the Bible literally eg believes the Earth was made in 6 days.But I may be doing them a dis-service
At any rate it is not the same as Evangelical although you can have Evangelical fundamentalists.
I suppose you can also have Catholic fundamentalists.

As I suggested above, I belive there is more to being a fundamentalist than the inerrancy of the bible, there is the conservative interpretation of it, belief in personal salvation, etc.

So in addition to biblical inerrancy there is the "Conservative Evangelical" approach to Christianity. But certainly not all Evangelicals (even Conservative Evangelicals)are fundamentalist.

Can you get a Catholic Fundamentalist? I don't know. Are there Conservative Evangelical Catholics who believe in the inerrancy of the bible?

I would add that while, IMHO, all fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the bible, not everyone who believes in the inerrancy of the bible is a fundamentalist (which may be where Catholics who believe in biblical inerrancy come in - making them "not fundamentalist".
 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Good point, Starb'y, I noticed the same thing, but the book is worth reading nonetheless; there is a summary in 'the New Liberalism' ed. J. Clatworthy, if people don't want to wade through the whole book!
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
HT, read with interest your link.

But doesn't it contradict what you said about the church you mentioned above? After all, if 'fundamentalism' as defined in the paper you linked is indeed a 'legitimate form of extremism', I certainly wouldn't call the McLean Bible Church fundamentalist at all, not by that definition, and probably not by their own anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
So in addition to biblical inerrancy there is the "Conservative Evangelical" approach to Christianity. But certainly not all Evangelicals (even Conservative Evangelicals)are fundamentalist.

The attitude of Fundamentalists (big F) to other Christians can best be shown by an article which I found in an edition of the Metropolitan Tabernacle's magazine, Sword and Trowel (#2, 1996). The article is called Circles of Religion in the World Today, and it's by a John Whitcomb, aparently from a lecture course on 'Biblical Fundamentalism'.

I'll describe it in the most detailed terms possible. It's a good way to understand what Fundamentalists (big F) think of other Christians - and other religions. When I first read it, I was very, very offended, since I realised that I, despite my evangelicalism, was not counted among the 'proper' Christians.

The article is basically a diagram, showing a number of concentric circles.

Inside the first circle, right in the middle, is what the key gives as 'The circle of regenerated people' (ie those people who are going to Heaven) - namely 'Fundamentalism and Neo-Evangelicalism' (sic).

According to this diagram, everyone else is going to Hell, but the further out you get, the less likely salvation apparently is.

But wait, appended to the first category, there's a note which says:

quote:

Due to the continuing drift of neo-evangelicalism since this chart was created, many will question whether all of this persuasion should be placed in this category. Many now belong to category 2 - Ed.

Knowing something of Peter Masters' (he's the editor, of course. Masters is known in some conservative circles as 'der Fuhrer') particular views (barking? I think he is, but decide for yourself), he means both charismatics and people who don't think the Bible is inerrant (because charismatic inerrancy is very different to Fundamentalist - big F - inerrancy) here. Which means that the vast majority of Evangelical Christians in the UK alone aren't going to heaven either, apparently.

This includes me.

What's in category 2, then?

in 2. 'The circle of professing Christians who use Biblical terms but deny its infallibility' we have 'Neo-Liberal and Neo-Orthodox Protestantism' (that's Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, URCs and post-Evangelicals, y'all) and 'Seventh-Day Adventism'.

and so on:
3. 'The circle of fossilised religions that once were regenerate' (as in: they aren't any more) - Judaism, Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy.

4. 'The circle of apostate groups that deny the Trinity' - Unitarianism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses.

5. 'The circle of "Eastern" religions without Biblical backgrounds' - Christian Science (what??), Buddhism, Hinduism, Hare Krishna, Baha'i, Shinto (here, I've corrected Whitcomb's spelling mistakes. He may know tons about other faiths, but he sure can't spell their names properly. :rolleyes .

and outside the circles:

6. 'The outer realms of "non-religions" that demand a faith'. These are very telling (in a sort of 'WTF?' kind of way) indeed: Evolutionism, Communism, Materialism, Atheism, Scientism, Confucianism.

So there you have it.

I tried to find a copy of the diagram on the web - but couldn't. However, I did find an article supporting the concentric circles idea and explaining it a bit more.
 


Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
Wood

Thanks for trying to put some difficult concepts into a post (not an easy task). I think there is a large degree of agreement between us (please let me know if you think otherwise).

The approach you have described above would seem to put proper “biblical inerrancy + Conservative Evangelicalism (if properly understood and as interpreted by Peter Masters or whoever the top dog in the group is)” types into the first circle. Other Conservative Evangelicals (sort of “Liberal Conservative Evangelicals” to coin a horrible phrase) into the second circle. Thus Conservative Evangelicals are not the same as F/fundamentalists and Catholics (or, on their definitions, Anglicans etc) who believe in scriptural inerrancy are not fundamentalist.

Which is what I was saying – I think!
 


Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :
 
The Biblical scholar who has done most work on Fundamentalism over the years is James Barr, who in about 1980 published a huge tome on it. In a published lecture he writes:

"Fundamentalism begins when people begin to say that the doctrinal and practical authority of scripture is necessarily tied to its infallibility and in particular its historical inerracny, when they maintain that its doctrinal and practical authority will stand up onlh it if in in general without error, and this means in particular only if it is without error in its apparently historical remarks."

I think this covers the traditional understanding of Fundamentalism, and is a tighter definition than Conservative Evangelicalism, which may or may not be Charismatic etc, etc,....

You could say about Barr that he defines it very tightly like this so that he can demolish it intellectually, but on that I would agree with him.

Incidentally, in those concentric circles, to put Evolutionism on the outer circle, as certain of damnation is a real example of Fundamentalism as Barr describes it, and ignores the fact that many of us in circle 2 would describe ourselves as Christian evolutionalists and see no contradiction.
 


Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
The approach you have described above would seem to put proper “biblical inerrancy + Conservative Evangelicalism (if properly understood and as interpreted by Peter Masters or whoever the top dog in the group is)” types into the first circle. Other Conservative Evangelicals (sort of “Liberal Conservative Evangelicals” to coin a horrible phrase) into the second circle. Thus Conservative Evangelicals are not the same as F/fundamentalists and Catholics (or, on their definitions, Anglicans etc) who believe in scriptural inerrancy are not fundamentalist.

Which is what I was saying – I think!


Yep. I'm with that - and with Weslian too.
 


Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :
 
When I was at university, many moons ago, those who wanted to hold office in the Christian Union had to sign the ICCF Constitution, which was a statement of faith, that as I remember it, pretty well summed up what I would call a Conservative Evangelical.

Does this still exist, and can anyone remember exactly what was/is in it?
 


Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
Wood. The only sense I can make of this is to say that while I see Conservative Evang's, neo-evang (whatever that is) &tc and fundamentalists as all the same, you seem to be saying that <fill-in-the-blank> evangelicals are alright, really, but Fundamentalists, well, THEY'RE the weirdos.

Oh -- and you don't think that McLean Bible is EXTREME? Apparently one's view of this depends upon where one stands.

quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
"Fundamentalism begins when people begin to say that the doctrinal and practical authority of scripture is necessarily tied to its infallibility and in particular its historical inerracny, when they maintain that its doctrinal and practical authority will stand up onlh it if in in general without error, and this means in particular only if it is without error in its apparently historical remarks."

I know some people whom this quote describes. I would also refer to them as Fundamentalists. They worship in a Presbyterian church in the US now, and used to worship at All Souls Langham Place.

And people say the High Church is hard to understand!

HT
 


Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
When I was at university, many moons ago, those who wanted to hold office in the Christian Union had to sign the ICCF Constitution, which was a statement of faith, that as I remember it, pretty well summed up what I would call a Conservative Evangelical.

Does this still exist, and can anyone remember exactly what was/is in it?


I presume the ICCF was the UCCF by another name. Their site is

here with a link (which I can't get to work as a URL within a post) on it to their current doctrinal basis.

I recall Point C (or its equivalent) giving problems for many. I have been involved with two Christian Unions, one of which got thrown out of the Students' Union for having a doctrinal basis for membership (any sort of doctrinal basis) as it was seen by the SU as discriminatory.
 


Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
Hey I always though that Charismatic and Fundamentalist were mutually incompatable, saying a Charismatic church is Findamentalist is like saying that All Souls Langham Place is Anglo-catholic.

I was once described as a liberal because I suggested that it was possible to be a christian and attend a Benny Hinn type church (or any other church that you would see on TBN or God Channel).

The whole point of much of the happy-clappy neo-evangelical church is that you don't interpret the bible literally you interpret it as you are told to by the leaders, and that can wary from week to week.
 


Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Count yourself lucky, HT, that Wood's keeping it simple - I think someone somewhere identified no less that 16 different strands of "Evangelicalism", all highly nuanced and distinctive.

Something to note is the change in use of the word "fundamentalist". Wood is 100% correct to say that, technically and historically, "Fundamentalist" with a capital F is someone who believes the matters set out in the series of pamphlets published in the US in the first quarter of the C20. These were the product of theologians associated with definitely "conservative" seminaries within the Reformed tradition. At some point "F" and "Evangelical" are interchangable, particularly in Britain - cp. JI Packer's book "Fundamentalism and the Word of God", which consciously takes up that label, and CS Lewis' comment in the preface to "M.C." which states he discussed his papers with an RC, an Anglican, a Methodist and "a Fundamentalist", by which he means what I would consider today to be a conservative Evangelical.

Now, the "F" becomes a pejorative over the years. But it also becomes a descriptive of all groups that behave in the way that Fundamentalists are understood (rightly or wrongly) to behave - elements of certain, clear authority, a particular morality in family and social matters, even politics, hence "Islamic Fundamentalists" which, given the origin of the "F" word is quite funny when you think about it!

So "F" has at least three meanings:

1. Historically, that which is probably best described as "extremely conservative evangelical" nowadays - so it might apply to some that go to All Souls, Langham Place, but certainly not to all. There are many "Evangelicals" in the broader sense of that word who do not hold to the historically defined "Fundamentals" (thingy Wrigth, the Baptist from Altrincham, whose first name I can't remember, being a case in point);

2. Pejoratively - i.e. anyone who doesn't think and believe what I do;

3. Sociologically - i.e. descriptive of a way of ordering one's sub-culture, rathter than specific beliefs.

On this third point, many groups could be regarded as "fundamentalists". We have seen how this technically Christian word has been applied arbitrarily to Islam - this Reformed word could (by replacing "Bible" in Weslian's statement with "Pope", "Church" or "Reason") be equally accurate of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Liberalism. It's more, I think, to do with an attitude of heart rather than the contents of belief. Thus, one can be highly "fundamentalist" about ones ceremonial (in either direction), ones belief in the nature of priesthood or, in a non-religious context, ones construct of ones own national identity. But whilst we might use "F" as a word, it is technically wrong and rather inadequate.

I'd say Peter Masters and his ilk are "F"s in both the first and third meanings; some people (many on these boards) are meaning 1, without any pejorative sense; I shan't dare to make a list of the people who are within meaning 3 only ; and clearly everybody else here apart from me is within meaning 2.
 


Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Dude:
Wood. The only sense I can make of this is to say that while I see Conservative Evang's, neo-evang (whatever that is) &tc and fundamentalists as all the same, you seem to be saying that <fill-in-the-blank> evangelicals are alright, really, but Fundamentalists, well, THEY'RE the weirdos.

You see, I am manifestly not a fundamentalist. But I am an evangelical. It's as big a mistake to call all evangelicals fundamentalists as it is to call all liberals followers of JS Spong.

quote:
Oh -- and you don't think that McLean Bible is EXTREME? Apparently one's view of this depends upon where one stands.

No, I don't. There's plenty more extreme than that (check out the Fruitcake Zone for some of the prize examples). You're right. It depends on where you stand.

It's further complicated by the fact that politics and religious views are nowhere near as cognate in the UK as they are in the UK (Australia I can't speak for). I'm a fairly conservative Evangelical, but my politics are centre-left/'liberal'. In the States, I am given to understand, this would be a contradiction in terms.

Anyway.

quote:
Posted by Astro-Boy: Hey I always though that Charismatic and Fundamentalist were mutually incompatable, saying a Charismatic church is Fundamentalist is like saying that All Souls Langham Place is Anglo-catholic.

Again, this is what I was trying to say. Hopefully, if you've clicked any of the Met Tab/Bob Jones Uni pages I've linked, you'll be aware that not only do Fundamentalists (big F) consider charismatics not to be Christians - they even consider them to be deceived by Satan.

quote:
Posted by the Man Dyfrig:Count yourself lucky, HT, that Wood's keeping it simple - I think someone somewhere identified no less than 16 different strands of "Evangelicalism", all highly nuanced and distinctive.

Imagine how dangerous I could be if I could argue my point lucidly.

(wow. 16 strands... Even I didn't know there were that many.)

quote:
Something to note is the change in use of the word "fundamentalist". Wood is 100% correct to say that, technically and historically, "Fundamentalist" with a capital F is someone who believes the matters set out in the series of pamphlets published in the US in the first quarter of the C20. These were the product of theologians associated with definitely "conservative" seminaries within the Reformed tradition.

Thank you. This is what I was talking about. Only Dyfrig makes sense and stuff.
 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Hi Wood
What do you mean when you say there is a difference between Charismatic inerrancy and fundamentalist inerrancy?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Hi Wood
What do you mean when you say there is a difference between Charismatic inerrancy and fundamentalist inerrancy?

This was basically a swipe.

Both groups claim to an inerrantist view of scripture. And yet, their interpretations and their respective emphases are - in places - miles apart.

Fundamentalists are usually Calvinist. Charismatics are normally Arminian.

Fundamentalists are almost always cessationist; Charismatics, by their very nature, believe in the continuation of spiritual gifts and in signs and wonders and stuff.

Fundamentalists tend to be rabid KJV readers; Charismatics often (but not always) avoid the KJV like the plague.

Fundamentalists often have a theology that suggests that modern worship music is 'worldly' and therefore evil; Charismatics embrace it.

Charismatics often believe in 'word of faith' and 'prosperity' theology. Fundamentalist just as often oppose it.

And yet they both claim to draw their theology from a literal interpretation of the Bible. Go figure.
 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Thanks, Wood, must just look up Arminian again, I get the rest. So the Brethren are more fundamentalist than Charismatic Evangelicals, according to your criteria?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Thanks, Wood, must just look up Arminian again, I get the rest.

It's the oppposite of Calvinist.

quote:
So the Brethren are more fundamentalist than Charismatic Evangelicals, according to your criteria?

Well, the strict Brethren certainly are, yes.
 


Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Both groups claim to an inerrantist view of scripture. And yet, their interpretations and their respective emphases are - in places - miles apart.

Firstly I assume we are discussing Evangelical Charismatics rather than Liberal or Catholic Charismatics. Not all Evangelical Charismatics are inerrantists. Clarke Pinnock I think is on record suggesting that the Inerrantist position is not only incorrect but merely a political move by some in the US to keep others out of the big tent. Many evangelicals question scriptures factual inerrancy on historical matters for example, and some of them are of course Charismatic.

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Fundamentalists are usually Calvinist. Charismatics are normally Arminian.

Again I am not sure this is true. The largest UK new church stream - New Frontiers is overwhelmingly Calvinist. Their favoured theological text would be Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. Grudem is practically paleo-reformed, and of course Charismatic.

Many non-Calivinist Charismatics are actually Neo-Arminian rather than Classical Arminian. There is also a lot of influence of early "revival theology", such as Charles Finney, which had its roots in Wesleyan thought. Classical Arminians i.e. many Pentecostal groupings believe God foresaw who would repent and predestined them. Neo-Arminians see Election as corporate, i.e The Church is Elect and Predestined as a unit rather than as individuals. Neo Arminians you may have heard of include Roger Forster and Clark Pinnock, both of whom are Charismatic.

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Fundamentalists are almost always cessationist; Charismatics, by their very nature, believe in the continuation of spiritual gifts and in signs and wonders and stuff.

Although both Charismatics and Fundamentalist suffer from dispensationalism in some quarters.

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Fundamentalists tend to be rabid KJV readers; Charismatics often (but not always) avoid the KJV like the plague.

True. Some American Charismatics use the KJV, but i think this is cultural rather than any belief it is "better".

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Fundamentalists often have a theology that suggests that modern worship music is 'worldly' and therefore evil; Charismatics embrace it.

True

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

Charismatics often believe in 'word of faith' and 'prosperity' theology. Fundamentalist just as often oppose it.

I think this a bit of a misrepresentation of Charismatics. I have met very few Charismatics who were into Word Of Faith teaching, unless the specifically went to a WoF church. Many Charismatics have opposed WoF, it was only the Toronto blessing which effected WoF and non-WoF charismatics equally that made many mainstream Charismatics I know accept that they weren't totally dodgy! My own feeling is that WoF theology is no more or less damaging than any other form of Charismatic or Evangelical theology

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

And yet they both claim to draw their theology from a literal interpretation of the Bible. Go figure.

Well I'm not sure. My experience is that Charismatic Evangelicals are often more liberal in this regard than Conservative Evangelicals. Many are of course A-Millennial in their Eschatology which is hardly a "Literal" Interpretation.
 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Is 'Word of Faith' the same as 'Word of Knowledge', or something different entirely?
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Don't ask,Chorister I am now quite - um - confused.
OK so I will ask .What is Word of Faith?
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Sorry to double-post but looking back over the thread,I think Weslian's last but one post defines what is a Fundamentalist in terms that even I can understand.Perhaps we could use that as a working definition?
Perhaps the main point to be brought out here is that Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are not necessary the same thing,although they can overlap
I suppose it's difficult to bring out the different emphases in a way that non-Evangelicals would understand,just as the differences in High Church Christianity can be difficult to explain properly to a Low Church Christian.
It gets even more complicated when you get people like Edward - and I don't think he's alone - who is a Charismatic Catholic.
Well it's late .....
 
Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :
 
Bruce Bawer in Stealing Jesusdistinguishes between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals by their attitude to dispensationalism**: fundamentalists believe in it, conservative evangelicals don't. Is this just an individual's distinction, or does it go back to the beginnings of Fundamentalism at the end of the C19th?
**i.e. the notion that history is divided up into 'dispensations' which will end with the rapture and the antichrist and all that.
 
Posted by Benedictus (# 1215) on :
 
I, as a fairly high church Episcopal type, have followed all this with a somewhat bewildered interest--this is more baffling to me than any tat discussion MW has ever fielded. I am left with an overriding reaction of deep gratitude that Peter Masters is not in charge, although it rather sounds like he would disagree with me about that.

Bene
 


Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
Word of Faith: A charismatic movement with roots in Pentecostal theology which takes Wesleyan Arminianism to its limits. There is a strong emphasis on personal responsibility and a general belief the God does nothing on earth without working with his People. The key to this relationship is Faith, which is presented by many as a Force that "calls things that are not as if they were." God created the world through his Faith "The Faith of God" and as humans we must use our Faith to have Gods will done on earth.

In Faith teaching Gods will for the world is not only the salvation of sinners, but both Health and Prosperity for all people. Personal mountain moving Faith, built up through Hearing the Word of God is the key to appropriating these Gifts that God has already promised us.

My take on the Faith movement is that I agree with its Theism (that we are co-workers with God, and God is limited on what he can do by us), I agree that Poverty and Sickness are enemies of God. However I do not believe that having Faith is the key to overcoming all problems of the world, or that they can so be mystically overcome. My response to Poverty and Sickness is not to believe for a new Car and confess that I don't have a headache, but to Pray and Act for those in far greater need than myself.

Having said that the Faith movement does teach that "it is far better to give than receive" and "give and it shall be given back to you", however it usually seems to be aimed at leaders with a very mechanical expectation of reception. To combat the rather depressing "suffer now, reward in heaven" theology that some Christians have, they have a "don't suffer now get your rewards now" theology. This works for ministers, as everyone is giving to them, but works less well for individuals in the churches. Faith Churches tend to have a Strong Leader ecclesiology which doesn't help this problem. Faith churches are rather loosely structured above congregational level, they will often have relationships with other Faith churches and ministries, and may even have some one who regularly visits who has an "Apostolic" ministry. Even if they have a board of Elders they tend to be one man ministry style.

My personal experience of faith churches has been no better or worse than any other Evangelical Charismatic church. We found that having Faith for finances was very important to us when we were Poor, and at the time rich members of the church saying that you couldn't expect God to provide finances like that seemed rather patronising and hypocritical. I still have a very positive attitude to healing, during my wife's recent cancer scare we prayed quite clearly for healing and restoration, as did many of our more catholic friends, whereas at least one person suggested we just pray for emotional strength and make sure we pray for no more. However this whole area Pastorally is very dangerous, and the Faith movement does not have a particularly developed theology of suffering. Some Faith Teachers do seem to accept that sometimes these things do not work so scientifically, and that one might, as Abraham "Die in Faith, never having received the Promise". Thus lack of healing or wealth does not mean lack of faith. However many people have been made to feel this way by those churches. Having said that as a non-evangelical saying a prayer and expecting God to definitely Heal you seems no more strange than saying a prayer and expecting God to definitely save you.
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Edward.....first things first.I'm sorry to hear about your wife's cancer scare,and I do hope that she is on the road to recovery
I think as you say that the whole question of healing is a difficult one.When times have been difficult with me health-wise or other,the only thing I feel I can honestly ask for is "grace to help in time of need".That grace I believe is freely given....more than that I don't think I've had a right to ask - not that that would stop me asking(!) if truth were to be told.I've never expected Him to work miracles.....but perhaps this is not the time or the place to repeat arguments over that.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Have just been reading a review of a book called 'Evangelical Futures' and it says:'Evangelical', like 'catholic' usually attracts epithets like 'liberal' or 'traditional'. This book introduces two more: 'postpropositionalist' and 'postconservative'.

Ho hum, so just as we think it is all sewn up, along come yet more unintelligible terms....

Think I'll stick with: high, middle and low.

High - don't see the point of family services and wouldn't be seen dead in one.

Middle - think family services are useful places to take the kids until they are old enough to go to a 'proper' service. Then breathe a sigh of relief that you don't have to go to them anymore.

Low - think all services should be family services and can't understand why some people don't like them.

Makes sense to me ......
 


Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Edward.....first things first.I'm sorry to hear about your wife's cancer scare,and I do hope that she is on the road to recovery.

We found out on Christmas Eve that the lump dhe had that was "probably cancer and would require a mascectomy" was in fact a Fibroid. I am glad doctors can be wrong from time to time!

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
I think as you say that the whole question of healing is a difficult one.When times have been difficult with me health-wise or other,the only thing I feel I can honestly ask for is "grace to help in time of need".That grace I believe is freely given....more than that I don't think I've had a right to ask - not that that would stop me asking(!) if truth were to be told.

Certainly in Healing services we pray for God to Heal the whole person rather than just focussing on a physical ailment. Everyone recieves the laying on of hands, rather than singling out individuals.

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
I've never expected Him to work miracles.....but perhaps this is not the time or the place to repeat arguments over that.

The history of the catholic faith is scattered with reports of miricles, but I certainly can't explain why the may or may not happen!

Low church groups often seem to have quite strong views on miracles - i.e. they either do or don't happen. High church groups are, rightly to my mind, a bit more mystical about those sort of things.
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
OK,Chorister so how would you define a Bath Abbey type of service,with Choral Mattins every Sunday????[now,how many smilie-faces.....]

 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Sorry to double-post,I've only just read Edward's post
My take on miracles can on occasion be a bit sceptical,I suppose.Or it may seem that way....
In general,I think that God is a God of order and purpose.The fact that Newtonian physics can be reduced to 8? equations or for that matter that the Universe can be understood,albeit imperfectly,tends to point towards that.Although I think that God is involved with His creation I don't think He normally intervenes.However I think that He can intervene and on occasion does intervene.
That's as far as the physical world goes.However I would go further and be inclined to say that on the spiritual level He probably intervenes quite a lot.....
I liked what Edward said about praying for the whole person too.A person can be physically ill but need mental and spiritual healing as well,eg you can have an unpleasant physical illness which also can make you feel depressed.....
And now I've really confuses the issue.....!
 
Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
In general,I think that God is a God of order and purpose.
Although I think that God is involved with His creation I don't think He normally intervenes.However I think that He can intervene and on occasion does intervene.

To be honest I often tend towards process theology, so I am not so sure that God and Creation are that separable.

I agree about the holistic approach to healing for all, and this is something that is sometimes lacking in healing ministry in some traditions.

Of course this has gone way off topic .. except that approaches to healing seem to vary across e/p groups.

Choristers understand is sadly flawed as Stephen has pointed out

I like family services and I am A/C. Sorry.
 


Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
I agree about the holistic approach to healing for all, and this is something that is sometimes lacking in healing ministry in some traditions.

Of course this has gone way off topic .. except that approaches to healing seem to vary across e/p groups.



 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
I agree about the holistic approach to healing for all, and this is something that is sometimes lacking in healing ministry in some traditions.

Sorry for the double post - I hit "reply" too soon there.

What I meant to say was....

Don't "whole" and "heal" have the same root in Greek (I don't do Greek, but I'm sure I've heard this somewhere).
 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
You are a hard taskmaster, Stephen.....Bath Abbey, as I remember from a Summer visit, had Choral Mattins as one of about 5 services that Sunday, the others being a family eucharist, a choral eucharist, a baptism and evensong. So 'all things to all (wo)men' springs to mind: seems MOTR to me, although I have heard it is evangelical,but not very evident that Sunday. (smilies are catching)

Yes, Edward, my 'family service' analysis was deliberately meant to be simplistic (hence the wink)- sorry if I offended you.
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
To be honest I often tend towards process theology, so I am not so sure that God and Creation are that separable.

Hmm.have to think about it,and my brain hurts on this thread.....One has to tread a line between Deism and Pantheism;I'm more inclined to be a Deist than a Pantheist,but even so,I think Deism is probably incorrect.The problem with Pantheism is that it identifies God with the Universe whereas Deism cuts God off from the Universe

quote:

I agree about the holistic approach to healing for all, and this is something that is sometimes lacking in healing ministry in some traditions.

I happy with healing in this sense I think,and I have on occasion received unction.I'm less comfortable with reports of instant miracles....

quote:

Choristers understand is sadly flawed as Stephen has pointed out

Quite....

quote:

I like family services and I am A/C. Sorry.

Yes....be careful here though.There are Family Services and Family Services.I think yours is like ours,a simplified Eucharist.But you can have Family Services which are extremely informal.....

With reference to Chorister,the last time I was at BAth Abbey,they had a Parish Eucharist at 9.30 in the quire,a Choral Mattins,at 11.00 which was full,and then I think Choral Evensong in the afternoon and Sung Evensong at 6.00 or thereabouts.It struck me as a lot more MOTR than Evangelical even though I now discover they have an Evangelical patron.....
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

Don't "whole" and "heal" have the same root in Greek (I don't do Greek, but I'm sure I've heard this somewhere).

In Old English "gehal" is "whole" or "healthy" whilst "halig" is "holy",so I'd guess you are probably right....
 


Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Three local churches I know have family services of half-hour duration (no Eucharist) so they are very informal, to suit the attention span of a toddler. There is no sunday school on these days, so all the kids can join in. I assume these services are evangelical, as the A-C's would presumably want the services to be Eucharistic?

Do I still have no takers for an interpretation of 'postpropositionalist'? Don't expect me to bale you out as I don't have a clue what it means! Maybe Dyfrig does - he's good at that sort of thing.....
 


Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
To be honest I often tend towards process theology, so I am not so sure that God and Creation are that separable.

I've always wanted to know what process theology means, simply explained, and you seem to know about it. Any chance of a quick description.
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Three local churches I know have family services of half-hour duration (no Eucharist) so they are very informal, to suit the attention span of a toddler. There is no sunday school on these days, so all the kids can join in. I assume these services are evangelical, as the A-C's would presumably want the services to be Eucharistic?

Yes,that was the point I was getting at....

quote:

Do I still have no takers for an interpretation of 'postpropositionalist'? Don't expect me to bale you out as I don't have a clue what it means! Maybe Dyfrig does - he's good at that sort of thing.....

Both Dyfrig and Edward,methinks!But don't look at me!
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
I've always wanted to know what process theology means, simply explained, and you seem to know about it. Any chance of a quick description.

Thank you Weslian!I hate to show my ignorance - not that i can help it at times! - but it's the first time I've heard of it....
 


Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Three local churches I know have family services of half-hour duration (no Eucharist) so they are very informal, to suit the attention span of a toddler. There is no sunday school on these days, so all the kids can join in. I assume these services are evangelical, as the A-C's would presumably want the services to be Eucharistic?


Why do you still asume that anything not A-C is Evangelical?? To a Liberal non-Anglican Protestant this is a non-sequitor. Most Methodist churches have monthly family services that are non-eucharistic, but it doesn't make them evangelical.

[tidied ubb. I like a tidy corner of cyberspace]

[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]
 


Posted by Benedictus (# 1215) on :
 
Warning--tangent:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do I still have no takers for an interpretation of 'postpropositionalist'?

When I read that I thought it said 'postproportionalist', and thought of how I feel after all the eating during the holidays. Now I know, I am postproportionalist. (Reminiscent of the title of a cartoon book "My Weight is Perfect for my Height, which Varies.")

Bene, which apologies for the irreverence. But apparently I'm not sorry enough to refrain from posting it.
 


Posted by sacredthree (# 46) on :
 
Postpropositionalist. Suggests that Language actually does things rather than merely picture them.

Faithmaps is a useful tool in this sort of discussion, although is almost Fundamentalist features articals from a wide breadth of evangelical thought.

On Process, the first paragraph of this Introduction to Process Theology is all you shoud need.
 


Posted by Weslian (# 1900) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
On Process, the first paragraph of this Introduction to Process Theology is all you shoud need.

Many thanks. I found the piece very helpful, and I think it means that I have been a process theologian without realising it, for a long time.
 


Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Yes, thank you,Edward
I'm not sure I've fully understood it,so I'll have to think about it....
There's something about it that I'm not all that comfortable with,but I can't pin-point what that something is.....
I don't know if anyone else will have more coherent views;mine son't seem to be at the moment,I'm afraid
 
Posted by AbundantJoy (# 2082) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stephen:
[QB]Sorry to double-post,I've only just read Edward's post
My take on miracles can on occasion be a bit sceptical,I suppose.Or it may seem that way....
In general,I think that God is a God of order and purpose.

Yes, I would agree with us. God is a God of order. In Jermiah, he states that he has a plan, a purpose, and a destiny for us.

Although I think that God is involved with His creation I don't think He normally intervenes.However I think that He can intervene and on occasion does intervene.

As mentioned later (scroll up to see the post) this is a deist perspective. This perspective describes God as the Creator and benefactor of man, but in a standoffish kind of way. Sort of God is up there and he is watching but he isn't too interested in what is going on. Contrast this with Trititian christianity in which God is greatly involved with humankind doing everything from feeding the hungry (like christ's loaves and fishes) to healing Both spiritual and physical needs (note that some physical needs were met after the spiritual problem was dealt with. I.e. the lady who was instantly physically healed from a blood disease or the lady who was healed from crippling disease when jesus rebuked the spirit of infirmity from her.) I think if you expect nothing to happen, that will probably be the case (exempting God's grace and his interventions) but if you read about the miracles in the bible, hear about miracles in church and pray for miracles for yourself or others, God will be happy to grant you miracles, signs and wonders. Christ says that those who follow him will do greater works that this (refering to the quantity of miracles that shall come from the disciples of christ's hand in the name of jesus. When Peter healed the beggar at the Gate beautiful, the people though they were gods. Peter responded, why do you marvel that this man was made whole ? We healed him in the name of the holy child Jesus. I believe many people followed christ after seeing the power of God.

That's as far as the physical world goes.However I would go further and be inclined to say that on the spiritual level He probably intervenes quite a lot.....
(I would take out the probably.) In my life, God speaks in a impression or a thought to pray for someone and you may not know what is wrong but you pray and God works it out.
Like this morning, I really felt led by the Holy Spirit to pray for my friend Cathy who hadn't seen all christmas break. So, I prayed for her and asked God to heal her phyiscally, emotional and spiritually. Later that day, I ran into my friends who told me that Cathy was pretty sick. So, God confirmed what he had told me earlier. I also believe that God will heal cathy too.


I liked what Edward said about praying for the whole person too.A person can be physically ill but need mental and spiritual healing as well.

I would totally agree. 1 thess 5:23 says "that And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. " So, each of us is a triune being that each part needs healing and wholeness. Of course, when one part is doing poorly it affects the other parts. Many people will talk how modern medicine only meets two of the three, but that is another thread all together.

Peace, ABj

"This is yet only one expression of the body of Christ" Pastor Mark Williams refering to my church.


 




© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0