Ship of Fools: ITTWACW*

Thread: ITTWACW* Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020211

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

* I thought this was a Christian Website.

quote:
You seem to think This Is A Christian Website. Wrong.

This particularly cheesy comment was made in The Styx.
I have always thought this was Christian website. I have always considered ITTWACW a rebuttal to particularly insular expressions of Christianity. And the quote is taken from a post that does not disprove this intent.

But it made me think.
Is this a Christian website?
What is a Christian website?

I have a good understanding of unrest. Christianity, not so much anymore.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

In my experience, the tutular phrase is usually used around here not to sarcastically mock the idea that this is a Christian website, but to sarcastically mock the idea that a Christian website has to follow a certain party line.

I always envision the hypothetical speaker as someone outraged because people here have a tolerant or welcoming attitude toward gays and lesbians, or like to make the occassional risque joke, or trade stories about imbibing their favorite spirits.

As for whether this actually qualifies as a Christian website, I guess that depends on your definition. I'd say that SOF is a website with a focus on discussion of Christian-related issues, but not exclusively for Christians.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ISTM, this is certainly a Christian website. It is run by, and mostly frequented by Christians. There are two threads which are exclusively Christian and a third that is effectively so. The main board in the Community discussion section contains primarily Christianity related subjects with another that is essentially prayer support. Even the threads on subjects which are not exclusively Christian most often have Christianity represented.
What SOF is not is a Conservative stronghold and it welcomes other POV. And that as you suggest, Patdys, is the sticking point.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

My point was mostly to suggest that the idea that a newcomer can assume that people in a discussion are coming from a Christian view is wrong.

Yes, the majority of the participants are coming from, or are at least interested in, Christian views on various topics. But there are a wide range of views in almost all directions. So assuming anything "because this is a Christian website" is silly.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
It is run by, and mostly frequented by Christians.

I guess it depends what you mean by "run by". I'm pretty sure there has been at least one Host(not sure if the person is still hosting) who identified as a non-Christian.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I forget all the host's views, but there is certainly a admin who isn't Christian. I think by the views of most people who would say that we aren't Christian because we aren't an evangelical website.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I meant Simon and Stephen

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm in the midst of reading Simon's latest book, and if he's not a Christian, he at least is interested in seeming so, and does it like a native.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It is certainly a Christian Website in the widest sense of the word 'Christian'. But if people wish to narrow the definition to fit inside a tiny box, then SoF members will almost unanimously think outside that box.
Hence:
I thought this was a Christian website - yes. I thought this was a website for bigots - no.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
What is a Christian website?

One that only uses the HTML elements found in the Bible. [Big Grin]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's a website which leans in a somewhat liberalish Christian direction. Frequently in an ex-, post- or liberal evangelical sense, and sometimes to the point where ex-Christians feel pretty well at home.

ISTM, then, that the 'Christian unrest' here is primarily directed at various conservative expressions of the faith. The tone adopted when other kinds of faith are (very occasionally) critiqued is rather different.

Over time IMO the website has lost its appeal to Christians from distinctively theologically conservative positions, which means that those who remain are more isolated. They battle individually for positions that the majority don't share. It's hardly surprising that many grow weary and give up.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Over time IMO the website has lost its appeal to Christians from distinctively theologically conservative positions, which means that those who remain are more isolated. They battle individually for positions that the majority don't share. It's hardly surprising that many grow weary and give up.

Well, extremely conservative positions will have little room to change, so what is the point of them engaging in any debate?
IngoB lasted as long as he did because he liked to fight.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
What is a Christian website?
One that only uses the HTML elements found in the Bible.

This is a Christian website!

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's a website which leans in a somewhat liberalish Christian direction. Frequently in an ex-, post- or liberal evangelical sense, and sometimes to the point where ex-Christians feel pretty well at home.

ISTM, then, that the 'Christian unrest' here is primarily directed at various conservative expressions of the faith. The tone adopted when other kinds of faith are (very occasionally) critiqued is rather different.

Over time IMO the website has lost its appeal to Christians from distinctively theologically conservative positions, which means that those who remain are more isolated. They battle individually for positions that the majority don't share. It's hardly surprising that many grow weary and give up.

The proselytise versus explore positions are interesting.
Over my time here I have swing to liberalism and universalism.
And finally to relationalism*.
* I made this up to identify I see things through a relational filter.

The space to explore and listen to other opinions is very valuable, especially given the conservative church I started from and who thought/think I am apostate.

I did not find this the safe enclave of like minded people. And I wonder if the ship is becoming more homogeneous as time goes on as SvitlanaV2 has noted.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, extremely conservative positions will have little room to change, so what is the point of them engaging in any debate?

I think every kind of debate is a learning process, even if you don't end up with a radically different theology from what you started with. The person whose comment inspired the OP has already 'changed' just by coming into contact with a group of people whose experiences of Christianity are rather different from his.

By this stage, though, many people on the Ship do give the impression of being fairly settled in their moderately liberal perspective, so whether there is much further 'change' for them is questionable!

It would be interesting to know if anyone has actually studied the starting point and the trajectory of the evangelicals or otherwise conservative Christians who've posted here over time. Like Patdys, quite a number seem to have arrived as evangelicals and moved to a fairly liberal position as a result of discussion and perhaps reading about other people's experiences.

I didn't come here from that kind of theological environment, so I haven't changed in quite that way myself.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, extremely conservative positions will have little room to change, so what is the point of them engaging in any debate?
I think every kind of debate is a learning process, even if you don't end up with a radically different theology from what you started with.

I'm not convinced that extreme conservatives are the least bit interested in learning about other people's opinions.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, extremely conservative positions will have little room to change, so what is the point of them engaging in any debate?
I think every kind of debate is a learning process, even if you don't end up with a radically different theology from what you started with.
I'm not convinced that extreme conservatives are the least bit interested in learning about other people's opinions.

Extreme anything are less likely to be interested in changing their opinions.
However, IMO and IME, those on the conservative spectrum, by the very nature of conservatism, are less likely to be open.
Especially in religion.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I would describe SOF as a Christian website, but non-dogmatic about it, and accepting of non-Christian viewpoints.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
The space to explore and listen to other opinions is very valuable, especially given the conservative church I started from and who thought/think I am apostate.

I did not find this the safe enclave of like minded people. And I wonder if the ship is becoming more homogeneous as time goes on as SvitlanaV2 has noted.

I started a thread a while back here called "an echo-chamber of like-minded individuals?" asking pretty much the same question.

My takeaway is that the internet now makes it incredibly difficult to avoid echo chambers. How many of us regularly read Fox News, and the comments?

However, my impression over the years is that many individual contributors here are more conservative in practice than they appear here. This is a place where people let their wilder ideas hang out.

Still plenty of room for debate though.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

I don't know that much of the forum history behind the acronym but the statement itself is interesting.

When somebody turns to me in 'real life' and says 'I thought you were supposed to be a Christian?' or 'And you call yourself a Christian?' there's a subtext that isn't about Christianity at all. It's a passive-aggressive attack that implies 'it isn't me who disapproves of what you're saying or doing, it is God/the Church'.

I'd read this approach as 'I'm not going to engage with you, I'd rather just make you feel guilty for not being a good-enough Christian and it isn't me you have to answer to, it's the Bible-believing righteous to which I belong'.

On the other hand, if someone says, 'No, I disagree with you and IMHO you're talking theological nonsense because...' or 'I come from a different political understanding and disagree because...' there is relationship and engagement.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

In other circumstances, we would use big and little 'c' to distinguish the forms of Christian and this would be small 'c' Christian but not big 'C'.

It is a site for the discussion of Christianity and issues connected with Christianity and its practice. Unsurprisingly, most people interested in talking about that are Christians. However, it does not enforce an 'orthodoxy' (right belief) or an 'orthopraxis'(right practice), except the loosest kind in the 10Cs, on members. Most of the 'ITTWACW' grumbles are not over doctrine, but that people are allowed to swear here or that the board called 'Hell' exists.

Remember that if you define this website as Christian then SIIBS is Christian and that is a good way to upset its staff.

Jengie

[ 10. June 2017, 07:58: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I would describe SOF as a Christian website, but non-dogmatic about it, and accepting of non-Christian viewpoints.

Agreed - that is one of the reasons I have always enjoyed being a member here.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I started a thread a while back here called "an echo-chamber of like-minded individuals?" asking pretty much the same question.

My takeaway is that the internet now makes it incredibly difficult to avoid echo chambers. How many of us regularly read Fox News, and the comments?

However, my impression over the years is that many individual contributors here are more conservative in practice than they appear here. This is a place where people let their wilder ideas hang out.

Still plenty of room for debate though.

I think the dynamics here are actually quite complex, partly due to the ebb and flow of people who come and go.

So simply calling it an echo chamber seems a bit wrong - the reality of the experience is that in some areas there are "acceptable" and "unacceptable" ideas and practices (in various ways of understanding those terms, on and off the board) whilst in others there is broad acceptance of off-the-wall ideas and practices.

One doesn't tend to get too many people with very leftwing political views, and those people we do get talking about those things tend to wind up the community in other ways. But then I guess we don't often get people with very Marxist viewpoints or more conservative Islamic views.

Maybe there is something about us that attracts people with broadly centrist political views.

Anyway - in contrast to that political echo-chamber, I think that we have a surprisingly broad collection of theological views.

I'm not sure why that is.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My impression over the years is that many individual contributors here are more conservative in practice than they appear here. This is a place where people let their wilder ideas hang out.

I'm sure this is true. I don't think there are many people here on the furthest shores of Christian liberalism. (Maybe just a few.)

IMO this is because extreme Christian liberalism simply doesn't have enough traction. By this stage in our culture I imagine that many of the people who would once have argued from an extreme liberal position have either lost interest or simply aged and died.

However, I get the feeling that many people here do belong to churches which are more conservative than they are. The most obvious reason is that they still identify in some subtle way with a conservative theology, almost in spite of themselves; but it also speaks to the failure and unattractiveness of the alternative churches which tie their colours too tightly to a non-conservative mast.

I sense that the decreasing appeal of MOTR and very liberal congregations means that more conservative churches are receiving or holding on to Christians who are not hugely conservative. As a result, somewhere like the Ship will appeal to these people as a place to let off steam.

Posted by Martha (# 185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

It would be interesting to know if anyone has actually studied the starting point and the trajectory of the evangelicals or otherwise conservative Christians who've posted here over time. Like Patdys, quite a number seem to have arrived as evangelicals and moved to a fairly liberal position as a result of discussion and perhaps reading about other people's experiences.

I didn't come here from that kind of theological environment, so I haven't changed in quite that way myself.

I recently had to write a "summary of my spiritual journey" and cited Ship of Fools as an influence on my spiritual life. It definitely helped to move me along the evangelical -> liberal trajectory.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maybe there is something about us that attracts people with broadly centrist political views.

Yes. We allow and enforce free and open discussion and no brow-beating by crusaders. People who are used to brow-beating get called on it and huff off, or realize it's just not going to fly, and don't turn up in the first place.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My impression over the years is that many individual contributors here are more conservative in practice than they appear here. This is a place where people let their wilder ideas hang out.

Yes - I didn't really go around with a squirty flower in my buttonhole for seven years.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martha:
I recently had to write a "summary of my spiritual journey" and cited Ship of Fools as an influence on my spiritual life. It definitely helped to move me along the evangelical -> liberal trajectory.

That's interesting, thanks.

What I've long thought is that Christianity needs conservative forms of religion, because, relatively speaking, only they are able to generate the enthusiasm and the energy that can be converted into more moderate, rational spirituality in due course.

And as much as the Ship criticises Christian conservatism (especially the evangelical kind), it needs a certain amount of it as the base material it can work on, both to condemn and to subvert.

Posted by wabale (# 18715) on :

I think you get on SOF pretty much what it says on the tin.

I have come across other ‘general’ christian forums that are well populated but are managed in order to defend a party line, and ones that are for theological students to let off steam. I like the openness of this one to the point that I am encouraged to make Confession. I liked the (Conservative Evangelical) forum run by Fulcrum, and it was a shame that it lacked the robustness (or was it the moderating skills?) to keep going - or some might say the ability to square a circle.
I was converted one summer by someone I met whilst doing student work. If ‘Conservatism/Liberalism’ is the scale, my ‘father in Christ’ would have been several thousand kilometers to the right of Genghis Khan. A few months later I arrived at one of our ancient universities, next door to an ordinand, who explained to me that the 6 day creation mentioned in Genesis did not necessarily have to be taken literally. So the long and hazardous journey towards ‘Liberalism’ began … It has to some extent been a managed one: from the start I made a bargain with God that I would not tangle with the historicity of the Old Testament for the time being. I didn’t acquaint myself with where higher criticism on the OT had got to till I read a history of the Church recently ie 54 years AC (After Conversion).

Incidentally it was never going to be a long and hazardous journey towards Catholicism or Orthodoxy because I started with a strong streak of anti-clericalism, tempered by marxism. I actually don’t think I will make it to fully paid-up Liberal Evangelical, SOF coming too late as it were, but we’ll see.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

What I've long thought is that Christianity needs conservative forms of religion, because, relatively speaking, only they are able to generate the enthusiasm and the energy that can be converted into more moderate, rational spirituality in due course.

And as much as the Ship criticises Christian conservatism (especially the evangelical kind), it needs a certain amount of it as the base material it can work on, both to condemn and to subvert.

But should this not concern you (general you)? I've heard similar sentiments many times, and it strikes me as just plain weird for people to admit dependence and virtually simultaneously look down their noses at the thing depended on.

Might be worth re-examining that thing to see what value is being missed.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Oh, it does concern me, both personally and in terms of the future of the faith in my country. The question is, what can be done about it?

In earlier times it was apparently quite normal for the children or grandchildren of strict British sectarians to defect to the respectable, rational CofE (or to other local/national substitutes).

It's similar today, except that everything happens faster now, and the switch often happens in a single lifetime. For many people it ends up in the abandonment of organised religion altogether.

This latter tendency makes the 'parasitic' nature of liberal Christianity (as the theologian Derek Tidball puts it) quite problematic, since we now live in a post-Christian culture where the mainstream churches are weak. In Britain the long term impact of secularisation means that the moderate/liberal mainstream can no longer rely on ex-evangelicals to filter through to its pews.

There have been initiatives in mainstream British churches to develop their own evangelistic strategies, but they've had limited success. The CofE is in the best position because its structures, money and status have helped it to weather decline better than the alternatives. It's also been able to absorb both conservative and liberal energy from elsewhere.

Some people worry that too much conservative Anglicanism undermines open, inclusive Anglicanism, but the CofE (as currently structured) needs conservative Anglican money, which brings us back to the 'parasitic' thing....

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Martha:
I recently had to write a "summary of my spiritual journey" and cited Ship of Fools as an influence on my spiritual life. It definitely helped to move me along the evangelical -> liberal trajectory.
That's interesting, thanks.

What I've long thought is that Christianity needs conservative forms of religion, because, relatively speaking, only they are able to generate the enthusiasm and the energy that can be converted into more moderate, rational spirituality in due course.

And as much as the Ship criticises Christian conservatism (especially the evangelical kind), it needs a certain amount of it as the base material it can work on, both to condemn and to subvert.

How is this opinion any different to those espoused by some conservatives? What makes your opinion the right one? I am not sure that the Ship is the benchmark either.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Oh, it does concern me, both personally and in terms of the future of the faith in my country. The question is, what can be done about it?

In earlier times it was apparently quite normal for the children or grandchildren of strict British sectarians to defect to the respectable, rational CofE (or to other local/national substitutes).

It's similar today, except that everything happens faster now, and the switch often happens in a single lifetime. For many people it ends up in the abandonment of organised religion altogether.

OK, so here is the problem: Extreme POV draw passionate people because the ideology is clear. Us v Them.* MOTR is going to draw fewer such because it is less clear in definition.
As religion is less clear as the answer, fewer people will join at all and many of the issues that conservatives hold as a group are less palatable.
So, the answer, IMO, is not to draw people to the conservative side and hope they will leave only so far, but to find passion in the middle. Not as easy.

*Not necessarily with hate.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It would be interesting to know if anyone has actually studied the starting point and the trajectory of the evangelicals or otherwise conservative Christians who've posted here over time.

I signed up a long time ago in a time of spiritual tumult where what I was being taught [Sydney Anglican evangelical values] did not sit well with my own beliefs. SoF was instrumental in helping me to see there were other opinions that could be reconciled with Tradition and the Bible, as was moving to Ireland and finding, of all things, an Anglo-Catholic church. I also had a great deal of fun meeting people aroujnd the world at meets.

But I'm yet to become a full-fledged liberal and probably won't get the badge. Despite the fact I now don't darken a church and consider myself left in politics, I still hold some views on the Church that would be considered conservative here and probably always will. But I never have been too dogmatic so I don't see others as on a slippery slope...but I still can't quite buy into their arguments.

I only dip in and out of here occasionally now; perhaps I've moved on somewhat and the struggles I had in the past and which were echoed here in the posts of the early 2000s are not my struggles anymore -- my struggles now are more my own and ones I'm not that interested in debating currently.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Forgive me, but what i meant was, does it not say something worrisome about very liberal forms of Christianity if they are primarily parasitic? I would be wondering why something allegedly so much superior to evangelicalism couldn't açomplish basic reproduction without the often despised source. To be crass, it would make me wonder about the truth value of liberal Christianity.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Forgive me, but what i meant was, does it not say something worrisome about very liberal forms of Christianity if they are primarily parasitic? I would be wondering why something allegedly so much superior to evangelicalism couldn't açomplish basic reproduction without the often despised source. To be crass, it would make me wonder about the truth value of liberal Christianity.

You might be able to ask the same of Reformed or Evangelical Christianity in relationship to Catholicism. Those movements got their energy from rebelling (protesting) against against Rome. There is still much energy to be had in being Christian-not-Catholic. If there was no "push back" would there be separate Reformed/protestant theology? Or would there just be reformed Catholic Christianity in some form?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Forgive me, but what i meant was, does it not say something worrisome about very liberal forms of Christianity if they are primarily parasitic? I would be wondering why something allegedly so much superior to evangelicalism couldn't açomplish basic reproduction without the often despised source. To be crass, it would make me wonder about the truth value of liberal Christianity.

ISTM, parasitic is a very poor term and one that is unnecessarily prejudiced. In my view, liberal forms evolve* from conservative ones.

*Before umbrage is taken, evolution is change not, inherently, value.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think what LC is trying to say is that liberal Christians tend to be very critical of conservative ones, often depicting them as narrow-minded reactionary bigots. Yet most liberals started off as conservatives and (to us your word) evolved; liberals don't tend to make new converts or disciples.

Hence, if there were no conservative churches, there would be no liberal Christians; the latter can only exist and reproduce because of the life and existence of the former. In that sense liberal Christianity is "parasitic" - tho' I'm not sure that would have been so true 30 or 40 years ago when, ISTM, it had a greater life and vigour of its own, often linked to (or, perhaps, based on) political radicalism.

FWIW I come from a hopefully "intelligent" evangelical background - I've never been a fundamentalist. I took quite a strong leftward surge into a more liberal approach about 10 years ago but ultimately found some of its views unacceptable and empty (and, yes, I also ran into "hardline tolerance"). So, in a sense, I've come some way back towards the centre ground: I retain an "open Evangelical" approach to Scripture but am definitely "liberal" on some DH and social justice issues.

[ 12. June 2017, 05:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Do we know for sure that all liberal Christians started off more evangelical?

I suspect we are making some sweeping generalisations here. There are children from liberal churches or church goers, not all liberal churches have no children and youth work, not all liberal churches have only elderly congregations. Not all the children from liberal churches stop attending church as they grow up, some do, but some don't. What about the children who start attending church as part of a choir or as an organ scholar?

There are people who join liberal churches after life events - funerals, weddings, baptisms - met several of them.

I am not sure that the model of young people being introduced to evangelical Christianity when young and moving to liberal churchmanship is older is that accurate either. If all that is on offer in university towns is evangelical Christianity, then the statistics will be skewed.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Fair enough, but my guess is that the "evangelical to liberal" trajectory is the most common one ... though, sometimes, there are surely choristers/organ scholars who get "evangelically converted" and effectively move in the opposite direction!

Re. university towns: we must remember that by no means all the young people in most such places are students - nor are the vast majority of adults academics!

[ 12. June 2017, 06:25: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Oh yes, I've met an Elim minister who started out as a chorister.

The other question is where this research showing an evangelical to liberal drift was carried out. UK or USA? Also what age groups are we discussing? Because there is a political phenomenon of young people being more radical than their parents and moderating as they get older, eg Labour party members who were student communists. That idealism and black and white view of the world held by teenagers that gets moderated as they encounter more challenges. Why shouldn't that be true of churches too?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Do we know for sure that all liberal Christians started off more evangelical?

I suspect we are making some sweeping generalisations here.

My point wasn't that all liberal or moderate Christians began as evangelicals. But here on the Ship it is a common trajectory.

More generally, the notion that evangelicalism is a phase for some people is certainly out there. People also refer to the 'zeal of the convert', an idea which suggests that conversion itself creates dynamically conservative enthusiasts, who then become less conservative with time. Indeed, church-sect theory proposes that whole Christian movements tend to become less conservative. (Refs are available, but I'll have to look for them later.)

Historically, of course church members have also moved towards more conservative churches from more liberal ones, but as the moderate congregations have aged and many have dissolved altogether, this must be less and less likely. These days they simply have far fewer young people to lose in the first place.

[ 12. June 2017, 08:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quite a number seem to have arrived as evangelicals and moved to a fairly liberal position as a result of discussion and perhaps reading about other people's experiences.

It is clearly therefore an Evil And Demonic Website™ [Mad]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think that there are a constituency of Christians out there who are questioning their conventional theological understanding* and who are looking for space to work through those issues. And this is one of the few places online where there are others on a similar trajectory.

Liberal Christians maybe never had those hang-ups in the first place and so maybe look at this place as discussing things seriously that are irrelevant or self-evident. We don't tend to get too many Unitarians or Quakers - maybe the reason is something about having better things to talk about than the position of gay people in society (or the church, or whatever).

I don't think this should be used to imply that other kinds of Christian don't exist or that there are huge numbers of (for example) Evangelicals on this journey. Nor really, I don't think, that there is something particular about this space that provokes that change - to me it seems fairly clear that most of those who stay are looking to deal with the issues and they find this a supportive atmosphere.

* often for deeply personal reasons

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
]It is clearly therefore an Evil And Demonic Website™

Not at all. I was making an observation.

I speak as a fairly orthodox Christian who's mostly attended low-key, non-evangelical churches. But the near collapse of these churches in my context (and in most of my country, TBH) is of great concern to me. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it. The Ship offers me food for thought in that respect.

[ 12. June 2017, 09:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think that there are a constituency of Christians out there who are questioning their conventional theological understanding* and who are looking for space to work through those issues. And this is one of the few places online where there are others on a similar trajectory.

* often for deeply personal reasons

As I wrote above, this was me. And the reasons were personal - coming to grips with my sexuality and beliefs. Seeing discussions, arguments, etc. from both sides, was appreciated. The robust debate others were engaging in, while I read, got me through a tough time. So the Ship always holds a place in my heart as a place, the place, I was able to explore what this meant for me as I had no where else "in real life" to turn.

With my faith at that point I *needed*, wanted, Christian input - and not an "anything goes" mentality, but a considered one; I still had fundamental beliefs after years in a "Bible believing" church. And I found it. And I'll always be grateful to the Ship and those who sail on her for that, and for helping me, albeit silently. So I suppose I see the Ship as founded on some Christian aspect; though she is open to all who are able to engage respectfully.

Hope that's not too much sharing. Apologies if it is, but mr cheesy's post struck a chord on a day that has been rather shitty emotionally. It's nice to be in this place and remember all it's done for me.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Liberal Christians maybe never had those hang-ups in the first place and so maybe look at this place as discussing things seriously that are irrelevant or self-evident. We don't tend to get too many Unitarians or Quakers - maybe the reason is something about having better things to talk about than the position of gay people in society (or the church, or whatever).

I don't think this should be used to imply that other kinds of Christian don't exist or that there are huge numbers of (for example) Evangelicals on this journey.

And because the number of Unitarians and Quakers in the UK is so small there are simply far fewer of them to get involved in these discussions in the first place. Do modern Quakers and Unitarians ever see it as part of their mission to influence the evangelical groups that now vastly dwarf them around the world?

BTW, I don't think I was saying that disgruntled evangelicals are the only Christians that exist! Rather, I was referring to the sociological tendency in Christianity for high tension, demanding religiosity to move gradually towards more moderate positions over time. One can see this in lots of religious groups; it represents the history of much of British Nonconformity, e.g. in Methodism.

The 'revolving doors' phenomenon in evangelical churches is perhaps connected to this process. Many evangelicals do walk away. This has always been the case - John Wesley's revival movement had a high turnover, and he was happy to see people go (or indeed send them away) if they couldn't or wouldn't accept the demands. The departure of such people potentially keeps conservative movements small, but it also enables them to retain their conservative identity, which is their raison d'etre.

I suppose I see the Ship as a part of the much larger process by which some 'unrestful' evangelicals either 'revolve' out of their churches, or else stay put and gradually reduce their churches' conservatism or other distinctive qualities over time.

[ 13. June 2017, 14:41: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I suppose people looking at this website might find the prevalence of "raca, thou fool", coarsely expressed, an illumating insight into Christianity as it actually is.

But then, "the Spirit bloweth where it listeth".

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, extremely conservative positions will have little room to change, so what is the point of them engaging in any debate?
IngoB lasted as long as he did because he liked to fight.

There is, IMO, value in understanding other people's positions, even if you don't agree with them. I always enjoyed IngoB discussions. He didn't persuade me of the correctness of his positions, but he made a coherent presentation of what they were.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

When I turned 18 I promptly registered to vote as a Republican, I put off having sex for years after my peers did because I thought it was wrong outside of marriage, and my freshman year in college I wrote a paper about how the colonization of Africa wasn't such a bad thing because after all it brought Christianity to the continent. So I find the notion that there's no point in engaging with people who hold conservative viewpoints because they'll never change downright laughable.

I hold extremely liberal views now, but I don't tend to get involved in discussions where I am holding down the farthest left view because I feel like I've repeated myself so many times already. When you are at the extreme, your differences with other positions can be so great that you have to explain very basic assumptions you're making again and again because the grounds of your position are just so far away from where others stand. And that gets tedious.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
]There is, IMO, value in understanding other people's positions, even if you don't agree with them.

I agree. But still maintain that people with more extremely positions are less likely to be open.

quote:

I always enjoyed IngoB discussions. He didn't persuade me of the correctness of his positions, but he made a coherent presentation of what they were.

And he could inspire one to more solidly present their own case. Still, IMO his style was necessarily harsh to less robust posters.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So I find the notion that there's no point in engaging with people who hold conservative viewpoints because they'll never change downright laughable.

But I did not say this. I said the person with the extreme view would not have a reason to engage.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Doesn't that imply there's no point in engaging with someone who holds an extreme viewpoint?

Either way, it's still not true that all people with extremely conservative positions can't or won't change their views. I did. My parents did. My cousins who used to be big Rush Limbaugh fans and devoted Fox News watchers did. My young earth creationist cousins are in their way more liberal than they were brought up to be, I think, given their sotto vice asides about their father's belief in the crazy crap he reads on the internet.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Forgive me, but what i meant was, does it not say something worrisome about very liberal forms of Christianity if they are primarily parasitic? I would be wondering why something allegedly so much superior to evangelicalism couldn't açcomplish basic reproduction without the often despised source. To be crass, it would make me wonder about the truth value of liberal Christianity.

IMO the thing to remember is that the highly intellectual, rational theologies out of which liberalism springs don't exist primarily to spread the gospel to the masses, or to establish the 'truth' (since the truth is up for debate). AFAIUI the practical benefit of this kind of training is to ensure the prestige of the clergy, and hence of the denominations to which they belong. The tendency towards liberalisation helps in this process by bringing the values of the church closer to the values of a rapidly secularising society.

Of course, some theologies do aim to be of benefit to non-elites, to the disadvantaged. One well-known example is liberation theology in Latin America. However, although liberation theology opted for the poor, the poor famously opted for Pentecostalism....

[ 15. June 2017, 23:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

Either way, it's still not true that all people with extremely conservative positions can't or won't change their views.

I'm not saying they cannot. But the very fact of opening your mind to that change is stepping away from the extreme.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Doesn't that imply there's no point in engaging with someone who holds an extreme viewpoint?

I don't think so. I've made my point and left it in hopes that it might sink in. I know this has happened to me, where I argued something and though about it later and that affecting my position.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Where is this research showing an evangelical to liberal drift was carried out. UK or USA? Also what age groups are we discussing? Because there is a political phenomenon of young people being more radical than their parents and moderating as they get older, eg Labour party members who were student communists. That idealism and black and white view of the world held by teenagers that gets moderated as they encounter more challenges. Why shouldn't that be true of churches too?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be true of churches; I'm just noting that it happens. Young people are indeed often quite radical, often willing to take extreme positions. They may be looking for an identity. Most people who convert to Christianity do so in their mid teens. See the Barna Group's research in the USA, and note conversions in 18th and 19th c. Britain. (The age of conversion in Islam is apparently higher. Various reasons are given here, but the fact that most Westerners aren't raised in a Muslim culture must be relevant.)

Of course, youthful enthusiasm doesn't always last. This is true with regard to institutions. Church-sect theory posits that whole movements drift from high-tension religion at the start towards low tension religion (IOW generally from a conservative towards a more tolerant perspective). This occurs all over the world, but commentators often talk about Christian movements as having a life cycle, which is going to vary from place to place and in different contexts.

Individuals leave strict churches for various reasons. IMO several of these are related to changes in religious fervor. Such churches famously benefit from the Protestant work ethic. The Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and say, late 20th c. Pentecostals in Latin America etc. lived strict, sober lives, which was easier to do if the alternative was poverty. But as their sobriety and industry led to better jobs and more wealth, the impulse for self-deprivation became less. Although the Nonconformist churches adapted to become grand, respectable and less strict some upwardly individuals eventually saw no reason to remain in subordinate institutions. In countries when there was a prestigious state church this would be the obvious destination for Nonconformists who became quite well-off.

In more recent times, especially in the West, there's been a sense that evangelicalism is ill-adapted to a postmodern world which accepts questioning and doubt. This book highlights the challenge of the increasing number of post-evangelicals, and seems to have struck a chord in the UK. It's also an issue in the USA.

Non-evangelical churches don't necessarily benefit from the fallout from evangelicalism, especially if they too fail to address the challenges of postmodernity - although my last link suggests that there are lots of American evangelicals who find their way to non-evangelical churches. In very secular Britain my guess is this kind of switch may now be rarer since many liberal or MOTR churches are relatively small and weak. Maybe the book highlights a movement towards liturgical worship, especially for the older person.

This leads to another issue, both in Britain and the USA; there are probably many churchgoers who attend evangelical churches because they like the energy and atmosphere, and may not be particularly sold on the theology. Such attenders may be around for a while, but their departure may not really represent a 'falling away' of conservative faith, more a realisation that this isn't for them. Strict churches may actually attempt to screen out such people seeing their presence as undermining the cohesive theological position of the church, especially if the church doesn't have the means to disciple and assimilate them effectively. One American pastor actually writes about the importance of keeping growth levels manageable by putting people off! A rare problem in modern Britain, but I understand that Wesley faced similar challenges back in the 18th c.

Apologies for the length of the post. Not sure if it addresses exactly what you had in mind.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0