Ship of Fools: Our Lady's marriage

Thread: Our Lady's marriage 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=020228

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Quick question (hosts: feel free to move to e.g. kerygmania if that seems a more suitable place for it).
Under Jewish law/ custom as applicable at the time of Our Lord's birth, did marriage require- as it broadly does today in at least Western Canon Law and indeed in English Law- consummation? What set me wondering was a discussion on social media about the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the BVM.
I thought this was the sort of place where someone would be bound to know what answer.
Thanks.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

In strict law, a marriage at English law does not 'require' consummation. Unlike with say bigamy, or one of the parties being under age, it is valid but voidable, not void, until consummated. If neither party petitions to be released from it, it stands. They are still married unless and until one of them does something about it. Indeed, if a party acquiesces too long without doing anything about it, they may find themselves no longer able to be released on that ground.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, thank you, that rings bells with my long ago study of family law. Nonetheless, consummation is important. But was it so for the Jews 2000 years ago?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

In practice, no one but the man and woman would know whether the marriage had been consummated, unless they told someone.

I have heard that some couples live in an unconsummated marriage for their whole lives, while others have sex only on a few occasions because they want children.

Moo

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

As a young man, my father - who was a diplomat - attended at least one wedding in the Middle East at which guests were expected to watch the couple consummate the marriage. Though the couple were covered with a sheet.

I vaguely recall being told in some cultures newly weds were expected to produce a bloodied sheet in the days after the wedding.

In some ways the BVM's story circumvents this, she was thought to have sex before her marriage - by her husband - so he was doing everything on the quiet. So presumably no wedding party etc.

Theologically, I'd have thought anything God wishes to do trumps existing social conventions.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Surely Mary and Joseph's marriage was consummated, as Mark 3 v32 refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters.

An RCC Shipmate might happen along to explain it, but I can't grasp the need for a doctrine of perpetual virginity for Mary.

IJ

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No, I don't get the perpetual virginity thing either. But I know some (many?) Christians do- hence wondering about whether this would have affected the marriage in any way, if anyone had been minded to bring it up. As has been said, for understandable and fairly obvious reasons consummation only normally comes up as an issue when one or other party wants out. And some people only do have sex enough to produce the number of children they want: each of us knows, for example, that that's what our parents did, because anything else is unimaginable. [Big Grin]

But I ask again, does anybody know what importance, if any, consummation had in Jewish marriage law or custom in Palestine in our Lady's time?

[ 25. June 2017, 21:38: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Surely Mary and Joseph's marriage was consummated, as Mark 3 v32 refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters.

An RCC Shipmate might happen along to explain it, but I can't grasp the need for a doctrine of perpetual virginity for Mary.

IJ

I always thought that the idea that Mary was perpetually a virgin was don to the idea that sex was somehow yukky and that a holy person like Mary would never have 'done it' because her body had to remain untainted by such things.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Surely Mary and Joseph's marriage was consummated, as Mark 3 v32 refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters.

How amazing that nobody ever noticed that verse until the Reformation. It's like the Catholics and Orthodox didn't even realize it was there! What egg on their face when it was finally discovered!

quote:
An RCC Shipmate might happen along to explain it, but I can't grasp the need for a doctrine of perpetual virginity for Mary.

How interesting that you think we create doctrines based on a preconceived need.

quote:
Mudfrog:
I always thought that the idea that Mary was perpetually a virgin was don to the idea that sex was somehow yukky and that a holy person like Mary would never have 'done it' because her body had to remain untainted by such things.

You were always wrong.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Surely Mary and Joseph's marriage was consummated, as Mark 3 v32 refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters.

An RCC Shipmate might happen along to explain it, but I can't grasp the need for a doctrine of perpetual virginity for Mary.

IJ
I always thought that the idea that Mary was perpetually a virgin was down to the idea that sex was somehow yukky and that a holy person like Mary would never have 'done it' because her body had to remain untainted by such things.

The version that comes on the board before, is more that what she had inside her was rather special. And hence her bits were as it were counter-tainted by holyness that even a normally good act is out of action.
(leading to tabernacle comparisions)

(I suspect a double combination of both effects).

Any how protestent nature coming through, While Joseph and Mary were clearly away of some stuff, I don't think they had such such a clear picture.
And think the incarnation happened from the beginning without a warm up and needing everything to fit round him*.
And as such happy whatever I find out, either way.

*needing to add 'except Mary' in Matt 19 (hold fast to his wife and become one flesh) as well as the more famous John 8 (without sin throw stone)

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

Any how protestent nature coming through, While Joseph and Mary were clearly away of some stuff, I don't think they had such such a clear picture.
And think the incarnation happened from the beginning without a warm up and needing everything to fit round him*.
And as such happy whatever I find out, either way.

*needing to add 'except Mary' in Matt 19 (hold fast to his wife and become one flesh) as well as the more famous John 8 (without sin throw stone)

?? Wot?

A new language maybe? - English-esque...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What does John 8 have to do with it?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I always thought that the idea that Mary was perpetually a virgin was don to the idea that sex was somehow yukky and that a holy person like Mary would never have 'done it' because her body had to remain untainted by such things.

Completely anecdotal, but the most repressed people I've met are Protestant. Thought the whole sex-in-a-dark-room-missionary-position-only-for-procreation-and-don't-enjoy-it always seemed a child for the Reformation.
Aren't the sex standing up leads to dancing jokes about Prots?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I always thought that the idea that Mary was perpetually a virgin was don to the idea that sex was somehow yukky and that a holy person like Mary would never have 'done it' because her body had to remain untainted by such things.

There is a prima facie case for Mary's having borne children other than Jesus, which requires special pleading to explain away.

There might well have been a yuk-factor (such as can be found in Jerome and Augustine, eg "We are born between urine and faeces") in the formulation of the dogma.

But there was also probably a theologically serious (which is not to say theologically valid) Augustinian argument that the concupiscence inevitably accompanying sexual activity is the propagatory vehicle of original sin, with which those guilty of latria or hyperdulia (as opposed to dulia) toward Mary would be unhappy to see her associated.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

The LDS have done some delightful videos of the Life of Jesus, of which I've found some useful stills when I was googling NT situations. (And they don't have blond Caucasian type figures. When Mary and Joseph went back to look for the 12-year-old Jesus in the Temple they showed his parents with a couple of younger siblings... Incidentally, two things that I noted when I was following that story was that it was really dangerous for them to travel back alone: lone travellers were always at risk of robbers etc, which is why one always travelled in a group. And it was worth noting that it was Jesus' mother and not his father who reproached him for giving them a fright by being 'lost'.
Doesn't that perpetual virgin stuff all go with the idea that sex and sin seem to have been related to the disobedience that got Adam and Eve cast out of the garden?

GG

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
The LDS have done some delightful videos of the Life of Jesus, of which I've found some useful stills when I was googling NT situations. (And they don't have blond Caucasian type figures, another good point). When Mary and Joseph went back to look for the 12-year-old Jesus in the Temple they showed his parents with a couple of younger siblings... Incidentally, two things that I noted when I was following that story was that it was really dangerous for them to travel back alone: lone travellers were always at risk of robbers etc, which is why one always travelled in a group. And it was worth noting that it was Jesus' mother and not his father who reproached him for giving them a fright by being 'lost'.In a patriarchal culture it would more likely have been the father to scold him.
Doesn't that perpetual virgin stuff all go with the idea that sex and sin seem to have been related to the disobedience that got Adam and Eve cast out of the garden?

GG

Oh dear, I meant to edit and I replied by mistake.
Sorry if I confused anyone.

GG

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Doesn't that perpetual virgin stuff all go with the idea that sex and sin seem to have been related to the disobedience that got Adam and Eve cast out of the garden?

This is just Bulverism, as is much if not most of the anti-PVM arguing.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

Any how protestent nature coming through, While Joseph and Mary were clearly away of some stuff, I don't think they had such such a clear picture.
And think the incarnation happened from the beginning without a warm up and needing everything to fit round him*.
And as such happy whatever I find out, either way.

*needing to add 'except Mary' in Matt 19 (hold fast to his wife and become one flesh) as well as the more famous John 8 (without sin throw stone)
?? Wot? A new language maybe? - English-esque...

Should be aware not away. Mary and Joseph clearly learned a lot, but don't seem to have got everything fixed, completely.

Meanwhile in the incarnation God came into a world of sin, God became man, dwelt among us. Many of the doctrines about Mary seem to be a lot of work solving problems that are already been cut through on the big scale.
None of which need make much difference to believing (you need yet another massive layer of assumptions for the heavy Marian stuff to be compulsory, while a similar level of assumptions the other way to make the lighter Marian stuff unhelpful), and I'm more or less happy to wait to find out one way or another.

(There is an age old joke, involving John 8-where Mary can and does throw the first stone. It of course relies on an exaggeration of the doctrines involved.)

[ 26. June 2017, 06:30: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
As a young man, my father - who was a diplomat - attended at least one wedding in the Middle East at which guests were expected to watch the couple consummate the marriage. Though the couple were covered with a sheet.

I vaguely recall being told in some cultures newly weds were expected to produce a bloodied sheet in the days after the wedding.
.

There are indeed sub-cultures here in Israel where bloody sheets are examined. Both Jewish and Muslim but I don't know about the Christians. But note, not ALL Jews or Muslims; just certain "courtyards" of the Ultra Orthodox in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak. On the Muslim side there is a thriving medical specialty for reconstructing hymens eg in Nazareth and Beersheva. (That latter reminds me of the Old Days where everyone knew of doctors who would do abortions, actually)

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

No one else's business once the mohar was paid to Mary's father, the ketubah drawn up, in this case all discretely, no reception.

No one else including >=C2nd churches either, laying down their pious law and therefore missing the point.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

AIUI at Elizabethan weddings, the bride and groom went to bed and pulled up the covers. Then everyone gathered round and commented on what appeared to be going on underneath the covers.

Moo

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Just an observation, and I'm trying not to take sides here, but in my interactions with RCs, Orthodox and Protestants, I've never noticed the Orthodox - who are big on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - being particularly hung-up about the apparent ickiness of sex.

I've tended to find that some RCs and certain forms of ultra-conservative Protestant are more hung up about these things.

But hey, what do I know?

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

re: Jesus' brothers, I was taught (as an Orthodox) that these were Josephs children by a prior marriage. evidence is that a) Jesus put the care of Mary into John's hands at the crucifixion. If his brothers were Mary's children, there would have been no need for that, and b) Jesus' brothers were said to make fun of him early in his ministry. were he the oldest brother in the family, such ridicule by younger siblings would be unthinkable in their society (or so I'm told). This shows they were older (and he the younger), only possible if they were Joseph's children but not Mary's.

I have also heard the interpretation that "brothers" in this case actually refers to cousins. In many cultures (Russian for one, but I can't speak to first century Jewish culture) and languages, the word for cousin is "secondary brother" and often just "brother" is used.

Personally, I don't care about Mary's virginity, either perpetual, or even with regard to Jesus's conception. I accept it, but it doesn't factor into my faith at all (were it proven to be not true, it wouldn't change my view of Jesus one bit). But the arguments about brothers seem pretty empty to me, given the above points. while it's true they MAY be Mary's children, alternative explanations are not hard to find.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
But the arguments about brothers seem pretty empty to me, given the above points. while it's true they MAY be Mary's children, alternative explanations are not hard to find.

The alternative explanations are equally, if not more, specious. They may be true but they seem to be convenient ways of trying to explain away a reality that seems to negate a core doctrine.

Celibacy is not unknown now nor was it in the 1st century. Trouble is, claims may not stack up with reality. Mary was chosen by God to be the natural mother of Christ - why would God deny the joy of intimacy post birth? If that's the case Mary can't really identify with us in our human condition.

Occam's razor suggests that, in the absence of firm evidence to the contrary, we accept the simplest explanation - that is, brothers means brothers.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

If one has to find alternate explanations in order to defend a doctrine, it would seem to me that the doctrine is specious.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I couldn't agree more! Trying to say that they were not "real" (half-) brothers and sisters surely stems from an a priori position of belief about Mary and her behaviour subsequent to giving birth to Jesus.

Where I have questions - and I preached on this a year or two back - is whether Mary had any genuine choice in being the mother of Jesus or whether she was coerced or imposed upon by a divine Power greater than her. Yes, I know that she "consented" to being the mother of Jesus; but, having been told that "the Holy Spirit will come upon you", did she have any real say in the matter? If not, what might that say about God and the way he accomplishes his purposes?

(Yes, I know that there are other people in the Bible, such as Jeremiah or even Jonah, who seem to have had little choice in their calling. But they weren't told that they were going to get pregnant and bear God's Child!)

[ 26. June 2017, 14:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Indeed, and 'thank you' to ExclamationMark for so sensibly employing Occam's Razor.

IJ

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Where I have questions - and I preached on this a year or two back - is whether Mary had any genuine choice in being the mother of Jesus or whether she was coerced or imposed upon by a divine Power greater than her. Yes, I know that she "consented" to being the mother of Jesus; but, having been told that "the Holy Spirit will come upon you", did she have any real say in the matter? If not, what might that say about God and the way he accomplishes his purposes?

AIUI the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, in the west, and Mary's sinlessness, in the east, are - among other things - affirmations of the belief that Mary acted through free choice and not because she was afraid of upsetting God.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
If one has to find alternate explanations in order to defend a doctrine, it would seem to me that the doctrine is specious.

There goes the Incarnation then. Because we have to explain away many a verse that Arius fell back on. Let's start with "this day I have begotten thee." Go for it. I'll watch.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Occam's razor cuts both ways. Rather than spin unprovable stories about how people hated icky sex, and all of the other explanations offered here in the true spirit of Bulverism, the simplest explanation is that they believed it because they knew it to be true.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Occam's razor cuts both ways. Rather than spin unprovable stories about how people hated icky sex, and all of the other explanations offered here in the true spirit of Bulverism, the simplest explanation is that they believed it because they knew it to be true.

That simple explanation invites us to keep believing in King Arthur, copper bracelets for rheumatism, Elvis in the supermarket, Robin Hood and his round table, the yeti, leprechauns, and the Loch Ness monster and his merry men. Scepticism can bring simplicity, and awareness of the tendency to create beliefs isn't always Bulverism.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

lilbuddha wrote:

quote:
Completely anecdotal, but the most repressed people I've met are Protestant. Thought the whole sex-in-a-dark-room-missionary-position-only-for-procreation-and-don't-enjoy-it always seemed a child for the Reformation.
Aren't the sex standing up leads to dancing jokes about Prots?

True, but the whole "hyper-idealization of motherhood" thing has always seemed to me really Catholic. So, while Catholics might have been more laidback about the idea of people in general being carnal creatures, they might have been a bit more neurotic about the idea of their own mother(and by extension the woman who is a veritable mother to us all) having the normal physical functions and urges.

(Caveat: Like your observations, that's pretty much just anecdotal, but seems fairly well-established, at least from my own raised-Catholic-in-a-mixed-family perspective. Likely, Mariolatry itself has helped cement that impression in my mind.)

[ 26. June 2017, 15:43: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
Occam's razor cuts both ways. Rather than spin unprovable stories about how people hated icky sex, and all of the other explanations offered here in the true spirit of Bulverism, the simplest explanation is that they believed it because they knew it to be true.

There is only one person who could definitively tell us if the doctrine was true or not and she wasn't, AFAIK, present when it was defined.

The most we can say is that the people who defined the doctrine believed that it was true because, with the conceptual tools at their disposal it made more sense to them than the alternative, and most Christians, subsequently, have agreed with them. This is not a negligible or contemptible position but it is the most that we can claim.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
lilbuddha wrote:

quote:
Completely anecdotal, but the most repressed people I've met are Protestant. Thought the whole sex-in-a-dark-room-missionary-position-only-for-procreation-and-don't-enjoy-it always seemed a child for the Reformation.
Aren't the sex standing up leads to dancing jokes about Prots?
True, but the whole "hyper-idealization of motherhood" thing has always seemed to me really Catholic. So, while Catholics might have been more laidback about the idea of people in general being carnal creatures, they might have been a bit more neurotic about the idea of their own mother(and by extension the woman who is a veritable mother to us all) having the normal physical functions and urges.

(Caveat: Like your observations, that's pretty much just anecdotal, but seems fairly well-established, at least from my own raised-Catholic-in-a-mixed-family perspective. Likely, Mariolatry itself has helped cement that impression in my mind.)

Isn't his a bit chicken-and-egg though? 21st century Catholics' views on motherhood are surely influenced by 17 (or so) centuries of this doctrine.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

There has, afaik, never been in Judaism any great veneration of the idea of celibacy.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Perhaps I'm missing something somewhere, but...

1. Mary (a young girl, and a virgin at that time) freely chooses to be the Mother of Jesus, whose conception is the result of her acceptance of the Holy Spirit.

2. Joseph marries Mary as planned, but does not have intercourse with her until after Jesus' birth.

3. Mary subsequently enjoys a normal married life with Joseph, and has other children (Our Lord's 'brothers and sisters') by him.

4. At some point (after Jesus' 12th year), Joseph presumably dies, as there is no further mention of him in the Bible IIRC.

5. At the Crucifixion, Jesus commends His Mother to John's care, possibly simply because he is there at the time, whereas Jesus' siblings are not. (John Bar-Zebedee may well have been a young man from a well-to-do family, so a sensible person to hand Mary over to!)

All of which is to be found in Scripture, but none of which, ISTM, detracts in any way from Mary's vital part in the story of our redemption, or from the example she gives us in her obedience to, and acceptance of, God's will.

So what's with the doctrine of 'perpetual virginity'? No disrespect to RCC or Orthodox, but I simply don't see the point of it. Mary having sex with Joseph after Jesus' birth surely doesn't denigrate or diminish her in any way? Or why would God have chosen to enable human beings to procreate by having intercourse, male with female?

IJ

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
So what's with the doctrine of 'perpetual virginity'? No disrespect to RCC or Orthodox, but I simply don't see the point of it.

Me neither - and no disrespect to Mary, "most highly favoured of women".

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
lilbuddha wrote:

quote:
Completely anecdotal, but the most repressed people I've met are Protestant. Thought the whole sex-in-a-dark-room-missionary-position-only-for-procreation-and-don't-enjoy-it always seemed a child for the Reformation.
Aren't the sex standing up leads to dancing jokes about Prots?
True, but the whole "hyper-idealization of motherhood" thing has always seemed to me really Catholic. So, while Catholics might have been more laidback about the idea of people in general being carnal creatures, they might have been a bit more neurotic about the idea of their own mother(and by extension the woman who is a veritable mother to us all) having the normal physical functions and urges.

(Caveat: Like your observations, that's pretty much just anecdotal, but seems fairly well-established, at least from my own raised-Catholic-in-a-mixed-family perspective. Likely, Mariolatry itself has helped cement that impression in my mind.)
Isn't his a bit chicken-and-egg though? 21st century Catholics' views on motherhood are surely influenced by 17 (or so) centuries of this doctrine.

Yeah, I'm not neccesarily talking about which direction the casuistry goes. Just replying to lilbuddha's observation that protestants in general seem more sexually repressed than Catholics, even though Catholics have the chaster view of Mary. Whether the theology caused the overall views on motherhood, or vice versa, I don't know.

[ 26. June 2017, 16:27: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Not just the Orthodox and RCs either, of course, Luther, Calvin and Wesley all apparently believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

I can understand that with first generation Reformers such as Luther and Calvin, but it does seem a strange view for Wesley to have held - unless, of course, it was a fairly standard view in the Anglican church of the 1700s.

Someone more knowledgeable than I am can perhaps shed more light on that.

If it was, I'd be interested to know when such a belief 'died out' among Anglicans. I'd assumed it was something Anglo-Catholics latched onto when they ... well, when they became Anglican Catholics in the wake of the Oxford Movement.

That's assuming that all Anglo-Catholics believe it, of course, they might not for all I know ...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Just replying to lilbuddha's observation that protestants in general seem more sexually repressed than Catholics, even though Catholics have the chaster view of Mary. Whether the theology caused the overall views on motherhood, or vice versa, I don't know.

Mary has a special status. So sex could be seen as a sinless thing in itself, but not an activity for her.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I can understand that with first generation Reformers such as Luther and Calvin, but it does seem a strange view for Wesley to have held - unless, of course, it was a fairly standard view in the Anglican church of the 1700s.

Someone more knowledgeable than I am can perhaps shed more light on that.

Not sure how knowledgeable, but Wiki's take on it. It would seem to be a relatively recent thing.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, nobody yet seems to know the answer to my original question, but from the discussion so far, I'm with the non-perpetual virginity crowd. Exclamation Mark puts a question which for me goes to the heart of it:

quote:
Mary was chosen by God to be the natural mother of Christ - why would God deny the joy of intimacy post birth?

Indeed, I think that would be rather a cruel thing to do.

[ 26. June 2017, 18:36: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps I'm missing something somewhere, but...

1. Mary (a young girl, and a virgin at that time) freely chooses to be the Mother of Jesus, whose conception is the result of her acceptance of the Holy Spirit.

2. Joseph marries Mary as planned, but does not have intercourse with her until after Jesus' birth.

3. Mary subsequently enjoys a normal married life with Joseph, and has other children (Our Lord's 'brothers and sisters') by him.

Yes, you are missing:

1(a): Mary gets her mind around the concept that her Lord and God chose her to bear His child.
1(b): Joseph was not planning to have any sex with her at all because he thought she had been with somebody else and was planning to divorce her quietly.
1(c): God lets Joseph know in the dream that this is Different and she is bearing the Son of Joseph's Lord & God as well; so Joseph follows directions and goes through with the marriage.

Then your Point 2. Followed by:
2(a): Mary is pregnant and her cousin Elizabeth is inspired to recognize the difference and proclaim Mary as the mother of her Lord, further cementing that this child is Something Special and not just a bun in the oven.
2(b): Mary gives birth and shepherds come and report that freaking angels are proclaiming it!
2(c): Wise men from the Orient come and proclaim the birth as something so special it showed up in their freaking astrological charts!
2(d): Mary reflects on these things in heart.
2(e): Mary & Joseph conclude from the evidence that she has been the vessel of the Son of God himself. THE God. Yahweh. The Big Kahuna. Creator of Heaven & Earth. THAT God.
2(f): Mary & Joseph agree that maybe having a hot-and-sweaty roll in the hay after that would be inappropriate, so she stays virginal.

In other words, God didn't "make" Mary remain a virgin. It wasn't forced on her. It wasn't some sort of punishment. It was a free choice and, under the circumstances (because, you know, it isn't like Yahweh does this sort of thing all the time--in fact, never before--)freely choosing to remain virginal and not trespass on the sacred ground where one's One & Only God the Almighty has been would be a perfectly sane and reasonable decision for a mortal to make.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I do not understand why people think it is appropriate to delve into the intimate personal life of a husband and wife long since dead. How is this matter relevant to our lives? How is it worth our time to consider the matter? Is there actually any hope of resolving it?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, nobody yet seems to know the answer to my original question, but from the discussion so far, I'm with the non-perpetual virginity crowd. Exclamation Mark puts a question which for me goes to the heart of it:

quote:
Mary was chosen by God to be the natural mother of Christ - why would God deny the joy of intimacy post birth?
Indeed, I think that would be rather a cruel thing to do.

You mean like fully human Jesus not boinking?

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

quote:
2(f): Mary & Joseph agree that maybe having a hot-and-sweaty roll in the hay after that would be inappropriate, so she stays virginal.

See, this is where it falls down for me. I don't see why they would come to that decision unless they had some feeling that sex between a married couple was somehow less sacred than celibacy, which as I say afaik the Jews never did.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, OK to all Hedgehog's points, except 2(f).

Why on earth or in heaven shouldn't Mary and Joseph, as a married couple, enjoy what Hedgehog so elegantly describes as a 'hot and sweaty roll in the hay'?

[Confused]

And, in any case, the reference to Joseph in Matthew 1 v25 shows that they did have intercourse, presumably followed by the births of brothers and sisters referred to by Mark.

It's there, in plain view, in the Gospel!

IJ

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, nobody yet seems to know the answer to my original question, but from the discussion so far, I'm with the non-perpetual virginity crowd. Exclamation Mark puts a question which for me goes to the heart of it:

quote:
Mary was chosen by God to be the natural mother of Christ - why would God deny the joy of intimacy post birth?
Indeed, I think that would be rather a cruel thing to do.
You mean like fully human Jesus not boinking?

Knowing He was going to make a destitute young widow and fatherless kids. What man would do that?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, apart from in Dan Brown's fevered imagination, there's no evidence that he did.

That doesn't stop him (being fully human, and all that) from maybe falling in love, having sexual desires etc., but, in his case, keeping them on a leash.

As, no doubt, many celibate Christians also do.

IJ

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, nobody yet seems to know the answer to my original question, but from the discussion so far, I'm with the non-perpetual virginity crowd. Exclamation Mark puts a question which for me goes to the heart of it:

quote:
Mary was chosen by God to be the natural mother of Christ - why would God deny the joy of intimacy post birth?
Indeed, I think that would be rather a cruel thing to do.
You mean like fully human Jesus not boinking?

The argument over the perpetual virginity of The BVM is an argument over the authority of tradition vs scripture especially when absent the context of tradition (and yes, there is always the question of who gets to make sense of all the different strands of tradition), scripture seems to indicate the opposite of what the tradition maintained by the RCC and Orthodox Churches.

As a (very pro-sex, and in other cases probably heretical vis a vis what Rome would think) RCC who has no problem believing in the perpetual virginity of the BVM, I do see the silliness about all the arguments about the backwardness of venerating a life without sex given the near universal Christian belief in the lifelong virginity of Christ. I know no mention is made in scripture of marriage or children - so I'm not arguing that In terms of scripture or tradition the continence of Christ is related to the perpetual virginity of His mother. However, if Christ could make the relatively radical for his time and culture choice to eschew marriage, children, and sex for life, then surely His mother, who I have no problem calling a prophet, surely could not have also eschewed sex for life, as a calling her (quite possibly non-virgin) husband Jospeh assented to and was happy with? Protestants hate the idea not so much because they think sex is so wonderful but because they think it contradicts the clear meaning of scripture (I disagree, because I think "clear meaning of scripture" is an oxymoronic phrase - and I like the Orthodox idea that scripture is just a part of tradition). Also, some protestants are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a marriage contracted with no intent to have sex or bear children (St Joseph may have intended to have a sexual marriage with the BVM when he became engaged to her, but after his message from the angel may very well have decided with his fiancée that they would have a sexless marriage as their particular matrimonial vocation). Someone who is deeply suspicious of any belief not citeable in scripture would find this speculation pointless and silly, but I think it's just as theologically useful, given the very long history of so many Christians believing in the perpetual virginity of the BVM, as good old fashioned scriptural exegesis. But different Christian traditions have different sources of doctrinal authority and different things they draw from in making theological arguments. It's as simple as that.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, apart from in Dan Brown's fevered imagination, there's no evidence that he did.

That doesn't stop him (being fully human, and all that) from maybe falling in love, having sexual desires etc., but, in his case, keeping them on a leash.

As, no doubt, many celibate Christians also do.

IJ

Exactly. Mary was not leashed so.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Not just the Orthodox and RCs either, of course, Luther, Calvin and Wesley all apparently believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

As did, if I recall correctly, Zwingli, Bullinger, Latimer and Cranmer.

It is referenced ("ever Virgin Mary") in the Second Helvetic Confession, which is one of the most widely received confessions among Reformed churches. That's not to say all (or most) Reformed Christians necessarily believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary—assuming they think about it at all. But it is, so far as I know, the only mention one way or the other of the doctrine in a Reformed confession. So confessionally speaking, for the Reformed the doctrine is endorsed, not rejected.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I'm not particularly impressed by lists of people who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, because those same people probably also believed in the biblical account of creation and the existence of Adam and Eve.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Occam's razor cuts both ways.

So does Bulverism.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I'm not particularly impressed by lists of people who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, because those same people probably also believed in the biblical account of creation and the existence of Adam and Eve.

Well, I think the idea is that from a protestant perspective, you take it for granted that the reformers believed in the literal reading of Genesis. And, in fact, for a lot of protestants, that would be a mark in their favour.

Whereas those same protestants, especially if they're the kind who still believe in biblical literalism(ie. fundamentalists), would also assume that there is no way on Earth the reformers would have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. So bringing up the Perpetualist beliefs of Zwingli, Cranmer etc would have some special relevance when arguing with them.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The argument over the perpetual virginity of The BVM is an argument over the authority of tradition vs scripture especially when absent the context of tradition

And, IMO, anti-RCC. As much as nearly all traditions, if not actually all, wish to claim The One Truth;ᵀᴹ they all contain elements shaped by post Jesus events and inter-sectual fighting.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Occam's razor cuts both ways.
So does Bulverism.

Except it hasn't. But nice try.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, apart from in Dan Brown's fevered imagination, there's no evidence that he did.

That doesn't stop him (being fully human, and all that) from maybe falling in love, having sexual desires etc., but, in his case, keeping them on a leash.

As, no doubt, many celibate Christians also do.

IJ
Exactly. Mary was not leashed so.

You are missing the point. If Jesus could abstain and not be less than whole, so could Mary.
Jesus could also have hooked up with a rich widow.
Sex is not everyone's thing. Jesus recommended against it, as did Paul.
I don't have a dog in the Mary with or without a cherry fight.
I am saying that either way could work and isn't as cut and dry as some of you seem to think.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, nobody yet seems to know the answer to my original question, but from the discussion so far, I'm with the non-perpetual virginity crowd. Exclamation Mark puts a question which for me goes to the heart of it:

quote:
Mary was chosen by God to be the natural mother of Christ - why would God deny the joy of intimacy post birth?
Indeed, I think that would be rather a cruel thing to do.

Why is a life without sex so horrid? I know the society at large does, but do we really worship sex to that extent in the church?

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mary has a special status. So sex could be seen as a sinless thing in itself, but not an activity for her.

Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
So what's with the doctrine of 'perpetual virginity'? No disrespect to RCC or Orthodox, but I simply don't see the point of it.
Me neither - and no disrespect to Mary, "most highly favoured of women".

Mary has a special status. The concept of holiness means being "set aside for God." The doctrine of the PVM says her womb was set aside for God, quite literally. And once thus consecrated, it would not be used for other purposes. Just as a Jewish priest wouldn't take home the tools of his day job and use them to cook supper. They were set aside, consecrated, holy unto God. They were to be used for one single purpose, presenting the sacrifices on the altar, and not for other purposes, however good and holy those purposes may be. There's nothing icky or sinful about making supper. But you wouldn't do it with the utensils used at the Altar of the Lord.

Interestingly, in my experience Mormons get this far better than most modern Protestants, because, I think, they have a clearer notion of something being set aside for a special purpose. When I have had this conversation here on the ship before (many many times, it seems), it always founders on this. Why WOULDN'T you use the utensils from the Temple for making supper? They're just utensils, for crying out loud.

As for the "purpose" or "point" -- that is a strange question for me. It seems to imply an Aristotelian teleological "end" is required for everything we believe, or everything God does, or something. I could understand if you said you didn't understand the reason. But I don't see why this has to have a purpose (or point). If there's something I'm not getting there, please explain.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Occam's razor cuts both ways.
So does Bulverism.
Except it hasn't. But nice try.

"Try" doesn't come into it.

The simple fact is that each side of this issue can claim both Occam's Razor and Bulverism, and it is sheer obscurantism to pretend otherwise.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Protestants are under no more pressure to believe in the PVM because some Reformers did, than they are to believe in anti-Semitism and the burning of heretics because some Reformers did.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, apart from in Dan Brown's fevered imagination, there's no evidence that he did.

That doesn't stop him (being fully human, and all that) from maybe falling in love, having sexual desires etc., but, in his case, keeping them on a leash.

As, no doubt, many celibate Christians also do.

IJ
Exactly. Mary was not leashed so.
You are missing the point. If Jesus could abstain and not be less than whole, so could Mary.
Jesus could also have hooked up with a rich widow.
Sex is not everyone's thing. Jesus recommended against it, as did Paul.
I don't have a dog in the Mary with or without a cherry fight.
I am saying that either way could work and isn't as cut and dry as some of you seem to think.

Normality without making up a mandatory, excluding, hostile, defensive, esoteric, dogmatic, anti-intellectual, byzantine claim is. Cut and dried. What Mary and Joseph did or did not (counter to the simplest, faithful, open, orthodox shave with the text) got up to is private at least until the resurrection.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

... get ... an interesting editing error.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

mousethief said:

quote:
Mary has a special status. The concept of holiness means being "set aside for God." The doctrine of the PVM says her womb was set aside for God, quite literally. And once thus consecrated, it would not be used for other purposes. Just as a Jewish priest wouldn't take home the tools of his day job and use them to cook supper. They were set aside, consecrated, holy unto God. They were to be used for one single purpose, presenting the sacrifices on the altar, and not for other purposes, however good and holy those purposes may be. There's nothing icky or sinful about making supper. But you wouldn't do it with the utensils used at the Altar of the Lord.

Interestingly, in my experience Mormons get this far better than most modern Protestants, because, I think, they have a clearer notion of something being set aside for a special purpose. When I have had this conversation here on the ship before (many many times, it seems), it always founders on this. Why WOULDN'T you use the utensils from the Temple for making supper? They're just utensils, for crying out loud.

Some of us enjoy getting our minds blown by the reckless crossover of holiness / worldliness that the Incarnation provides. An ordinary girl, a feeding trough, shepherds and foreigners, the five little fingers of God. And later, fishermen, disagreements, fear and exhaustion, blood and bandages. It's exciting to point to God in the world, and to do so you need to identify and mark God, but you also need to feel the transgressive jumbling of God's visiting.

My English non-conformist sensibilities are formed in reaction to Anglicanism. Anglicanism contains the most Godly things in privilege, power and wealth; heritage architecture, precious metals, and private school accents. Contrast a Baptist church clearly built by a firm more used to doing village halls and small factories, a communion table that more than anything else resembles a post-War domestic dining table, Utility badged, and language, clothes and music appropriate to a local civic event two generations ago.

The Baptist style is dingy and disappointing, but the way it gains a spark for me is not by pushing it in the Anglican direction, which is beyond our means in any case, but by pulling it into the present and the adjacent.

I imagine that most of us respond to the encounter between the holy and the here, and it's a matter of experience and taste whether we find this best enhanced by strengthening the sense of the holy, or taking away the museum ropes around it.

But this is such an interesting discussion. I am not on the same page as anyone else here when it comes to use of scripture. I don't think we can read what actually happened from scripture. I am suspicious of the very desire to do so - so Modern. I think our beliefs and interpretations are entirely constructed, and that questions about point and purpose are not only relevant, but the ones that are most useful. Appeals to Tradition and Scripture are an attempt to dodge this, and a refusal to engage honestly and creatively with the 'so what?'s of our beliefs.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Protestants are under no more pressure to believe in the PVM because some Reformers did, than they are to believe in anti-Semitism and the burning of heretics because some Reformers did.

Nobody said they were.

The point I was making was that many Protestants, particularly those of the more literal 6-Day Creation variety or who wave the 'solas' around as if they're some kind of badge of superiority, would be surprised to learn that some of those they revere as pioneers and champions did believe in the PVM ...

Why does it always have to come down to this binary knee-jerk reaction thing?

'Oh, so if you're expecting us to believe that ...' (and no, I'm not expecting you to believe or do anything) ' ... then why don't you expect us to do this?'

The corollary / parallel would be if someone were to argue, 'So, you don't believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, eh? Then how about the Virgin Birth of Christ? Why believe in that then? Eh? Eh?'

Which, as far as I can tell, is an argument no-one has deployed on this thread. I'm sure it may well have been somewhere or other aboard Ship in the past.

It seems to me that we all engage in special pleading when it comes to our own particular shibboleths.

In 'real-life' I've been having a long exchange with my brother-in-law's very fundamentalist brother who can't or won't accept that the Torah reflects socio-cultural concerns of the time ...

And he's resorting to similar arguments.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I get that, hatless, having worshipped in both Anglican and Baptist settings - although, to use a phrase I've been castigated for in the past, I think you are 'over-egging the pudding' in the opposite direction.

If nothing's sacred, then nothing's sacred.

Even the most minimalist of approaches, Quakers and so on, retain some sense of 'occasion' if you like ... however that is expressed.

When it comes down to the issue of sex, I suspect it's dear old Augustine who has coloured our thinking on that one - particularly within Western Christianity.

Which is why, it seems to me, some posters here are using that brush to tar the Orthodox with when their reasons for a belief in the PVM appear to be based on different criteria than the idea that sex is icky and to be avoided.

That doesn't mean that the Orthodox don't put a premium on chastity and virginity - of course they do, as witnessed by the monastic tradition.

Nor does it mean that they don't have a tendency to rope things off and put things on pedestals - of course they do. They bling-out on stuff big time.

But again, there are reasons for that of course and it all boils down to context. What can look intimidating and power-enhancing in a Byzantine style cathedral can be moving and affecting in a humble village parish church or a ricketty skete somewhere out in the woods ...

There might be a 'spark' amid the mellamine and 1950s/60s decor of a Baptist chapel - and I wouldn't deny that to be the case - but how far do we take these things?

My local RC church looks like a 1960s crematorium chapel. It's bloody awful, a kind of faux-Italian / Spanish hacienda style box with some plastic angels and appalling iconography. But there's also something quite 'heroic' about it as the parishioners raised the money themselves and did their best despite the Anglicans having all the impressive and venerable church plant around here ...

But I'm drifting into other areas now ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

We ain't entitled to any shibboleths.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

We may not be 'entitled' to them, but we all have them.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Gamaliel wrote

quote:
If nothing's sacred, then nothing's sacred.

Or, if certain things are sacred, then most things are not sacred. If everything is sacred we may forget, so we need a reminder, but that needn't be something that sets apart. So Quakers have no communion service, but say that every meal is Eucharistic.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We may not be 'entitled' to them, but we all have them.

What unwarranted, weak, hostile beliefs? I'm not aware of mine. I am VERY aware of my unwarranted, hostile feelings, which contain undifferentiated beliefs, what they are I don't know. Stimulated in particular by unwarranted, weak, hostile Christian beliefs and the behaviour they drive, the closer to home, the more I have to work on. In myself. My response. As I'm wrestling with here. I'm amazed at the depth of tension I still feel.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Gamaliel wrote

quote:
If nothing's sacred, then nothing's sacred.
Or, if certain things are sacred, then most things are not sacred. If everything is sacred we may forget, so we need a reminder, but that needn't be something that sets apart. So Quakers have no communion service, but say that every meal is Eucharistic.

If by sacred we mean unquestionable, unexaminable, then NOTHING is sacred. That's sacred.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

This discussion is interesting but pointless. As C.S. Lewis says somewhere (it could be Screwtape), the material for a biography of Christ has been withhheld from humans. The same goes for his mother. We are told that Mary was forewarned that 'the power of the Most High would overshadow her', but not exactly how and when that event happened. Nor do we have any information about Mary and Joseph's family life. That being so, we have no data to support any theory beyond, on the one hand, the words of the Gospels and on the other, the tradition of the Church. 'Yer pays yer money .....'

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Unpoint taken.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
This discussion is interesting but pointless. As C.S. Lewis says somewhere (it could be Screwtape), the material for a biography of Christ has been withhheld from humans. The same goes for his mother. We are told that Mary was forewarned that 'the power of the Most High would overshadow her', but not exactly how and when that event happened. Nor do we have any information about Mary and Joseph's family life. That being so, we have no data to support any theory beyond, on the one hand, the words of the Gospels and on the other, the tradition of the Church. 'Yer pays yer money .....'

I think they are in the same hand, or at least they were, then scripture was put down on the table, where we pick and choose which bits to read and how.

But we write biographies without information, no problem at all.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Gamaliel wrote

quote:
If nothing's sacred, then nothing's sacred.
Or, if certain things are sacred, then most things are not sacred. If everything is sacred we may forget, so we need a reminder, but that needn't be something that sets apart. So Quakers have no communion service, but say that every meal is Eucharistic.

Yes, but by the same token, if every meal is Eucharistic then it's possible to fail to notice ...

I don't want to get Orwellian here, but if all meals are Eucharistic, could it not be that some meals are more Eucharistic than others?

[Biased]

I could go out for a meal with my wife on any night of the year, but tend to do so for birthdays / special occasions and anniversaries.

Rather than the Orwellian, some things are more sacred than others thing, I'd rather go for the both/and not either/or thing ...

As far as the Quaker thing goes, sure, fine ... but you try becoming a fully-fledged Friend and continue to receive the Eucharist at your local parish church - or at a Baptist one for that matter - and see what they have to say about that ...

It's not as if the Quakers don't set things apart either. They set apart the Bible and the Quaker Book of Discipline (or Notes & Queries or whatever it's called) on a table during their meetings.

They don't put a copy of The Beano or The Guardian there.

They meet at a set-time on a Sunday morning, generally - not at some random time in the middle of the night ...

All we are talking about are degrees of variation on a sense of 'holiness' ... the extent to which we ratchet these things up.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

So, going back to the OP question, if the marriage was never consummated, were Mary and Joseph actually married according to Jewish custom? Even if they were, can they be called married according to Catholic Canon Law which, IIRC, states that a marriage has to be consummated to be valid? If not, why does the Catholic liturgy refer to Joseph as 'her blessed spouse'?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's all artefact and artifice. Stuff we make up, we bring to the party. All.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Protestants are under no more pressure to believe in the PVM because some Reformers did, than they are to believe in anti-Semitism and the burning of heretics because some Reformers did.
Nobody said they were.

The point I was making was that many Protestants, particularly those of the more literal 6-Day Creation variety or who wave the 'solas' around as if they're some kind of badge of superiority, would be surprised to learn that some of those they revere as pioneers and champions did believe in the PVM ...

And I'd say the other point is that this isn't necessarily a clean divide, with RCs and Orthodox on one side and Protestants on the other. The Reformers were not at all shy about saying where, based on their reading of Scripture, they thought the Catholic Church had gone wrong. Many such places were identified at the Reformation, but the PVM was not one of those places.

As a result, my hunch is that it's RCs, Orthodox, some Anglicans and some Protestants on one side, with many (probably most) Protestants and Anglicans either on the other side or quite content to be agnostic on the subject and not settle on either side.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, going back to the OP question, if the marriage was never consummated, were Mary and Joseph actually married according to Jewish custom? Even if they were, can they be called married according to Catholic Canon Law which, IIRC, states that a marriage has to be consummated to be valid? If not, why does the Catholic liturgy refer to Joseph as 'her blessed spouse'?

Thank you, Matt. You present my question much better than I did in the OP. Nobody so far really seems to have answered it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, phrased as Matt's phrased it, it becomes a question for the RCs given that he cites their marriage canons.

I can't imagine any Cardinals reading this rubbing their chins and thinking, 'Dang! We never thought of that one before ...!'

So there must be an RC answer on this specific point.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I haven't had time to read this, but I can guess what their answer is(if not their background reasoning).

Were Joseph and Mary really married?

As many of you probably know, First Things is not an official organ of the RCC, but an opinion magazine championing a conservative Catholic viewpoint. I'd guess their opinion on this is fairly close to that of official Catholicism, though.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I haven't had time to read this, but I can guess what their answer is(if not their background reasoning).

Were Joseph and Mary really married?

Interesting that the writer analyzes the question under canon law and ancient Roman law, but not under Jewish law.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Gamaliel wrote

quote:
If nothing's sacred, then nothing's sacred.
Or, if certain things are sacred, then most things are not sacred. If everything is sacred we may forget, so we need a reminder, but that needn't be something that sets apart. So Quakers have no communion service, but say that every meal is Eucharistic.
Yes, but by the same token, if every meal is Eucharistic then it's possible to fail to notice ...

I don't want to get Orwellian here, but if all meals are Eucharistic, could it not be that some meals are more Eucharistic than others?

I could go out for a meal with my wife on any night of the year, but tend to do so for birthdays / special occasions and anniversaries.

Rather than the Orwellian, some things are more sacred than others thing, I'd rather go for the both/and not either/or thing ...

As far as the Quaker thing goes, sure, fine ... but you try becoming a fully-fledged Friend and continue to receive the Eucharist at your local parish church - or at a Baptist one for that matter - and see what they have to say about that ...

It's not as if the Quakers don't set things apart either. They set apart the Bible and the Quaker Book of Discipline (or Notes & Queries or whatever it's called) on a table during their meetings.

They don't put a copy of The Beano or The Guardian there.

They meet at a set-time on a Sunday morning, generally - not at some random time in the middle of the night ...

All we are talking about are degrees of variation on a sense of 'holiness' ... the extent to which we ratchet these things up.

I don't think degrees of holiness is a great idea.

Yes, we forget that God has come close, but you don't have to sequester bits of the world away to remind yourself of that. You can have markers, signs and symbols including words. We have no confusion about the hand that blesses also being the hand that passes the milk, because it isn't about the hand, but the meaning of the gesture in the context of worship.

In one church we regularly used the communion table for meals at social events. We knew it was the communion table - it had been deliberately made like a refectory table - and it enhanced both secular curries and the Sunday communion to have memories of the other brought to mind.

Think about paintings in a gallery, You can 'say' that this is a great painting with a huge gilt frame, a deep roped off exclusion area and a uniformed guard seated beside it. Or you can hang it as the only picture in a room. Or a cheeky curator could hang it among three dozen similar pictures all unlabelled and let visitors try to work out which was the famous one.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

Was the manger in which Jesus was laid also holy? Was it never used for anything again?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm sure the manager continued to be used as a manger. But what if it hadn't? Would it have been 'wrong' for it to be set aside to be marvelled at?

Sure, there's a sliding scale here and I'm as squeamish as anyone else when it comes to folk-religiosity and relics and so on ...

I remember hatless telling us all about some village in Spain where the residents whip and flog a statue of St Anthony if he doesn't deliver the goods in terms of finding misplaced items for them ...

But how far do we take it?

Why is minimalism seen as a virtue in this context?

Are the Methodists 'wrong' to preserve Wesley's chapel in London and to show visitors around his house? Why don't they scrap their Methodist museum there and turn it into flats?

No-one's telling hatless what he can or can't do with his communion table. He can set it up outside as a fruit and veg stall if he so chooses.

But if someone sets up an altar somewhere or a shrine or designates something as 'special' in some way then that's seen as somehow obviating the sense of the sacredness of all things.

The mileage varies, but in my experience most people who take some kind of sacramental approach to things tends to have a fairly developed sense of the holy in the ordinary and the everyday and the sacredness of every day life and so on ...

The Jews had prayers for sitting on the toilet.

The Orthodox have prayers for almost everything you can think of.

Quakers see everything as equally sacred. Great. I don't see them as the only ones to do so, though.

If I put a pole up in my garden and say that it is The Pole of Peace it doesn't mean that a bean-pole in someone else's veggie plot doesn't have any significance.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Marcel Duchamp got there before you, hatless.

His 'Fountain' of 1917 was a urinal signed, 'R Mutt' and hung in an art gallery. The idea was to subvert expectations, of course and to challenge convention. What made it a 'work of art'? The fact that it was hung in an art gallery - the context gave it meaning and significance ... or did it?

That was the paradox ...

But you're answering your own question to an extent.

What makes the 'famous' work of art famous or 'better' than the similar ones that might be exhibited alongside it? It's not the gilt frame, the gilt frame is a response / reaction to its fame.

It is framed because it is famous. It is famous because there is an agreed 'canon' or convention or collegial understanding of its worthiness to be considered as such.

It's the agreement that confers the fame.

What makes a shared sacrament or ordinance special? Is it objectively so even if there is no-one to partake or participate?

Or does part of the import / significance consist in the agreement to set time and effort aside to celebrate it?

Sure, you don't get bells and smells and ra-rah-rah in a Baptist communion service or the Brethren breaking of bread, but that doesn't mean that the celebration in that context lacks meaning and significance for those who partake.

It's the same at the t'other end of the spectrum. The ra-rah-rah and bells and whistles are a response to the significance of the action, if you like ... they aren't what confers the significance, they are actions that derive or respond to that significance ...

I'm not explaining myself very well, but you know what I mean ...

There's almost a kind of inverted snobbery thing going on here. The less rah-rah-rah-rah and flummery the more authentic or significant something is deemed to be ...

Surely that's just as 'bad' - or good, bad or indifferent - as the opposite being the case - lots of choreography and bling?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So, G, was Our Lady married by Jewish criteria or not?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

One could see that the perpetual virginity of Our Lady is a sign of how distinctive her vocation is, her marriage to St Joseph is precisely unlike other marriages in that she is called to bear and raise the Incarnate Son of God. Her consecration to this vocation is unique and her abstinence from sexual activity is not by itself, to denigrate sexuality or marital love. John the Baptist forsook alcohol as part of his vocation and no one complains that this abstinence denigrates alcohol.

I don't know, really if Mary and Joseph had a "normal" marriage or not. Fleeing into Egypt with a newborn from a vicious tyrant doesn't strike me as normal marital living, so I am suspicious of applying the standards of "normal modern marriage" to the Holy Family.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

So was God wrong, then, to have the Israelites consecrate the furnishings of the Temple and not use them for anything else? Did Moses take off his sandals in error, because by God ALL ground is sacred ground, and not just the ground in front of flaming shrubbery? That route stands to toss out most of what we learn of holiness from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Fleeing from a vicious tyrant is, sadly, part of 'normal' married life for many people from Syria, for example, and other countries, today.

The Holy Family, however one views them, certainly shared in some, at least, of our universal human suffering and sorrows. Our Lady, before witnessing the death of her first-born, probably also had had to cope with the deaths of her parents, Anne and Joachim, and of Joseph himself.

IJ

IJ

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So was God wrong, then, to have the Israelites consecrate the furnishings of the Temple and not use them for anything else? Did Moses take off his sandals in error, because by God ALL ground is sacred ground, and not just the ground in front of flaming shrubbery? That route stands to toss out most of what we learn of holiness from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Aye. It does. Of the Holy Killer God.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm not explaining myself very well, but you know what I mean

tl;dr
Art is arbitrary. What qualifies as art is determined by tastemakers and, occasionally, the people.
Religion and religious practice is the same.
Pretending that This Is because it Must be, without reference to subjectivity, is ridiculous.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm not explaining myself very well, but you know what I mean
tl;dr
Art is arbitrary. What qualifies as art is determined by tastemakers and, occasionally, the people.
Religion and religious practice is the same.
Pretending that This Is because it Must be, without reference to subjectivity, is ridiculous.

An excellent post. I was thinking, before I read it, how art sets things apart as holy, and modern art often produces discomfort by doing this with strange things, such as the urinal, mentioned above.

I've seen Tracey Emin's 'My Bed' several times, and find it fascinating, as it blends the mundane, or in fact, profane, with the holy. She made her bed, and no longer lies in it. You could say queasy and holy, and holey sheets.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Who said anything about how it 'Must' be?

I'm not saying anything to anyone, whether it's hatless or Mousethief that things 'Must' be done in a particular way ...

Meanwhile, @Mousethief, as you'll be aware, the more Protestant answer to that would be that now we've got the New Covenant then holiness has been democratised and universalised to some extent. The veil of the Temple was torn in two - the Holy of Holies was opened to all by a new and living way ...

The degree to which that's applied / envisaged varies of course, but from a strict Proddy view-point any attempt to sanctify objects, places and things is regarded with suspicious as it looks as if it's a backward step - under Law rather than under grace and so on. You'll have heard the rhetoric.

I'd have been very much that way inclined back in my more restorationist days.

So priests and altars and Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch are regarded as irrelevant at best, highly suspicious at worst.

In reality, of course, all that happens - human nature being what it is - is that these groups 'sacralise' something else instead - irrespective of whether they are doing so or not. Nature abhors a vacuum.

So, if you don't have a 'high' view of the Eucharist, say, you transfer that to a 'high' view of something else - the corporate worship time, the weekly Bible study, the sermon,the Church Meeting even ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Fleeing from a vicious tyrant is, sadly, part of 'normal' married life for many people from Syria, for example, and other countries, today.

The Holy Family, however one views them, certainly shared in some, at least, of our universal human suffering and sorrows. Our Lady, before witnessing the death of her first-born, probably also had had to cope with the deaths of her parents, Anne and Joachim, and of Joseph himself.

IJ

IJ

And we are all fleeing or need to from the vicious tyrant we have made of God.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So was God wrong, then, to have the Israelites consecrate the furnishings of the Temple and not use them for anything else? Did Moses take off his sandals in error, because by God ALL ground is sacred ground, and not just the ground in front of flaming shrubbery? That route stands to toss out most of what we learn of holiness from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps, one effect of the Incarnation is to blur the lines between holy and not-holy. God no longer "dwells" in the Tabernacle or the Temple. God has walked among us, treading on the same ground we walk on, using the same everyday dishes we use.

The NT leads us to re-examine much of what the Hebrew Scriptures tell us about the distinction between clean and unclean. Should the distinction between holy and not-holy be different? After all, it was Jesus who cited approvingly to David allowing his hungry men to eat the Bread of the Presence, which was holy and restricted to the priests.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Who said anything about how it 'Must' be?

sigh
I was not accusing you, or directly anyone, of this. But it is how religion is discussed and how this topic in particular is addressed.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Alright, lilBuddha. Fair enough.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Getting back to the original point of the thread, it is worthwhile to remember that Jewish attitudes towards sex and marriage are different than Christian ones. A Jewish man owes his wife three things by law, food, clothing, and sex. (and anything else specifically spelled out in the marriage agreement). However, she is not required to reciprocate. So, I guess if Mary felt she shouldn't have sex, Joseph would have had to accede to her wish. However, if Mary did want sex, it would be unlawful for Joseph to refuse her.

Really guys, google this stuff, it's fascinating.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, @Mousethief, as you'll be aware, the more Protestant answer to that would be that now we've got the New Covenant then holiness has been democratised and universalised to some extent. The veil of the Temple was torn in two - the Holy of Holies was opened to all by a new and living way ...

The degree to which that's applied / envisaged varies of course, but from a strict Proddy view-point any attempt to sanctify objects, places and things is regarded with suspicious as it looks as if it's a backward step - under Law rather than under grace and so on. You'll have heard the rhetoric.

Of course. I'm not telling anyone they have to do or believe anything, although I admit I get frustrated having the O position misrepresented.

I will say this, I don't see how one can believe in the Real Presence, and not in localized holiness. Also I agree with whoever said, if everything is holy, then nothing is holy. Or rather, in that case holiness becomes meaningless. Words are useful and meaningful inasmuch as they tell one thing from another. A word that applies to everything is just another synonym for "everything."

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I am uncomfortable comparing Mary to vessels and temples. She is not an inanimate object, but a human person which is why I am not impressed by RC typologies of Ark of the Covenant, etc.

One can argue, that Mary vowed virginity because she believed that God frankly told her too, and she obeyed as a faithful servant of God. The evangelical objection, doesn't factor in the simple reason that God might simply have asked Mary to vow virginity for life.

Frankly I suspect the Protestant critique of Mary's perpetual virginity is based to some degree on their hostility to monasticism.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Frankly I suspect the Protestant critique of Mary's perpetual virginity is based to some degree on their hostility to monasticism.

But does that work, given that nobody was more hostile to monasticism than the Reformers, and yet they did not kick at this particular goad?

If I had to Bulverize on this, I would guess it has to do with the glorification of sex in our culture. We've already seen on this thread how God asking Mary to take a vow of celibacy would be "cruel". That's twisted shit right there. That's beyond anti-monasticism and into the fetishization of the sex act. Life without sex is so bleak, so meaningless, so horrid, so unthinkable that asking someone to commit to it is cruel.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I am uncomfortable comparing Mary to vessels and temples. She is not an inanimate object, but a human person which is why I am not impressed by RC typologies of Ark of the Covenant, etc.

Jesus too was human but he and various writers of Scripture did not shirk from comparing him to bread, doors, vines, stars, rocks, and doubtless many other metaphors that aren't coming to mind. Not to mention chickens but those at least have an animal soul.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

There is not one ounce of viable scriptural evidence to support a doctrine of perpetual virginity for Mary. This doctrine is constructed of whole cloth like many others such as the Immaculate Conception.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Frankly I suspect the Protestant critique of Mary's perpetual virginity is based to some degree on their hostility to monasticism.
But does that work, given that nobody was more hostile to monasticism than the Reformers, and yet they did not kick at this particular goad?

If I had to Bulverize on this, I would guess it has to do with the glorification of sex in our culture. We've already seen on this thread how God asking Mary to take a vow of celibacy would be "cruel". That's twisted shit right there. That's beyond anti-monasticism and into the fetishization of the sex act. Life without sex is so bleak, so meaningless, so horrid, so unthinkable that asking someone to commit to it is cruel.

Why would the God we know in Christ ask such a thing? That's twisted shit.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Personally, I don't care about Mary's virginity, either perpetual, or even with regard to Jesus's conception. I accept it, but it doesn't factor into my faith at all (were it proven to be not true, it wouldn't change my view of Jesus one bit). But the arguments about brothers seem pretty empty to me, given the above points. while it's true they MAY be Mary's children, alternative explanations are not hard to find.

Ditto-100%

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
There is not one ounce of viable scriptural evidence to support a doctrine of perpetual virginity for Mary. This doctrine is constructed of whole cloth like many others such as the Immaculate Conception.

Yet there is loads of "viable scriptural" evidence for things which you lot explain away.
The Bible takes interpretation and how one interprets it is variable. As much as many hate to admit this.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
There is not one ounce of viable scriptural evidence to support a doctrine of perpetual virginity for Mary. This doctrine is constructed of whole cloth like many others such as the Immaculate Conception

That argument would only apply for a Sola Sciptura Protestant, a view rejected by all of Christianity
prior to the 16th century, and by the majority of Christendom today. It has been pointed out that even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley believed in the perpetual virginity. The new theology of the 16th century was the breach with historical Christianity.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As was the new tradition from the second century.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
There is not one ounce of viable scriptural evidence to support a doctrine of perpetual virginity for Mary. This doctrine is constructed of whole cloth like many others such as the Immaculate Conception.

Neither of those doctrines were constructed of whole cloth, and it betrays a gross ignorance of history to claim so. While I do not believe the doctrine of the I.C., nor the existence of the problem it was designed to solve, I know its history, and the soul searching and wrangling that went into its adoption, and I know that it was not created out of whole cloth. May I suggest reading some church history? The church did not wink out of existence at the Edict of Toleration and back into existence at the Wittenberg Door.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I can understand your exasperation, Mousethief but I do wonder whether you've toppled over into impugning the motives of those who believe that Mary and Joseph had further offspring in the normal way after the birth of Christ?

Rather than doing so because they want to put a high premium on sex, might it not simply be that they simply interpret the scriptures that way?

Sure, we none of us read and interpret the scriptures in isolation and it apparently didn't occur to the Reformers to re-interpret the scriptures referring to Christ's siblings / relatives in the way that later Protestants did.

Had they lived in the 16th century I doubt that Kaplan, Mudfrog or any of the evangelical posters here would have questioned the PVM even if they'd expressed misgivings about monasticism.

But I don't see how it follows that those who have absorbed the current prevailing Protestant view do so because they have an issue with sexual abstinence in some way.

Rightly or wrongly, they do so because they believe that's what the Bible teaches - that Jesus had brothers and sisters therefore Mary and Joseph must have consummated their marriage and had kids.

Undoubtedly that wasn't the view for the first 1600 or 1700 years of the Christian Church - and there must be a reason for that. It can't be because nobody had noticed those verses before.

I think it is the case though, that some of the Fathers and certainly the Medieval Schoolmen, had rather odd views about sex, gender roles and so on. I don't doubt that the Reformation was, in part, a reaction against that and that, if not in first few generations, it led to the reinterpretation of verses that had been understood differently in previous generations.

It depends how far you take it. Some see the Reformation as bearing the seeds of atheism and indifference ...

It depends on where we draw the line.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Protestants are under no more pressure to believe in the PVM because some Reformers did, than they are to believe in anti-Semitism and the burning of heretics because some Reformers did.
Nobody said they were.

The point I was making was that many Protestants, particularly those of the more literal 6-Day Creation variety or who wave the 'solas' around as if they're some kind of badge of superiority, would be surprised to learn that some of those they revere as pioneers and champions did believe in the PVM ...

And...?

It sounds less than a significant point, and more of an opportunity to take yet another gratuitous shot at evangelicals.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I can understand your exasperation, Mousethief but I do wonder whether you've toppled over into impugning the motives of those who believe that Mary and Joseph had further offspring in the normal way after the birth of Christ?

No, I don't doubt what you say -- it's mostly likely the 1-2 punch of (a) it's what everybody else in one's church/denomination believes, and (b) ignorant wooden literalism on the word "brother." (Which isn't even supported by the Bible itself -- Lot is not Abraham's brother in the woodenly literal sense, but he is called by that word.) Point 2 involves a healthy dose of reading modern understandings back into 1st century Palestinian culture. But there you have it.

None of this has any bearing on the actual truth or falsity of the doctrine however. It stands or falls whatever hypothetical stories we tell about each others' motives or pathways to current beliefs.

But I stand by my statement (based on not insignificant first-hand experience, and the reports of others) that far too many Protestants at least in the US really have a huge ignorance gap of what happened in the Church between 90 AD and 1500 AD.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's beyond anti-monasticism and into the fetishization of the sex act. Life without sex is so bleak, so meaningless, so horrid, so unthinkable that asking someone to commit to it is cruel.

Tangent and DH admittedly, but fascinatingly that is precisely the attitude of those who disagree with the restriction of sex to monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's beyond anti-monasticism and into the fetishization of the sex act. Life without sex is so bleak, so meaningless, so horrid, so unthinkable that asking someone to commit to it is cruel.
Tangent and DH admittedly, but fascinatingly that is precisely the attitude of those who disagree with the restriction of sex to monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

Well, except that usually those people want social or even legal pressure brought to bear against those who desire sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage.

If we were simply talking about a church asking its members to restrict sex to certain types of arrangements, but allowing them the free option of saying "Nah, I'm too much of a horn dog for that" and then quitting the faith without repercussions, there likely wouldn't be much controversy about that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's beyond anti-monasticism and into the fetishization of the sex act. Life without sex is so bleak, so meaningless, so horrid, so unthinkable that asking someone to commit to it is cruel.
Tangent and DH admittedly, but fascinatingly that is precisely the attitude of those who disagree with the restriction of sex to monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

Bullshit. It is about being treated equally.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I stand by my statement (based on not insignificant first-hand experience, and the reports of others) that far too many Protestants at least in the US really have a huge ignorance gap of what happened in the Church between 90 AD and 1500 AD.

And that point is, I'm afraid, very well taken.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's beyond anti-monasticism and into the fetishization of the sex act. Life without sex is so bleak, so meaningless, so horrid, so unthinkable that asking someone to commit to it is cruel.
Tangent and DH admittedly, but fascinatingly that is precisely the attitude of those who disagree with the restriction of sex to monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

Well of course. Because it's the near-universal attitude in our culture, and those people are part of our culture.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is about being treated equally.

Not exclusively, by any means.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, except that usually those people want social or even legal pressure brought to bear against those who desire sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage.

That boat has long since sailed.

It is not only possible but common to believe on religious grounds in the restriction of sex to monogamous heterosexual marriage, while supporting the legalisation of SSM and decriminalisation of fornication, adultery, polyamory, homosexuality etc on liberal democratic pluralist grounds.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is about being treated equally.
Not exclusively, by any means.

You'll need to unpack this. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is about being treated equally.
Not exclusively, by any means.
You'll need to unpack this. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense.

OK

There is more than one possible reason why people might disagree with the proposition that sex should only occur in a momogamous, heterosexual marriage.

Alleged inequality is one, particularly as regards SSM.

A belief that it is every human being's birthright to experience sexual fulfilment is another.

Anti-religious prejudice is another.

A genuine belief that religious texts and former traditional beliefs can be legitimately reformulated in the light of changing circumstances and perceptions is another.

A belief that marriage is inherently patriarchal and therefore unjust is another.

A belief that no couple, or few couples, can maintain a meaningful relationship for the decades that modern Western longevity provides, is another.

There are no doubt others.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

To me this is one of those unanswerable questions which are impossible to resolve. To me it makes most sense to believe that Mary had other children, but I can understand how the text can be read differently.

And I can see something about a life set aside for something special. That's quite a nice idea, I've no idea whether it is actually what happened.

I suppose for me the real question is how this changes anything; on the one hand if Mary had a virgin birth and then had an extraordinary life post the crucifixion, would she not have become a leadership figure in the church as a person with special authority? Would she not have become a figure herself associated with the incarnation - to the extent, perhaps, of people believing she was somehow divine?

To me it is easier to believe that she was just a Jewish mother with an unbelievable role in human history. Who later died in obscurity.

As to her legal status, I wonder the extent to which the whole "virginity" thing was common knowledge in the community. Because, fairly obviously, it would have been assumed that the marriage had been consumated given that she gave birth to a child.

Personally, I suspect that the virginity thing is a later myth.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I can understand your exasperation, Mousethief but I do wonder whether you've toppled over into impugning the motives of those who believe that Mary and Joseph had further offspring in the normal way after the birth of Christ?
No, I don't doubt what you say -- it's mostly likely the 1-2 punch of (a) it's what everybody else in one's church/denomination believes, and (b) ignorant wooden literalism on the word "brother." (Which isn't even supported by the Bible itself -- Lot is not Abraham's brother in the woodenly literal sense, but he is called by that word.) Point 2 involves a healthy dose of reading modern understandings back into 1st century Palestinian culture. But there you have it.

None of this has any bearing on the actual truth or falsity of the doctrine however. It stands or falls whatever hypothetical stories we tell about each others' motives or pathways to current beliefs.

But I stand by my statement (based on not insignificant first-hand experience, and the reports of others) that far too many Protestants at least in the US really have a huge ignorance gap of what happened in the Church between 90 AD and 1500 AD.

It's only ignorant wooden literalism to insist that brother and sister only ever means sibling. How did ancient Jews refer to cousins by the way? Was Elizabeth Mary's sister?

I like the proposition that Joseph was a widower, he probably was, and had a large number of children from previous marriage, a yet lesser probability by an order of magnitude.

The probability of PV is again similarly less and Greco-Roman tradition maps to that randomly.

Nothing Protestant about that.

[ 28. June 2017, 09:20: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

But why does any of this matter? Or, to put it another way, why should we think any of this matters? Except, of course, as a peg to hang an argument on - my great-uncle kept a notebook in which he wrote down a list of 'Subjects on which to start and argument' at his working-men's club.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It matters to justify ones fears, ones identity.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Protestants are under no more pressure to believe in the PVM because some Reformers did, than they are to believe in anti-Semitism and the burning of heretics because some Reformers did.
Nobody said they were.

The point I was making was that many Protestants, particularly those of the more literal 6-Day Creation variety or who wave the 'solas' around as if they're some kind of badge of superiority, would be surprised to learn that some of those they revere as pioneers and champions did believe in the PVM ...

And...?

It sounds less than a significant point, and more of an opportunity to take yet another gratuitous shot at evangelicals.

No it isn't. If you read my post properly you'd see that I was singling out particular types of evangelical not issuing a blanket condemnation.

Notice my use of the word 'particularly'.

I said, 'particularly those who ...

If you are one of those then the cap fits.

Otherwise, feel free not to wear it.

The more serious point I'm making is that whoever we are and whenever we live our reading/interpretation of the scriptures is conditioned and influenced by that.

This applies to you and I as 21st century Protestant Christians just as much as it did to 16th, 17th or 18th, 19th and 20th century ones ... or to RCs, Orthodox or any other Christian tradition.

Sure, that's a truism but the point I'm making is similar to the one Nick Tamen has made - that many contemporary evangelicals, particularly those influenced by forms of US evangelicalism, I have to say - are blithely ignorant of church history or even the context for some of their own beliefs.

Sure, the same will apply to plenty of RCs in the pews or Orthodox people too.

That doesn't make it any more excusable in any of these set-ups.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

This applies to you and I as 21st century Protestant Christians just as much as it did to 16th, 17th or 18th, 19th and 20th century ones ... or to RCs, Orthodox or any other Christian tradition.

Sure, that's a truism but the point I'm making is similar to the one Nick Tamen has made - that many contemporary evangelicals, particularly those influenced by forms of US evangelicalism, I have to say - are blithely ignorant of church history or even the context for some of their own beliefs.

Sure, the same will apply to plenty of RCs in the pews or Orthodox people too.

That doesn't make it any more excusable in any of these set-ups.

Yes, it is a truism. But constantly repeating it doesn't actually help conversation very much. And it is a way to close down discussion except within the narrow boundaries within which you want to discuss the issues.

The plain fact of the matter is that Evangelicals almost by definition are not bound by Tradition and therefore are not obliged to accept things just because there are thousands of years of tradition or because Calvin or Luther or whoever believed them.

Now it is obviously true that the RCC and Orthodox have theological reasons for believing things about Mary. But is is also pretty obvious that the RC Mariology in some sense requires various steps to hold the thing together.

Evangelicals in contrast have just said "well, if it doesn't say in these things in the New Testament, we don't have to believe it, and those things seem like a stretch to us."

It is a different mindset, I accept. But it doesn't help any to keep wheeling out the same stock phrases like "ah yes, but everyone is the same, blahdiblah" when there are actually clear differences in approach. It isn't simply that Evangelicals are rooted in one tradition and the RCC in another.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, fair enough, mr cheesy. I get that.

What I was responding to, though, was Kaplan's charge that I was simply taking a gratuitous swipe at evangelicals. I didn't think I was.

And yes, the whole Marian edifice needs a fair bit of structure and scaffolding to maintain it - and, at the risk of doing what you're charging me with doing - 'blah-de blah, we are all the same' - so does a sola scriptura position and particularly a literalist 6-Day Creation, scriptural inerrancy type approach ...

That doesn't mean that I'm necessarily lumping all such things together and making them 'equivalent' ...

But I can see why I might be open to that charge.

It's a bit like those occasions when I may have bemoaned some aspect or other of deficient catechesis within evangelicalism and Kaplan responds by saying, 'Well, look at the RCs, look at the Orthodox ...' as if I'm suggesting that because catechesis is deficient in some evangelical circles I'm suggesting that it's a lot better in other traditions / Traditions - when I'm doing nothing of the kind.

If I were RC or Orthodox I'd be posting here bemoaning inadequate catechesis there or highlighting this, that or the other deficiency - and RCs and Orthodox can list those better than I can.

But when I point out some fault or foible within aspects of evangelicalism I'm accused of taking a 'gratuitous' swipe at it ...

All I can do is gripe about - or praise - liberal Protestants, RCs, Orthodox or anyone else in equal measure and then I won't face those sort of accusations.

I don't gripe about Lutherans or make any comments about them whatsoever, whether good, bad or indifferent because I've not been exposed to Lutheranism.

I don't comment on the Swedenborgians either, for the same reason.

I get what you are trying to say but I don't think I'm trying to 'close things down.'

If anything, I'm trying to open them up.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Shipmates like Mousethief hold you to account for the daft things you say about Orthodoxy.

The weird thing is that you get all up-tight when people tell you that you're talking shite about Evangelicalism but not when you are talking crap about Orthodoxy.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting observation.

If that is true, then it might be because I've not been Orthodox but have been evangelical.

But I'm not sure it is the case. Besides, whereas I may have occasionally talked shite about Orthodoxy and been put right by Mousethief, I don't believe I am talking shite about evangelicalism.

I haven't said anything here about evangelicalism that can't be backed up by observation or my own personal experience.

Not only that, even if I were talking shite about evangelicalism, what makes evangelicalism so sacrosanct that I can't talk shite about it?

I'll happily hold up my hand when I've spoken shite about something.

In this instance I don't think I've spoken shite but spoken fact.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting observation.

If that is true, then it might be because I've not been Orthodox but have been evangelical.

Not sure that has anything to do with anything.

quote:
But I'm not sure it is the case. Besides, whereas I may have occasionally talked shite about Orthodoxy and been put right by Mousethief, I don't believe I am talking shite about evangelicalism.

I don't know enough about Orthodoxy to know how much crap you are talking about it; however I do think that your wild generalisations might apply to some Evangelicals but in no sense are helpful when talking about the massive diversity of views within Evangelicalism.

quote:
I haven't said anything here about evangelicalism that can't be backed up by observation or my own personal experience.

Not only that, even if I were talking shite about evangelicalism, what makes evangelicalism so sacrosanct that I can't talk shite about it?

It's just tedious, to be quite honest. You're picking on individuals or individual Evangelical situations and then extrapolating to suggest that this is somehow a wide phenomena.

quote:
I'll happily hold up my hand when I've spoken shite about something.

In this instance I don't think I've spoken shite but spoken fact.

At best what you've spoken is a situation you've experienced in a very specific context. And is likely irrelevant.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'll point out to you what I pointed out to Kaplan, a small word, 'particularly' ...

Read the small print.

I can be annoying, I can be a total prat at times, but in this instance I haven't said anything about evangelicalism that cannot be demonstrably verified from my own or other people's experience.

If that's irrelevant then fine, so be it.

What I can't see is how is how it's any less relevant than anything you might say drawing on your own experience of whatever Christian traditions you've been involved with ...

But this is a tangent, so I'll drop it there.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Actually, sorry to double-post, but I'll say one more thing on the evangelical issue ...

The irony here is that I've been defending evangelicalism against Mousethief's charge that an insistence on the view that Mary and Joseph had sex following their marriage represents a kind of sex-obsession and a denial of the value of abstinence ...

I've suggested that it is nothing of the kind and simply an issue of evangelicals interpreting scripture in a different way ie. outside of Big T Tradition.

I don't see anything controversial about that assertion.

So, far from taking 'gratuitous' side-swipes at evangelicalism as Kaplan claims or talking crap about evangelicalism as mr cheesy claims I'd maintain that I am doing neither.

What I have done is endeavoured to strike a balance. In doing so, of course, I set myself up for being shot by both sides.

https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=you+tube%2Bshot+by+both+sides#id=3&vid=8de89caa26cdf4e4f341fb57d9d b69c4&action=click

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, sorry to double-post, but I'll say one more thing on the evangelical issue ...

The irony here is that I've been defending evangelicalism against Mousethief's charge that an insistence on the view that Mary and Joseph had sex following their marriage represents a kind of sex-obsession and a denial of the value of abstinence ...

I've suggested that it is nothing of the kind and simply an issue of evangelicals interpreting scripture in a different way ie. outside of Big T Tradition.

I don't see anything controversial about that assertion.

So, far from taking 'gratuitous' side-swipes at evangelicalism as Kaplan claims or talking crap about evangelicalism as mr cheesy claims I'd maintain that I am doing neither.

What I have done is endeavoured to strike a balance. In doing so, of course, I set myself up for being shot by both sides.

Before you get too carried away with being a martyr to your fence-sitting habits, I'll remind you of the thing that Kaplan and I objected to:

quote:
you said:

Nobody said they were.

The point I was making was that many Protestants, particularly those of the more literal 6-Day Creation variety or who wave the 'solas' around as if they're some kind of badge of superiority, would be surprised to learn that some of those they revere as pioneers and champions did believe in the PVM ...

This is a wide generalisation and is clearly a knowing swipe at evangelicals.

And it likely has no substance to it anyway: whilst many Evangelicals have "imbibed" a theology which has been strongly influenced by Luther and Calvin (and these other Reformers), in my view it is only a minority who would actually have much knowledge of them or their wider theological views.

Of those who are actually more interested in Calvin or Luther (say), a very small number would be particularly interested in - or even aware of - their views of the perpeptual virginity of Mary. Of those that are, I doubt that very many would be too bothered to learn that these individuals had "non-standard" Evangelical views on the topic.

Because Protestantism in general and Evangelicalism as a subset thereof just isn't the kind of thing whereby any subsequent generation has to in any sense take wholesale advice from previous leaders. Calvin can be both highly influential on predestination whilst at the same time as irrelevant on the BVM. There is no contradiction there.

And it isn't simply about the notion of an alternative tradition that the Protestants have been carving for themselves to replace the one that was offered by the RCC - although that is clearly part of the package.

It is more that Evangelicalism - and really Protestantism as a thing - is a system of thought processes which take as prerequisite beliefs things that are different to those understood by the RCC as prerequisites and operates within a mental space which (in some senses) wider than the one within which RCC doctrine resides.

It is like the RCC offered a box of mixed chocolates and the Reformers decided that they didn't like the selection and set about (in increasingly complex ways over time) fashioning their own chocolates.

Where we are today is that there are a multitude of available chocolates available in a multitude of different combinations.

It isn't just that today's Evangelicals are fixated with Quality Street whereas the RCC only allow Dairy Milk, it is much more that Evangelicalism as a thing is the process of finding out which chocolates you like for yourself.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The plain fact of the matter is that Evangelicals almost by definition are not bound by Tradition

This is just crap. Evangelical tradition is different from RC or EOC tradition. And sometimes Evangelicals manage to change their tradition from within. But this whole idea of "you have tradition, we have the Bible" is, and always has been, pure unadulterated bullshit.

Evangelicals believe in the Trinity. In the Incarnation. In the Virgin Birth. These things are part of their Tradition. Can they be derived from Scripture? Sure. However adoptionism and Arianism can also be derived from Scripture. Which one you derive depends on your Tradition. Further, deriving things from Scripture is part of their Tradition, as are the solas, especially sola scriptura.

One of the newer but very tightly held parts of their Tradition is the ultimate evility of abortion.

Perhaps your point is contained in the word "bound" -- Protestants are free to cast off these traditions if they please. They have definitely done so with divorce. But Tradition is a river, not an ice sculpture. RC and EOC Traditions change as well, albeit glacially in the latter case. That doesn't make them not Traditions.

I can't let this bullcrap stand. Evangelicalism is not Tradition-free. That's an absurd and impossible claim. People just don't work that way.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I get that and it's well put.

I don't see how it is that much at odds or variance with what I've been posting though.

I will accept that my comment about 6-Day Creationist style evangelicals and those who wave the solas around 'as a badge of superiority' was certainly barbed and a side-swipe, but I was careful to couch it in terms that implied that not all evangelicals do that ...

But hey ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I cross-posted with Mousethief ...

I didn't understand mr cheesy to be saying that evangelicals are Tradition-free, simply that they are operating outside the hermeneutical boundaries of Tradition as understood within an RC or an Orthodox context.

[Confused]

Nor did I understand him to be saying, 'You have Tradition, we have the Bible ...' which is the crude and crass way some evangelicals couch these things.

I've crossed swords with mr cheesy to some extent here but I rather suspect you may have misunderstood what he was saying.

Just sayin' ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is just crap. Evangelical tradition is different from RC or EOC tradition. And sometimes Evangelicals manage to change their tradition from within. But this whole idea of "you have tradition, we have the Bible" is, and always has been, pure unadulterated bullshit.

Well it is clearly crap when you put it like that. And I'm not disagreeing that Evangelicals somehow haven't inherited beliefs from traditions that they might not fully recognise or acknowledge.

But at the same time it isn't crap, in the sense that Evangelicals are not "bound" by tradition because the very nature of being an Evangelical is to choose ones own beliefs in the light of the bible.

quote:
Evangelicals believe in the Trinity. In the Incarnation. In the Virgin Birth. These things are part of their Tradition. Can they be derived from Scripture? Sure. However adoptionism and Arianism can also be derived from Scripture. Which one you derive depends on your Tradition. Further, deriving things from Scripture is part of their Tradition, as are the solas, especially sola scriptura.

Quite so.

I'm struggling to explain how I'm disagreeing with you, but I still think I am.

I think the best explanation is that Evangelicals have a wider pool of acceptable theological ideas from which to dip but that these are still bound by the walls of Trinitarian belief.

But I still wouldn't say that Evangelicalism is a tradition as such. For sure some of their beliefs are clearly "traditional" - ie derived and inherited from an ancient tradition - but somehow, somewhere along the way some traditions have been accepted and others rejected in a way that (perhaps) there would be less leeway to do in a quote unquote big-T tradition. They've picked and chosen the ones they accept and those they reject.

quote:
One of the newer but very tightly held parts of their Tradition is the ultimate evility of abortion.

Well again, the problem is that there isn't really a central term of reference for Evangelicalism, so it is very hard to point to anything as being a defining feature of "their Tradition". It is absolutely true that for many Evangelicals abortion is a very strongly held belief, I agree. But I don't see that makes it a tradition (even for those Evangelicals who characterise themselves as being against abortion).

Again, I apologise, I'm struggling to find the words to use to describe the contrast between Evangelicalism and (for example) Orthodoxy.

quote:
Perhaps your point is contained in the word "bound" -- Protestants are free to cast off these traditions if they please. They have definitely done so with divorce. But Tradition is a river, not an ice sculpture. RC and EOC Traditions change as well, albeit glacially in the latter case. That doesn't make them not Traditions.

No, I think I agree with this. I think a
"tradition" needs a centre of gravity and an agreed term of reference. Evangelicalism almost by definition doesn't have those things.

quote:
I can't let this bullcrap stand. Evangelicalism is not Tradition-free. That's an absurd and impossible claim. People just don't work that way.

I think there are Traditions and traditions. And by saying that some of the Traditions are wrong and can be rejected, the Protestants and Evangelicals were rejecting the notion of a Tradition. But at the same time they were in some sense setting up a (much less formal in many cases) system of tradition.

But again I'm getting tied up in words so I'll stop before I make any more of a mess.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'm sorry, that's even more confusing when I tried re-reading it.

Maybe it is easier with an illustration.

Country A has a long established set of laws and a constitution.

Country B recently established a constitution.

Some of B's laws look remarkably like A's laws but some are different (althought clearly both believe in "the rule of law" otherwise why have a constitution?). B has clearly in some way derived from A, but at the same time B might honestly say that they've taken the "good bits" and rejected the "bad bits" because they're under no obligation to take everything from A and they believe they have some other way to determine good and bad laws other than referencing A's constitution and laws.

B's constitution and laws are later copied and modified by others.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not disagreeing that Evangelicals somehow haven't inherited beliefs from traditions that they might not fully recognise or acknowledge.

It's not that they inherited beliefs from other traditions. It's that those beliefs have then become part of THEIR tradition. The beliefs handed on from generation to generation. Just as is the Bible (and the list of books that defines it).

quote:
But at the same time it isn't crap, in the sense that Evangelicals are not "bound" by tradition because the very nature of being an Evangelical is to choose ones own beliefs in the light of the bible.

Except if someone chooses the "wrong" beliefs then they are excoriated and vilified, e.g. Rachel Held Evans. The Evangelical world has its own equivalent of excommunication, even.

quote:
I think the best explanation is that Evangelicals have a wider pool of acceptable theological ideas from which to dip but that these are still bound by the walls of Trinitarian belief.

So you have a fat tradition and we have a narrow. Sort of almost. I'd have to chew on that.

quote:
But I still wouldn't say that Evangelicalism is a tradition as such. For sure some of their beliefs are clearly "traditional" - ie derived and inherited from an ancient tradition - but somehow, somewhere along the way some traditions have been accepted and others rejected in a way that (perhaps) there would be less leeway to do in a quote unquote big-T tradition.

A looser tradition is still a tradition.

quote:
They've picked and chosen the ones they accept and those they reject.

I think Evangelicals are far less insular than you might wish. They all go to the Bible to decide what to believe, and magically come away believing very much the same things. Whereas people from other traditions do the same thing and come away with a different set of beliefs. There's Tradition at work for you.

quote:
It is absolutely true that for many Evangelicals abortion is a very strongly held belief, I agree. But I don't see that makes it a tradition (even for those Evangelicals who characterise themselves as being against abortion).

I think we may be foundering on the definition of Tradition. You appear to think of it as an unchanging, plenary monolith that imposes its stamp upon everything a Catholic or Orthodox does or thinks. And of course there is no such thing in Evangelicalism, but put that way there is no such thing in Catholicism or Orthodoxy either. I suspect that until we come to an agreed-upon definition of "tradition" we will disagree about whether Evangelicalism is a tradition not because we see different qualities in Evangelicalism, but because we are comparing those qualities to a different wall-chart, so to speak.

quote:
No, I think I agree with this. I think a "tradition" needs a centre of gravity and an agreed term of reference. Evangelicalism almost by definition doesn't have those things.

Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible? By which of course I mean (and they practice) a certain way of reading the Bible. A lot of it goes unspoken so it seems like it's not there at all. Which is what allows some people to say absurd things like "You have tradition, I have the Bible." Because some ways of reading the Bible just aren't Evangelical.

quote:
I think there are Traditions and traditions. And by saying that some of the Traditions are wrong and can be rejected, the Protestants and Evangelicals were rejecting the notion of a Tradition. But at the same time they were in some sense setting up a (much less formal in many cases) system of tradition.

Yes, this is close to what I am trying to say. I think historically it requires a lot more unpacking. Maybe in the context of the ship a whole new thread.

quote:
But again I'm getting tied up in words so I'll stop before I make any more of a mess.

Nah, not messy in that sense, I don't think, any more than the whole subject is a messy one. Thank you for your answers.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

B's constitution *IS* its tradition at first, and then all of the case law that is decided under it is added to the tradition, and on it flows.

Of course to complete the figure, Country B broke off from Country A, and now sits on territory that used to be part of Country A. All of its judges and magistrates at the time of its founding are former judges and magistrates from Country A. And it goes without saying that all of its citizens used to be citizens in Country A.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
B's constitution *IS* its tradition at first, and then all of the case law that is decided under it is added to the tradition, and on it flows.

I suppose the difference I'm groping to try to get to is if A's constitution was arrived at via centuries of thought and discussion to the extent that they look aghast at B "ripping it off". If A only operates by carefully considering changes within the light of their centuries of jurispudence whereas B isn't constrained by the idea of lopping bits off that no longer have a use or even screwing the whole thing up and starting again - then I think we're somewhere into the discussion of the difference between Tradition and tradition.

quote:
Of course to complete the figure, Country B broke off from Country A, and now sits on territory that used to be part of Country A. All of its judges and magistrates at the time of its founding are former judges and magistrates from Country A. And it goes without saying that all of its citizens used to be citizens in Country A.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Mmm. I suppose I'm trying to say that there is a real difference in practice between A and B which isn't really established without an understanding of the difference between Tradition and tradition.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is all bullshit. Not belief, but this irregular noun rubbish to differentiate in just how one chooses to believe what particular things.

EVERYONE in EVERY codified religion makes choices that are subjective. Pretending they are not might well be part of the reason for the increasing agnosticism and atheism that some of you decry so whingingly.

BTW, disliking and/or disagreeing with particular thoughts/practices within a religion or sect does not therefore imply a dislike of the group entire. It is a cheap and easy defence that allows one to ignore people and ideas.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

EVERYONE in EVERY codified religion makes choices that are subjective.

Yes.. but also no. Religions are arranged differently with different tolerances for a range of acceptable beliefs.

And also not everyone understands religion as being a purely personal thing. Whilst I might make subjective choices about the individual things that I disagree with the church (however I'm defining that), there is also something about belonging to a body of belief which is bigger than the individual which is very attractive and might go beyond one's personal subjective choices.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But Evangelicals are NOT going to start again. They can't. They won't. That's wishful thinking about how "non-Traditional" you really are. If some Evangelicals threw out some of the central tenets of Evangelicalism, the rest would toss them overboard and the HMS Evangelical would sail on without them.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And also not everyone understands religion as being a purely personal thing. Whilst I might make subjective choices about the individual things that I disagree with the church (however I'm defining that), there is also something about belonging to a body of belief which is bigger than the individual which is very attractive and might go beyond one's personal subjective choices.

You have made a perfect 180. First you are defending your concept of Evangelicalism as everybody making their own decisions.

quote:
the very nature of being an Evangelical is to choose ones own beliefs in the light of the bible.

(emphasis mine)

"[B]elonging to a body of belief which is bigger than the individual" -- that's a pretty decent definition of Tradition.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But Evangelicals are NOT going to start again. They can't. They won't. That's wishful thinking about how "non-Traditional" you really are. If some Evangelicals threw out some of the central tenets of Evangelicalism, the rest would toss them overboard and the HMS Evangelical would sail on without them.

I'm not clear who you think is going to do the tossing - given that there are a wide range of Evangelical groupings and denominations. Plenty of churches have been tossed out of one group and have set up within another or on their own.

Given that there exist Evangelicals who believe equal and opposite things to each other, it is hard to understand how being tossed out by anyone somehow then makes a group non-evangelical. Or what that can even mean.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

"[B]elonging to a body of belief which is bigger than the individual" -- that's a pretty decent definition of Tradition.

I don't think I was specifically talking about Evangelicals in that response. I was thinking about RCC believers whilst I was writing it and reflecting that there might be reasons for belonging to a religious group which are outwith of simple personal subjective beliefs which lilBuddha claimed everyone makes.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have made a perfect 180. First you are defending your concept of Evangelicalism as everybody making their own decisions.

Also on this: I'm trying to suggest that there is a difference between a Christian group which has central structures and a belief in Tradition and the notion of Evangelicalism as a thing whereby people think that they can pick and choose their own doctrines and beliefs without reference to that (your) Tradition.

That isn't to say that I am an Evangelical nor that I think their claims to derive ideas from the bible make any sense.

I'm just - inexpertly and lacking the proper terms - suggesting that I think there is a real difference in approach between those denominations which operate within the paradigm of thousands of years of Tradition and the Evangelicals.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also on this: I'm trying to suggest that there is a difference between a Christian group which has central structures and a belief in Tradition and the notion of Evangelicalism as a thing whereby people think that they can pick and choose their own doctrines and beliefs without reference to that (your) Tradition.

This is a "no shit" though. There are people in other traditions who don't feel the need to reference mine. Ayup. Nor do the Catholics; nor do the Copts.

quote:
I'm just - inexpertly and lacking the proper terms - suggesting that I think there is a real difference in approach between those denominations which operate within the paradigm of thousands of years of Tradition and the Evangelicals.

Yes, their Tradition is far younger. But it's still a Tradition for a' that. Unless you define "Evangelical" as "anybody who calls himself an Evangelical," there are certain things that define Evangelicals. Sure there may be a penumbra of people who have rejected some of Evangelicalism's central doctrines. But if somebody rejects the final authority of the Bible in defining doctrine and settling disputes therein, are they an Evangelical? That is one of their Traditions. And so forth.

Sure there are any number of parts of RC or EOC tradition that Evangelicals have rejected. But if that means Evangelicals don't have a tradition, then you would appear to be arguing in a circle.

Evangelicals reject Catholic Tradition
Therefore Evangelicals don't have Tradition.

It's an enthymeme with the missing premise "only Catholic Tradition is Tradition."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

might go beyond one's personal subjective choices.

But I'm not talking about personal subjective choice. Every sub-sect/group or congregation of Christianity makes subjective choices as a group. The choice of how one interprets the Bible is handed down and that become a tradition. Specifying T vs t is sectarian rubbish.
Defending the why of particular traditions is a conversation. As can be the effect of different approaches.
From where I stand, there is good and bad to those differences, but I don't see any inherent superiority.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

This is developing into an interesting Tradition vs tradition debate ...

Has it morphed into a separate thread yet?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This is developing into an interesting Tradition vs tradition debate ...

Has it morphed into a separate thread yet?

I think so. I wish it were possible to port (and not just quote) posts onto a new thread. I suppose it could be done by a host copying the thread, then deleting all the posts that came before the ones you want to port, then renaming the thread appropriately. But that would be a hell of a lot of work and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Me neither.

Nor me ...

How's abouts we create a new thread which references this one?

Your call or mine?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Me neither.

Nor me ...

How's abouts we create a new thread which references this one?

Your call or mine?

Go for it. Remember to quote all of the interesting posts here to give it some firm background.

By the way your PM box is full.

[ 28. June 2017, 18:02: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I'm not talking about personal subjective choice. Every sub-sect/group or congregation of Christianity makes subjective choices as a group.

I don't think that the group making the choice thinks that they're being subjective. And I'm not totally sure that any group making a choice is ever being consciously subjective. Nobody is looking at the available theological choices, saying to themselves that this thing is believable because of the context that they're in, that other options are available and that therefore others should join because this is a nice option from a field of other nice options. They're saying that this thing that they believe in is true and that the other options out there are not true (or some variation of "less true" than the thing we believe in).

quote:
The choice of how one interprets the Bible is handed down and that become a tradition. Specifying T vs t is sectarian rubbish.

I'm sorry that you feel that - and I've admitted that I've had trouble articulating what I'm getting at. However I'm not intending to promote sectarianism, I'm simply trying to suggest that there is a different mindset at play when one is talking about a religion where belonging is about embracing the totality of what that thing means - including the structures, centre of gravity (theologically and in other ways) - and a religion which is at root about choosing and rejecting available bits of religion that are lying about and/or mixing it up with newer insights.

I'm now not sure that the distinction between Tradition and tradition is quite the right way to phrase it, however there still seems to me to be a clear difference.

quote:
Defending the why of particular traditions is a conversation. As can be the effect of different approaches.
From where I stand, there is good and bad to those differences, but I don't see any inherent superiority.

I don't think there is superiority, I'm certainly not trying to advocate that Evangelicalism is superior to Orthodoxy. I'm just trying (and likely failing) to argue that Evangelicalism is a different thing.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible? By which of course I mean (and they practice) a certain way of reading the Bible. A lot of it goes unspoken so it seems like it's not there at all. Which is what allows some people to say absurd things like "You have tradition, I have the Bible." Because some ways of reading the Bible just aren't Evangelical.

I've been trying to think about how to respond to this and not really getting very far.

I think it is more accurate to say that the centre of gravity in Evangelicalism is about a particular interpretation of the bible - in fact a variety of interpretations - which at the root include an insistence that they can be understood outwith of the context insisted upon by the RCC, and by extension the Orthodox.

But even that is a weak gravitational field compared to the centre of gravity of the RCC (or Orthodox) because the exact things which have to be believed to be an Evangelical are so nebulous.

In a much more real sense, I think the centre of gravity within Evangelicalism is about "not being" something else.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Not the Bebbington quadrilateral? Even I can sign up to deconstructed, pomo, transcendent biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism and activism. Or must it be modern, i.e. C18th flavours only? The BQ is what I have seen in all four evo congos I've been part of.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think that the group making the choice thinks that they're being subjective. And I'm not totally sure that any group making a choice is ever being consciously subjective. Nobody is looking at the available theological choices, saying to themselves that this thing is believable because of the context that they're in, that other options are available and that therefore others should join because this is a nice option from a field of other nice options. They're saying that this thing that they believe in is true and that the other options out there are not true (or some variation of "less true" than the thing we believe in).

But so what? I might think my choice in tea is objective, but that does not make it so.
If how to interpret the bible were not subjective, there would not be so many variations.

quote:

I'm just trying (and likely failing) to argue that Evangelicalism is a different thing.

I think that there is a difference is pretty obvious. What I am saying is not all the claimed differences are as solid as often represented.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is more accurate to say that the centre of gravity in Evangelicalism is about a particular interpretation of the bible - in fact a variety of interpretations - which at the root include an insistence that they can be understood outwith of the context insisted upon by the RCC, and by extension the Orthodox.

But that's even worse. If the center is a particular interpretation of the Bible, that is a very clear Tradition.

quote:
But even that is a weak gravitational field compared to the centre of gravity of the RCC (or Orthodox) because the exact things which have to be believed to be an Evangelical are so nebulous.

The things that have to be believed to be an Orthodox are basically the Creed. Add the mystery of the Eucharist and you're pretty much at the end of the "you must believe this or else" dogmas. The vast majority of the rest you are free to question, but not to teach the opposite as if it were Orthodoxy.

quote:
In a much more real sense, I think the centre of gravity within Evangelicalism is about "not being" something else.

That's pathetic.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible?

The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.

Adherents of tradition invariably insist that their tradition is congruent with Scripture, just as liberals will insist that their beliefs are an organic development of Scripture.

Evangelicals, mirabile dictu, no matter what some of them might say, actually believe in and practise prima scriptura, not sola scriptura; actually recognise that they are part of a small-t tradition; and are actually aware of, and grateful for, the elements which they have inherited from the large-T Tradition, such as the Trinitaian and Christological formulations of the early ecumenical councils.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.

Adherents of tradition invariably insist that their tradition is congruent with Scripture

Yes. The Bible is part of our tradition, and we believe our tradition is internally self-consistent. From this it does not follow that the bible is our center of gravity.

quote:
Evangelicals, mirabile dictu, no matter what some of them might say, actually believe in and practise prima scriptura, not sola scriptura;

Some do, yes.

quote:
actually recognise that they are part of a small-t tradition;

Some do, yes.

quote:
and are actually aware of, and grateful for, the elements which they have inherited from the large-T Tradition, such as the Trinitaian and Christological formulations of the early ecumenical councils.

Some are, yes.

These things are by no means true of all Evangelicals.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No it isn't. If you read my post properly you'd see that I was singling out particular types of evangelical not issuing a blanket condemnation.

Sorry, but there is too much of a long-term pattern for me to accept that.

I think you have a blind-spot in this area.

You (and others) constantly refer to evangelicalism in terms of its worst aspects.

I disagree with aspects of RC and Orthodox belief and practice, but if I express my differences from them in my posts, I try to do so on the basis of their mainstream aspects, and not on the basis of their aberrant fringe elements, such as loony right-wing anti-Semitic extremist clergy, or illiterate, syncretistic peasants.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.

I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very tired of Evangelicals playing the victim card any time criticisms of Evangelicalism are discussed. Nobody is "carping on" anybody. The conversation between me, Gamaliel, mr cheesy, and kaplan corday has been very civil and not derogatory.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.

I do not see this. There are POV that are targeted, such as many of the DH issues, but I do not think evangelicals as a whole are. For my vantage point; if any group is targeted more than the rest, it would be the RCC. They get more grief and misunderstanding, IMO.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Evangelicals, mirabile dictu, no matter what some of them might say,

So, it is everyone else's fault that some do not explain themselves honestly and/or with decent self-knowledge?
For the record, I would say it is obvious that some evangelicals believe as you say. But just as obvious that some do not. This is something that can be said for any group.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, I'm sorry you feel that way, Kaplan and when I do start a fresh Tradition / tradition thread it'll be with the caveat that it doesn't become a 'Let's knock evangelicalism' thread but a 'Let's explore the issues without becoming defensive thread.'

I agree with Mousethief that the interaction here between him, mr cheesy and myself has largely been positive.

I'm not upset nor 'unrestful.'

That said, as this is the Magazine of Christian Unrest, I tend to use it to bounce unrestful ideas around. Otherwise I'd be in Heaven starting up 'Why I think evangelicalism is so wonderful threads.'

It's all down to context.

If I was Orthodox I'd no doubt be posting 'Why right-wing anti-Semitic clergy and illiterate, syncretic peasants are pains in the arse' threads.

If I were RC I'd be posting 'Why ultra-montane pre-Vatican 2 sticklers for Trent are pains in the arse.'

If I were liberal I'd be posting 'Why Spong and Cupitt are pains in the arse.'

Evangelicalism is the tradition I know best and the one I tend to riff with and react to.

My comments about evangelicalism here aboard Ship have been a lot milder recently than they were in the past and when I was going through my 'transitioning' to post-evangelical or broadly paleo-orthodox phase.

Come on, you've met me in real life. I don't recall spending the entirety of the afternoon dismissing evangelicalism.

I'm not dismissing it now. Anything critical I say here about evangelicalism comes from the perspective of being a critical friend and by virtue of the nature of the medium probably comes across more harshly on the screen than it would in real life.

I certainly recognise your portrayal of evangelicals as those nice people who operate a prima-scriptura rather than a sola scriptura approach and who recognise themselves as part of a small t tradition, but not all evangelicals behave that way.

If they did, I'd be less critical on these boards.

Context, my friend. Context.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

And I should have said that I think the interaction here with Kaplan has been positive too.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

It's all very well to argue whether Evangelicals have a tradition or not - clearly they do - but it doesn't change the fact, the very observable fact, that they don't relate to that tradition the way other groups do to theirs. In particular they are very unlikely to be persuaded on a theological matter such as PVM based on an appeal to tradition.

Which is why most Evangelicals would hear, "Luther, Calvin and Wesley all apparently believed [PVM]" and just shrug.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
It's all very well to argue whether Evangelicals have a tradition or not - clearly they do - but it doesn't change the fact, the very observable fact, that they don't relate to that tradition the way other groups do to theirs. In particular they are very unlikely to be persuaded on a theological matter such as PVM based on an appeal to tradition.

Which is why most Evangelicals would hear, "Luther, Calvin and Wesley all apparently believed [PVM]" and just shrug.

But the point of such a reference isn't an argument from Tradition. It is a fairly substantial riposte to the claim that it can't be supported without the catholic understanding of Tradition. In other words, the argument is that given that the person who devised the 'solas' system that you are claiming to argue from could believe it, and believe it as consistent with that system, then how can you claim it as impossible to hold within that system.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not the Bebbington quadrilateral? Even I can sign up to deconstructed, pomo, transcendent biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism and activism. Or must it be modern, i.e. C18th flavours only? The BQ is what I have seen in all four evo congos I've been part of.

I would say the Bebbington Quad is the closest thing we have to an "official" set of defining beliefs, and it is the most common definition used by academics. Lefty evangelicals such as myself like it because it allows us to stay in the tribe despite some real points of tension.

In practice,however, it's fair to say that the average pew-sitters doesn't think of it in those terms and have never heard of Bebbington. Almost all evangelicals will cite "Bible-believing" (biblicism) as a defining believe but in a more specific way than what the Quad really intends, in fact, almost the opposite. Biblicism ought to mean that we so are committed to the Bible as the final, authoritiative word that we'll invest a great deal of time & effort insuring we understand it, are prayerfully considering context, etc. If we've really jettisoned big-T Tradition in favor of a ruthless biblicism, it should mean we are open to new interpretations that may take us surprising places, as long as it can be justified by a thoughtful and respectful, contextual use of Scripture.

Instead, you'll see of course the rigidity of thought that plagues every group. Among evangelicals the biblicism, instead of opening ideas up, seems to shut them down every bit as much as big-T Tradition. You'll get a bit of a jumping ahead-- "I'm an evangelical, we believe in the Bible, therefore I'm opposed to X, or believe Y, or..." without paying any attention (or sometimes even being aware of) those intervening steps between "I believe in the Bible" and "I believe X about dead horse issue Y". Which makes it sound a whole lot like big-T Tradition.

Again, this is being challenged quite a bit among evangelical academics and a few lefty evangelical writers with a following among young, lefty evangelicals, but not as much among older congregants.

ymmv

[ 29. June 2017, 14:00: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, but is it really the case - and this is a genuine question, I'm not taking sides - that Big T Tradition closes things down any more than the various small t traditions?

Ok, it could be argued that the RCC ratchets things up more tightly than the Orthodox do, but as Mousethief says, the nub and kernel of Big O Orthodox Tradition are the Creeds. Beyond that, you don't really have to sign up to an awful lot else - although there are 'extra' bits that evangelicals would certainly have a problem with - be it iconography, the invocation of the prayers of the Saints, the PVM and so on ...

I still haven't got around to creating the new thread I mentioned earlier, but in many ways - from my own observations - one could argue that there is a lot more wriggle-room within an RC parish or an Orthodox one - although some of the convert parishes are quite 'hard-line' being made up of convertski - than you'd find in many evangelical Protestant congregations.

Again, the mileage varies of course - but although I'm still on this side of the Tiber and the Bosphorus, I must admit I do find it strange when I see evangelicals boasting that they've got more freedom or intellectual wriggle-room when the opposite often seems to be the case ...

Before I get taken to task, that isn't a side-swipe at evangelicals. Everyone has their boundaries and all groups have their Group Think.

But it's often easier to see that in operation in other people's traditions and settings than it is in one's own.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but is it really the case - and this is a genuine question, I'm not taking sides - that Big T Tradition closes things down any more than the various small t traditions?

That was really my (long-winded) point-- that the little-t tradition (in this case, biblicism) tends to over time have the exact same effect as the big-T Tradition.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Looks like a false dichotomy line I have the lonely privilege of being above.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
In other words, the argument is that given that the person who devised the 'solas' system that you are claiming to argue from could believe it, and believe it as consistent with that system, then how can you claim it as impossible to hold within that system.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Instead, you'll see of course the rigidity of thought that plagues every group. Among evangelicals the biblicism, instead of opening ideas up, seems to shut them down every bit as much as big-T Tradition.

Both polite ways of saying that people do not generally question what they believe.

Especially regarding religion.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Or politics or pseudo-science or any prejudice. It must have survival value, or be the manifestation of something that does. We are so pathetically, helplessly frail in this. In our tiny identities. Makes me wonder what we'll be transcendent. My belief/believing system has been completely overhauled over seven decades but I'm still plagued with intrusive thinking. The grooves cut deep and we cannot escape them even cognitively.

[ 29. June 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Or politics or pseudo-science or any prejudice. It must have survival value, or be the manifestation of something that does. We are so pathetically, helplessly frail in this.

We are a pack animal. Pert of this is identifying what constitutes belonging and what challenges it.

quote:

In our tiny identities. Makes me wonder what we'll be transcendent. My belief/believing system has been completely overhauled over seven decades but I'm still plagued with intrusive thinking. The grooves cut deep and we cannot escape them even cognitively.

Humans did not evolve to live in cities. We adapted our behaviours to do so. We also fight those modifications though, so...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but is it really the case - and this is a genuine question, I'm not taking sides - that Big T Tradition closes things down any more than the various small t traditions?

That was really my (long-winded) point-- that the little-t tradition (in this case, biblicism) tends to over time have the exact same effect as the big-T Tradition.

Fair enough, but for all its/their faults, I don't see Big T Tradition closing down conversations about evolution, say, or issues around gender and sexuality in the way that I see happening in certain traditions that might pride themselves as not being part of Big T Tradition.

Again, that's not a side-swipe at evangelicals, but whilst the Quadrilaterals and a principled biblicism - which, as you say, isn't always as robust as its proponents would have us believe - allows a degree of wriggle-room they have their boundaries and limitations the same as any other system.

Which again, is, I'm sure, part of the point you were making.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I maintain that tradition or Tradition without grounding in text, regardless of the mental gymnastics theologians/Church Fathers engaged in to arrive at said traditions, is nothing short of creation from whole cloth. It was suggested above that I should read some church history/understand history. I have read histories of the early church. As for understanding history as a discipline, my first two degrees are in history.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but for all its/their faults, I don't see Big T Tradition closing down conversations about evolution, say, or issues around gender and sexuality in the way that I see happening in certain traditions that might pride themselves as not being part of Big T Tradition.

Excuse me? Orthodox and RCC sure as hell close conversations about gender and sexuality. Not to mention the CofE getting a legal exemption from recent anti-discrimination laws on this very thing.
Granted, the RCC Top Dogg is not going down the "your going to BURN IN HELL!" route, these days. But his position isn't completely inclusive either.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but for all its/their faults, I don't see Big T Tradition closing down conversations about evolution, say, or issues around gender and sexuality in the way that I see happening in certain traditions that might pride themselves as not being part of Big T Tradition.
Excuse me? Orthodox and RCC sure as hell close conversations about gender and sexuality. Not to mention the CofE getting a legal exemption from recent anti-discrimination laws on this very thing.
Granted, the RCC Top Dogg is not going down the "your going to BURN IN HELL!" route, these days. But his position isn't completely inclusive either.

I didn't word this very well, I'm not saying that these conversations are necessarily 'lifting the lid' on these issues - but in some of the outfits I had in mind you couldn't even begin to have that kind of conversation in the first place.

It's all relative.

But yes, I chose the wrong example.

If I'd have left out the sexuality / Dead Horse issues then I may have been closer to the mark in terms of what I was trying to say.

Trying a conversation about evolution - even theistic evolution - within some conservative evangelical congregations and see how far you get ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I maintain that tradition or Tradition without grounding in text, regardless of the mental gymnastics theologians/Church Fathers engaged in to arrive at said traditions, is nothing short of creation from whole cloth. It was suggested above that I should read some church history/understand history. I have read histories of the early church. As for understanding history as a discipline, my first two degrees are in history.

Then you should know better, then ...

[Biased]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I maintain that tradition or Tradition without grounding in text, regardless of the mental gymnastics theologians/Church Fathers engaged in to arrive at said traditions, is nothing short of creation from whole cloth.

The Bible isn't history. It contains elements of history, but it isn't an historical document.
Objectivity isn't a thing in religious writing, in general, and it is a relatively new thing in writing history.
We are not ancient peoples, so we do not operate in the same cultural context.
So, then, going beyond the text is of strict necessity if one wants to understand the message.

IMO, the concept of Tradition "inventing from whole cloth" is an often inaccurate attempt at dismissal and differentiation.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Whereas I would argue that Tradition is an attempt to create something from little or no evidence.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but is it really the case - and this is a genuine question, I'm not taking sides - that Big T Tradition closes things down any more than the various small t traditions?

That was really my (long-winded) point-- that the little-t tradition (in this case, biblicism) tends to over time have the exact same effect as the big-T Tradition.
Fair enough, but for all its/their faults, I don't see Big T Tradition closing down conversations about evolution, say, or issues around gender and sexuality in the way that I see happening in certain traditions that might pride themselves as not being part of Big T Tradition.

Again, that's not a side-swipe at evangelicals, but whilst the Quadrilaterals and a principled biblicism - which, as you say, isn't always as robust as its proponents would have us believe - allows a degree of wriggle-room they have their boundaries and limitations the same as any other system.

Which again, is, I'm sure, part of the point you were making.

Yes. I'm not sure evangelicals are any worse about it, but we certainly are not any better-- despite our pious claims to be "open to whatever God says".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That implies a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.

'Aha! I've got it, we'll tell them X, Y and Z. They'll swallow it whole, the suckers!'

I don't believe that either tradition - small t - or Tradition, Big T, work that way.

Of course, proponents of Big T Tradition would say that oral tradition fed into its development, which is always going to be a difficult thing to prove if that oral tradition doesn't leave a written trace ...

My own take would be that Big T Tradition develops in response to and alongside written texts. In some ways, crudely, we could suggest that it is an attempt to fill tantalising gaps and suggestions left by the written records.

'Scripture doesn't actually tell us how this happened, or why that was, so it might have been like this ...'

With the 'like this' developing into hard and fast accounts or interpretations over time.

I'm not sure how you'd understand the process working if you have two history degrees, but I'd have thought any historiographer worth their salt would envisage some kind of process like that in play rather than the rather blanket - and to my mind rather crude - 'cut from whole cloth' approach which you suggest.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't understand this point about the creeds. Surely to be a communicant within the Orthodox, RCC (Copts etc) one has to accept the authority etc of that church. Whilst I'm sure there is diversity within all of these groups as to what is or isn't acceptable divergence of theology from the central dogmas, it must be true that allegiance to the church is important.

That simply doesn't exist for "Evangelicals" because there is no one central authority, and even if one is forced to leave an Evangelical group, this doesn't mean that one is somehow not then an Evangelical.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think the point Mousethief was making was that in terms of belief, little more is required of the Orthodox than a belief in the Creeds.

That isn't to say that there isn't an expectation about attending church services, receiving communion and so on - but the 'requirements' there aren't particularly onerous.

The degree to which individuals adhere to the fasting regime and attend services and so on is pretty much left up to the individual ...

I can see what you are getting at in terms of how this is different for evangelicals ... but in some ways we aren't comparing like with like ...

Meanwhile, I will start that promised new thread at some point ...

But here're some further question for Caissa in the meantime:

Do you not see tradition / Tradition as having a role in the formulation of written sources in the first place?

Do those written sources somehow sit outside the tradition / Tradition rather than being produced / written / interpreted within those traditions / Traditions?

I notice you are an Anglican. I'd have thought the Anglican approach was one of 'The Church through the Bible and the Bible through the Church' - scripture, tradition and reason - rather than an approach were scripture is seen as somehow being separate or distinct in some way - and not part and parcel of the whole kit and kaboodle ...

Which is effectively where Sola Scriptura - rather than Prima Scriptura - takes us ...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible?
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.

No - for centuries, people couldn't read. Even since the reformation, only a small per centage of Christians read the bible.

[ 29. June 2017, 17:49: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Whereas I would argue that Tradition is an attempt to create something from little or no evidence.

No offence intended, but this seems more based upon prejudice than evidence.
You would have to outline a particular Traditional belief to truly illustrate your claim.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
which is always going to be a difficult thing to prove if that oral tradition doesn't leave a written trace ...

The entire Bible was oral until someone wrote it down. Unless you've dusted for God's actual fingerprints.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible?
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.
No - for centuries, people couldn't read. Even since the reformation, only a small per centage of Christians read the bible.

Good point in there. Most people's "bible belief" is really what their priest/pastor/bishop/etc. had told them the bible says.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

One nagging point about the topic at hand,

If we call Mary, the "Virgin Mary" does that imply belief in her perpetual virginity?

Or, does it only refer to her virginal state at the birth of her Son?

I ask, because as an Anglican, I understand that the Anglican tradition doesn't officially demand belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, but in many liturgies, she is called "Virgin Mary" or "Blessed Virgin Mary".

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

In Nonconformist circles, probably to her state at the Annunciation - and, of course, up to Jesus' birth. But not beyond.

It would not be uncommon to call her the VM, but never the BVM.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

LilBuddha, I think the Tradition of Perpetual Virginity is a good illustration of my argument.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very tired of Evangelicals playing the victim card any time criticisms of Evangelicalism are discussed. Nobody is "carping on" anybody. The conversation between me, Gamaliel, mr cheesy, and kaplan corday has been very civil and not derogatory.

I'm no evangelical. Unless you count the German evangelische that marks a Lutheran.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm no evangelical. Unless you count the German evangelische that marks a Lutheran.

So you're not ELCA? Or are you saying the ELCA isn't Evangelical?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
LilBuddha, I think the Tradition of Perpetual Virginity is a good illustration of my argument.

I think it is a good illustration of the complexity of the T vs t. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly say Perpetual. But inferring that from Mary's special nature isn't outré.
In other words, one can argue that it is a quilt stitched with mixed fibres, but not that is made from 'whole cloth'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd agree with that, lilBuddha and I've also created a new thread to look at the tradition / Tradition thing.

One observation, though ... Caissa seems to be suggesting that something has to have a 'proof-text' in order to have traction. I'd suggest that there are grades and strands and threads between mixed cloth on the one hand and whole cloth on the other.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very very tired and distressed by the near-constant carping on the Ship at our evangelical brothers and sisters. Or are they not that, anymore? For all their faults.
I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm getting very tired of Evangelicals playing the victim card any time criticisms of Evangelicalism are discussed. Nobody is "carping on" anybody. The conversation between me, Gamaliel, mr cheesy, and kaplan corday has been very civil and not derogatory.
I'm no evangelical. Unless you count the German evangelische that marks a Lutheran.

Nevertheless the "boo hoo this ship hates Evangelicals" schtick is fucking annoying.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless the "boo hoo this ship hates Evangelicals" schtick is fucking annoying.

I see that - but at the same time I think a big part of the problem is that people are talking past each other and getting frustrated because the "other" - which is often the Evangelical - refuses to conform to the expectations of the discussion.

I don't see my role here as defending Evangelicals, however it seems to me that it is clearly true that Evangelicals are much more of a target here than others are. So it might be a "schtick", but it is also an accurate schtick.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can understand Shippies getting that impression but I'd suggest that it is particular forms of evangelicalism that come in for some stick rather than evangelicalism per se - despite the accusations Kaplan Corday has levelled at me in that regard.

Putting it crudely, I've often clashed with Jamat on these boards but have hardly ever clashed with Cliffdweller and her brand of evangelicalism.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm no evangelical. Unless you count the German evangelische that marks a Lutheran.
So you're not ELCA? Or are you saying the ELCA isn't Evangelical?

Why the hell bring the ELCA into it? To the best of my knowledge, they fall even less under the rubric of "evangelical" (small e) than I do.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can understand Shippies getting that impression but I'd suggest that it is particular forms of evangelicalism that come in for some stick rather than evangelicalism per se - despite the accusations Kaplan Corday has levelled at me in that regard.

Putting it crudely, I've often clashed with Jamat on these boards but have hardly ever clashed with Cliffdweller and her brand of evangelicalism.

What's causing me to finally boil over after umpty years is the near-constant negatives in a you-all-know-it tone that would never fly for a moment if anybody tried it against, say, Orthodoxy, Islam, Roman Catholicism, Buddhism... Truly, to read the Ship nowadays, if I didn't know better, I'd assume the evangelicals were some sort of strange cult and no part of the church of Christ.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
however it seems to me that it is clearly true that Evangelicals are much more of a target here than others are.

Again I disagree. ISTM, there are issues that are associated with evangelicals that are targeted, and people who are associated with evangelicalism whose ideas are lambasted. But I do not think evangelicals as a whole are. At most, there are assumptions that evangelicals are more homogeneous than they are.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What's causing me to finally boil over after umpty years is the near-constant negatives in a you-all-know-it tone that would never fly for a moment if anybody tried it against, say, Orthodoxy, Islam, Roman Catholicism, Buddhism... Truly, to read the Ship nowadays, if I didn't know better, I'd assume the evangelicals were some sort of strange cult and no part of the church of Christ.

Orthodoxy - Hardly discussed at all, any more. Not since Squiggly Andrew imploded and the odious twerp I shall not name left.
Islam - generally only discussed following racist claims; no Muslim shipmates, AFAIK, to discuss it proper.
RCC - WTF? The most picked on group in my time here on the Ship. Partly due to IngoB's style, perhaps, but hardly defended by non-RCC by Shipmates in general.
Buddhism - Too few of you know enough about it and/or encounter it in the wild for this to be an issue wither way.

Again. Certain Ideas, associated with evangelicals are not extremely popular on the ship.
And, again, this does not mean Evangelicalism is the target.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree with lilBuddha again. I also get the impression that the high-water mark of anti-evangelicalism aboard Ship - except perhaps on some of the DH threads - receded a number of years ago.

I suspect the cumulative effect that Lamb Chopped refers to is the result of a slow-burn not a conflagration.

My comments on evangelicalism on this thread have been pretty mild IMHO and I've been careful not to be broad-brush. I've been a lot harsher about aspects of evangelicalism in the past.

This is the Magazine of Christian Unrest. If I were RC I'd be unrestful about that. If I were Buddhist I'd be unrestful about the way some Buddhists are apparently behaving in Burma. If I were Orthodox I'd darn well be bloody fucking unrestful and no mistake about phyletism, anti-Semitism, anti-ecumenusm and the kissing of Putin's arse as if it were a holy icon.

Anyone would think I break into evangelical homes at night and piss all over their Bible study notes or teach liturgical prayers to their children ...

Keep things in proportion already.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless the "boo hoo this ship hates Evangelicals" schtick is fucking annoying.
I see that - but at the same time I think a big part of the problem is that people are talking past each other and getting frustrated because the "other" - which is often the Evangelical - refuses to conform to the expectations of the discussion.

I don't see my role here as defending Evangelicals, however it seems to me that it is clearly true that Evangelicals are much more of a target here than others are. So it might be a "schtick", but it is also an accurate schtick.

Nobody is attacking anybody on this thread.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm no evangelical. Unless you count the German evangelische that marks a Lutheran.
So you're not ELCA? Or are you saying the ELCA isn't Evangelical?

The ELCA is "evangelical" in the original sense of the word as the term favored by Luther for his gospel-centered reforms. It essentially meant Protestant, or Lutheran Protestant as opposed to Reformed. It is not the same as the more common modern usage.

And I believe that LC is Missouri Synod.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Anyone would think I break into evangelical homes at night and piss all over their Bible study notes...

...I thought those were tea stains!
[Ultra confused]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ha ha ...

I'm British of course, so tea would make up a large proportion of the chemical constitution of my wee-wee ...

As for my ah-ahs and my farts ...

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless the "boo hoo this ship hates Evangelicals" schtick is fucking annoying.

If you are claiming that evangelicalism is not targetted on the Ship more than other Christian traditions, then you are being disingenuous.

If you don't like evangelicals drawing attention to it, then you face the same alternatives as evangelicals when faced with something they don't like on the Ship - which is to piss off or live with it.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone would think I break into evangelical homes at night and piss all over their Bible study notes

You realise that this makes them very hard to light as kindling starters when we conduct our regular burning of heretics.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

A thread starting with a simple question to which the simple and rational answer is 'no' develops into a 5 pager with Christians at each-other's thoats....again.
Just what is it about this Faith that enrages people so?

Think it might actually have given me an idea for a new thread

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible?
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.
No - for centuries, people couldn't read. Even since the reformation, only a small per centage of Christians read the bible.
Good point in there. Most people's "bible belief" is really what their priest/pastor/bishop/etc. had told them the bible says.

It still is.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible?
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.
No - for centuries, people couldn't read. Even since the reformation, only a small per centage of Christians read the bible.

People who couldn't read the Bible for themselves had it read to them in church. What was read was selected, but it included what are considered the most important passages.

Moo

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone would think I break into evangelical homes at night and piss all over their Bible study notes
You realise that this makes them very hard to light as kindling starters when we conduct our regular burning of heretics.

Which is precisely why I do it. If I didn't you evangelical bastards would be burning every 'heretic' in sight ...

No, wait, I said I wasn't doing it ...

On a more serious note, if evangelicalism comes in for some stick on these boards, so what?

This is the Magazine of Christian Unrest not The Evangelicalism Appreciation Society.

What am I supposed to do? Start a, 'Why Orthodoxy Sucks' thread or 'Why Liberals should Sod Off' or 'Why Roman Catholics Are The Spawn Of Satan' thread just to make you feel better and not to hurt your previous ickle feelings?

Come on, Kaplan. You can do better than that.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Gamaliel can be a complete pain in the butt, but he is nothing if not conciliatory.

Many, many moons ago when I first boarded the Ship I created a thread in which I invited people to list things they liked and admired about traditions / Traditions other than their own.

I might well do the same again.

While I'm at it, I might list those things I admire and treasure from the evangelical tradition that has - for better or worse - shaped my own spiritual development.

I am more than willing and more than happy to acknowledge the debt I owe to evangelicalism per se and to individual evangelicals.

At its core, evangelicalism embodies a concern for the Gospel and that has to be good, however we cut it.

I can understand how I irritate people with what they see as digs and side-swipes and I'll resolve not to do that - and if I lapse, to balance them out with positives.

What I won't do, though, is pretend that all in the evangelical garden is rosy nor will I overlook those areas where I feel - from experience and theological reflection - that evangelicalism is 'wanting' in some respect or to some degree or other.

I can't say fairer than that.

What's wrong with that, for goodness sake?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless the "boo hoo this ship hates Evangelicals" schtick is fucking annoying.
If you are claiming that evangelicalism is not targetted on the Ship more than other Christian traditions, then you are being disingenuous.

If you don't like evangelicals drawing attention to it, then you face the same alternatives as evangelicals when faced with something they don't like on the Ship - which is to piss off or live with it.

Exhibit A.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I see that - but at the same time I think a big part of the problem is that people are talking past each other and getting frustrated because the "other" - which is often the Evangelical - refuses to conform to the expectations of the discussion.

I don't see my role here as defending Evangelicals, however it seems to me that it is clearly true that Evangelicals are much more of a target here than others are. So it might be a "schtick", but it is also an accurate schtick.
Nobody is attacking anybody on this thread.

No - but the phenomena goes beyond whether an individual is being attacked.

I think that when Evangelicals make wild claims here, they're understandably taken to task by others. Fair enough.

But I'm mostly talking about the phenomena by which Evangelicals are very often portrayed as the "other extreme" in many different discussions, often using generalisations and pointing at examples that have very little to do with anyone else on the ship.

That seems to me to be a problem. It isn't just that the Evangelicals are vocal and so everyone else is playing wack-a-mole against endless pointless Evangelical attacks. It seems to be almost that we've - collectively - got Evangelicals on the brain to such an extent that we can't help bringing them into a discussion.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I suspect it's simply because many of us come from evangelical backgrounds and have been gradually moving away from that. Also, some of us have been hurt by certain experiences within evangelicalism.

Of course, other Shippies have had similar experiences with other traditons / Traditions.

FWIW my own experience of evangelicalism has been mixed - and I greatly value aspects of it. Which is one reason why I've started a fresh thread to celebrate what I admire about the various traditions I've encountered.

I can certainly see what mr cheesy is saying but I'm afraid I think Kaplan is being a tad hyper-sensitive. Perhaps if he reads what I've written on my new thread he'll be mollified.

Mousethief has been celebrating aspects of evangelicalism there too.

Alongside positive observations about other traditions.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

fwiw, as an evangelical I only rarely feel "targeted" on the Ship. Occasionally I'll feel like I'm being branded with some evangelical stereotype, but even then I can usually recognize a fair number of my evangelical brethren in the stereotype-- iow, we brought it on ourselves. But I find I'm critiqued for my own rhetorical shortcomings more often than I am for those of my fellow evangelicals.

The "ex-evangelical" thing Gamaliel points out is really found in "ex" anything. In my own evangelical circles I find lots of "ex-Catholics" who are the most vigorous Catholic-bashers around. When someone leaves a tradition they do so for a reason, and often that reason becomes solidified as a broad generalization that polarizes and makes it difficult to appreciate the gifts of that experience. My own story is probably the opposite trajectory of many here-- I was raised in liberal mainline Protestantism, the "social gospel" version popular in suburban US circa 1970s, then came to faith in American evangelicalism. It was decades before I was able to move beyond the stereotype of "spiritually empty, hopelessly libertarian" liberal Protestantism to appreciate the ways that heritage shaped my views of justice and compassion.

Another "real thing" is the way it's much more comfortable to critique a tradition from within. Most of the stereotypes or critiques of evangelicalism I've heard in this forum are things I've said myself or have ranted about in other, more evangelical forums. When I'm discussing these flaws with fellow evangelicals we can go off in far harsher and more strident tones than anything I've heard here, and it never rankles. Yet every now and then someone on the Ship will make a similar observation that will cut me to the quick. It's like the way you can mock your parents mercilessly with your siblings but the minute someone outside the family disses your mom they're headed for trouble.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, that all makes sense to me, Cliffdweller.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Isn't the centre of gravity for Evanglicalism the Bible?
The Bible is the centre of gravity for all Christians, whether they admit it or not.
No - for centuries, people couldn't read. Even since the reformation, only a small per centage of Christians read the bible.
People who couldn't read the Bible for themselves had it read to them in church. What was read was selected, but it included what are considered the most important passages.

Moo

Just as many evangelicals only know the bits of scripture that appear on Powerpoint in their services.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Just as many evangelicals only know the bits of scripture that appear on Powerpoint in their services.

Given that many - possibly most - Evangelical churches promote and value personal bible study, I'd think that's unlikely to be very many people.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Just as many evangelicals only know the bits of scripture that appear on Powerpoint in their services.
Given that many - possibly most - Evangelical churches promote and value personal bible study, I'd think that's unlikely to be very many people.

IME, this equates to personal bible study within the context of the leadership's guidance.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IME, this equates to personal bible study within the context of the leadership's guidance.

I think that depends on the church. Some are notes prepared by the leader, some "encourage" the use of particular notes produced by others, some make no particular issue about which notes are used.

I'd agree that this doesn't necessarily mean that there is wide reading - and depending on the notes and/or the church there may well be a narrow focus. But it clearly isn't the case for many/most Evangelicals that the only bible they're reading is from the powerpoint slides. That's an exaggeration too far.

Also, y'know, encouraging people to open their bibles alone always runs the risk that they'll read something they're not supposed to..

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Also, y'know, encouraging people to open their bibles alone always runs the risk that they'll read something they're not supposed to..

Or interpret it "incorrectly". More seriously, the Bible does need guidance to be read properly. Not as in 'This you must believe', but as in the history, the cultures and languages.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Anyone would think I break into evangelical homes at night and piss all over their Bible study notes

Are you sure you're not posting this as a means of covert boasting that as a middle-aged man, you are still capable of peeing copiously at will?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That seems to me to be a problem. It isn't just that the Evangelicals are vocal and so everyone else is playing wack-a-mole against endless pointless Evangelical attacks. It seems to be almost that we've - collectively - got Evangelicals on the brain to such an extent that we can't help bringing them into a discussion.

YOu must read a bunch of different threads than I do. I can't remember the last time evangelicals got dragged into a discussion that had nothing to do with them. The most recent thread about PSA talks about Evangelicals because PSA is an Evangelical bugbear, or at least is a sine qua non for many an Evangelical. I'm trying to think of another thread where Evangelicalism got dragged up.

Maybe one of the Trump threads, but that's pretty understandable given the role that Evangelicals played in his election, and how he is driving a wedge in Evangelical-land between his evo supporters and his evo detractors. Indeed I think if that doesn't get sorted out, "Evangelical" is going to be a dirty word in the United States for decades, as John Pavlovich and other anti-Trump Evangelicals have warned.

_________________
*without which not

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, y'know, encouraging people to open their bibles alone always runs the risk that they'll read something they're not supposed to..

Some American Evangelicals might realize Jesus likes the poor, not the rich. Is that what you mean?

This is an unnecessary swipe against non-evo and particularly non-prot churches. Back atcha.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, y'know, encouraging people to open their bibles alone always runs the risk that they'll read something they're not supposed to..
Some American Evangelicals might realize Jesus likes the poor, not the rich. Is that what you mean?

This is an unnecessary swipe against non-evo and particularly non-prot churches. Back atcha.

I thought the line was either they are poor because they are not good enough to be rich or that Jesus sooo loves the poor, he is keeping them that way.
Jesus loves the rich so much he invented the Eye of the Needle for them to squeeze through. It has to be an invention of god, because the ancient Hebrews seem to have forgotten to install them.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone would think I break into evangelical homes at night and piss all over their Bible study notes

You need to realise that your practice (or fantasy, if you have not yet actually done it) of surreptitious nocturnal urination on religious material is almost certainly a recognised condition, and probably listed in Havelock Ellis or Krafft-Ebing.

Help is surely available - but only when you have reached the point of acknowledging that you need it.

(Your post is gold, Gamaliel; I'm just getting started...)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone would think I break into evangelical homes at night and piss all over their Bible study notes
You need to realise that your practice (or fantasy, if you have not yet actually done it) of surreptitious nocturnal urination on religious material is almost certainly a recognised condition, and probably listed in Havelock Ellis or Krafft-Ebing.

Help is surely available - but only when you have reached the point of acknowledging that you need it.

(Your post is gold, Gamaliel; I'm just getting started...)

"Gold" as in "golden shower"?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Blimey! Look what I started with my unnecessarily scatological comments ...

Perhaps I ought to add to the 'What do you admire ...' thread something about admiration for Martin Luther's scatological jibes.

He was a master at that.

'The Pope speaks out of the same orifice with which he farts ...'

And so on.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Blimey! Look what I started with my unnecessarily scatological comments ...

Perhaps I ought to add to the 'What do you admire ...' thread something about admiration for Martin Luther's scatological jibes.

He was a master at that.

'The Pope speaks out of the same orifice with which he farts ...'

And so on.

The inventor and founder of convertitis.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ha ha ...

No, surely that was Arius?

Or Augustine?

[Biased]

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

And the connection to Our Lady's marriage is . . .?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There's been a long-running tangent, Eirenist, about tradition vs Tradition ... so I've created some new threads to address those issues.

It hasn't stopped the tangent from rumbling along though ...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Just as many evangelicals only know the bits of scripture that appear on Powerpoint in their services.
Given that many - possibly most - Evangelical churches promote and value personal bible study, I'd think that's unlikely to be very many people.

A study of the use of the Bible in a very large house church near me suggests otherwise.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A study of the use of the Bible in a very large house church near me suggests otherwise.

The house church near you is not all - or even representative of most - evangelicals.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed.

In fairness to leo, I'd agree that biblical literacy among certain types of house-church isn't what it used to be or what it is across evangelicalism per se, but I think it's an exaggeration to suggest that evangelicals as a whole tend to imbibe their scriptures and theology from the few key verses they see on PowerPoint slides.

I think the worst we can say is that they paint with a limited palette.

On the whole I'd suggest that the average evangelical in the pews or the plastic chairs still knows a fair deal of scripture, even if they mightn't be able to weave it into a coherent theological framework.

It's all relative and it depends on what yardstick you're using.

If I were to compare the level of scriptural knowledge - rather than application - between the evangelical Anglican parish and the liberal catholic Anglican parish here then the evangelical one would win hands-down.

There are individuals at the liberal parish who are quite sophisticated theologically but by and large they aren't as far as I can tell. Their vicar tells me that too. She tells me that many of them don't even have a basic grasp of the overall trajectory of the Christian narrative, let alone anything else.

The evangelicals certainly have that, even if their understanding is pretty black and white.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Blimey! Look what I started with my unnecessarily scatological comments ...

Perhaps I ought to add to the 'What do you admire ...' thread something about admiration for Martin Luther's scatological jibes.

He was a master at that.

'The Pope speaks out of the same orifice with which he farts ...'

And so on.
The inventor and founder of convertitis.

You're thinking of Jesus.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Blimey! Look what I started with my unnecessarily scatological comments ...

Perhaps I ought to add to the 'What do you admire ...' thread something about admiration for Martin Luther's scatological jibes.

He was a master at that.

'The Pope speaks out of the same orifice with which he farts ...'

And so on.
The inventor and founder of convertitis.
You're thinking of Jesus.

Oh really? What did Jesus convert to?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Blimey! Look what I started with my unnecessarily scatological comments ...

Perhaps I ought to add to the 'What do you admire ...' thread something about admiration for Martin Luther's scatological jibes.

He was a master at that.

'The Pope speaks out of the same orifice with which he farts ...'

And so on.
The inventor and founder of convertitis.
You're thinking of Jesus.
Oh really? What did Jesus convert to?

If "convertitis" is meant to describe a prioritisation of the need for conversion, then no-one exhibited it more than Jesus, who required it of everyone except himself.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If "convertitis" is meant to describe a prioritisation of the need for conversion, then no-one exhibited it more than Jesus, who required it of everyone except himself.

I think it's meaning (here) is the state of the convert and the counter-intuitive prejudices they can show (particularly in relation to their old faith/belief and the new one).
In that sense Paul could be argued to be a potential good case. I don't think he'd be very impressed by statues of the 10C, which some parts of the church are a bit more relaxed about now, and Peter who had a slower journey probably would be more so, also. With good and bad consequences.

Though it is a bit subjective. For a start obviously the fact that they converted shows that they hold the relative merits of the one to the other. It's when it goes beyond that. And deciding that requires a prejudice about what is actually reasonable.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes. For those unfamiliar with the expression, 'convertitus' is often heard in Orthodox and RC circles to describe the attitude of converts who either think they know it all or spend time blarting on and on about how awful their previous affiliation was and generally being sanctimonious pains in the arse.

It's a similar phenomenon to those RCs who converts to evangelical Protestantism and who spend their whole time sounding like a walking Chick Tract.

Or vegetarians, people who've given up smoking or anyone else who shifts from one position to another and spend the rest of their time being first class pains in the backside about it.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

If I'd realised how evangelistic I was going to feel about a post-marital bedsit on the rough side of town, it might have lessened my commitment to lifelong cohabitation.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh really? What did Jesus convert to?

I'm not sure. But given what John was saying his baptism was about and given what the church later said baptism was about, it isn't so hard to wonder whether Jesus was converting from something to something else by being baptised.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
If I'd realised how evangelistic I was going to feel about a post-marital bedsit on the rough side of town, it might have lessened my commitment to lifelong cohabitation.

I felt guilty at how relieved I was.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If "convertitis" is meant to describe a prioritisation of the need for conversion, then no-one exhibited it more than Jesus, who required it of everyone except himself.

Convertitis refers to the assholic/arseholic way new converts behave, specifically by exaggerating the problems with the religion/church/denomination they left (that's putting it nicely -- usually they are nasty about it, openly and loudly), and taking their new one too literally and woodenly. It has nothing to do with prioritisation of the need for conversion, except as an artifact of how bloody obnoxiously they gush about their new-found faith.

But it is "convertitis" because the person CONVERTED from one thing to another. Which Jesus did not.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh really? What did Jesus convert to?
I'm not sure. But given what John was saying his baptism was about and given what the church later said baptism was about, it isn't so hard to wonder whether Jesus was converting from something to something else by being baptised.

I'd say it's very hard to support however. He started a Jew and remained a Jew his entire life. He went to the same synagogue and the same temple as everybody else in the stories about him.

As for his baptism, perhaps this is an east/west thing. In Orthodoxy we are explicit that his baptism was not like our baptism. We are baptised to enter into his death. He didn't need to be baptised to enter into his death, he did the old-fashioned way, by dying.

Further later on in the book (Acts) the baptism of John and Christian baptism are strongly distinguished. The latter brings the Holy Spirit; the former does not. Jesus was baptised with the baptism of John, obvs. That's who baptised him. And He already had the Holy Spirit.

There's just no evidence in the Scriptures or the Fathers that Jesus converted from anything to anything else.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say it's very hard to support however. He started a Jew and remained a Jew his entire life. He went to the same synagogue and the same temple as everybody else in the stories about him.

Mmm. I wonder if what happened to other people that John baptised. Wouldn't they have continued being Jews and wouldn't they have continued in the same synagogue?

That's not rhetorical, I've no idea of the answer.

quote:
As for his baptism, perhaps this is an east/west thing. In Orthodoxy we are explicit that his baptism was not like our baptism. We are baptised to enter into his death. He didn't need to be baptised to enter into his death, he did the old-fashioned way, by dying.

I don't think this is an East-West thing, it is just me thinking aloud. I'm pretty sure that most Western churches, of whatever stripe, would agree that his baptism was not like our baptism.

As I said, I was just thinking aloud and reflecting that it isn't so hard to think that maybe Jesus was converting from something to something else given what we know of John's baptism and the establishment of baptism in the church. As you say, the simple explanation given by the church is that it was different because he was Jesus and we're not.

Even so, I can still understand how someone might think Jesus converted. That seems to me to be a simple reading of the text.

quote:
Further later on in the book (Acts) the baptism of John and Christian baptism are strongly distinguished. The latter brings the Holy Spirit; the former does not. Jesus was baptised with the baptism of John, obvs. That's who baptised him. And He already had the Holy Spirit.

Yes. And there are those who say that the true baptism was the one at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the people - and they then suggest that the water baptism is only symbolic of the true, later, baptism of the Spirit.

quote:
There's just no evidence in the Scriptures or the Fathers that Jesus converted from anything to anything else.

Nope. Thanks for entertaining my thought seriously. We can go back to talking about the BVM now.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And there are those who say that the true baptism was the one at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the people - and they then suggest that the water baptism is only symbolic of the true, later, baptism of the Spirit.

That would make a whole 'nother interesting thread. Romans 6:3ff speak about us being baptised into "a death like his" and nothing at all about the Holy Spirit. I think for Paul, water baptism was more than just a symbol. It was the means by which we are "united with him in a death like his" (Rom 6:5). That doesn't sound symbolic to me. YMMV.

As for the BVM, we left her some while back. Is there more to say?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes. For those unfamiliar with the expression, 'convertitus' is often heard in Orthodox and RC circles to describe the attitude of converts who either think they know it all or spend time blarting on and on about how awful their previous affiliation was and generally being sanctimonious pains in the arse.

It's a similar phenomenon to those RCs who converts to evangelical Protestantism and who spend their whole time sounding like a walking Chick Tract.

Or vegetarians, people who've given up smoking or anyone else who shifts from one position to another and spend the rest of their time being first class pains in the backside about it.

See, for example, this ad parody from New Zealand

(Probably best understood if you watch the original first.)

[ 02. July 2017, 16:34: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A study of the use of the Bible in a very large house church near me suggests otherwise.
The house church near you is not all - or even representative of most - evangelicals.

Well, it is representative of the type of evanglicalism that is growing fast.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's as may be, but it's not representative of evangelicalism as a whole.

If anything, some sections of evangelicalism - at least back in the day - were almost like Bible study clubs with some evangelism thrown in ...

It does depend on the type/flavour of evangelicalism you're talking about.

FWIW I'd suggest that the picture is pretty mixed and varied within evangelicalism these days. In some places you've got ministers / pastors who are pretty well-versed not only in the usual-suspect scriptures but with contemporary theological thought in general. In others, you've got a residual chewing-a-brick kind of line by line obsession with memorising scripture ...

In still others, you've got a very scripture-lite approach with lots of aspirational, rah-rah-rah feel-good-factor preaching ...

And all points and stations in between ...

If I can say this as a critical-friend and not as a side-swipe against evangelicalism per se I'd suggest that the situation in some of the fastest-growing evangelical churches is pretty bleak when it comes to theological reflection or serious engagement with the scriptures.

However, that's not the whole story ...

To be frank, though, I don't see the position being any healthier anywhere else. Only this afternoon one of the parishioners at the liberal Anglican parish down the road complained to me that their new-ish incumbent, 'expects us all to be Bible scholars ...'

I felt like saying, 'No she bloody well doesn't, but she does expect a modicum of interest at the very least and some kind of basic overview / understanding of the Christian faith ...'

Surely that' not too much to ask?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, it is representative of the type of evanglicalism that is growing fast.

I see. So your myopic understanding of a single strand of Evangelicalism - which you probably don't really know very well at all - entitles you to make sweeping statements about the rest of it.

No. That's ridiculous.

However big the house-churches in question are, and however fast they're growing, there is no sense that they're representative of evangelicals or evangelicalism. You're just bring something you don't like about a particular church into a discussion to assist in giving evangelicalism in general a kicking.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Stetson ... ha ha ha ...

Nice one.

@Mousethief ... it seems we left the BVM behind a good while back ...

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Hey, I tried to pull the tangent back with a nifty allusion to sexless marriage, but it didn't quite land properly [Cool]

[ 02. July 2017, 21:42: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Convertitis refers to the assholic/arseholic way new converts behave, specifically by exaggerating the problems with the religion/church/denomination they left (that's putting it nicely -- usually they are nasty about it, openly and loudly), and taking their new one too literally and woodenly.

In which case Paul is the inventor and founder of convertitis (Philippians 3:2-9 where he describes his former religious life as a load of skubalon, or shit), and was followed by many others (eg Augustine) who similarly execrated their former beliefs and practices.

In which case, the reference to Luther is just another inaccurate, gratuitous and snide shot at evangelicalism.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Just as many evangelicals only know the bits of scripture that appear on Powerpoint in their services.
Given that many - possibly most - Evangelical churches promote and value personal bible study, I'd think that's unlikely to be very many people.
A study of the use of the Bible in a very large house church near me suggests otherwise.

Leo, I don't really expect you to be fair but at least please give some credit where credit is due by being correct.

It may be the case that your local house church is a Bethel or New Wine clone at the very edge of charismania but one example doesn't make a rule. There are many exceptions to this within your own Diocese - I'm part of it, too.

I'll admit that, journeying around recently, I was saddened by the lack of depth in bible teaching in some sermons. Some were dire expositions, others good presentations about current issues but with little theological content. Some read the passages prescribed in the Lectionary but basically ignored one or all of them. Some clearly had local agendas to pursue or personal hobby horses to ride. Some were small rural churches, others were very large national "centres" of all theological hues.

Some was good. A few very good. One exceptional in its breadth, depth and clarity.

Having said that, I can travel for 5 minutes from my home and find relevant, biblical preaching that stretches me. It isn't restricted to evangelical churches but it's predominant there. It's helpful stuff but it's not a place of wide extremes ... there are growing churches including our own, the common theme being a commitment to God and His word. The churches that are declining are the ones of the social action/liberal/high church tradition which somehow don't seem to connect with everyday life.

I know numbers aren't anything - connection is. The churches that aren't connecting are the ones who infantilise their congregations by making assumptions that they will "pick things up" from what goes on. The growing churches commit to the bible in plain understanding and making it real.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Having said that, I can travel for 5 minutes from my home and find relevant, biblical preaching that stretches me. It isn't restricted to evangelical churches but it's predominant there. It's helpful stuff but it's not a place of wide extremes ... there are growing churches including our own, the common theme being a commitment to God and His word. The churches that are declining are the ones of the social action/liberal/high church tradition which somehow don't seem to connect with everyday life.

I know numbers aren't anything - connection is. The churches that aren't connecting are the ones who infantilise their congregations by making assumptions that they will "pick things up" from what goes on. The growing churches commit to the bible in plain understanding and making it real.

There are so many things wrong with what you've said here that it would take too long to decode.

However, I will note that you are speaking in a particular Evangelical code language - perhaps unwittingly - and are illustrating something else which many (perhaps most) Evangelicals display. Which is the ability to invent terms, fill them with a certain meaning and then use them as a weapon to attack others with.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Agreed mr cheesy. Coded as in he who has a nose let him pick up his bed and sing. I might have a go if I can be arsed.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Senility, cuh, fuh: he who has a nose TO HEAR let him pick up his bed and sing. That's better.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

OK. Not blow by blow, just synopsis: this is a false dichotomy. No matter how many hours of personal, prayerful bible study before dawn or otherwise in-house and how much deeply meaningful lecturing goes on, or not, it achieves nothing at all but St. Francis' unnecessary 'if necessary'.

The last sermon I heard, last year probably, was by a consummate speaker; warm, amusing, inclusive, self-deprecating, threatening the large charismatic evangelical Anglican congregation with its at least large minority of divorced and remarried people and other guilt ridden sexually active single ones with 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8.

Is that the kind of exposition you mean !?

I'm intrigued by "The churches that are declining are the ones of the social action/liberal/high church tradition which somehow don't seem to connect with everyday life.". I can see that social action that doesn't connect to everyday life is meaningless. The only reason I go to my large charismatic evangelical Anglican illiberal church is because it's low enough to be socially active connected with everyday life - 1% incarnational - despite being trapped in pious literalism with no other sense of the trajectory of social justice.

One cannot have the one without the other it seems.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Convertitis refers to the assholic/arseholic way new converts behave, specifically by exaggerating the problems with the religion/church/denomination they left (that's putting it nicely -- usually they are nasty about it, openly and loudly), and taking their new one too literally and woodenly.
In which case Paul is the inventor and founder of convertitis (Philippians 3:2-9 where he describes his former religious life as a load of skubalon, or shit), and was followed by many others (eg Augustine) who similarly execrated their former beliefs and practices.

In which case, the reference to Luther is just another inaccurate, gratuitous and snide shot at evangelicalism.

Except that Luther wasn't evangelical in the contemporary sense ...

Come on, Kaplan, drop this obsession with evangelicalism being targeted unduly.

Leo's having a crack at evangelicalism now just (as we'd say in South Wales) and people are calling him on it - including me.

Mousethief was joffing with me on the convertitis thing and made a jokey remark about Luther. I laughed. I didn't get uptight thinking it was some kind of gratuitous side-swipe at Protestantism.

In another context or another discussion I could see Mousethief and I having some banter over St John Chrysostom, say or Athanasius or someone else ...

If he - or anyone else - were to get upset about that then they should 'man up' or jump over-board rather than snivelling about any perceived 'dig' at one's own favoured tradition/s.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Having said that, I can travel for 5 minutes from my home and find relevant, biblical preaching that stretches me. It isn't restricted to evangelical churches but it's predominant there. It's helpful stuff but it's not a place of wide extremes ... there are growing churches including our own, the common theme being a commitment to God and His word. The churches that are declining are the ones of the social action/liberal/high church tradition which somehow don't seem to connect with everyday life.

I know numbers aren't anything - connection is. The churches that aren't connecting are the ones who infantilise their congregations by making assumptions that they will "pick things up" from what goes on. The growing churches commit to the bible in plain understanding and making it real.
There are so many things wrong with what you've said here that it would take too long to decode.

However, I will note that you are speaking in a particular Evangelical code language - perhaps unwittingly - and are illustrating something else which many (perhaps most) Evangelicals display. Which is the ability to invent terms, fill them with a certain meaning and then use them as a weapon to attack others with.

Steady on, I didn't interpret ExclamationMark's remarks that way - although I didn't particularly like the way he put it ...

However, like it or not, I think he is onto something. I had a conversation yesterday with some of the disaffected people down at the liberal Anglican parish here. The new-ish incumbent is unpopular as she's a stickler for liturgical detail and niceties - and they don't want that - having grown used to liturgical and theological inexactitude under the previous, and very popular incumbent ...

(Tangent alert: the previous incumbent was the only person I've heard preach on John 1 'In the beginning was the Word ...' without mentioning Christ. That must take a special kind of genius ... )

[Biased]

So, sadly, the young people have largely voted with their feet and no longer attend and a lot of the older folk are grumpily withdrawing and expecting home-communion ...

I can see a car crash ahead ...

Anyhow, back to ExclamationMark's point, he did make it clear that engaging sermons and 'relevant' applications and teachings weren't the sole preserve of evangelical pulpits. I might put things the same way as he did but I can certainly see the point he's making and yes, by and large, I'd say that many - if not most - evangelical churches do a reasonable job on that score.

Those on the fringes of charismania, less so.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Steady on, I didn't interpret ExclamationMark's remarks that way - although I didn't particularly like the way he put it ...

However, like it or not, I think he is onto something.

I don't think he is. leo's impression matches my own. In several towns I know well, the fastest growing (and likely largest) church is a youth-focused fairly charismatic ex-house church occupying a building on an industrial estate.

I have spoken at length to someone I trust very much who was involved in a leadership level at one of these churches - and who told me frankly that the level of biblical literacy was low.

And, incidentally, all the churches I know of this type are heavily into various kinds of social work - including youth work and various other kinds of outreach.

One church of this type near here has just bought a larger industrial unit for (IIRC) £350,000 (which is quite a lot for South Wales) to fit in the growing congregation and to do more socially focused outreach, including working with various groups to make use of the building.

The idea that the only growing churches are those who aren't doing social work and who have committed biblical teaching and heavy sermons seems to me to be a fallacy.

quote:
Anyhow, back to ExclamationMark's point, he did make it clear that engaging sermons and 'relevant' applications and teachings weren't the sole preserve of evangelical pulpits. I might put things the same way as he did but I can certainly see the point he's making and yes, by and large, I'd say that many - if not most - evangelical churches do a reasonable job on that score.

I think both of you are making wild generalisations which are impossible to sustain. One simply cannot talk about "evangelical churches" doing things in the abstract because that really doesn't mean anything at all.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think ExclamationMark was suggesting that the only churches that are growing are those into heavy-duty sermons and not social action ...

I seem to remember that he's mentioned a few times here aboard Ship that his own church is quite socially engaged.

Nor do I see him advocating 'heavy-duty' sermons. He certainly seems to be advocating engaging ones, but that's not the same thing as wanting a John Owen chewing-a-brick Puritanical sermon every Sunday ...

I think you've got the wrong end of ExclamationMark's stick ... if I can put it that way ...

On the issue as to whether some of the house-church / yoof and family-style churches are pretty lightweight theologically, I don't see anyone here denying that this is the case. I'm sure ExclamationMark wouldn't. Indeed, he has already addressed this with his comment about the fringes of charismania.

All he seems to be saying is that not all evangelical churches go in for that kind of dumbed-down theology-lite approach.

I agree with him. Simple observation shows that not to be the case.

I might not phrase or frame it in the way he has done, but I think he's making a valid point and I submit it's a different point to the one you seem to think he's making.

Anyhow, back to the evo-bashing tangent ...

@Kaplan Corday, my guess would be that had Luther been confronted with the sort of comment Mousethief made he'd have simply laughed and said, 'Ha ha ... guilty as charged - but come on, it's not as if you beardie bastards are any better when it comes to anti-Papal polemics ...'

Which would be fair enough.

Some of the beardie-wierdies on Mount Athos would make the late Dr Ian Paisley look like the Ultramontane Chairman of the Papal Appreciation Society.

Rather than bleating and whining, Luther would have probably said, 'Come over here and say that. We'll share a tankard of ale and then see which of us can piss the highest up the wall ...'

None of this, 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system,' schtick. 'Oh, oh, oh dear people aboard Ship are all pissy about evangelicalism. Oh dear, oh dearie-dearie me ... how naughty of them ... what utter, utter, utter scoundrels ... Help, help, I'm being repressed ...'

[Disappointed]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Rather than bleating and whining, Luther would have probably said, 'Come over here and say that. We'll share a tankard of ale and then see which of us can piss the highest up the wall ...'

Not in English he wouldn't.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Indeed: Komm her und sage das. Wir werden einen Krug von Ale teilen und dann sehen, welche von uns die höchsten an der Wand pissen können.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

ALE?

Bier, surely....

[Paranoid]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, and he'd have said, 'Donner und Blitzen!' and 'Himmel!' like the Germans used to in The Victor and The Hospur when I was a kid ...

'Achtung, Englander!'

Or in Kaplan's case, 'Achtung, Australicher!' (Excuse my feeble attempt to remember school boy German)

Whatever the case, the point is that I doubt old Martin would have been that fazed by Mousethief's mild digs.

He would have been more robust.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course, Luther wouldn't be addressing Kaplan but Mousethief, in which case he'd say, 'Actung Amerikaner!'

To Kaplan he'd say, 'Achtung, milchbart ... get over it already ...'

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, Luther wouldn't be addressing Kaplan but Mousethief, in which case he'd say, 'Actung Amerikaner!'

If he were from Berlin I could say, "Hey, doughnut!"

quote:
Whatever the case, the point is that I doubt old Martin would have been that fazed by Mousethief's mild digs.

He would have been more robust.

And scatological.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In which case, the reference to Luther is just another inaccurate, gratuitous and snide shot at evangelicalism.

Or I just didn't have Paul and Augustine -- excellent examples by the way -- in mind at the time. But hey feel sorry for yourself all you want. It's the Evangelical thing to do on the Ship, apparently.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The idea that the only growing churches are those who aren't doing social work and who have committed biblical teaching and heavy sermons seems to me to be a fallacy.

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say if you're not doing social work you're not very committed to biblical teaching, or at least the biblical teaching printed in red letters.

[ 03. July 2017, 16:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Is a persecution complex and feeling sorry for oneself in line with biblical teaching?

It seems that Jonah and Elijah ('I'm the only one left and now they're trying to kill me too) went in for that. They both got short shrift if I remember rightly ...

Or have I been so erratic in my attendance at full-on evangelical services that I've forgotten the modicum of biblical knowledge that I had ... ?

[Paranoid]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, it is representative of the type of evanglicalism that is growing fast.
I see. So your myopic understanding of a single strand of Evangelicalism - which you probably don't really know very well at all - entitles you to make sweeping statements about the rest of it.

No. That's ridiculous.

However big the house-churches in question are, and however fast they're growing, there is no sense that they're representative of evangelicals or evangelicalism. You're just bring something you don't like about a particular church into a discussion to assist in giving evangelicalism in general a kicking.

It's the place where we get a lot of new members on the rebound - so my knowledge comes from them.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It may be the case that your local house church is a Bethel or New Wine clone at the very edge of charismania but one example doesn't make a rule. There are many exceptions to this within your own Diocese - I'm part of it, too.

Not 'in' the diocese - independent - it claims that 'if you're part of a denomination you will die'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure,we all know and recognise the type, leo. What ExclamationMark is saying is that they aren't necessarily representative of evangelicalism as a whole.

You may as well claim that Reform or Forward in Faith are entirely representative of Anglicanism.

Interesting that you get people from there on the rebound though. I once met an ACNA ordinand from Tennessee whose parish was picking up a lot of people from 'non-denominational' churches. I've not heard of that sort of thing happening to such an extent here in the UK.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd also suggest that the level of biblical literacy would have been higher 20 or 30 years ago within such outfits than they are now. I used to be involved with the restorationist ambit - independent charismatic evangelicalism and I was always seen as 'a' man of the word' as I was regarded as someone with a fair bit of Bible knowledge, although that probably says more about them then it does about me. Looking back, my Bible knowledge wasn't that great. It's all relative, of course.

In other evangelical circles I'd have probably been seen as reasonably au fait with the scriptures but no great shakes.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
ALE?

Bier, surely....

IJ

Beer is Bier, ale is Ale.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, and he'd have said, 'Donner und Blitzen!' and 'Himmel!' like the Germans used to in The Victor and The Hospur when I was a kid ...

They were also always saying "Kameraden", because they were always surrendering, and (my favourite) "Mein Gott! These Englanders fight like devils!"

I had an eclectic selection of plastic soldiers when I was a kid, but only the German ones showed any in the act of surrendering with hands in the air, staggering backward as if just killed by a bullet, or running away without their rifle and looking back over their shoulder in terror.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@Kaplan Corday, my guess would be that had Luther been confronted with the sort of comment Mousethief made he'd have simply laughed and said, 'Ha ha ... guilty as charged

Well yes, given the jolly old cove's response to other critics and opponents (such as Jews and German peasants) that seems a fair enough assumption.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

He certainly wouldn't have gotten his little snowflake knickers in a twist.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except that Luther wasn't evangelical in the contemporary sense ...

True, but it is equally true that in another sense he was the founder of modern evangelicalism, and typically representative of it.

quote:
Come on, Kaplan, drop this obsession with evangelicalism being targeted unduly.

Mousethief was joffing with me on the convertitis thing and made a jokey remark about Luther. I laughed. I didn't get uptight thinking it was some kind of gratuitous side-swipe at Protestantism.

It is common to attempt to silence a constantly vilified member of a minority in a particular context who speaks out, by telling them that they are imagining it, or that they lack a sense of humour, or that they need to get over it and move on.

There are, of course, loads of legitimate and appropriately expressed criticisms of aspects of evangelicalism to which I take no exception, and which in many cases I share, but when it comes to gratuitous snideness and bigotry, I will call it out.

If anyone wants to whine and snivel about that, that's their problem.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd also suggest that the level of biblical literacy would have been higher 20 or 30 years ago within such outfits than they are now. I used to be involved with the restorationist ambit - independent charismatic evangelicalism and I was always seen as 'a' man of the word' as I was regarded as someone with a fair bit of Bible knowledge, although that probably says more about them then it does about me. Looking back, my Bible knowledge wasn't that great. It's all relative, of course.

In other evangelical circles I'd have probably been seen as reasonably au fait with the scriptures but no great shakes.

To be fair, if evangelical churches are doing what we say we're setting out to do-- i.e. evangelism, no proselyting-- then low biblical literacy is exactly what we should see. It would be a sign that we really are reaching previously unchurched/ irreligious people with a message of hope

Whether that's really what's going on in this one particular house church I couldn't say, but just note that we need more context in order to interpret the observation

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except that Luther wasn't evangelical in the contemporary sense ...
True, but it is equally true that in another sense he was the founder of modern evangelicalism, and typically representative of it.

quote:
Come on, Kaplan, drop this obsession with evangelicalism being targeted unduly.

Mousethief was joffing with me on the convertitis thing and made a jokey remark about Luther. I laughed. I didn't get uptight thinking it was some kind of gratuitous side-swipe at Protestantism.
It is common to attempt to silence a constantly vilified member of a minority in a particular context who speaks out, by telling them that they are imagining it, or that they lack a sense of humour, or that they need to get over it and move on.

There are, of course, loads of legitimate and appropriately expressed criticisms of aspects of evangelicalism to which I take no exception, and which in many cases I share, but when it comes to gratuitous snideness and bigotry, I will call it out.

If anyone wants to whine and snivel about that, that's their problem.

There's only one person whining and snivelling here.

Don't flatter yourself that you're a member of a 'constantly vilified minority.'

Your evangelicalism isn't the source of censure here. Your playing the victim-card is.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd also suggest that the level of biblical literacy would have been higher 20 or 30 years ago within such outfits than they are now. I used to be involved with the restorationist ambit - independent charismatic evangelicalism and I was always seen as 'a' man of the word' as I was regarded as someone with a fair bit of Bible knowledge, although that probably says more about them then it does about me. Looking back, my Bible knowledge wasn't that great. It's all relative, of course.

In other evangelical circles I'd have probably been seen as reasonably au fait with the scriptures but no great shakes.
To be fair, if evangelical churches are doing what we say we're setting out to do-- i.e. evangelism, no proselyting-- then low biblical literacy is exactly what we should see. It would be a sign that we really are reaching previously unchurched/ irreligious people with a message of hope

Whether that's really what's going on in this one particular house church I couldn't say, but just note that we need more context in order to interpret the observation

Sure, I get that and it's a reasonable observation.

My own 'take' would be that it's all down to expectations. As a tradition that emphases personal and collective Bible study one would expect some corners of evangelicalism to be 'better' than they actually are in terms of biblical literacy.

As with anything else, the rhetoric often belies the reality.

To be fair, it's not as if any of the other traditions excel in this particular regard either.

Room for improvement all ways round.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It may be the case that your local house church is a Bethel or New Wine clone at the very edge of charismania but one example doesn't make a rule. There are many exceptions to this within your own Diocese - I'm part of it, too.
Not 'in' the diocese - independent - it claims that 'if you're part of a denomination you will die'.

Leo I was trying to point out that whatever the church you are talking about is like (and I think I might just know what/where it is ... as to the first letter of the name might it be "W?"), there will be churches in the Diocese which are not fundamentally any different from that in terms of styles, songs, content. I know one within a mile of where I sit.

OK I give you the "denominations are evil" bit but that's hardly representative of most evangelical churches.

Thanks Gamaliel for the supportive words.

I am not by any means implying nor am I claiming that evangelical churches represent a unique example of excellent preaching .... just as excellent preaching is found across the denominations and styles, so is the rubbish and/or unhelpful. That goes too for those churches which use a lot of scripture as much as for those who use very little.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Your evangelicalism isn't the source of censure here. Your playing the victim-card is.

It is not "my" evangelicalism, but evangelicalism in general which is disproprtionately (and often unfairly) attacked on the Ship, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

What is more, I am not a "victim", because I choose to operate within an anti-evangelical forum.

There is no way that my drawing attention to it is going to stop it, but there is no way that I am going to stop exposing it when it occurs.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Be the if we kept a record, it wouldn't be Evangelism but a few views associated with evangelism.
Which is not the same thing.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, evangelicalism can be attacked unfairly on the Ship, Kaplan.

Leo, on this thread, has, in my view, attacked it unfairly by projecting the perceived faults of a particular evangelical congregation onto evangelicalism as a whole

Mr cheesy has called him on it, ExclamationMark has called him on it, Cliffdweller has called him on it. I have called him on it.

What tradition do EM and Cliffdweller represent? Hmmm ... Let me see ... Something beginning with ...

I've also tried to correct your perceived sense of injustice and imbalance by starting a thread praising aspects of various traditions. I started it by praising evangelicalism.

I am not disingenuous. If people post bollocks about evangelicalism I bloody well call them on it. It's called backbone.

What I don't do is wring my hands, bleat, moan and whine and try to offset any criticism of evangelicalism there might be - whether mild, strong, deserved or undeserved - by special pleading or trying to undermine what might be legitimate and understandable concerns about aspects of evangelicalism by bloviating about how the whole world is against it.

As far as I know, leo has never been an evangelical. I have. That doesn't mean everything I say about it is going to be more accurate or 'better' than what he might say. But it does mean I can give an inside view.

Which is what I have been doing. In this instance, my inside track view differs from his external one.

If I was hell-bent on dissing evangelicalism for the sheer cussedness of doing so, I wouldn't be trying to put him straight.

I rarely clash with the more nuanced evangelicals here - people like Cliffdweller, Eutychus, EM and others. I often clash with those I consider to be less flexible, less nuanced and very doctrinaire - such as Jamat.

Were I RC I would have clashed with InGoB, I'm sure. I didn't because I'm not RC and don't have an inside track on the RCC.

Yes, I've overdone things at times, but I bloody well haven't on this thread.

You are perfectly entitled to 'call' people on what you see as anti-evangelicalism and to take a perverse pride in what you apparently see as holding your own on a predominantly 'anti-evangelical' site. Bully for you.

But that isn't going to stop me calling you out for being a wuss.

Nor defending myself against insinuations and accusations that I am trying to 'close' arguments down. I am not closing them down. I am opening things out.

I am here to learn from other people as much as anything else.

If that means I have a dig at traditions you want to defend then so be it. Defend them. That's fine. Just don't be a Jessie about it.

FFS, Mousethief came out with a barbed comment about Luther. Some of us, you included, joffed back at him. Paul was cited. Augustine was cited. He accepted that.

Let's be robust. Less of this sanctimonious hand-wringing and bleating for goodness sake. I've heard of whingeing Poms. It looks like we've got whingeing Aussies on our hands.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except that Luther wasn't evangelical in the contemporary sense ...
True, but it is equally true that in another sense he was the founder of modern evangelicalism, and typically representative of it.

No, not really. Modern evangelicalism is a product of the Enlightenment, which postdates Luther.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Be the if we kept a record, it wouldn't be Evangelism but a few views associated with evangelism.
Which is not the same thing.

As regards "not the same thing", we are discussing evangelicalism, not evangelism.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except that Luther wasn't evangelical in the contemporary sense ...
True, but it is equally true that in another sense he was the founder of modern evangelicalism, and typically representative of it.
No, not really. Modern evangelicalism is a product of the Enlightenment, which postdates Luther.

The Enlightenment, and many other post-1517 elements, fed into today's evangelicalism, but its two most fundamental aspects, and which more than any other precipitated the Reformation, are Luther's emphases: sola/prima scriptura and justification by faith.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Not sure what buttons I am inadvertently pressing to produce that tirade, Gamaliel, but you are certainly taking it very personally.

First, it is not all about me, or you, and it is certainly not about me targeting you.

Secondly, it is not about my Canutely demanding a blanket ban on all criticism of evangelicalism.

Finally, it is about disproportionate, frivolous and unfair criticism of evangelicalism, which I will continue to call out as I perceive them, and despite the fact that it cannot and will not have any effect - an outcome which I am perfectly willing to live with.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm taking it no more personally than you are.

Besides, you accused me of being 'disingenuous' so I am calling you on it.

Also, you have accused me of engaging in gratuitous and frivolous side-swipes at evangelicalism.

I don't accept that. The gratuitousness is in the eye of the beholder as far as I'm concerned ie. yours.

Granted, I've fulminated against aspects of evangelicalism here aboard Ship probably more times than is good for me or for anyone else.

I accept that.

However, I am - and have always been - very careful to distinguish the aspects I fulminate against - hyper-literalism, narrowness of vision, fundamentalist mindsets - from evangelicalism per se.

I also created a thread to balance things out.

I have no problem with you defending evangelicalism. No issue with that at all.

I defend evangelicalism too. I have done so on this very thread.

What I do have an issue with is you bleating and whining as if poor ickle evangelicalism is having a hard time and as if it is somehow so sacrosanct that nobody is allowed to have a go at it.

That's all.

I'm not taking it 'personally'. I'm simply fed up with you whining about it - as I'm sure people can get fed up with me criticising aspects of it when I've done so.

At length.

For which I apologise.

Satisfied?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except that Luther wasn't evangelical in the contemporary sense ...
True, but it is equally true that in another sense he was the founder of modern evangelicalism, and typically representative of it.
No, not really. Modern evangelicalism is a product of the Enlightenment, which postdates Luther.

How ironic.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think the most that can be said is that Luther's revolt gave birth to Protestantism which, in turn was a contributory factor to the Enlightenment and also to the emergence of evangelicalism.

One could argue that the Enlightenment was the bastard-child of the Reformation - and plenty of RCs and Orthodox and some forms of Anglo-Catholic would say that. Secular historians obviously make that connection too.

Whether we think that's right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent depends on a whole range of factors.

FWIW, I certainly believe there was 'light in the Enlightenment' - and we all bask in the benefits of that - but equally it wasn't all sweetness and light, of course - and we all suffer the consequences of that too.

Both/and ...

As for the development of evangelicalism, whilst it obviously draws on earlier influences and antecedents, it only becomes discernible as a distinct movement within Protestantism from around the 1730s.

For obvious reasons, some evangelicals keep wanting to push the date back further. But they can't.

Whoops! Is that yet another example of a frivolous and gratuitous side-swipe at evangelicalism?

[Roll Eyes]

Or is it simply putting evangelicalism in its proper place and context, as an important sub-section/development within Protestantism with roots in 16th century Puritanism and 18th century Pietism that took on a recognisably 'modern' and 'modernist' form from the 1730s onwards and which had become fully-fledged by the 1850s ... ?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

As for the BVM, we left her some while back. Is there more to say?

Whether there might be more to say on the thread theme is up to Shipmates. But I think it is now time to either;

a) set up a new thread for the tangent

or

b) drop it here.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd be happy to see a new thread on the roots/developments of evangelicalism and its importance in the overall scheme of things - and to see it take a positive and balanced slant.

I'd also be happy to drop the thing entirely.

On the BVM side of things, I'm not sure there's anything more we can say there that hasn't been said before the tangent took over.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I do have an issue with is you bleating and whining as if poor ickle evangelicalism is having a hard time and as if it is somehow so sacrosanct that nobody is allowed to have a go at it.

That's all.

No, that's not all.

It trivialises the issue, uses puerile language, and misrepresents the facts.

To reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am not trying to prevent criticism of evangelicalism (and couldn't, even if I wanted to), but when I consider the criticism is unfair, I will exercise my right to say so.

That's all.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, that's not all.

It trivialises the issue, uses puerile language, and misrepresents the facts.

To reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am not trying to prevent criticism of evangelicalism (and couldn't, even if I wanted to), but when I consider the criticism is unfair, I will exercise my right to say so.

That's all.

No it isn't all. You're not talking about a specific incidence, you are talking about bias of this website.

Fair enough have that position but don't try to change what you've already said.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, that's not all.

It trivialises the issue, uses puerile language, and misrepresents the facts.

To reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am not trying to prevent criticism of evangelicalism (and couldn't, even if I wanted to), but when I consider the criticism is unfair, I will exercise my right to say so.

That's all.
No it isn't all. You're not talking about a specific incidence, you are talking about bias of this website.

Fair enough have that position but don't try to change what you've already said.

Steady on ...

It doesn't bother me in the least if Kaplan believes there's an inbuilt bias on this website. To an extent, I think he's onto something in that any position based on a definitive set of principles - be it evangelicalism or ultramontane Roman Catholicism - is going to become a target on a 'magazine of Christian Unrest.'

If it wasn't an Unrestful site then evangelicalism would get off scot-free.

I wouldn't mind at all if Kaplan could demonstrate that whatever 'gratuitous' comments I've made - using 'puerile language' - are without substance or well wide of the mark.

If they are, then demonstrate as much. Don't throw a wobbly and bleat about the bush.

I really don't know what more I can do to balance things out. I start threads specifically to praise aspects of evangelicalism and other traditions. I call leo out on what I see as a facile criticism of evangelicalism based on one - possibly misunderstood - example - and he still jumps up and down like a Morris Dancer with his arse on fire.

But, as Barnabus has reminded us, this is extending the tangent.

I will start another thread.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Steady on ...

It doesn't bother me in the least if Kaplan believes there's an inbuilt bias on this website. To an extent, I think he's onto something in that any position based on a definitive set of principles - be it evangelicalism or ultramontane Roman Catholicism - is going to become a target on a 'magazine of Christian Unrest.'

It doesn't bother me either, I think he is right and that there is inbuilt bias.

But now he's trying to say that his issue is with specific cases of anti-Evangelical bias.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the BVM side of things, I'm not sure there's anything more we can say there that hasn't been said before the tangent took over.

I think I have one more thing to say on the word "brothers." I think people here are being grossly anachronistic when they project the modern idea of the nuclear family back onto the Holy Family. Pre-Industrial Revolution, families weren't just mom and dad and their offspring.

It's not grasping at straws (or whatever the insult was) to suggest that when the text refers to Jesus' "brothers" that it doesn't mean just children of Mary's womb. Brothers, cousins, uncles, nephews, children of that "aunt" whom nobody is quite sure how she's related to us but she's always been part of the family -- in short all these kids of roughly the same age who are related somehow and hang out together -- they're just "brothers." The people back then didn't bother inventing a word for this passel of kids because they already had a word to use. Brothers.

Of course it went unanswered that the Bible refers to Lot both as Abraham's nephew and his brother. Is it wrong in one of those places? No. "Brother" has a broader range of meaning than we're giving it credit for.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Who's 'we'?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

It's not grasping at straws (or whatever the insult was) to suggest that when the text refers to Jesus' "brothers" that it doesn't mean just children of Mary's womb. Brothers, cousins, uncles, nephews, children of that "aunt" whom nobody is quite sure how she's related to us but she's always been part of the family -- in short all these kids of roughly the same age who are related somehow and hang out together -- they're just "brothers." The people back then didn't bother inventing a word for this passel of kids because they already had a word to use. Brothers.

Of course it went unanswered that the Bible refers to Lot both as Abraham's nephew and his brother. Is it wrong in one of those places? No. "Brother" has a broader range of meaning than we're giving it credit for.

Absolutely true of course. And IIRC at least some of the epistles are addressed to "Brothers" without there being any kind of implication of sibling relationships.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Or genetic.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...

So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...

So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...

I wasn't arguing that they were, only that pointing out the possibility they weren't isn't grasping straws or desperation, as some here so fondly assert.

The argument seems to be, "I have made up my mind, and any counter-argument that brings up something I hadn't considered is grasping at straws."

[ 05. July 2017, 16:26: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the BVM side of things, I'm not sure there's anything more we can say there that hasn't been said before the tangent took over.

Did anyone ever answer the central question of whether, under Hebrew/Mosaic law, a marriage could be considered valid and binding without consummation? If that question was answered, I missed it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Did anyone ever answer the central question of whether, under Hebrew/Mosaic law, a marriage could be considered valid and binding without consummation? If that question was answered, I missed it.

I do not know the answer to that. Nor do I see how it matters in this discussion. Can you unpack that?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...

So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...

I can't afford to pay for ever increasing sigma circles of traditional improbability beyond acceptance that others must.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It would matter as if it wasn't considered legally binding then it could be taken to indicate that Mary and Joseph had 'marital relations' in the 'normal' way after Jesus was born.

That's what Nick is driving at, I think.

I don't know the answer either. It strikes me as odd, though, that if it is the case, then Jewish apologists haven't been using it for hundreds of years to play down the claims of the Christian Church/es.

Perhaps they have been doing and I'm simply not aware of it.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

quote:
I do not know the answer to that. Nor do I see how it matters in this discussion. Can you unpack that?

It was the question originally asked in the OP.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Did anyone ever answer the central question of whether, under Hebrew/Mosaic law, a marriage could be considered valid and binding without consummation? If that question was answered, I missed it.
I do not know the answer to that. Nor do I see how it matters in this discussion. Can you unpack that?

Sure. It was the actual question asked in the OP:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Quick question (hosts: feel free to move to e.g. kerygmania if that seems a more suitable place for it).
Under Jewish law/ custom as applicable at the time of Our Lord's birth, did marriage require- as it broadly does today in at least Western Canon Law and indeed in English Law- consummation? What set me wondering was a discussion on social media about the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the BVM.
I thought this was the sort of place where someone would be bound to know what answer.
Thanks.

(Sorry; missed Nicolemr's post, but since the unpacking question was asked of me, I'll leave my answer.)

[ 05. July 2017, 20:13: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the BVM side of things, I'm not sure there's anything more we can say there that hasn't been said before the tangent took over.
Did anyone ever answer the central question of whether, under Hebrew/Mosaic law, a marriage could be considered valid and binding without consummation? If that question was answered, I missed it.

I don't know if others have answered the question, but here is what I could find based on a quick google search. No idea if these sources are reliable:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/weddings-and-marriage-traditions-in-ancient-israel

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htm

It appears that the betrothal made a couple legally married. It was a contract for the groom to pay a price to the bride's father for the bride. Once this price was paid and whatever appropriate amount of time had passed, the bride would come to live with the husband and the marriage would be consummated. Although the BVM and St. Joseph were legally married at their betrothal (which preceded the , sex and procreation were considered essential parts of marriage. I do not know if non-consummation was grounds for divorce (I think husbands could divorce wives but not the other way around?), but I can imagine that it could have been.

I don't know if any legal scholar even considered back then if a couple chose to forego having sex whether or not they would continue to be legally married after their betrothal. I think Jesus was VERY transgressive in choosing not to marry while also presenting himself as a religious authority figure. So it makes sense to me that the BVM and St. Joseph may have made a similarly transgressive decision to not have sex, although I don't think there is evidence in Scripture that they did so, and there is evidence to the contrary depending on how you interpret the use of the word brothers.

I believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the BVM, but not because I think it was necessary that the body/womb that carried Our Lord and Savior needed to be set apart or anything like that. I think lifelong continence was something the the BVM, like her Son, chose as part of her mission in life, and that St. Joseph agreed to not have sex during his marriage to her (he may very well have been married before and had children then) as part of his mission in life.

On the other hand, I believe that the human relationship to God can be very sexual - not just sensual - and I realize that the institutions of mainstream Christianity might consider this heresy. The BVM is thought about in ways in which she appears to be simultaneously the Mother, Daughter, Spouse, Sister, and Friend of God. So while I don't think she ever had sex with another human being (or any other created thing, if you have a dirty mind), I don't think that means she - or any other lifelong continent person - was/is necessarily sexually deprived at all!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...

So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...
I can't afford to pay for ever increasing sigma circles of traditional improbability beyond acceptance that others must.

Well, you can also pay your money and make your choice not to believe any of it ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

If all parties to the contract were content, who could declare it void? Why? How? Googlin' reveals NOTHING about proof or affirmation of consummation.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...

So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...
I can't afford to pay for ever increasing sigma circles of traditional improbability beyond acceptance that others must.
Well, you can also pay your money and make your choice not to believe any of it ...

Indeed, I can't choose not to believe the Incarnation, I buy that, no matter what strange baggage train, strung out for centuries and millennia, comes after that. Some strange even 'canonical' stuff comes along pretty quick. But I can't buy it.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, that's not all.

It trivialises the issue, uses puerile language, and misrepresents the facts.

To reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am not trying to prevent criticism of evangelicalism (and couldn't, even if I wanted to), but when I consider the criticism is unfair, I will exercise my right to say so.

That's all.
No it isn't all. You're not talking about a specific incidence, you are talking about bias of this website.

Fair enough have that position but don't try to change what you've already said.

I thought that was understood, but if it makes you happy I will spell it out: Kaplan Corday thinks that there is an anti-evangelical bias on the Ship of Fools website.

Unlikely that that has left anyone gasping in disbelief.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't mind at all if Kaplan could demonstrate that whatever 'gratuitous' comments I've made - using 'puerile language' - are without substance or well wide of the mark.

References to "poor ickle evangelicalism" are gratuitous and puerile.

Allegations that I think evangelicalism is "so sacrosanct that nobody is allowed to have a go at it" are simply untrue.

[ 05. July 2017, 23:31: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the most that can be said is that Luther's revolt gave birth to Protestantism which, in turn was a contributory factor to the Enlightenment and also to the emergence of evangelicalism.

Evangelicalism certainly emerged later as a particular variant of Protestantism, but the fact that its central emphases were a continuation of Luther's means that it is quite legitimate to see Luther as its founder.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the most that can be said is that Luther's revolt gave birth to Protestantism which, in turn was a contributory factor to the Enlightenment and also to the emergence of evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism certainly emerged later as a particular variant of Protestantism, but the fact that its central emphases were a continuation of Luther's means that it is quite legitimate to see Luther as its founder.

If its central emphases aren't the incarnation and the Trinity then it's idolatrous. If they are, then its founder is much older than Luther. This strikes me as an absurd way to define who the founder of a tradition is. Luther had nothing like Evangelicalism in mind when he defected from Rome.

[ 06. July 2017, 00:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Luther had nothing like Evangelicalism in mind when he defected from Rome.

He did not even want to defect, initially.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If its central emphases aren't the incarnation and the Trinity then it's idolatrous.

The Incarnation and Trinity were givens, over which he had no argument with Rome, and therefore had no reason to mention

quote:
Luther had nothing like Evangelicalism in mind when he defected from Rome.

No doubt, but the distinctive doctrines which were central to his break with Rome were and remain central to evangelicalism's distinctiveness, so he was its founder malgre lui.

[ 06. July 2017, 03:53: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No doubt, but the distinctive doctrines which were central to his break with Rome were and remain central to evangelicalism's distinctiveness, so he was its founder malgre lui.

No other Protestant sects share those distinctive things with Luther? Just you guys?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's nonsense, Kaplan. Luther is no more the 'founder' of evangelicalism than Wesley is the 'founder' of Pentecostalism.

Of course, there are antecedents for certain core evangelical beliefs in both Lutheran, Calvinist and Zwinglian theology but that's different to him being 'The founder'.

I once had a conversation with Tom Smail the veteran Church of Scotland renewalist. He told me that his spiritual heritage lay in the Reformed tradition of Barth and Torrance rather than in evangelicalism. He regarded the evangelicals as 'aunt and uncle rather than mum and dad.'

If I've teased you with somewhat scoffing and 'puerile' jabs then that's wrong of me to do so, but I've become increasingly impatient with what I take to be your broad-brush and sweeping generalisations.

You aren't drawing lines through history with a calligraphic pen but a magic marker, a dirty great big thick tar brush or a paint roller.

You've also been reacting to mild criticisms or allusions to evangelicalism as if they presage some kind of pogrom against evangelicals.

Hence my frustration.

Frankly, I've sometimes wondered whether I've been dealing with Jamat here rather than the Kaplan I know of old.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Doh! I meant in each of 'Lutheran, Calvinist and Zwinglian' theologies not 'both' ...

On the antecedent thing ...

Wesley's been described as the 'grandfather of Pentecostalism.'

Fair enough, to an extent ...

Equally, whilst it's fair to say that Luther is some broad tribal antecedent to some extent, he's hardly the 'founder' of evangelicalism.

That's not how these things work.

Sure, he kick-started the Reformation but I'd argue that evangelicalism owes more to Calvin and Zwingli, with later Wesleyan input, than it does to Luther.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think this just comes back to this concept of tiny worldviews. Things that are self-evident to a [particular kind of] evangelical look completely different to everyone else because they've created special terms and ideas that make no sense to anyone else.

That said, I think it is possible to say that Luther was a common ancestor of both Evangelicals and other Protestants. And it is probably true to say that Evangelicals took, riffed and and expanded some of the ideas from Luther in the developing understanding of Evangelicalism. I don't think it is a contradiction to say that other non-Evangelical Protestants see him as a key figure in their own theological development, because these things are a process of evolution and we've got to quite different places despite starting from the same place at the Reformation.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course, which is another way of saying what I've been trying to say ... that it's entirely legitimate to see Luther as the common ancestor of evangelical and other Protestants but not as a 'founder' in the sense that this word implies ...

I'm sure Kaplan doesn't mean it like this, but it rather suggests some kind of Henry Ford type role in the foundation of Ford Motors ...

The issue I have with Kaplan, on his current form, not generally, is the lack of chiaroscuro.

He seems to be painting in very broad brush strokes, rather like Jamat.

Which is why I've been giving him a hard-time on this thread because I think he can do a lot better than that.

Just sayin'

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

More guessing at marriage practice in Ancient Israel, which doesn't quite answer the OP...

The betrothal, which as I said was a contract between the groom and the bride's father for the "purchase" of the bride, made the wedding legal in Jewish law. However, by the time of Christ the bride price in the betrothal contract was merely a formality, if what I have read is true, and would only be paid to the bride's father in case of divorce or the death of the groom after marriage. By this point in Jewish history, dowries, which are payments from the bride's father to the groom (in the opposite direction of the bride price), were much more significant.

At some point, the bride would be brought to the groom's house in a festive procession and there would be a wedding feast, after which the bride would live with the groom.

One source I read said that this procession to the groom's house and wedding feast occurred AFTER an intermediate ritual consummation of the marriage that occurred at the bride's father's house. The groom would come to the bride's father's house, there would be a ritual consummation of the marriage that the source claimed would occur with family watching, and a husband could demand the bed sheets be examined afterwards for "proof" of the bride's "virginity" at the time of marriage (we all know now that this isn't how virginity works), but if the bride was found to be a virgin after being challenged in this way, the husband could never divorce her (if she was found to not have been a virgin, she would be stoned).

However, this source seems to be pretty Christian fundamentalist, so I am not sure if it is reliable. Even if these things were true in pre-Exile Israel, they may not have been practiced in the same way, or at all, by the time Christ was alive. Still, Christ does talk about a bride waiting for the Bridegroom to come (as does the Song of Solomon), rather than the Bridegroom waiting for the Bride to arrive in a procession, so it could be that in Jesus' time a ritual consummation did occur in the bride's father's house before the bridal procession and the wedding feast. I just do not know.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

One source I read said that Halakhic scholars considered consummation essential for the validity of a marriage, but I do not know if a) this was the case in Jesus' time or was a ruling based on later Rabbinic scholarship or b) if "validity" means the same thing as it would later in the RCC and in the marriage law of European countries

I don't know if Jewish law at the time differentiated between annulment and divorce. If a marriage was never consummated because of the bride's refusal to do so, the husband could ask for a divorce, in which case the bride's father might ask for the bride price to be paid to him (as I said in the last post, it appears the bride price was rarely paid but the time of Christ). Would the husband be able to argue that the betrothal contract (with all its stipulations about what happens with the bride's property, etc., in case of divorce was "void" because of nonconsummation? Would this be the same as saying the marriage never took place?

Ancient Jewish law did not provide for a way for a wife to divorce her husband, but if he refused to consummate the marriage, could she claim that the betrothal contract was void (or that the marriage was "invalid") and therefore be able to return to her father's house, be considered unmarried, and marry again?

Absent any disputes over the legitimacy of children conceived in a marriage (since there was no sex in the marriage), arguing over whether a marriage was valid or not (or whether the betrothal contract had been voided or not, and whether or not this was the same thing) would be an argument over bride prices, dowries, property, the husband's duty to provide materially for his wife, the wife's freedom to leave her husband and marry again, etc. It would also touch upon the morality of a woman living with a man - but if they had gone through the formalities of obtaining a betrothal contract and did NOT have sex, it would be odd for anyone to accuse them of "living in sin." Their families would likely be very upset, especially the husband's family, to whom the offspring of the marriage would belong (and who especially wanted sons).

Therefore, absent the two families' expectations of children, any disputes over property and money, and the overall inconceivability in Jewish society at the time of a voluntarily sexless marriage, I do not know if the BVM and St. Joseph would have been considered to be a couple with an "invalid" marriage and if common decency would have required, if the two families did not force the couple to separate, that religious or secular authorities to do so. This is because modern language in the West about invalid marriages and annulments is heavily influenced by the RCC's theology of marriage.

So, to answer the OP, would Jewish society at the time consider a sexless marriage between the BVM and St. Joseph to be bizarre, irresponsible, a negation of the duty of husband and wife, etc? Yes, yes, and yes. Could it be used as grounds for either the husband or wife to declare the betrothal contract void and not need to fulfill the legal requirements of divorce? Perhaps. Would this mean that the marriage had never taken place? I do not know if Jewish society though about these things in that way (you have to admit, marriages that appear very real, long-lasting, and loving, that are said to have never taken place is something of an artifact of the legalism that the RCC inherited from Roman law rather than Jewish law).

And, all of that said, even if Jewish law at the time would have considered the BVM and St. Joseph unmarried, does that matter? It makes it appear unlikely that something like not being considered married by society would not have been mentioned, or at least defended, in Scripture or in other early Church writings. I find so much of Jesus' life to be incompatible with Jewish or Roman morality at the time (and not in accordance with the text of prophecy about the Messiah) - and also completely improbable based on modern science - that I am not bothered by yet one more very hard thing to believe about the BVM. Using Occam's Razor to examine religious beliefs seems ludicrous to me. Religious beliefs are based upon at least some degree of irrationality, and where to draw the line between religious tenets that can or cannot be attacked with rational argument is different for every person.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No doubt, but the distinctive doctrines which were central to his break with Rome were and remain central to evangelicalism's distinctiveness, so he was its founder malgre lui.
No other Protestant sects share those distinctive things with Luther? Just you guys?

Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.

That should not come as any startling novelty.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, which is another way of saying what I've been trying to say ... that it's entirely legitimate to see Luther as the common ancestor of evangelical and other Protestants but not as a 'founder' in the sense that this word implies ...

Founder, ancestor...

Thoughtful evangelical writers on evangelical history (eg Bebbington, Stott, Noll) all acknowledge Luther's original and indispensable role.

Any history of modern evangelicalism must, after the NT, start with at least something more than a nod in Luther's direction to be taken seriously.

Which is not to say that modern evangelicalism, or even early eighteenth century evangelicalism, sprang fully formed from Luther like Athene from Zeus's head.

It is to say no Luther, no evangelicalism (unless you want to wander of into alternative "what if" history).

quote:
The issue I have with Kaplan, on his current form, not generally, is the lack of chiaroscuro.

He seems to be painting in very broad brush strokes, rather like Jamat.

Which is why I've been giving him a hard-time on this thread because I think he can do a lot better than that.

"Can do better...."

I choose to be amused rather than pissed off by your pompous assumption of a schoolmasterly role in assessing the performances of the Ship's contributors.

Well I'm sure that we'll all try a lot harder next term, Sir, because we're all too aware that kindly meant rebukes and exhortations can give way to lines, or even (Molesworthian orthography) KANES!

[ 06. July 2017, 23:10: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Thanks for all of the information stonespring. It's all interesting.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.

That should not come as any startling novelty.

The evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from Lutheranism—the branch of Protestantism that Luther actually was the founder of—by the evangelical section's adherence to Luther's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in revelation and on justification by faith? Really?

Yeah, the Reformed tradition and other Protestant traditions aside, that does come as a startlingly novel idea.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from Lutheranism—the branch of Protestantism that Luther actually was the founder of—by the evangelical section's adherence to Luther's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in revelation and on justification by faith?

Depends on whether you define evangelical in doctrinal terms, or more broadly, but at a doctrinal level most evangelicals would regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals.

I certainly do.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from Lutheranism—the branch of Protestantism that Luther actually was the founder of—by the evangelical section's adherence to Luther's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in revelation and on justification by faith?
Depends on whether you define evangelical in doctrinal terms, or more broadly, but at a doctrinal level most evangelicals would regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals.

I certainly do.

Well, of course it depends on how you define "Evangelical," which can mean anything from simply Protestant or Lutheran to the more contemporary Bebbington Quadrilateral or American conservative definitions.

So how are you defining it? Because most Lutherans I know would not consider themselves "evangelical" according to the definition that you have seemed to be using.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.

Let's make sure I'm understanding you. Any Protestant group that emphasizes the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith, is Evangelical?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So how are you defining it? Because most Lutherans I know would not consider themselves "evangelical" according to the definition that you have seemed to be using.

Evangelicalism can involve many features, but its two most basic distinctive features vis a vis other Christian traditions (including some forms of liberal Protestantism, and heights of the candle Protestantism) are its soteriology (justification by faith) and its theology of revelation (primacy of Scripture).

That doesn't mean that other Christian traditions don't contain elements of both these distinctives, but they don't prioritise them, or identify by them, to the same degree.

There are therefore good grounds for evangelicals to regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals, and the Lutherans I know self-identify as evangelicals, though of course other Lutherans would not.

Recognition is not always reciprocal.

For example, I regard the RC and Orthodox as my fellow Christians, but doubtless there are members of both traditions who would not think that I am a Christian at all.

[ 07. July 2017, 02:40: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.
Let's make sure I'm understanding you. Any Protestant group that emphasizes the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith, is Evangelical?

In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth? You could theoretically be evangelical in any context. Greenies are pretty evangelical.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Evangelicalism can involve many features, but its two most basic distinctive features vis a vis other Christian traditions (including some forms of liberal Protestantism, and heights of the candle Protestantism) are its soteriology (justification by faith) and its theology of revelation (primacy of Scripture).

I'm struggling to think of any Protestant tradition that doesn't teach justification by faith or the primacy of Scripture as revelation. This definition seems so broad as to be meaningless. You seem to be saying simply that evangelical = historic Protestantism. While that is certainly an historically defensible usage of the word, it doesn't really reflect common contemporary usage.

Perhaps cultural/geographic differences are at play, but those two "basic distinctive features" are not, as best I can tell, what distininguish Evangelicalism, as that term is typically used in the US, from Lutheranism, the Reformed tradition, Wesleyanism or other historic forms of Protestantism. As I hear the term used here, at least, what distinguishes Evangelicalism from other forms of Protestantism are things like a particular emphasis on the cross and the atonement viz a viz the individual; an emphasis on evangelizing others and on conversion and a personal, individual relationship with Christ, perhaps with a corresponding de-emphasis on sacraments; and an inerrantist or literalist approach to Scripture, or at least an approach to Scripture that leans in those directions.

quote:
There are therefore good grounds for evangelicals to regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals, and the Lutherans I know self-identify as evangelicals, though of course other Lutherans would not.

That may be true, but are you sure that those Lutherans who self-identify as evangelicals (as I recall the one Lutheran I can think of who posted in this thread specifically said she does not) are not using "evangelical" in the traditional Lutheran sense (a la the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, or Evangelical Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic) rather than in the more contemporary sense?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth?

I would say that in blunt, or basic terms, it refers to an emphasis on the centrality of the Gospel and on spreading the Gospel. But the reality is that over the centuries it has acquired a variety of meanings.

ETA: This tangent really does need a separate thread.

[ 07. July 2017, 03:39: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth?

No. That's "evangelistic."

"Evangelical" has historical meaning, and was coined (or adopted) by a specific group of people for a specific reason.

Words bluntly mean what they are used to mean by the people who use them (as a whole, not individuals).

[ 07. July 2017, 05:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

In case anyone missed the hostly direction on the last page, this is a further request to drop the tangent about evangelicalism or take it up on another thread.

Eliab
Purgatory host

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I will start a separate thread as promised. I haven't done so far as I have to think of a way of framing it that doesn't lay me open to the broad-brush charge of side-swiping at evangelicalism.

My 'pomposity' is meant to amuse not piss off, but if I am being pompous then Kaplan's being hypocritical by taking a gratuitous side-swipe at RCs and Orthodox by because some among them mightn't regard him as a Christian, particularly when he knows darn well that there are plenty of people within his own evangelical tradition who wouldn't regard RCs and Orthodox as Christians.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As for regarding all Lutherans as being Evangelicals, that would be akin to regarding all Anglicans as evangelical or all Presbyterians, or all Methodists as evangelical purely because they aren't Catholics.

Some Lutherans are evangelical. Others aren't.

As Nick says, it depends on how we define the term.

Meanwhile, I'll stop sitting as judge and jury on Kaplan's posting style when he takes the plank out of his own eye and stops making gratuitous side-swipes at other traditions in the way he accused others of doing vis a vis evangelicalism and when he sharpens his pencil instead of using a whopping big Magic Marker pen.

It would also help if he reads what people say rather than what he thinks they are saying.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Oh shut up Gam. I mean, really.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Gamaliel, take your grievances to Hell.

mr cheesy, stop junior hosting.

/hosting

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth?
No. That's "evangelistic."

"Evangelical" has historical meaning, and was coined (or adopted) by a specific group of people for a specific reason.

Words bluntly mean what they are used to mean by the people who use them (as a whole, not individuals).

Oh, OK, fair enough.
One can be evangelical or evangelistic. Is one necessarily the latter if one is the former?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Jamat, take the discussion on evangelicalism and matters arising elsewhere, as already instructed by the Hosts. Now.

/hosting

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Kaplan's being hypocritical by taking a gratuitous side-swipe at RCs and Orthodox because some among them mightn't regard him as a Christian, particularly when he knows darn well that there are plenty of people within his own evangelical tradition who wouldn't regard RCs and Orthodox as Christians.

Which was precisely my point - that evangelicals are notorious for doing it, but that in fact both sides do it.

"Sideswipes" don't come into it.

quote:
Some Lutherans are evangelical. Others aren't.

Which is what I said.

quote:
As Nick says, it depends on how we define the term.

The Lutherans I know are evangelical in the sense in which we generally use it.

Others are evangelical in the continental sense.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

Kaplan - there are now three separate requests from hosts asking for the tangent to continue on a new thread.

And someone's started one. HERE.

This is the fourth request, and probably the last polite one.

Take the discussion there. This thread is about Our Lady's Marriage. If you don't want to discuss that, don't post on this thread.

Your co-operation would be appreciated.

Eliab
Purgatory host

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I'm resurrecting this thread because a Thought has just occurred to me about the NT references to Jesus' brothers.

Matthew 13:55 says 'Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?'

'The carpenter's son' is translating the Greek phrase ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, in which, AIUI, both 'son' and 'carpenter' have a definite article, i.e. 'the son of the carpenter'. Surely this implies that Joseph only had one son? Otherwise it would have to be something like 'one of the sons of the carpenter'. Or does Greek not work like that?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I like it. Nicely obvious and nobody's ever pointed it out before. Not here anyway. Genius therefore. So, as Joseph only had one son, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas must have been his ... nephews ... ? They couldn't have been Jesus' YOUNGER brothers by Mary as the bible says she is perpetually virgin because she's the ark.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm resurrecting this thread because a Thought has just occurred to me about the NT references to Jesus' brothers.

Matthew 13:55 says 'Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?'

'The carpenter's son' is translating the Greek phrase ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, in which, AIUI, both 'son' and 'carpenter' have a definite article, i.e. 'the son of the carpenter'. Surely this implies that Joseph only had one son? Otherwise it would have to be something like 'one of the sons of the carpenter'. Or does Greek not work like that?

I don't know about Greek, but I don't think that it works in the way you are thinking in English. If I say: "Prince Charles is the son of Queen Elizabeth", I don't think that I am saying that he is the only son, and thus Andrew and Edward are not her sons. If the article has any effect, it is perhaps to emphasise the word 'son', in distinction to 'cousin' or 'nephew'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I will point out that Jesus is not the biological son of the carpenter, so if you are going to posit "brother" to perforce be biological but "son" to not be, what is your justification?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I don't know about Greek, but I don't think that it works in the way you are thinking in English. If I say: "Prince Charles is the son of Queen Elizabeth", I don't think that I am saying that he is the only son, and thus Andrew and Edward are not her sons. If the article has any effect, it is perhaps to emphasise the word 'son', in distinction to 'cousin' or 'nephew'.

That's true.

I wonder why English does that? It only seems to be true of family relationships, but unfortunately for my hypothesis that's what we're discussing.

So 'Prince Charles is the owner of Duchy Originals' and 'Prince Charles is the author of the Black Spider Memos' imply a single owner and a single author. But 'Prince Charles is the grandson of the Queen Mother' and 'Prince Charles is the brother of the Duke of York' somehow don't.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
'Prince Charles is the owner of Duchy Originals' and 'Prince Charles is the author of the Black Spider Memos' imply a single owner and a single author. But 'Prince Charles is the grandson of the Queen Mother' and 'Prince Charles is the brother of the Duke of York' somehow don't.

Could it be the inadequacy of the English verb "to be" to denote uniqueness?

The first two examples given describe something that the subject did that no one else could have done. The second two describe something that happened to the subject that could have happened to others as well.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm resurrecting this thread because a Thought has just occurred to me about the NT references to Jesus' brothers.

Matthew 13:55 says 'Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?'

'The carpenter's son' is translating the Greek phrase ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, in which, AIUI, both 'son' and 'carpenter' have a definite article, i.e. 'the son of the carpenter'. Surely this implies that Joseph only had one son? Otherwise it would have to be something like 'one of the sons of the carpenter'. Or does Greek not work like that?
I don't know about Greek, but I don't think that it works in the way you are thinking in English. If I say: "Prince Charles is the son of Queen Elizabeth", I don't think that I am saying that he is the only son, and thus Andrew and Edward are not her sons. If the article has any effect, it is perhaps to emphasise the word 'son', in distinction to 'cousin' or 'nephew'.

I don't feel that 'a son' necessarily implies more than one either!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There's also a wee problem with "the carpenter" in that phrase. Are we to assume there was absolutely no other carpenter in that vicinity? Seems unlikely, given Sepphoris just down the road. But people do use "the" loosely sometimes to mean "you know, the dude we usually think of when we're saying 'carpenter'."

I could totally hear one of our community saying of LL, "Isn't that the pastor's son?" Even though there are more pastors than one in our community, and LL has an older half brother.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Nazareth was a one carpenter town.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I will point out that Jesus is not the biological son of the carpenter, so if you are going to posit "brother" to perforce be biological but "son" to not be, what is your justification?

Utterly irrelevant. We're discussing what the people of the town thought at the time, not what you know. They undoubtedly knew that Jesus was what he was presented by Mary and Joseph as -- their son.

Unless you're proposing that Mary and Joseph went around Nazareth broadcasting to all and sundry that, no, Jesus wasn't actually Joseph's son but a miracle, which we know because Mary and an encounter with an angel.

That would really have worked well.

John

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Point.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's also a wee problem with "the carpenter" in that phrase. Are we to assume there was absolutely no other carpenter in that vicinity? Seems unlikely, given Sepphoris just down the road. But people do use "the" loosely sometimes to mean "you know, the dude we usually think of when we're saying 'carpenter'."

There's that, and then also that its Joseph the carpenter as opposed to Joseph the fisherman. All sorts of possibilities.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's also a wee problem with "the carpenter" in that phrase. Are we to assume there was absolutely no other carpenter in that vicinity? Seems unlikely, given Sepphoris just down the road. But people do use "the" loosely sometimes to mean "you know, the dude we usually think of when we're saying 'carpenter'."

Yes, 'the' (in English at least) means pretty much 'you know the one I'm talking about'. So I agree 'the carpenter' probably* means something like 'the carpenter in our social circle, as opposed to the other lot'.

But I don't think 'the son' could mean 'the son in our social circle', because the same passage implies that James and Joseph and Simon and Jude are also around somewhere, i.e. they ought to be in the social circle too.

* 'Probably' inasmuch as I've seen people claim tekton means anything from a jobbing day-labourer on a building site to a senior civil engineer. In the latter case he could genuinely be the only tekton around.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I will point out that Jesus is not the biological son of the carpenter, so if you are going to posit "brother" to perforce be biological but "son" to not be, what is your justification?
Utterly irrelevant. We're discussing what the people of the town thought at the time, not what you know. They undoubtedly knew that Jesus was what he was presented by Mary and Joseph as -- their son.

Unless you're proposing that Mary and Joseph went around Nazareth broadcasting to all and sundry that, no, Jesus wasn't actually Joseph's son but a miracle, which we know because Mary and an encounter with an angel.

That would really have worked well.

John

Bliss, which caps the post I deleted at the time. To the effect that in Nazareth, this normal, large family of at least nine was well known without invoking any second and third order complexities at all. The disciples James and John being Jesus' local first cousins and all. Not mentioned with the other four? Who have to doctrinairely be His older brothers therefore?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I thought that the traditional approach to that question was that these were half-brothers, sons of a now-widowed Joseph by a previous marriage.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I don't do traditions. Except as traditions. I made a wish at a money tree at Portmerion last week. It was an extravagant one leaving me 51 weeks to learn Welsh.

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

When I am sitting at the bedside of a dying patient, either one who has long trusted in God's love through Christ, or one who through their final illness is at last getting to grips with 'what life is really all about', somehow the 'perpetual virginity of Mary', and question of whether Jesus had brothers or sisters never seems a priority, if it even comes up at all.

The question that seems to arise, at least to me, in this long tedious trudge through the thread is: does it REALLY matter if Mary had other children; does it materially effect who Jesus is and what he has accomplished. Given the lack of decisive evidence, and the lack of excitement (or even mentioning) of the subject within the scriptures, the answer appears to be, no, it doesn't really matter. Take your choice, but don't let it be a cause for divorce or anything unloving that might ruin a good friendship.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's already happened Alisdair. That's the history of the ever schisming Church.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There's another potential complication with the "the's" (and now I hate you all for forcing me to use a bastard plural apostrophe).

In Hebrew, at least, to make a phrase like "the carpenter's son" you create a chain of nouns: son-the-carpenter. And one of the peculiarities of that setup is that if one noun is definite (takes the "the"), they BOTH are considered to do so. Which means that AFAIK you can't really say "a son of the carpenter"(or is it "the son of a carpenter" or both)? My memory's going here.

But in any case, if Aramaic has the same setup, which seems very likely though I can't swear to it, and the townspeople were speaking Aramaic (almost certainly), well, then, our quibble becomes unsolvable. They just didn't handle their definite/indefinite issues in a way that would allow us to dissect them as we wish.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I feel your pain.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
Take your choice, but don't let it be a cause for divorce or anything unloving that might ruin a good friendship.

Absolutely. I, at the moment apparently the most vocal Orthodox on the ship about these kind of things, have never let it destroy a friendship. Then again it rarely comes up in day-to-day conversation. Where "rarely" means "never." It's only on the SOF that I get into such discussions at all.

Referring to Mary as "ever-virgin" is woven throughout our liturgical works. It's not something we argue about or contemplate; for the post part it's just part of the background of faith. It's certain Protestants that have to dig and push. Sorry, but that's just truth. I've never seen an Orfie log into a majority-Protestant board and start harping on it and confronting people about it. (Nor indeed have I witnessed an Orfie on an Orfie board harp about it, where there would be no point.)

But when the Prots start saying things like "How can any person in their right mind believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?" I feel it my duty to respond. Both to clear my name from the roster of the wrong-minded, and because a question is being asked that I am in a place to answer.

This comes up perennially on the SOF, like snails in a garden. Frankly I (and some of the Catholics here, by their admission) find it tiring.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

But in any case, if Aramaic has the same setup, which seems very likely though I can't swear to it, and the townspeople were speaking Aramaic (almost certainly), well, then, our quibble becomes unsolvable. They just didn't handle their definite/indefinite issues in a way that would allow us to dissect them as we wish.

Fair enough, in that case I agree we can't conclude anything from the use or non-use of the definite article in Greek!

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

mousethief:

quote:
But when the Prots start saying things like "How can any person in their right mind believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?" I feel it my duty to respond. Both to clear my name from the roster of the wrong-minded, and because a question is being asked that I am in a place to answer.

As a Prot (I hope an open minded one) I'd like to say how much my understanding has been enlarged by you, and the glorious Josephine. You haven't always changed my mind, but I can now see the reasons behind many positions that I couldn't understand at all previously.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As a Prot (I hope an open minded one) I'd like to say how much my understanding has been enlarged by you, and the glorious Josephine. You haven't always changed my mind, but I can now see the reasons behind many positions that I couldn't understand at all previously.

Thank you for saying so. And I'll tell the glorious Josephine you mentioned her in this respect. To me that is one of the most important by-products of the Ship -- to understand somebody else's religious or churchly POV where before one didn't.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

In my broken way I second Robert.

Talking of broken, I watched the eponymous superb BBC series recently in which Sean Bean, who should get a BAFTA with Jimmy McGovern the writer, played a magnificently 'real' Roman Catholic priest.

If he presided next door to my char evo church, whose door I only darken on a Friday night for a year now, I'd go and bow my head, hands closed.

I LOVED the liturgy, including the alien invocation of Mary, Ever Virgin. It was beautiful. I learned from an excellent nun decades ago that her Italian peasant mum could not relate to God in the male, the masculine, even in the face of Christ, as that was about power adumbrated with abuse. She related to God through Mother Mary. It blew me away. No come backs.

Yet here I've been satirically hostile to the doctrinaire hostility.

Leopards, spots.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0