Thread: The "Prosperity Gospel" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030534

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
A recent visit to a church by a Mystery Worshipper has left the reviewer horrified by the preacher's explicit link between "giving God one's first fruits" and "financial breakthrough in one's life".

We all know that the "Prosperity Gospel" has been around for some time; and I can certainly see its attraction - perhaps akin to that of Polynesian "cargo cults" - among impoverished people, especially in the developing world, who have little access to wealth or health.

What I simply don't understand is its apparent success among relatively prosperous people in countries such as Britain. Is it that people get so carried away in the euphoria of worship that they don't notice that (to use the title of the MW report) they are being "fleeced"? Is it that it exploits the link between modern individualistic ideas of self and the inherent self-centredness of Evangelicalism which can so easily focus on "my" blessing and "my" salvation? Or what?
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Perhaps when we know we're going to do something anyway - like giving - we're susceptible to the idea that we could do that thing _and get an add on such as *** thrown in_. A bit like the old one of buying petrol and getting free wine glasses.

Greed is a sin, so by definition we're all predisposed to it. There's a nice symmetry between giving (our money) and getting (money back) which perhaps slips the idea past our conscience. There again, the payoff probably wouldn't jar us into realisation that something smelly was going on, even if it came in terms of some other sin - lots of sex, attractiveness, ego-boost - which tend to go along with the wealth thing.

And God loves us, right, so he wants us to prosper...
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I thought the mystery worshipper was a bit harsh.

AFAICS, giving was presented as a way of receiving. It was about blessings coming to you as a result of generosity to others. That's a biblical teaching, surely? Luke 6? The problem in this case was rather that the 'giving' required involved quite large amounts of money.

Of course, if the people present were mostly well off then giving large amounts of money might not have been a problem - but perhaps they do need blessings in other aspects of their lives.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
AFAICS, giving was presented as a way of receiving. It was about blessings coming to you as a result of generosity to others. That's a biblical teaching, surely? Luke 6?

I don't really see that in Luke 6. But in Matthew 10:8 I see:
quote:
Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.
Or, as it is found in our liturgical documents, "Freely you have received; freely give."

Giving, as I understand it, should have nothing at all to do with what we get out of it, and everything to do with gratitude for what we have already received.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Giving to whom? To what?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

What I simply don't understand is its apparent success among relatively prosperous people in countries such as Britain.

People generally look up when they are evaluating their place in life, not down. We tend to become accustomed to what we have so it does not feel like excess.
But there is nothing in the prosperity gospel that is rational, so expecting rational behaviour from its adherents is a bit much.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I thought the mystery worshipper was a bit harsh.

AFAICS, giving was presented as a way of receiving. It was about blessings coming to you as a result of generosity to others. That's a biblical teaching, surely? Luke 6? The problem in this case was rather that the 'giving' required involved quite large amounts of money.

I don't know, giving in expectation of receiving is not exactly the definition of generosity not does it seem very Christian.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I really wasn't wanting the thread to focus on the MW report itself. [Cool]

[ 04. October 2016, 20:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
The tragedy is that the prosperity preachers are the face of Christianity on TV. I am convinced their motives are mercenary and that they prey on the poor. They are wolves.

Making prosperity conditional on our seed sowing is a teaching which puts us in the driving seat. It is making the almighty a sock puppet. To say God wants all Christians healthy wealthy is to set oneself up for a huge fall.

The roots of it are in A teaching called dominionism or kingdom now. And earlier in Christian Science. The idea of spiritual laws that anyone can discover and work is pretty insidious. Most of the mega churches use it. Their sermons are continually teaching success principles.

Unfortunately most of the Pentecostal people I know are really susceptible to this. They are often needy and uneducated. I am a bit surprised a mystery worshipper would be in one of those environments.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'm all for the Kingdom now. I'd love to see any of these parasites repent and take it to the poor. But they are still under Satan's dominion in their delusion that they have replaced him.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't know, giving in expectation of receiving is not exactly the definition of generosity not does it seem very Christian.

I was thinking of Luke 6 v 38:

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Several other verses also suggest reciprocity. Even those who turn the other cheek or do good to those who hurt them are given the hope that God will reward them later. (v 35).

But on a basic level perhaps it's more interesting to consider that all churches offer 'benefits' of some sort to those who give themselves to church life. If prosperity isn't on offer in exchange for commitment than something else, probably unspoken, surely is.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
This does not suggest the Earthly reward that the Prosperity Gospel promises, but more of a Heavenly one.
It does say that if you give with expectation, and that would include any divine reward, that it is wrong.
Reciprocity is definitely not on.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[...]
This does not suggest the Earthly reward that the Prosperity Gospel promises, but more of a Heavenly one.

I agree that it's probably referring to a heavenly reward, although I'm not sure that it's a heavenly reward exclusively.

The problem with denying any kind of reciprocity, ISTM, is that Christianity then becomes an unhelpful religion for the poor, because despite their commitment it refuses to assist them with their material needs in this life. It's better suited to those who are already quite comfortable, because they don't need any dodgy prosperity theology to help them make ends meet....
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[...]
This does not suggest the Earthly reward that the Prosperity Gospel promises, but more of a Heavenly one.

I agree that it's probably referring to a heavenly reward, although I'm not sure that it's a heavenly reward exclusively.

The problem with denying any kind of reciprocity, ISTM, is that Christianity then becomes an unhelpful religion for the poor, because despite their commitment it refuses to assist them with their material needs in this life. It's better suited to those who are already quite comfortable, because they don't need any dodgy prosperity theology to help them make ends meet....

Well, there are plenty of por faithful who never receive anything in this life. Were they all just horrible people? There are children who die, some in horrible ways, before they have any meaningful way to be good or bad.
It does not make sense to posit an earthly reward.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm all for the Kingdom now. I'd love to see any of these parasites repent and take it to the poor. But they are still under Satan's dominion in their delusion that they have replaced him.

Well Halleluia, for once we are in total agreement.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
[Biased] of course.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
lilBuddha

It's not a question of people being punished for being 'horrible', but of their experiencing the encouragement that putting their faith into action will make some kind of tangible difference to their lives. The Bible does give some indication - although obviously not without great qualification - that this is a justifiable hope to have.

In fact, I think there's a great deal of tension between the idea that being a Christian will make your life better and the idea that it might make your life even worse. And then there's the kind of faith that's somewhat nervous about Christianity making any kind of significant difference to a person's life. All of these positions probably reflect the reality depending on the context, and could be argued from the Bible.

The prosperity gospel no doubt reflects a real desire for something better. I think Christians should think carefully before they stamp on that. Especially if they're better off than the people who are experiencing that yearning.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Which is why I asked the question of why people who do not seem to be unhealthy or impoverished are attracted by it. (I can certainly understand its attraction to poor people, even the sense of "pride in our pastor" when they see him/her driving round in a shiny new car).
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was thinking of Luke 6 v 38

Okay, I guess I can see that. But in context, I'm not sure that's quite what "give and it shall be given to you" really means.

quote:
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.”
I think in context, it may be more of a riff on the Golden Rule—expect to be treated the way you treat others.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This does not suggest the Earthly reward that the Prosperity Gospel promises, but more of a Heavenly one.

I think this is a common view, but I think it is only slightly less problematic than the Prosperity Gospel, because I think it distorts what Jesus taught, at least in some instances. I don't think Jesus was talking about a pie-in-the-sky reward in the sweet bye-and-bye. I think he was talking about abundant life now—life that is abundant because it is lived in accordance with God's will for the world, because in living this life we find real joy in communion with the divine. That's something that is both eternal and immediate.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem with denying any kind of reciprocity, ISTM, is that Christianity then becomes an unhelpful religion for the poor, because despite their commitment it refuses to assist them with their material needs in this life.

The problem with expecting some kind of reciprocity, IMO, is that Christianity becomes a religion that fails to follow Jesus.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting
This isn't a Dead Horse ( the list of Dead Horse topics is in the board guidelines) and seems to be a general discussion of the prosperity gospel, so it belongs in Purgatory.
Thanks,
L
Dead Horses host

hosting
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which is why I asked the question of why people who do not seem to be unhealthy or impoverished are attracted by it. (I can certainly understand its attraction to poor people, even the sense of "pride in our pastor" when they see him/her driving round in a shiny new car).

Maybe it's because in cities like London even the supposedly comfortable lifestyles of professional people can be hard to maintain without a lot of pressure and anxiety. Especially for young people who don't feel themselves to be progressing materially, despite all of their (expensive) qualifications and their jobs in hip offices in Zone 1.

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The problem with expecting some kind of reciprocity, IMO, is that Christianity becomes a religion that fails to follow Jesus.

One answer to that is simply to cease to see such believers as Christians, in which case their theology is no longer a 'Christian' problem.

Another answer might be for Christians to be encouraged to lower their expectations of Christianity. (Myself, I sometimes wonder if I'm looking for something in the faith that it has no duty to 'give' me.) But again, you can see how this would appeal to some social groups more than others.

Christianity as primarily selfless duty has a bleak, joyless reputation today. I imagine that many churches accept, if only tacitly, that Christians frequently engage in the life of the church in order to fulfil personal needs, whether regarding prosperity or (more commonly) emotional release, etc. Therefore, any charitable giving members are asked to undertake must help fulfil those personal needs in some way. To me, this is a sort of reciprocity, even if the term seems distasteful or even unbiblical to some.

I don't know if these tendencies are more common today than in the past. The decline of Christian practice has perhaps made them more visible. I suspect that anxious people (even those who are doing relatively well) are making up a bigger proportion of congregations than before, and some denominations might simply be more inclined to attract them.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Christianity as primarily selfless duty has a bleak, joyless reputation today.

I would think so, if it is considered "duty." But personally, at least, I'm not used to hearing it presented that way. I'm accustomed to hearing it presented as opportunity, as an invitation to join in ministry. Perhaps this is one of those times where my Reformed background is showing, viewing it not as selfless duty but as grateful response to God's graciousness.

quote:
I imagine that many churches accept, if only tacitly, that Christians frequently engage in the life of the church in order to fulfil personal needs, whether regarding prosperity or (more commonly) emotional release, etc.
Sure. I would imagine that churches assume it. The question is whether those needs are self-centered ones (such as to advance ones career or social standing—yes, it's a thing around here) or a less self-centered though still personal one, such as the need for emotional healing or community, and whether we are encouraged to move beyond them.

quote:
Therefore, any charitable giving members are asked to undertake must help fulfil those personal needs in some way. To me, this is a sort of reciprocity, even if the term seems distasteful or even unbiblical to some.
I think I get what you're saying, and I can see it up to a point, but I do find it problematic anytime the church suggests that we should give or serve because we're going to get something in return. I think the church's role is to lead us beyond that.

To me, it's not about being asked to undertake charitable giving—that really isn't how I think of it, nor how I have been taught to think of it by the churches I've belonged to. I was brought up and encouraged to think in terms of gratitude.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't think Jesus was talking about a pie-in-the-sky reward in the sweet bye-and-bye.

That is not exactly what I meant. The basic of what I interpret those passages to mean is that one should not do good for the sake of reward. The passage seems to say that if you can manage this, God will reward you. Which is a problematic way to put it.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Christianity as primarily selfless duty has a bleak, joyless reputation today.

This is not how I see as Jesus' message. It is more that following Him will bring you joy in itself, regardless of your temporal prosperity.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
I give not because of what I want to get back but because of the help I can bring with the resources I can share.

The Prosperity Gospel is an example of the American Dream. It's about me, my needs and my lifestyle. It's the politics of envy. It's the sales scheme to beat all sales schemes. It's the road to despair.

Why the latter? Just look at the Car Park of a church teaching this kind of stuff. There is evidence of material blessing but the biggest and newest cars always belong to the staff and they are parked in reserved bays. Everyone else takes pot luck with their rusty car somewhere else.

Why do rich people get taken in? Well for soem of the reasons "poor" people do - they trust the church and what it teaches; they lack the ability to be able to look at the bible' big pucture not just a few "giving" texts. They don't understand that giving isn't just bunging money at something but a commitment to give your life and what it means. They give 10% and think it'd all over - for some it's just starting at that level, for others it's just not right.

Prosperity Gospel demonstrates the poverty of the church not the poverty of the poor.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think what we're seeing is a focus within the "rump" of Evangelical churches on the middle classes for various reasons - more stable income for the church being a big factor. We also see a trend towards individualism within those kinds of churches, which I think means that the "prosperity gospel" isn't far from the surface a lot of the time.

AFAIU the phenomena, we might not often see the excesses of the whole "give x amount to God and he'll give you a Mercedes" in middle-class UK congregations - but it is certainly a subtle subtext. If we're praising God for healing, for exam results, for job progression whilst continually talking about blessing, then we must be saying something about those who do not receive those things from God (ie that they're not blessed).

As to why it is so pervasive; on the whole, Christianity in the UK has become a middle-class pursuit. The previous working-class forms of Christianity (particularly from the Wesleyan branch of Evangelicalism) very largely had a different concept of blessing. It wasn't so much that earthly needs were not considered, there was something more about recognising that working people were often trapped in their situation and that - as a community - spiritual and earthly resources were needed to cope with the present reality not to transport them out of it.

It seems like these movements were very level headed on these points, leading to temporal expressions in politics and trade unionism.

As these social constructs have fallen away, working class Evangelical religion of this kind has died - and in many communities pretty much the only form of evangelical religion that is available is very middle class and very focussed on middle class concerns.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Sorry, that was a bit of a jumble of thoughts;

TL;DR version: the death of Wesleyan Evangelical working-class religion has led to a middle-class takeover of the faith, leading to increasing individualism.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
AFAIU the phenomena, we might not often see the excesses of the whole "give x amount to God and he'll give you a Mercedes" in middle-class UK congregations - but it is certainly a subtle subtext. If we're praising God for healing, for exam results, for job progression whilst continually talking about blessing, then we must be saying something about those who do not receive those things from God (ie that they're not blessed).

Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz.
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.


You should be able to buy this somewhere, still. Hunt it out.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:


You should be able to buy this somewhere, still. Hunt it out.

Ah dammit, Janis had all the best lines.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, I think that many Christians have an image somewhere in their minds of God as the Good Fairy supplying all their wishes. But doesn't the Prosperity Gospel go beyond that idea, and systematise it into a theological system?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Interestingly, this sounds like (being generous) a watered down prosperity gospel, something that I have heard in all sorts of places (and is more likely to be heard in the UK than the full blown ideas).

It goes along the lines of "If you give generously, you will be blessed back. This blessing will cover all areas, including your financial dealings"

The full blown PG would be more aggressive "If you give money to us, God will give you 10 times as much back" which always sounds like a spiritual Ponzi scheme to me (and is as corrupt).

The real problem I have with even the watered down version is that it is always about "giving to us, to the church, to the 'ministry'" which is never what the Biblical message is about.

AIUI, the Bible message is that if you are generous, giving, caring and concerned about others - especially the poor, widows, strangers, the neglected - then this is a Good Think in the eyes of God, and he will bless you and cause you to prosper. This blessing may not be in physical or material prosperity, but in heavenly credits. And yes, there will probably be some prospering in business too. Not to a degree that will definitively pay you back, but you will live a life in God's favour.

I can see why it is very attractive as an idea, in certain areas. Places like Hackney are attracting city workers more and more, and a lot of the city mentality is about investment - you put money into this, and you get this financial return. I think the prosperity gospel is about the same thing. And is as utterly immoral.

It reminds me of a sketch from years ago where a charity flag-seller was talking to a businessman, who wanted to know just how this financial investment deal would work. "So I give you money, and you give me a sticker? But this sticker isn't worth much? I don't understand this deal. What happens to the money? Where do I get my return on it?"

The core issue is that for so many people, their only idea of "blessing" is money. Not only unbiblical, but very dangerous.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, I think that many Christians have an image somewhere in their minds of God as the Good Fairy supplying all their wishes.

I don't think they do - or at least, I don't think they did. The miners here in this Valley were intensely religious (I mean, seriously, how many big Methodist chapels does one small place need?) and kept on getting wiped out in terrible accidents throughout the 19 century.

I don't see any evidence that they believed themselves to be unblessed (cursed?) to be working here or that there was some kind of divine judgement upon those who died in the accidents.

AFAIU the church gave them an education, the pit gave them work, religion gave them hope and a reason to continue, the union gave them a vision of a better tomorrow. I don't see anyone suggesting offering a carrot suggesting that belief in this sect would mean the deity would whisk them out of the dirt.

quote:
But doesn't the Prosperity Gospel go beyond that idea, and systematise it into a theological system?
No, I think it is absolutely a mistake to imagine the prosperity gospel is just a minority sport. The ideas - usually unspoken - are pervasive in British evangelical churches.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't think Jesus was talking about a pie-in-the-sky reward in the sweet bye-and-bye.

That is not exactly what I meant. The basic of what I interpret those passages to mean is that one should not do good for the sake of reward. The passage seems to say that if you can manage this, God will reward you. Which is a problematic way to put it.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Christianity as primarily selfless duty has a bleak, joyless reputation today.

This is not how I see as Jesus' message. It is more that following Him will bring you joy in itself, regardless of your temporal prosperity.

I'm not sure it's even that. It's just that you are doing the Right Thing. Virtue its own reward and all that.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
I sometimes wonder if the prosperity gospel comes from a similar root to liberation theology, but which has moved along a completely different hermeneutical route.

Both seem rooted in poverty and a desire to escape it. Liberation theology says that God is on the side of the oppressed and meets us where we are, prosperity gospel says 'look at the riches of capitalism; these shall be yours if you first invest in me'.

There's an element of it being a consequence of what might be called a verse-by-verse way of looking at scripture, with Jeremiah 29:11 being the most out-of-context quoted text in prosperity gospel churches:
quote:
For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope.
It's so often read as though it is God writing to today's christians, and is stripped of its context of the people of Israel in exile in Babylon.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Interestingly, this sounds like (being generous) a watered down prosperity gospel, something that I have heard in all sorts of places (and is more likely to be heard in the UK than the full blown ideas).

It goes along the lines of "If you give generously, you will be blessed back. This blessing will cover all areas, including your financial dealings"

Which can rapidly slide into the more aggressive version you describe as soon as tithing is discussed ("People ask whether you should tithe net or gross, well do you want God to bless you net or gross?").
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
At the other end of the spectrum, I think it creates an environment for ministers, pastors and clergy which is set up for them to fail.

Leaders are expected to be the living embodiment of the perfect spiritual life and are therefore expected to have perfect (and "blessed") family lives etc.

A lot of the time, those who scale the heights within this subculture come unstuck, very often via sexual indiscretion.

The final irony is that those who fall are often back in the same or similar seat within a very short time as if nothing has happened..

I mean, gadzuks, the pressures of modern life mean that these things are hardly unexpected. But it seems like telling ourselves that we're somehow on the road to blessings is a short road towards infidelity.

Of course I could just be seeing things that aren't really related.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
This sort of theology can take some interesting forms.

We once received a form letter explaining that if we were Christians, but not not wealthy, it was because Satan was withholding money which was rightfully ours.

If we sent some money, the sender of the letter would strive in prevailing prayer to force Satan to release it - the amount released being proportional to whichever of the graded sums listed in the letter that we had the faith to send.

For example, if we sent only $10, then Satan would be be forced to release $100, but if we sent $500 then he would be forced to release $5,000.

Did we respond in faith?

Absolutely!

That's why we're now multi-millionaires, praise the Lord.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
At the other end of the spectrum, I think it creates an environment for ministers, pastors and clergy which is set up for them to fail.

Leaders are expected to be the living embodiment of the perfect spiritual life and are therefore expected to have perfect (and "blessed") family lives etc.

A lot of the time, those who scale the heights within this subculture come unstuck, very often via sexual indiscretion.

The final irony is that those who fall are often back in the same or similar seat within a very short time as if nothing has happened..

I mean, gadzuks, the pressures of modern life mean that these things are hardly unexpected. But it seems like telling ourselves that we're somehow on the road to blessings is a short road towards infidelity.

Of course I could just be seeing things that aren't really related.

I was present when Mark Stibbe listed his blessings and said, as I vividly recall as it curdled my guts as I heard it, "If it's on [the list], it's in [the bag].". Just before he crashed and burned trashing his marriage and family. A short lived appeal was then launched by Chorleywood-type followers to financially support this jet setting circus. I see a linear connection through these dots, starting and ending with bourgeois Christianity.

Talking of which, as on the "What comes first, God's call or our desires?", are we to feel sorry for our non-incarnational clergy in genteel bourgeois poverty compared with their Mercedes driving parishioners?

One distressed clergy residence I know inside out.

Another.

The addresses in the images are NOT of clergy.

In my Father's house are many mansions eh?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... The problem with denying any kind of reciprocity, ISTM, is that Christianity then becomes an unhelpful religion for the poor, ....

But anything that is founded on a lie, or a version of theology that is so wrong that it becomes a lie, is unhelpful to the poor.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I was present when Mark Stibbe listed his blessings and said, as I vividly recall as it curdled my guts as I heard it, "If it's on [the list], it's in [the bag].". Just before he crashed and burned trashing his marriage and family. A short lived appeal was then launched by Chorleywood-type followers to financially support this jet setting circus. I see a linear connection through these dots, starting and ending with bourgeois Christianity.

I wasn't even thinking of that particular trainwreck. I wonder how many of that particular subset have crashed in a similar way - I can think of several, I'm guessing there are more.

quote:
Talking of which, as on the "What comes first, God's call or our desires?", are we to feel sorry for our non-incarnational clergy in genteel bourgeois poverty compared with their Mercedes driving parishioners?
Mission to clubbers in Ayia Napa anyone?

quote:
The addresses in the images are NOT of clergy.
No idea what you posted these images for, Martin. Big houses exist.. yeah. So?

quote:
In my Father's house are many mansions eh?
You are saying that large excessive manses and vicarages are the norm in Surrey (or wherever it is that you live)? That seems unlikely.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Leicester. Ancestrally from Leamington. As in then pictures of vicar's neighbourhoods. The clue's in my From:

[ 05. October 2016, 10:49: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Leicester.

Leicester? Seriously? There are massive mansions as vicarages in Leicester?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Oh, so 5 bed, two garages, detached with grounds doesn't even colloquially compare with Chatsworth?

Why do you defend it mate?

The UTTER lack of incarnationality?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oh, so 5 bed, two garages, detached with grounds doesn't even colloquially compare with Chatsworth?

Why do you defend it mate?

The UTTER lack of incarnationality?

Slow down chum, I'm not defending anything, I'm just trying to extract meaning from your cryptic messages.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'm sorry mr cheesy.

And I very much liked what you said about the Welsh miners.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

As on the "What comes first, God's call or our desires?", are we to feel sorry for our non-incarnational clergy in genteel bourgeois poverty compared with their Mercedes driving parishioners?

One distressed clergy residence I know inside out.

Another.

The addresses in the images are NOT of clergy.

In my Father's house are many mansions eh?

The houses in the pictures are very similar to the ones around them. Does this mean that the vicarages and churches you know are in the same well-heeled neighbourhoods?

I suppose that clergy who reject nice homes can still successfully attract and minister to 'genteel bourgeois' congregations, but it must be quite rare. However, I think some clergymen rather like chastising their middle class congregations, and living in a very obviously self-sacrificing way would give them the credibility for doing so.

Of course, in such a middle class setting any minister who chooses to live in a council flat and criticise the prosperity gospel (or just capitalism tout court) may still have to nurture his or her cultural and social capital in order to engage confidently with the educated and well-heeled folk in that environment. Especially, I imagine, in the South East of England.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Anything that is founded on a lie, or a version of theology that is so wrong that it becomes a lie, is unhelpful to the poor.

Maybe.

I'm reminded of that old quote about South American religion: Liberal theology opted for the poor, but the poor opted for Pentecostalism. Would you say that the poor didn't know what was good for them?
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't think Jesus was talking about a pie-in-the-sky reward in the sweet bye-and-bye.

That is not exactly what I meant. The basic of what I interpret those passages to mean is that one should not do good for the sake of reward. The passage seems to say that if you can manage this, God will reward you. Which is a problematic way to put it.
Sorry. I thought you probably didn't mean it quite that way, and I thought I qualified my response a little more, by suggesting that the real problem comes when the "my reward is in heaven" position is pushed to the extreme. On re-read, I realize I wasn't as clear about that as I thought I was.

I'm still not quite convinced, though, that Luke 6 is really about God rewarding us if we do good for good's sake. The passage quoted above comes after the Golden Rule and the discourse about "big deal if you love those who love you. Love those who hate you." (Which includes the admonition to love and lend without expecting anything in return.) It comes before the discourse about seeing the speck in another's eye but ignoring the log in your own eye.

The only reward mentioned is in Luke 6:35: "Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked."

So to the extent there is any reward or or reciprocity here, it's not really God giving a heavenly reward; it seems to me to be more like Jesus's version of "what goes around comes around," maybe even Jesus's version of karma. Live as a child of God, and in so doing you'll find joy and fulfillment.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

As on the "What comes first, God's call or our desires?", are we to feel sorry for our non-incarnational clergy in genteel bourgeois poverty compared with their Mercedes driving parishioners?

One distressed clergy residence I know inside out.

Another.

The addresses in the images are NOT of clergy.

In my Father's house are many mansions eh?

The houses in the pictures are very similar to the ones around them. Does this mean that the vicarages and churches you know are in the same well-heeled neighbourhoods?

I suppose that clergy who reject nice homes can still successfully attract and minister to 'genteel bourgeois' congregations, but it must be quite rare. However, I think some clergymen rather like chastising their middle class congregations, and living in a very obviously self-sacrificing way would give them the credibility for doing so.

Of course, in such a middle class setting any minister who chooses to live in a council flat and criticise the prosperity gospel (or just capitalism tout court) may still have to nurture his or her cultural and social capital in order to engage confidently with the educated and well-heeled folk in that environment. Especially, I imagine, in the South East of England.

This is the post-industrial Midlands. I live right on the fault line with an assistant vicar two doors down and a vicar round the corner. The red brick Pakistani terraces start immediately beyond us.

As I said once to the nice middle class lady who toured all the middle class home groups to teach us how to be evangelists.

Show me.

The CoE has been living the prosperity gospel for centuries.

[ 05. October 2016, 13:36: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Please do remember that Ministers usually have little choice in where they live, and that they often have no capital of their own. Their prosperity may well be something of an illusion, although it is true that they may be protected from some of the uncertainties of life faced by other people (e.g. they probably don't have to choose between fixing the boiler or taking a summer holiday).

Obviously clergy do have to decide whether to go to a struggling deprived inner-city parish or a prosperous suburban one ... this I think is perhaps a better line of enquiry (and takes us back to the OP).

When we were in London we lives first in a terraced property which was bang in the middle of the local housing market. In our next church we had a nice Edwardian semi-detached house which today is worth £1.5m but which the church had purchased many moons before for £1500. As it happens they couldn't afford to maintain it properly and we suggested that they sell it after we left and buy a smaller property. They did that but the profit they got, although substantial, wasn't as large as you might have thought as local house prices were so high.

[ 05. October 2016, 13:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Ay up Baptist, I trust that you know that you, like Zappa and Lamb Chopped, can do no wrong by me?

And I know you and they are not THE Incarnation and that radically serving the community MUST be in the name of Christ and by the Spirit.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
This is the post-industrial Midlands. I live right on the fault line with an assistant vicar two doors down and a vicar round the corner. The red brick Pakistani terraces start immediately beyond us.

I see. Your photos didn't make the context clear.

Of course, few CofE clergy probably have the skills or training to evangelise among working class Pakistanis (and few congregations have the vision and the nurturing set-up to receive them, TBH) so just putting a posh vicar into a terraced house might not make much difference by itself. But who knows?

quote:


The CoE has been living the prosperity gospel for centuries.

It used to be the Tory Party at prayer, so that's hardly surprising, is it?

Powerful, prestigious institutions find it hard to make common cause with people who are struggling financially, although individuals may make an effort.

Churches usually find it easier to appeal to that constituency if they're grass roots movements, rather than middle class people ministering to the masses. But over time almost all church groups become middle class, until they get to the point when it's far easier for them to be for the poor than of the poor.

[ 05. October 2016, 19:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
True of the Labour Party, too.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
You're fighting a good rear-guard action here SvitlanaV2. A church with the long view would ... should be constantly going to work, live, be where the fields are white for harvest from its middle class heights. Incarnate divested from its otherwise helpless useless privilege. At least aspiring to aspire to the Jerusalem model.

Islam does par excellence.

The RCC does in South America. Even Pentecostals do. Baptists did spectacularly in South Korea.

Before the Muslim migrants came to the red brick terraces half a century ago, who was there ministering, tent-making with the working class whites? The CoE had segregated seating by class in the C19th. Methodists and Baptists in particular were more egalitarian. And more pious in the latter too. That didn't help.

Somebody. Show me.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A church with the long view would ... should be constantly going to work, live, be where the fields are white for harvest from its middle class heights. Incarnate divested from its otherwise helpless useless privilege.


Perhaps it's because of my Methodist and Pentecostal influences, but I'm not keen on the idea of the church as a middle class institution that has to go and eternally play Lady Bountiful to the poor. Why can't the church BE the poor?

My understanding is that the most effective evangelism comes from people who know the lay of the land, who know its culture and can speak the message from the inside. Yes, the initial contact will be from elsewhere, but once new believers are made in a local setting they're the best people to speak to their friends and neighbours. An endless stream of outsiders with a higher social status and conflicting cultural values shouldn't be necessary. This is what many missionary organisations have realised over time, and it seems to be relevant for national as well as international contexts.

Of course, the CoFE sends its middle class ministers around the country, so there will always be areas where they're very different from the wider community. I think the answer is for local congregations to be empowered to be the face of mission in their own communities, rather than leaving this in the hands of the clergy. The difficulty is that this clashes somewhat with received ideas about the clergy-laity division of labour.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Just to say that one of my members in a previous church brought a friend, who commented that I "sounded too posh to be a Baptist". [Roll Eyes]

[ 12. October 2016, 12:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Yes, it's funny, but one doesn't tend to think of Baptists as 'posh', even though they've historically been higher up the social ladder than some of the other Nonconformists.

Perhaps there's been some sort of unexpected class shift in the British Baptist movement that hasn't been studied or understood.

Now, as for Methodism, 'poshness' stands out like a sore thumb there, despite the usual middle class, suburban drift. Uniformity is emphasised by most Methodists tending to be of a similar age, and appearing to be only a generation or two away from respectable working class roots.

The CoFE strikes me as actually being quite diverse, relatively speaking, but that's where one would naturally expect 'the posher sort' (especially the clergy) to hang out....

[Biased]

[ 12. October 2016, 12:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Historically I think that Wesleyans were much higher up the social scale than Primitives or Bible Christians; equally Congregationalists and Presbyterians were posher than most Baptists.

In any case, my own childhood background is "professional middle-class Anglicanism", although my parents were initially secular German Jews (migrating to Britain at the end of 1938).
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
If you don't mind me asking, why didn't you remain within the CoFE?
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, it's funny, but one doesn't tend to think of Baptists as 'posh', even though they've historically been higher up the social ladder than some of the other Nonconformists.

Odd. I grew up in a Baptist church in the home counties and have come to see that as distinctly middle class. It was FIEC, rather the BUGB, so that may make a difference.

Still, where I am in a large city now, if I want to see someone go to church in a suit, then I know my best bet would be a Baptist church (after that, an African Pentecostal)

Back on topic of prosperity gospel, may I throw this in as a gambit: Might there be a risk that a backlash against the prosperity gospel may lead to a stunted theology of giving?

If you think back to say the excesses of the Reformation, where a legitimate protest to the failings of Catholic theology went OTT and resulted in the destruction of churches and an unnecessary rejection of the use of art in christian worship. In more recent years, the excesses of hyper-charismatic churches such as Toronto Airport Vineyard Church led to such anti Holy Spirit movements such as Strange Fire. So I'm wondering if it's possible that a reaction against prosperity gospel may lead to something similar. Of course, I might be wrong.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Historically I think that Wesleyans were much higher up the social scale than Primitives or Bible Christians

Indeed, from what I read, one of the main reasons Primitive Methodists existed was to stand against the "respectability" of the Wesleyan Methodists.

But then I do think that there was an enormous amount of flux within Methodism, with various splinter groups travelling through from being a church of those at the margins through to various forms of societal respectability.

I don't know whether there was a similar trend within Congregational and Presbyterian churches.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I'm aware, of course, that there were class differences between the Wesleyans and other kinds of Methodists, but I was thinking particularly about the Baptists in my post above.

Interestingly, the Baptists I know appear to be more middle class than the Congregationalists. Whether there's a significant class difference between Baptists and members of the URC, though, I couldn't say. The issue is complicated by age distribution in congregations; the URC's older membership are likely to have more money, pensions, etc., but the younger membership among the Baptists might still be middle class in terms of cultural background.

As for a backlash against the prosperity gospel, it's obviously going to mean that members give less cash to the church. But to whom will this be a problem? Unless the members leave for more normative congregations then their reduced giving is only going to affect their own churches. Some congregations will collapse if they've overstretched themselves financially. Others will just have to readjust.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Because SvitlanaV2, the poor can't lift themselves by their culturally, educationally, psychologically, emotionally, economically deprived bootstraps.

Only Islam can overcome this, within an open society, paradoxically.

Church attendance is in genteel to off the cliff free fall for all UK denominations, the bigger the bigger generally, except Pentecostal up until 10 years ago, growing by nearly 2000 people a year. They are thriving in London since due to African migrants, where there are more by attendance than Roman Catholics, themselves over twice as attendant as Anglicans. In the rest of the country it's downhill all the way for all. All gone by 2040 except a few odds and ends. It'll actually asymptotically straggle on forever I'm sure.

How are the poor going to evangelize themselves? With what? With what gospel? By what method?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I know all about the decline, Martin60; the last church I was seriously emotionally invested in closed. But relying on middle class Anglicans probably isn't the answer.

Some of the African Pentecostals have talked about 'reverse mission'. We should probably encourage and supported them to develop this idea. They could be just as incarnational as any lefty Oxbridge vicar if that's where an unfolding theology takes them!

A missionary approach to church planting in difficult areas could take the small number of new converts made and train and release them to evangelise among their friends and neighbours, rather than assuming that a university trained evangelist from elsewhere is going to have to dominate the work for fifteen years. After all, who has the zeal of a new convert if not the new convert? Who's going to feel the most comfortable in such an area, with such people?

Moreover, the CofE (among others) isn't routinely training its clergy in evangelism, AFAIUI, so leaving it all up to them doesn't make a lot of sense. Their focus tends to be pastoral, which is good, but that alone doesn't grow churches. You'd need a different approach, different kinds of candidates for the work, different training....

And again: congregations. If church growth and conversions are a serious matter and not just a hoped-for side effect of community-minded action then there needs to be much more intentional, focused prayer, education and congregational commitment.

For example, if we're talking about evangelism in areas with lots of Muslims, then there has to be a really serious awareness of and engagement with the challenges involved in that. New converts would need much more support. Some would literally need a new family, not just coffee and biscuits on Sunday after service. It's very rare to find a church willing to commit to so much work.

Actually, first things first: I don't think there's a sufficiently clear foundational theology about evangelism in mainstream churches. We know that members want their churches to grow rather than decline and close (and the suspicion is that selfish reasons are high up the list), but there's a longstanding anxiety about sharing the gospel yet no clear understanding about why and how to do so.

To return to the OP, one could say that criticism of the prosperity gospel is simply a diversionary tactic; that's not where our real problems lie.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Yeah, this has become the English Churches thread.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know all about the decline, Martin60; the last church I was seriously emotionally invested in closed. But relying on middle class Anglicans probably isn't the answer.

Agreed, for reasons you identify below. They know nothing about evangelism. They won't incarnate.
quote:

Some of the African Pentecostals have talked about 'reverse mission'. We should probably encourage and supported them to develop this idea. They could be just as incarnational as any lefty Oxbridge vicar if that's where an unfolding theology takes them!

No they couldn't. Not unless they incarnate. NOTHING else will work. No other theology.
quote:

A missionary approach to church planting in difficult areas could take the small number of new converts made and train and release them to evangelise among their friends and neighbours, rather than assuming that a university trained evangelist from elsewhere is going to have to dominate the work for fifteen years. After all, who has the zeal of a new convert if not the new convert? Who's going to feel the most comfortable in such an area, with such people?

The missionaries need to incarnate. Simple. To serve. No REALLY serve. Worship services serve no one. Worship no one. The middle class have to be the poor for the poor. Inclusively. Sacrificially. Lay down their privilege. That means even my heroes Steve Chalke and Rob Bell and Brian McLaren.

NOTHING else will work. EVERYTHING else is doing ANYTHING but that.
quote:

Moreover, the CofE (among others) isn't routinely training its clergy in evangelism, AFAIUI, so leaving it all up to them doesn't make a lot of sense. Their focus tends to be pastoral, which is good, but that alone doesn't grow churches. You'd need a different approach, different kinds of candidates for the work, different training....

Agreed, they know nothing about incarnating among lost sheep.
quote:

And again: congregations. If church growth and conversions are a serious matter and not just a hoped-for side effect of community-minded action then there needs to be much more intentional, focused prayer, education and congregational commitment.

Let the dead bury their dead.
quote:

For example, if we're talking about evangelism in areas with lots of Muslims, then there has to be a really serious awareness of and engagement with the challenges involved in that. New converts would need much more support. Some would literally need a new family, not just coffee and biscuits on Sunday after service. It's very rare to find a church willing to commit to so much work.

The challenge is to leave them alone and serve them at the same time. To work with them. Not crusade in to them, AGAINST them. The only evangelism they need is respect.
quote:

Actually, first things first: I don't think there's a sufficiently clear foundational theology about evangelism in mainstream churches. We know that members want their churches to grow rather than decline and close (and the suspicion is that selfish reasons are high up the list), but there's a longstanding anxiety about sharing the gospel yet no clear understanding about why and how to do so.

Because no one will incarnate.
quote:

To return to the OP, one could say that criticism of the prosperity gospel is simply a diversionary tactic; that's not where our real problems lie.

No, that's just a symptom of our failure to incarnate. It's part of doing ANYTHING apart from the ONE THING that could make any difference.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think there's a sufficiently clear foundational theology about evangelism in mainstream churches. We know that members want their churches to grow rather than decline and close (and the suspicion is that selfish reasons are high up the list), but there's a longstanding anxiety about sharing the gospel yet no clear understanding about why and how to do so.

More than that:
- they feel that "proselytising" is inherently intrusive and wrong (and so un-British);
- they think that everyone knows the Christian message (after all, we're a "Christian" country) while lamenting the fact that society is increasingly secular;
- they are not convinced of the truth or uniqueness of their message;
- they feel that it is the job of schools or the BBC to teach the Faith;
- they think it's the Minister's job to spread the Gospel, not theirs;
- they are unwilling to make their church in any way "seeker friendly";
- they wouldn't want to be mistaken for those awful Evangelicals!

Well, that's for starters!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think there's a sufficiently clear foundational theology about evangelism in mainstream churches. We know that members want their churches to grow rather than decline and close (and the suspicion is that selfish reasons are high up the list), but there's a longstanding anxiety about sharing the gospel yet no clear understanding about why and how to do so.

More than that:

- they feel that "proselytising" is inherently intrusive and wrong (and so un-British);

And rightly so.
quote:

- they think that everyone knows the Christian message

Which is what?
quote:

(after all, we're a "Christian" country) while lamenting the fact that society is increasingly secular;

- they are not convinced of the truth or uniqueness of their message;

What message?
quote:

- they feel that it is the job of schools or the BBC to teach the Faith;

What Faith?
quote:

- they think it's the Minister's job to spread the Gospel, not theirs;

What Gospel?
quote:

- they are unwilling to make their church in any way "seeker friendly";

Ever met one? Me neither.
quote:

- they wouldn't want to be mistaken for those awful Evangelicals!

By whom?
quote:

Well, that's for starters!

That's that.

[ 12. October 2016, 16:47: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
You seem to be suggesting that congregations are hopeless and irrelevant, and that the clergy ought to devote themselves to aspects of social care rather than studying an enigmatic 'gospel' that offers too many opportunities for disagreement.

Maybe you're right, at least in part. Stagnating congregations might make more spiritual progress without the constant attention of the clergy, and if the clergy were trained in social work, counselling and community organising, etc., they might be of more practical use to the wider society.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The fields are white.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
But 'white' for what?

You've already implied that there's no commonly agreed meaning for the gospel or for Christian faith, and you don't approve of evangelism. So religiosity is obviously not what you think 'the field' needs.

It would be unfair to say that the fields are entirely white regarding the social care that you're looking for. The state has taken over most of the work, for which it requires particular standards of safety and training.

Some individual clergy or religious lay people do run volunteer schemes and projects with church backing, and I'm sure there could be much more, but it's the kind of work that seems to require lots of funds and manpower. To have a significant effect it would have to involve more people than just individual saintly vicars. And those vicars and their congregations would need to decide what to stop funding or doing in order to devote themselves to this kind of work.

Being practical about it, how do you think churches ought to restructure themselves in order to prioritise this kind of work?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But 'white' for what?

You know the corollary.
quote:

You've already implied that there's no commonly agreed meaning for the gospel or for Christian faith, and you don't approve of evangelism. So religiosity is obviously not what you think 'the field' needs.

Does anybody?
quote:

It would be unfair to say that the fields are entirely white regarding the social care that you're looking for. The state has taken over most of the work, for which it requires particular standards of safety and training.

The state isn't relational, exemplary, self sacrificing, hands on, encouraging, open armed, next door, neighbourly, communal, inclusive, open doored.

Islam is.
quote:

Some individual clergy or religious lay people do run volunteer schemes and projects with church backing, and I'm sure there could be much more, but it's the kind of work that seems to require lots of funds and manpower. To have a significant effect it would have to involve more people than just individual saintly vicars. And those vicars and their congregations would need to decide what to stop funding or doing in order to devote themselves to this kind of work.

True saintliness is contagious. Salty. Leavening.
quote:

Being practical about it, how do you think churches ought to restructure themselves in order to prioritise this kind of work?

JFDI.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Let me say firstly that we should all respect 'true saintliness'. However, few of us achieve it ourselves.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

The state isn't relational, exemplary, self sacrificing, hands on, encouraging, open armed, next door, neighbourly, communal, inclusive, open doored.

Islam is.

You've said this about Muslims before. I live in fairly Muslim area, with many densely Muslim areas in the vicinity. I agree that Muslims are generous people, but are they especially inclusive, or self-sacrificing, etc. etc?

They live in particular places because they're close to others of the same ethnic and religious background, or because those places are affordable for them, not because they're trying to be 'exemplary'. The wealthiest Muslims frequently move away to be among other wealthy people (although they may return sometimes to keep up with their 'roots').

quote:

JFDI.

The project looks impressive, but the link doesn't give many details, unfortunately. I'd like how it's being funded, apart from private donations. Which denominations are offering support? And you'd surely want to know what kind of 'Christian' teachings such urban mission was espousing, wouldn't you?

My earlier question stands - how would the church have to restructure itself if this was its only work, rather than also doing the other things that you deem unimportant?

Regarding evangelism, there are obviously people who deem it to be important. But even if this doesn't apply, anyone who joins any particular group of Christians, as a result of 'true saintliness' or for any other reason, will eventually come up against the group's beliefs, the group's theology. Even a liberal group of Christians will have some sort of ideology that binds them together.

I can see, though, that focusing on highly incarnational social care is probably a good form of mission for liberal Christians. It ties in well with social justice concerns and left-leaning politics. It doesn't require making awkward 'religious' conversation. But without such conversation you're inviting people to join a religion of works rather than faith ('What faith?').

But perhaps the future of liberal Western Christianity is primarily in works, with a dose of radical politics, rather than in assenting to various divine claims.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The project looks impressive, but the link doesn't give many details, unfortunately. I'd like how it's being funded, apart from private donations. Which denominations are offering support? And you'd surely want to know what kind of 'Christian' teachings such urban mission was espousing, wouldn't you?

This might help (and other parts of the same website).
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Thanks, that's very interesting.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Perhaps it's because of my Methodist and Pentecostal influences, but I'm not keen on the idea of the church as a middle class institution that has to go and eternally play Lady Bountiful to the poor. Why can't the church BE the poor?

At least historically, there has been the phenomena of Lift, where the effects of Christianity have led to the valuing of education, and the assumption of some markers of middle class life. This has been the case around the world - and if it's been slower to take off in some places than others, it's often down to the weakness of institutions.

Unless you insist that people have to stay poor, then your model doesn't 'sustain' itself, because frankly being poor sucks.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Perhaps it's because of my Methodist and Pentecostal influences, but I'm not keen on the idea of the church as a middle class institution that has to go and eternally play Lady Bountiful to the poor. Why can't the church BE the poor?

At least historically, there has been the phenomena of Lift, where the effects of Christianity have led to the valuing of education, and the assumption of some markers of middle class life. This has been the case around the world - and if it's been slower to take off in some places than others, it's often down to the weakness of institutions.

Unless you insist that people have to stay poor, then your model doesn't 'sustain' itself, because frankly being poor sucks.

Saying Christianity boosts economy is not accurate. It has varied track record and is difficult to separate out from other factors.
The problem is not whether Christians should be poor, but that wealth generation not be their focus and what they do with the resources generated.
The clearest, simplest and contextual reading of Jesus is that wealth is not a good thing and that is not a goal or marker of following him.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
chris stiles

I'm well aware of the process of lift in churches. The fact remains, however, that (increasingly) middle class denominations are usually unsuccessful at reaching the poor, and may lose the less advantaged members that they do have.

In the British past, there were various breakaway Protestant movements that catered for people towards the lower end of the social spectrum. For some reason the creation of such movements seems to have ground to a halt among the indigenous population, and now seems to be the preserve of Christian immigrants.

As a result, we now need middle class Christians to be especially self-sacrificial (as Martin60 says) in their outreach, and/or else hope that working class immigrant Christians will develop missions in indigenous working class communities (as I mentioned above).

It remains to be seen what kind of wider impact either will have, and in what parts of the country.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
How do you stop the perception that everything that is attempting to be self-sacrificial is inauthentic and patronising? As far as I can see, that perception is just about inevitable, especially given cultural conditions in this part of the world at present. Everyone is looking for a reason to be resentful and suspicious, and anything with a suspicion of cant will provide ample excuse.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Beautiful lilBuddha.

It's not about lift out of the slums. About wealth. It's about being poor better. It's about transforming the slums. Bottom up. Jesus didn't magic ANYTHING away. He didn't quench a smoking reed.

His post-ascension followers shared their wealth, divested themselves of it. Oooh, who does that look like? That didn't make the poor wealthy, it can't, it elevated them sufficiently materially (they got the same pay regardless of how long they laboured in the vineyard? The poorest got most.) but socially it made them the equal of priests and merchant princes. It gave them access to exemplarily serving, educated leaders, it pooled knowledge, micro-economic and social power and influence.

Where's the cynicism in that Thunderbunk?

And aye SvitlanaV2, I owe you a reply.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Here it is.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Let me say firstly that we should all respect 'true saintliness'. However, few of us achieve it ourselves.

I've never seen it embodied in my acquaintance. Have you? I can think of a handful of historical examples.
quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The state isn't relational, exemplary, self sacrificing, hands on, encouraging, open armed, next door, neighbourly, communal, inclusive, open doored.
Islam is.

You've said this about Muslims before. I live in fairly Muslim area, with many densely Muslim areas in the vicinity. I agree that Muslims are generous people, but are they especially inclusive, or self-sacrificing, etc. etc?
They live in particular places because they're close to others of the same ethnic and religious background, or because those places are affordable for them, not because they're trying to be 'exemplary'. The wealthiest Muslims frequently move away to be among other wealthy people (although they may return sometimes to keep up with their 'roots').

It's hyperbole, but not much, the sense of community in the serried ranks of redbrick Muslim streets in Leicester, which few will ever 'escape', is palpable. When I went to the socio-economically pivotal mosque on a random day - not Friday - at the early afternoon call to prayer is was full of men of all ages and classes.

Christianity has no equivalent. I grew up on a council estate. Nothing comes close. 'Travellers' have a faint echo. I was moved by the profound simplicity of the worship. This is a busy, thriving, networking community. The park half a mile away is a Muslim park. I felt included at the mosque, though I did not take part, I observed respectfully and that respect was returned a hundred fold and not in my imagination. It's about what we bring to the party I realise. I experience the same respect in the park when making eye contact with older men.

Whatever Islam lacks, and of course it does, much, is no handicap to its enduring power. Islam is a living, growing, impactful, noticeable religion in the UK. Christianity ISN'T.
quote:

JFDI.

quote:

The project looks impressive, but the link doesn't give many details, unfortunately. I'd like how it's being funded, apart from private donations. Which denominations are offering support? And you'd surely want to know what kind of 'Christian' teachings such urban mission was espousing, wouldn't you?

I certainly do and unfortunately it's obvious, but it's the only show in town outside Steve Chalke's Oasis. It's VERY Jesussy evangelical, implicitly homophobic (the symbol on the sex, relationships team is Mars and Venus overlapping), charismatic, happy clappy, anti-intellectual (in common with Islam but I more than suspect much MORE so), claim ridden: The website talks of healing. Clive Beech of Christian Vision for Men is involved. I LIKE Clive. But. I've been there. A sea of grey haired men. Great talks. Really great. Including by a guy who walked round the UK and Europe and ... the Caribbean dragging a cross. Beguiling. With miraculous claims I'd LOVE to believe. But I WON'T thanks. I've met a few, a very few wonderful blokes with hugely redeemed lives. But.

Just look at Andy Hawthorne's wiki entry.

"He is a popular speaker at New Wine, Soul Survivor, Keswick Convention, and other Christian conferences in the UK. With Mike Pilavachi from Soul Survivor and Roy Crowne of YFC, he was one of the founders of the Hope 08 and subsequent Hope Together initiatives."

This is old wineskins. There is no new wine in New Wine. The fag end of the charismatic.

"Andy is unashamed of his Christian faith and describes it as the 'engine' of all that has been achieved through The Message Trust. On June 21, 2011 he addressed cross-bench parliamentarians at the National Prayer Breakfast at the Houses of Parliament. Invited to speak on the theme of 'Raising the aspirations of young people', he said: ‘The Bible works – and Jesus is the answer ...The message of the Bible raises the aspirations of young people – we ditch it at our peril. The best of our society is built on this precious book ... The more we invest in today’s young people the values that God gave us in this book the better our society will become.’"

This is doomed, defensive, weakly hostile rhetoric. I agree Jesus is the answer. Like them I don't know how, But I know I don't. Apart from what's left. Be Him. Not go on and on and on about Him and claims in His holy name.

This is the problem for me, above. Unashamed faith. I don't want to be ashamed of Jesus either, I'm not, but this is a false dichotomy. Evangelicals have a very narrow view of what being unashamed for Jesus looks like. It's their view, their self image or nothing. And I'm ashamed of THAT. I cringe at that. But I have to swim with it, in it. And in all the claims - "Well over 100,000 young people come into contact with our staff and volunteer teams each year – in the classroom, at a live gig, in community activities on our Eden Buses or at after-school clubs, or on the wings of young offenders’ institutions."- it isn't working except in some tiny, rear guard, socially invisible way.
quote:

My earlier question stands - how would the church have to restructure itself if this was its only work, rather than also doing the other things that you deem unimportant?

It has to incarnate. The best example I know, the ONLY example I know moving in that direction is Steve Chalke's Oasis at Waterloo. So why have I grasped at Eden? They're doing the right thing with the WRONG theology. The WRONG verbal evangel. The WRONG Jesus. Which feeds back in to the right thing. Negatively.
quote:

Regarding evangelism, there are obviously people who deem it to be important.

By their fruits you will know them. Who are these people?
quote:

But even if this doesn't apply, anyone who joins any particular group of Christians, as a result of 'true saintliness' or for any other reason, will eventually come up against the group's beliefs, the group's theology. Even a liberal group of Christians will have some sort of ideology that binds them together.

The ideology of incarnation is blindingly obvious. There aren't any second level thetan secrets. It LOOKS like good news. So it is.
quote:

I can see, though, that focusing on highly incarnational social care is probably a good form of mission for liberal Christians.

Why did you add 'probably a good form of' and 'liberal'?
quote:

It ties in well with social justice concerns and left-leaning politics. It doesn't require making awkward 'religious' conversation. But without such conversation you're inviting people to join a religion of works rather than faith ('What faith?').

So the apostle James was wrong as to what true religion was then? I'm GOBSMACKED.
quote:

But perhaps the future of liberal Western Christianity is primarily in works, with a dose of radical politics, rather than in assenting to various divine claims.

You just don't it do you? Cut out 'But perhaps', 'of liberal Western', 'rather than'.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
... get ... sigh
 
Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :
 
This might not be what Martin had in mind, but I thought of the Catholic Worker movement immediately. It fits Svetlana's description of Christian movements that are concerned "primarily in works, with a dose of radical politics". However, Dorothy Day (the co-founder of the CW) went to Mass daily and, despite her radical politics, was not a "liberal" regarding Catholic doctrine. This surprised a lot of people who expected her to be as liberal in her Catholicism as she was in her politics.

Although I am not Roman Catholic myself, I support the CW financially. To me, Dorothy Day was a modern saint. Not a perfect person by any means (I have read her diaries and letters) but someone who tried to live by Jesus's teachings. People at CW centers live among the poor and share their lives. Some CW'ers are short-term volunteers while others work and live in CW centers for a lifetime, marrying and bringing up children in the CW environment.

Again, because this is a lay movement, I am not sure it is what Martin had in mind. It's a shame there are not more Christian organizations like the CW in terms of sharing the lives the poor. It sounds like Eden.org, that Martin mentioned, is one of them.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Martin60

Thanks for your response.

There's a strong sense of Muslim 'community' obviously because there are a lot of Muslims. When I walk though Muslims areas, as I often do, I often wonder what it would be like to be part of a broadly shared cocoon of faith like that.

British Christianity doesn't have that because it's fractured, secularised and is more about heritage than a lived, felt, shared faith. There may be other places in the world where you can experience that sense of community cohesion as a Christian, but not in Britain.

I think it's a bit unfair to claim that evangelical social projects don't have more impact. AFAICS, they're doing a great deal in extremely challenging circumstances, surely with very limited manpower and resources. And most British Christians aren't evangelical anyway; as you've said earlier, mainstream Christian denominations, including middle class vicars, ought to be more involved in this work.

With regard to evangelism, my experience as well as my reading suggest that Christian groups that take this seriously are more likely than most to grow their congregations, and hence have more money and manpower for social projects. It's pretty simple.

Congregations don't have to be evangelical to be evangelistic, but it seems much more challenging for MOTR congregations to engage visitors and others with gospel narratives. This is unsurprising, because MOTR faith is often far less certain of itself, more unsure about what constitutes the 'good news'. However, having belonged to MOTR congregations myself, I can't see a viable alternative. Good works are essential, but they require manpower and resources, and without a strong message to impart I can't see how you're going to inspire other people to join you in the work!! You and I may not agree on this, however.

The possibility I mentioned in my previous post was that non-evangelical social action might have to be more political than divine, if we're so uncertain about the divine. But even politics is swathed in confusion and uncertainty these days. The British proletariat might once have looked for left-wing solutions to its problems, but that no longer appears to be true.

Finally, the reason why I referred to 'liberal Western Christianity' is that it's liberal Western Christianity that's in most need of assistance. Christianity isn't dying out everywhere in the world. And although evangelicalism faces many (often dramatically newsworthy) problems, it's the more liberal end which shows greater signs of fatigue, a loss of nerve, a crisis of identity and purpose.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Martin60
Thanks for your response.

Gracious as ever SvitlanaV2. In the face of my flint.
quote:

There's a strong sense of Muslim 'community' obviously because there are a lot of Muslims. When I walk though Muslims areas, as I often do, I often wonder what it would be like to be part of a broadly shared cocoon of faith like that.

Nicely put. We'll never know.
quote:

British Christianity doesn't have that because it's fractured, secularised and is more about heritage than a lived, felt, shared faith. There may be other places in the world where you can experience that sense of community cohesion as a Christian, but not in Britain.

Yeah, but not the Jerusalem model.
quote:

I think it's a bit unfair to claim that evangelical social projects don't have more impact. AFAICS, they're doing a great deal in extremely challenging circumstances, surely with very limited manpower and resources. And most British Christians aren't evangelical anyway; as you've said earlier, mainstream Christian denominations, including middle class vicars, ought to be more involved in this work.

Emmaus I like. Most Anglicans are evangelical, a broad church in itself: conservative, open (=MOTR), charismatic; in a circle or a solid, not a line, in my experience. What is the objective quantification of this great deal with so little?
quote:

With regard to evangelism, my experience as well as my reading suggest that Christian groups that take this seriously are more likely than most to grow their congregations, and hence have more money and manpower for social projects. It's pretty simple.

I've never seen it. Outside Oasis. I'm glad somebody has. It all looks like a collapse to the centre to me. And yes I'm aware of support for the poor by the churches in Leicester, but it's at one step removed at least and it's because of the lack of a truly incarnational theology and the presence of delusional theology as a substitute. A theology full of words. Without any conversation. Claims as an answer to suffering. Non-incarnational Jesus.
quote:

Congregations don't have to be evangelical to be evangelistic, but it seems much more challenging for MOTR congregations to engage visitors and others with gospel narratives. This is unsurprising, because MOTR faith is often far less certain of itself, more unsure about what constitutes the 'good news'. However, having belonged to MOTR congregations myself, I can't see a viable alternative. Good works are essential, but they require manpower and resources, and without a strong message to impart I can't see how you're going to inspire other people to join you in the work!! You and I may not agree on this, however.

Good works are the gospel. Good works are their own reward. The kingdom IS good works, the second coming of Christ, the Incarnation IS good works, incarnation. There is NO good news apart from good works. Jam tomorrow, pie-in-the-sky-when-we-die-by-and-by is nothing (apart from the great Joe Hill's finest lyric). Pious worship isn't steak on your plate while you wait, or rather it is. Why wait? For what?

Worse than nothing.

Especially when it comes with veiled and not so veiled damnationism. With narrow, judgemental piety. The icing on the cake is that it never ends, that this is the beginning of eternity. Because Jesus. Not a problem.
quote:

The possibility I mentioned in my previous post was that non-evangelical social action might have to be more political than divine, if we're so uncertain about the divine. But even politics is swathed in confusion and uncertainty these days. The British proletariat might once have looked for left-wing solutions to its problems, but that no longer appears to be true.

The divine is being (vertically and horizontally) incarnational. There is no uncertainty at all. Politics is at a thin, remote remove, like non-incarnational Christianity (whatever that is), but inevitably more effective due to taxation.
quote:

Finally, the reason why I referred to 'liberal Western Christianity' is that it's liberal Western Christianity that's in most need of assistance. Christianity isn't dying out everywhere in the world. And although evangelicalism faces many (often dramatically newsworthy) problems, it's the more liberal end which shows greater signs of fatigue, a loss of nerve, a crisis of identity and purpose.

Incarnational Christianity isn't alive anywhere in the world. Whatever isn't dying, is growing, isn't incarnational Christianity. Not in Britain. Not in Nigeria. There's a 0.1% voice within UK and US, Canadian, Australian, NZ, RSA, Anglic Christianity. And European I'm sure. There are some great voices. There's ONE UK voice extending in to its community more than any other of which I'm aware. It's a start of preaching the gospel without, instead of, words. Words should come last. When the work's done.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Most Anglicans are evangelical, a broad church in itself: conservative, open (=MOTR), charismatic; in a circle or a solid, not a line, in my experience. What is the objective quantification of this great deal with so little?

[...]
It all looks like a collapse to the centre to me.


It seems as if you're labelling other people as evangelicals who may not label themselves in this way. I'm not sure if this makes sense.

Peter Brierley, the statistician, claims that 40% of Anglicans attend worship in evangelical parishes these days (see 2nd paragraph). This is an increase, but it's not the equivalent of 'most Anglicans'. However, as I say, you seem to be casting the net wide. My experience is that so-called 'MOTR' churches don't have a particularly evangelical identity, and only a minority of their members are likely to think of themselves as evangelicals. Of course, the term 'MOTR' is a label that hardly anyone claims for themselves in any setting. AFAIUI, in the CofE it most often corresponds with a liberal-catholic identity, not an evangelical one.

However, in a sense, a 'collapse to the centre' potentially serves your purposes, if it makes evangelical churches less strictly evangelical. I don't know to what extent this has happened in the CofE, but it's certainly noticeable elsewhere, e.g. in the Methodist Church.

quote:
Good works are the gospel. Good works are their own reward. The kingdom IS good works, the second coming of Christ, the Incarnation IS good works, incarnation. There is NO good news apart from good works. Jam tomorrow, pie-in-the-sky-when-we-die-by-and-by is nothing (apart from the great Joe Hill's finest lyric). Pious worship isn't steak on your plate while you wait, or rather it is. Why wait? For what?

Worse than nothing.

Especially when it comes with veiled and not so veiled damnationism. With narrow, judgemental piety. The icing on the cake is that it never ends, that this is the beginning of eternity. Because Jesus. Not a problem.
[...]

Whatever isn't dying, is growing, isn't incarnational Christianity.


Originally I thought you were worried about Christianity dying, but I've realised that that's not it; you actually want many (perhaps most) forms of Christianity to die, don't you?

I sometimes suggest that the death of Christianity in Britain might bring about something better. But TBH there's not much sign that 'something better' is likely to arise (unless you consider the possibility of Jesus coming back soon, which isn't discussed on this forum very often).

And in any case, your proposal of a somewhat 'one size fits all' Christian theology isn't something I can assent to, because I believe that diversity is a positive element in our religion. I can't share with you a desire to dismiss the potential of powerful worship, nor the offer of eternity in God's presence. I don't see why either of these two things has to prevent us from serving other people and making life on earth better; and despite your condemnation of Christian orthodoxy there have been lives and times of service and deep brotherly and sisterly love in the history of our religion. There are today.

Be that as it may, I agree that there would be value in developing a form of radical incarnational Christianity that rejected traditional theology and focused primarily on a willingness to suffer alongside other suffering people. However, as I asked before, I wonder how that would be incorporated into church structures as they are now, or whether something completely new would have to be founded.The RCC has its religious who make vows of poverty and work with the disadvantaged - but they remain under the control of a strict and hierarchical denomination. The CofE is a state church, which means trying to be all things to all men. A hard job, which means helping the disadvantaged is only one of various different concerns.

Other denominations around the world have evolved to occupy particular niches in society, and I don't think there's any way of escaping from that. What you propose would also be a niche. For example, what about Christians with families? Are you expecting every family to uproot the children from school, asking spouses to change jobs, so that they can settle in a rough area? And the liberal Christians who would in theory champion your idea may not even have the support of their non-Christian spouses and children, so what then? The self-sacrifice you envisage would most likely appeal to single Christians without other responsibilities, or to committed couples with no children, or older couples whose kids have left home. Either that, or you're looking at some sort of commune.

Geography is a factor. Places like London and the South East have attracted incarnational urban missions in the past, but they're so expensive now, meaning that employed people have to work hard just to pay the rent, and have to spend so much time commuting, that I can't imagine how reflectively incarnational they can be. There are no council flats in London for middle class graduates with office jobs, but I suppose they could consider sharing a house with 10 working class East Europeans, as opposed to sharing with 4 posh Brits like themselves.... I'm just trying to think about a few practicalities here!

But the point is, what you're envisaging is a sociological niche. Maybe your focus is purely on the clergy, but again they're also a niche group, and the clergy are just a drop in the ocean. And those with families face the same challenges I mentioned above.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
How do you stop the perception that everything that is attempting to be self-sacrificial is inauthentic and patronising? As far as I can see, that perception is just about inevitable, especially given cultural conditions in this part of the world at present. Everyone is looking for a reason to be resentful and suspicious, and anything with a suspicion of cant will provide ample excuse.

I've read about something like this. I think it was in reference to urban mission in a rough part of outer London, or somewhere in the South East. The locals began to get a bit cynical about middle class Christians moving in to 'do them'.

Moreover, in London especially that kind of trend might just look like gentrification, because middle class Christians moving in are simply middle class as far as the market is concerned. Too many of them would push up prices and reduce affordability for poorer people.

This would be less of a problem in Leicester or inner city Birmingham, though.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Martin, Islam is by no means the kind of inclusive welcoming paradise you think it is. I had my tires slashed by a Muslim group who were attempting to pressure a Christian widow into converting and resented the visits of other Christians to her. (I walked in once on what appeared to be a sit-in as they attempted to pressure her into compliance.)


Svitlana and ThunderBunk--it's very true that people are going to be hugely suspicious of anyone who voluntarily moves into a poor area and attempts to work and live with the locals as an equal. It is almost unheard of, after all. And when it does happen, people naturally look for the strings--you'd not believe the theories we've heard about the zillions of dollars we allegedly get from unknown sources for baptizing people.
[Disappointed]

You just have to put up with the suspicion, and let them run their own tests on you. They will, too. And those tests will really suck. In our case they usually meant someone would go off the deep end about a minor tiff (e.g. You didn't make it to my birthday party) and start smearing the hell out of our name with false allegations. And then they would wait to see if we would pull the plug somehow on their jobs, housing, children's education, etc. etc. with the mythical political "power" we had. Or start smearing them back, or closing the church doors to them, or whatever. After about a year they would come back as if nothing had ever happened, at which point they finally trusted us. And our hair went like totally white.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Anadromously i.e. Lamb Chopped first and SvitlanaV2, my little pack of cards, I'll deal with you later.

I'm under no illusions about the hostility under the thin skin of all religions of the Book. That doesn't affect the comparison. They live their faith in community like no other. If we want to have ANY impact, as YOU know, we have to ... incarnate.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Most Anglicans are evangelical, a broad church in itself: conservative, open (=MOTR), charismatic; in a circle or a solid, not a line, in my experience. What is the objective quantification of this great deal with so little?

[...]
It all looks like a collapse to the centre to me.

It seems as if you're labelling other people as evangelicals who may not label themselves in this way. I'm not sure if this makes sense.

Evangelical is as Evangelical does: "Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and spreading the Christian message." (wiki)
quote:

Peter Brierley, the statistician, claims that 40% of Anglicans attend worship in evangelical parishes these days (see 2nd paragraph). This is an increase, but it's not the equivalent of 'most Anglicans'. However, as I say, you seem to be casting the net wide. My experience is that so-called 'MOTR' churches don't have a particularly evangelical identity, and only a minority of their members are likely to think of themselves as evangelicals. Of course, the term 'MOTR' is a label that hardly anyone claims for themselves in any setting. AFAIUI, in the CofE it most often corresponds with a liberal-catholic identity, not an evangelical one.

Happy to sit corrected but all of 4 congos I've been part of are low church conservative, evangelical CoE and half are charismatic with it.

St. Paul's and St. Pancras in London, as a visitor, not so. Nor Northampton All Saints Reformation gem. Way above the candle.
quote:

However, in a sense, a 'collapse to the centre' potentially serves your purposes, if it makes evangelical churches less strictly evangelical. I don't know to what extent this has happened in the CofE, but it's certainly noticeable elsewhere, e.g. in the Methodist Church.

quote:
Good works are the gospel. Good works are their own reward. The kingdom IS good works, the second coming of Christ, the Incarnation IS good works, incarnation. There is NO good news apart from good works. Jam tomorrow, pie-in-the-sky-when-we-die-by-and-by is nothing (apart from the great Joe Hill's finest lyric). Pious worship isn't steak on your plate while you wait, or rather it is. Why wait? For what?

Worse than nothing.

Especially when it comes with veiled and not so veiled damnationism. With narrow, judgemental piety. The icing on the cake is that it never ends, that this is the beginning of eternity. Because Jesus. Not a problem.
[...]

Whatever isn't dying, is growing, isn't incarnational Christianity.


Originally I thought you were worried about Christianity dying, but I've realised that that's not it; you actually want many (perhaps most) forms of Christianity to die, don't you?

On the contrary, I wish they were transformed in to incarnational beacons, but they cannot be. Although I saw signs of signs of hope on Saturday, if not signs of hope themselves. In the person of a formerly highly incarnational cleric. We will see.
quote:

I sometimes suggest that the death of Christianity in Britain might bring about something better. But TBH there's not much sign that 'something better' is likely to arise (unless you consider the possibility of Jesus coming back soon, which isn't discussed on this forum very often).

He came back shortly after He left, in the Spirit. We worked quite well with Him for a couple or three centuries. The gates of Hell are still ajar I'm sure. But not from any distance.
quote:

And in any case, your proposal of a somewhat 'one size fits all' Christian theology isn't something I can assent to, because I believe that diversity is a positive element in our religion. I can't share with you a desire to dismiss the potential of powerful worship, nor the offer of eternity in God's presence. I don't see why either of these two things has to prevent us from serving other people and making life on earth better; and despite your condemnation of Christian orthodoxy there have been lives and times of service and deep brotherly and sisterly love in the history of our religion. There are today.

Couldn't agree less [Smile] and MORE. The more inclusion of diversity the better. But worship restricted to a concert interrupted by a lecture is empty. Has not charity. Worship restricted by exclusion has not charity. Anything that negates, is an opportunity cost for worship BY charity, is worse than useless.
quote:

Be that as it may, I agree that there would be value in developing a form of radical incarnational Christianity that rejected traditional theology and focused primarily on a willingness to suffer alongside other suffering people. However, as I asked before, I wonder how that would be incorporated into church structures as they are now, or whether something completely new would have to be founded. The RCC has its religious who make vows of poverty and work with the disadvantaged - but they remain under the control of a strict and hierarchical denomination. The CofE is a state church, which means trying to be all things to all men. A hard job, which means helping the disadvantaged is only one of various different concerns.

The only thing I disagree with there is the rejection of traditional theology, as long as, like worship above, it doesn't detract from incarnationality. And, like the worship, it is engaged with cognitively, therapeutically.

Incarnationality can only be incorporated if it is fully, openly, constantly DISCUSSED. If it's always the obvious, acknowledged gorgeously caparisoned, tinkling belled, snorting, trumpetting elephant in the room.
quote:

Other denominations around the world have evolved to occupy particular niches in society, and I don't think there's any way of escaping from that. What you propose would also be a niche. For example, what about Christians with families? Are you expecting every family to uproot the children from school, asking spouses to change jobs, so that they can settle in a rough area?

Any clergy who want me to listen to them, yes.
quote:

And the liberal Christians who would in theory champion your idea may not even have the support of their non-Christian spouses and children, so what then? The self-sacrifice you envisage would most likely appeal to single Christians without other responsibilities, or to committed couples with no children, or older couples whose kids have left home. Either that, or you're looking at some sort of commune.

Acknowledged. All of that. Yep. DO IT. Somebody. Anybody.
quote:

Geography is a factor. Places like London and the South East have attracted incarnational urban missions in the past, but they're so expensive now, meaning that employed people have to work hard just to pay the rent, and have to spend so much time commuting, that I can't imagine how reflectively incarnational they can be. There are no council flats in London for middle class graduates with office jobs, but I suppose they could consider sharing a house with 10 working class East Europeans, as opposed to sharing with 4 posh Brits like themselves.... I'm just trying to think about a few practicalities here!

YES!!! Excellent.
quote:

But the point is, what you're envisaging is a sociological niche. Maybe your focus is purely on the clergy, but again they're also a niche group, and the clergy are just a drop in the ocean. And those with families face the same challenges I mentioned above.

Aye, it's not going to be easy opening the gates of Hell visibly.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Evangelical is as Evangelical does: "Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and spreading the Christian message." (wiki)

I'm not denying the definition of evangelicalism. What I'm questioning is the extent to which evangelicalism explains the spirituality of the CofE today.

The impression I get from the Ship is that evangelical Anglicanism clusters in certain parts of the country. This means the Anglo-Catholic or fairly moderate liberal-catholic congregations are largely elsewhere. As for me, I now worship mainly in with the CofE, but I've never heard any reference there to being 'born again'. That's obviously different from your context.

quote:
Worship restricted to a concert interrupted by a lecture is empty.

[...] Anything that negates, is an opportunity cost for worship BY charity, is worse than useless.

I'm not sure if this a just a criticism of Sunday worship, or whether it's a criticism of what Christians do or don't do the rest of the week....

FWIW, I think the lecture/concert format is problematic as Sunday worship, but that format of itself doesn't prevent Christians from living lives of service and sacrifice the rest of the week, does it? Well, maybe it does. Some commentators have argued that this format is disempowering for the laity, and that obviously has an effect outside of Sunday worship. Not sure if this is what you're getting at, though.

With regard to the outworking of 'incarnationality', it's hard to see a way forward. The CofE is short of clergy. Most of them are from the South, but the need is greatest up North - where many don't want to go.

Googling suggests that there are some Christian communes, or communities where Christians engage in shared living, in the UK. But they seem small, and don't make the news beyond their vicinity, so you won't know of them unless you look.

Then there are concerns about the theological implications of incarnationality. I've came across a couple of American websites (because everything starts in the USA, doesn't it?) that give pause for thought. One issue is the high risk of burnout. Another is the tendency for the worker to see him/herself as an 'incarnation' of Christ, rather than pointing the way to Christ himself. Yet another is that by refusing to speak of Christ and the importance of Christian community you simply end up confirming the individualism or inward focus of the people you're trying to help. The other is the risk of patronisng those people by pretending to be one of them when you and they know that you're not.

A basic problem (at least in the American examples, and probably also in the few British ones) is that this kind of approach doesn't necessarily create many new Christians. So although they (and you or I) may be heavily critical of traditional Christian churches, they still need to turn to these old-fashioned sources of manpower (and probably funds) for their 'incarnational' work to be maintained. This situation is problematic, somewhat hypocritical, and likely to be unsustainable.

The incarnational approach obviously offers something distinctive and valuable, but (depending on how we define it) it wouldn't be a solution for the Church in and of itself. And it would probably always have to exist alongside and in partnership with normative congregational set-ups.

[ 24. October 2016, 23:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
...and some don't Want to make the news. Because after all, if one makes the news, then other people look in from outside and then everything is discussed and taken apart on forums like this

But yes, around the country there are many many Christians (of all hue and shade, taste and type) who have taken scripture very seriously indeed and are moving into areas, where they might not have thought they would end up.
Yes, they have uprooted whole families to do this. In some cases the people doing the moving are young and single and ....once moved....have then formed life long relationships within their newly adopted area, married and settled on down ,for the Long Haul. i.e. to stay there.

There are people in our church who have done precisely and exactly that. They are my heroes and heroines and they are not going anywhere. Except into and out of their homes, flinging wide the doors extravagantly along the way and sharing their lives with anyone they come across.

Understood, this way of living is not for everyone.
But it is for some.
And it's happening all over the place.

( and to return to the opening bits of this thread, taking this option does not appear to make these folk rich....but they don't seem to mind that too much.....)

[ 25. October 2016, 10:56: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[I now worship mainly in with the CofE, but I've never heard any reference there to being 'born again'.

I suspect that the use of this language is declining in general among Evangelicals, except possibly those at the "stricter" end of the spectrum. I also suspect that it has never been used as much in an Anglican context as among Baptists or independent groups.

But this is just surmise, I can't prove it.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Ethne Alba

Is it so bad if 'everything is discussed'? Christians discuss all sorts of issues connected to the life of faith, but groups and individuals are still free to do as they see fit. It's very important to me that we have this diversity.

What you describe certainly sounds very positive. Just to be clear, when you refer to what's happening 'around the country' are you talking about the UK or elsewhere?

[ 25. October 2016, 11:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Evangelical is as Evangelical does: "Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and spreading the Christian message." (wiki)

I'm not denying the definition of evangelicalism. What I'm questioning is the extent to which evangelicalism explains the spirituality of the CofE today.

I'm sure you're right. My experience in two large congregations 30 miles apart but with vicars of the same class is Charismatic Evangelical.
quote:

The impression I get from the Ship is that evangelical Anglicanism clusters in certain parts of the country. This means the Anglo-Catholic or fairly moderate liberal-catholic congregations are largely elsewhere. As for me, I now worship mainly in with the CofE, but I've never heard any reference there to being 'born again'. That's obviously different from your context.

I left 'born again' in as it was part of the definition, very much an American thing. Evangelicals generally are desperate to save people, get them to receive Christ, come forward and are invariably damnationist or "we just don't know".
quote:

quote:

Worship restricted to a concert interrupted by a lecture is empty.

[...] Anything that negates, is an opportunity cost for worship BY charity, is worse than useless.

I'm not sure if this a just a criticism of Sunday worship, or whether it's a criticism of what Christians do or don't do the rest of the week....

It's a criticism of what Christian leadership doesn't do.
quote:

FWIW, I think the lecture/concert format is problematic as Sunday worship, but that format of itself doesn't prevent Christians from living lives of service and sacrifice the rest of the week, does it? Well, maybe it does. Some commentators have argued that this format is disempowering for the laity, and that obviously has an effect outside of Sunday worship. Not sure if this is what you're getting at, though.

In part.
quote:

With regard to the outworking of 'incarnationality', it's hard to see a way forward. The CofE is short of clergy. Most of them are from the South, but the need is greatest up North - where many don't want to go.

What an appalling indictment.
quote:

Googling suggests that there are some Christian communes, or communities where Christians engage in shared living, in the UK. But they seem small, and don't make the news beyond their vicinity, so you won't know of them unless you look.

Like Eden in Manchester. I'm not aware of any in three adjoining counties of about a million and a half people. No news spread of them within the church.
quote:

Then there are concerns about the theological implications of incarnationality. I've came across a couple of American websites (because everything starts in the USA, doesn't it?) that give pause for thought. One issue is the high risk of burnout.

The Lord will provide. Will raise up disciples from the stones of the gutter. Not a reason for not doing it.
quote:

Another is the tendency for the worker to see him/herself as an 'incarnation' of Christ, rather than pointing the way to Christ himself.

Specious again. And we are. And it HAS to be BOTH. Where they only do the latter with words, that's NOT WORKING. Anywhere.
quote:

Yet another is that by refusing to speak of Christ and the importance of Christian community you simply end up confirming the individualism or inward focus of the people you're trying to help. The other is the risk of patronisng those people by pretending to be one of them when you and they know that you're not.

Refusal would be disqualifying in the first place. I'm NOT that liberal. Denying Christ is a big deal. Talking of whom patronizing was a risk Jesus took. And Paul. Again, no reason not to.
quote:

A basic problem (at least in the American examples, and probably also in the few British ones) is that this kind of approach doesn't necessarily create many new Christians. So although they (and you or I) may be heavily critical of traditional Christian churches, they still need to turn to these old-fashioned sources of manpower (and probably funds) for their 'incarnational' work to be maintained. This situation is problematic, somewhat hypocritical, and likely to be unsustainable.

This kind of approach is the ONLY way to create new Christians. From the stones of the mean streets and their gutters.
quote:

The incarnational approach obviously offers something distinctive and valuable, but (depending on how we define it) it wouldn't be a solution for the Church in and of itself. And it would probably always have to exist alongside and in partnership with normative congregational set-ups.

It IS the church.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

This kind of [incarnational] approach is the ONLY way to create new Christians. From the stones of the mean streets and their gutters.
[...]
It IS the church.

I'm not trying to contradict you, but you have a vision in your mind of something that I can't entirely see myself. The few examples I've come across online don't seem to be as dynamic and as incredibly infectious as you insist they should be, nor set to replace the established church congregations.

That's not to say incarnational fellowships in difficult areas shouldn't exist, because they certainly should. I predict that they'll take on a more important role as the mainstream non-evangelical congregations fade away, especially in inner city areas and struggling towns and housing estates.

However, I can't see your model taking over from evangelicalism. As much as you disapprove of their theology, evangelical churches exist because they fill a certain niche. They won't disappear until the demand for their kind of theology and guidance disappears. And if they rediscover their conversionist roots they'll probably be the best equipped Christians for any sort of serious incarnational endeavours - though they might not adopt the kind of theology you prefer.

Having said that, it does sound as if your district is oversupplied with evangelical churches. There were probably quite a few more moderate (Nonconformist) congregations in existence, but many of them will have closed by now.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anadromously i.e. Lamb Chopped first and SvitlanaV2, my little pack of cards, I'll deal with you later.

I'm under no illusions about the hostility under the thin skin of all religions of the Book. That doesn't affect the comparison. They live their faith in community like no other. If we want to have ANY impact, as YOU know, we have to ... incarnate.

I think I just figured out what you were talking about. And that it was to me. I think.

If so, I have to say that hostility definitely DOES affect the comparison. If someone is "living their faith in community like no other," then I'll thank them not to slash my tires while they do it. Muslim or not.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Nod, snort, wry smile.

Aye Lamb Chopped.

That's what you get for being incarnational. Courageous. Powerlessly, non-violently standing up against pathologically righteous, patriarchally coercive evil. A characteristic of all unenlightened religion predicated on redemptive violence.

I REALLY am not naïve in these matters. This is a dominion, a principality, a power at LEAST in metaphoric terms. To be subverted. A dangerous business.

Rhetorical question: why did they think she was theirs?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Pretty obvious. She was Afghan in America.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Ah, so she was a murtad fitri apostate.

No wonder they tried to save her.

A very sharp bleeding edge cultural clash.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
SvetlanaV2......yes, the UK and apologies for not having made that clear.

Why the desire not to have everything under "public" discussion?

Two reasons:
1) We are talking about people and their lives. And some people don't want other people to talk about them. Like they are some sort of 'project'.

2) Because whilst this forum is usually fine and dandy, obligingly polite and sensible - many other places are not.

People have Very Real Life accountability and yet do not appear on the pages of a magazine/ Church Times/ you tube clip/ chatted about on a public forum or on FB.

Sorry.
That comes across as a bit brusque.
I suppose that a high priority for me is the right to a private life, even when one is being helped by 'the church'....or a christian group.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And on another point entirely: I recall a certain Christian minister in one rough area positively encouraging car tyre slashing of Jehovah's Witness's cars.
[Ultra confused]
(and yes, the police were involved...)

Sadly UK Christianity and the leadership thereof are not without extremes.......
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

With regard to the outworking of 'incarnationality', it's hard to see a way forward. The CofE is short of clergy. Most of them are from the South, but the need is greatest up North - where many don't want to go.

I wonder how much the two-body problem affects priests? The vicar's wife (or husband) is no longer expected to haunt the vicarage making Victoria sponges - you can expect the spouse of a priest to have some kind of career. If a priest is considering a move to some kind of economically deprived area (such as the area in the article where there was high unemployment and no professional people (and presumably no jobs for professional people)) they would have to consider their spouse. Are there opportunities for them to pursue their own career in this area?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Their ministry, their calling, surely?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:


Why the desire not to have everything under "public" discussion?

Two reasons:
1) We are talking about people and their lives. And some people don't want other people to talk about them. Like they are some sort of 'project'.

2) Because whilst this forum is usually fine and dandy, obligingly polite and sensible - many other places are not.

However, we're not personalising things here by naming names; we're interested in a phenomenon. I suppose the naming of tiny communities would make its members identifiable, but how do such groups hope to spread their theology, their radical form of mission as a way of life, if they hate the idea of anyone talking about what they do?

Martin60's desire is not that such groups remain marginal and beneath the radar, but that they become normative. This would mean they'd face a degree of scrutiny and criticism at some stage, as happens to every Christian movement that sticks around for a while.

Ideally, Christian community houses maintain decent relations with the established churches in their vicinity, although there will always be some places where this doesn't happen, sadly. Terrorist pastors who promote the slashing of tyres are, I hope, very rare in the UK.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The real problem I have with even the watered down version is that it is always about "giving to us, to the church, to the 'ministry'" which is never what the Biblical message is about.

AIUI, the Bible message is that if you are generous, giving, caring and concerned about others - especially the poor, widows, strangers, the neglected - then this is a Good Think in the eyes of God, and he will bless you and cause you to prosper. This blessing may not be in physical or material prosperity, but in heavenly credits. And yes, there will probably be some prospering in business too. Not to a degree that will definitively pay you back, but you will live a life in God's favour...

...The core issue is that for so many people, their only idea of "blessing" is money. Not only unbiblical, but very dangerous.

Do we believe that giving our resources - money, time, effort, thought, energy - to those in greatest need will bring us a big psychological / spiritual reward ? Where "big" implies outweighing the satisfaction we would have got by spending those resources on good things for ourselves and our families & friends ?

You're right to say that misinterpreting the message in terms of financial reward is a mistake. And diverting the resources from those in desperate need to those delivering the message is the mark of a charlatan. And deliberately pitching that message at those whose lack of understanding makes them vulnerable to a superstitious view of finance is exploitative.

But I think lilBuddha is saying that there's a deeper problem.

If those who do most for the desperate are getting their psychological reward here on earth, should we look up to them as saints ? Or just admire them as smart operators ?

Those who are desperate - for food, healing, meaning, companionship, whatever - don't much care who they get it from. When our efforts to "do good" are resented because in order to play Rescuer we have to cast someone else as Victim, maybe we're misinterpreting who "the poor" are.

Maybe the "prosperity gospel" types aren't the only ones who take a crudely financial view, who substitute other beneficiaries for those in greatest need, and who pitch their message at what they see as the fertile ground.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
The naming of tiny communities would Indeed make its members identifiable.

And maybe such groups do not hope to spread any theology, any radical form of mission as a way of life?

Maybe such people are fairly busy getting on with doing life....with others..... and maybe this part of what they do is a b-product....an aside....something that a few are called to....but it's still there in the mix....?

The people that i can think about (in various places evenly scattered across the UK) are in no way remaining marginal nor are they beneath any radar.

They do face a degree of scrutiny and criticism and i'd say at Every stage...especially as pertains to funding.

And their part of the Christian movement has stuck around for Quite a while.

Normative?
I don't know.

Round my way, they're known as A Local Church.
and
Anyone can do it.

( and i like the local church option, rather than a project, because there is usually less cattle excrement.....)

[ 31. October 2016, 09:54: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The dying nearly as fast as the horse chestnut (2030) Local Church (2050)?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Ethne Alba

I understand that some groups resent too much intrusion from the outside, but this is usually a feature of rather introverted groups, not those that are very open to the wider community. So that in itself is rather interesting.

From what you say the kind of group you're referring to is probably too fearful of censure to be a role model for the British churches in general. That's perfectly fine (and a lot of more established churches wouldn't want to be in the spotlight either) but the kinds of groups we're thinking of here would probably have to be more willing to develop a public profile, because the hope is that they would generate interest and help other Christians develop similar communities.

This was brought up because many of us live in areas of ongoing church decline and weakness; it's not unreasonable for people in such contexts to be looking for ways in which the church can avoid extinction.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0