Ship of Fools: Pope celebrates the reformation with agnostic leaders

Thread: Pope celebrates the reformation with agnostic leaders 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=030556

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

It has been reported yesterday that 500 years after the beginning of the Reformation that split western christianity, Pope Francis has celebrated the reformation in Sweden yesterday, along with representatives of the Lutheran World Federation.

What the news don´t tell us is that the "churches" that are celebrating with the Pope aren´t in any way representatives of the though of the 16th century Reformation. "Churches" that would elect an archbishop who thinks Jesus and Mohammed are equal, or the preaching of salvation trough faith in Christ is seen as offensive to religious pluralism, cannot in any respectful way be called "lutheran".

It´s not like anybody cares, since people have long ceased to expect institutions like Church of Sweden (or even ELCA) have anything to do with christian belief.

I hope the presence of Pope Francis can be a good influence for lutherans. It´s very interesting that 500 years after the reformation, the best person we can look forward or some good protestant teaching is the Pope. Our own "lutheran" leaders are only interested in promoting gender theories that the Pope himself has clearly stated that are ideological, and mistakes that lead to confusion.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s not like anybody cares, since people have long ceased to expect institutions like Church of Sweden (or even ELCA) have anything to do with christian belief.

A few months ago I was in the headquarters of the Christian Council of Sweden in Stockholm, which shares a building with the Swedish Free Churches headquarters, and was given a presentation of the CCS.

You might like to take a look at its list of member churches, which includes all the Lutherans, and tell me that they don't have a thing or two to tell us about Christian unity.

Can you think of anywhere else in the world where the Vineyard, apparently all the local varieties of Orthodoxen, the Catholics, the Pentecostals and the Baptists all sit down together, along with the various Lutherans, and are happy to acknowledge the latter as Christians?

If that's not something of a testimony to Christian belief, what is?

Could you not find it within yourself to celebrate the Pope's acknowledgement of the importance of Luther's key messages for the Church today, rather than complain?

[ 01. November 2016, 11:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Gorpo, is there anything to this other than a moan that the Lutheran Churches aren't as fundamentalist as you are?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I worshipped at a Lutheran church in Japan. OK, so most closely affiliated to the LCMS rather than ELCA but still with some ELCA people there. Also, one friends there regularly share memes from ELCA on Facebook. I've seen nothing to suggest that ELCA are "not Christian" in any meaningful way.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Lutheran Churches are "agnostic" or otherwise "not Christian"?

Posted by Graham J (# 505) on :

Hi Gorpo
You might need to rethink your source of information about the Church of Sweden.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Gorpo, is there anything to this other than a moan that the Lutheran Churches aren't as fundamentalist as you are?

It´s not that they are not fundamentalist. It´s just that they are not lutheran. Why use the word "lutheran" if you don´t believe lutheran stuff?

Again, it´s not like anybody cares. These churches are empty. People pay to have their weddings and burial ceremonies.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The CofS website states that, although there are those with more Evangelical and "High Church" emphases giving a "high degree of comprehensiveness", it could best be characterized "as 'middle of the road,' uniting high-church concerns for liturgy and ministry with an openness to evangelization, and a pattern of parish life typical of a national or folk church".

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I worshipped at a Lutheran church in Japan. OK, so most closely affiliated to the LCMS rather than ELCA but still with some ELCA people there. Also, one friends there regularly share memes from ELCA on Facebook. I've seen nothing to suggest that ELCA are "not Christian" in any meaningful way.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Lutheran Churches are "agnostic" or otherwise "not Christian"?

LCMS is not affiliated with Lutheran World Federation. They would never associate with an institution that promotes gender ideology and abortion, and therefore is not actually christian. I never said ELCA and other lutheran church members are not christians. For a church member, it is permited to have christian beliefs. It´s only if you want to apply for a bishop, you will have it easier if you stay away from the Jesus-stuff.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

You're still not presenting much in the way of evidence.

What does "promoting gender ideology" or "promoting abortion" actually mean? And, how does the views of a church on secondary issues like gender and abortion relate to whether or not that church (or, the leadership thereof) is "agnostic", "not Christian" or even "not Lutheran"?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

gorpo

Of course you're going to be criticised here for questioning Swedish Lutheran Christian credentials, but it's true that the Church of Sweden is very liberal according to most standards.

The interesting question, then, is why the Pope chose this particular branch of the Lutheran Church for his ecumenical commemoration. This article gives some clues.

The article highlights the Pope's desire that even Christians who are divided by dogma should and must work and pray together. A liberal denomination and a strict and conservative one obviously have the most distance to cover, so perhaps he thought that this partnership was the most important to nurture. Moreover, he's already made overtures to evangelicals in the past, and if he really wants to overcome divisions he has to include the most liberal churches as well.

It's probably also significant that the Pope chose to visit one of the most secular countries on earth. I see an obvious PR focus in that. There's a desire to show that Sweden is still a 'Christian' country, that its Protestant heritage (which Swedish evangelicals and liberals alike would want to acknowledge) is still important. The alternative, after all, is to admit defeat in the face of enormous societal change and church decline.

In general, then, I think the anniversary of the Reformation provided the opportunity to kill two or three birds with one stone.

[ 01. November 2016, 13:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The Church of Sweden synod has published a paper detailing position on Sexual and Reproductive Rights. (Sorry, I can't get a URL link to work).

A footnote states that the Church "has discussed questions relating to abortion on several occasions, most recently in autumn 2013. The Synod has repeatedly decided, due to the complexity of the issue, not to formulate a single principle opinion on abortions but has instead emphasized the church’s pastoral task relating to the decision to undergo an abortion. Both the 2009 and 2013 statements emphasize that there is no one, singular, Christian viewpoint on abortion. This statement indicates that while the Church of Sweden recognizes the inalienable value of each individual there can exist a variety of opinions on the ethical dilemma that abortion poses. The dilemma should be taken seriously and the church should offer pastoral assistance to those individuals that have gone through or have been affected by an abortion".

It continues: "The Church of Sweden affirms the current Swedish legislation regarding abortions. Women’s legally protected right to choose to undergo an abortion is considered to protect women from the serious risks to health that illegal abortions pose".

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
Could you not find it within yourself to celebrate the Pope's acknowledgement of the importance of Luther's key messages for the Church today, rather than complain?

I can't imagine that Martin Luther would look at the Church of Sweden and be anything but appalled that they claimed to be his theological descendants. For Luther and most Lutherans who have ever lived, belief in God was not a mere pious opinion. Now, you may be appalled at the fact that Luther would be appalled and think the Church of Sweden has improved on the message of Luther and the vast majority of Lutherans who've ever lived but that is a different question.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QB] Gorpo, is there anything to this other than a moan that the Lutheran Churches aren't as fundamentalist as you are?

The Church of Sweden isn't as fundamentalist as the ELCA. Most Lutherans in the world would insist that their pastors actually believe in God. Not so in the Church of Sweden

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
it's true that the Church of Sweden is very liberal according to most standards.

There's still a substantial distance between liberal (or, even very liberal) and "not Christian" or "not Lutheran".

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

It's been some time since I posted on the ship. Today I stopped by to see what, if anything, people thought of the Ecumenical Celebration yesterday in Sweden. What I stumbled into is a neck-high pile of bile and judgment. On my church and on my tradition.

Thanks a lot.
I don't expect I'll be back any time soon.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Alan Cresswell

Maybe so, but there's obviously a degree of subjectivity in analysing who's included and who isn't. (Quite apart from the official status of various denominations.)

TBH, I also think there's a certain pragmatism involved in these questions. If the Church of Sweden, which is the largest denomination in a highly secular country, is excluded, then the number of self-professed Christians there automatically plummets even further. Who would benefit from such an exclusion? The RCC wouldn't. The small evangelical churches there might not find it advantageous either.

However, in Gorpo's country, there are so many 'Christian' groups (and individual Christians) that the socio-cultural exclusion of one or two of them probably wouldn't make much difference to overall numbers, or to national identity.

This might be seen as a distasteful way of looking at it, but I do see denominations as institutions responding to the environments they find themselves in. The RCC clearly acts in different ways in different contexts.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
It's been some time since I posted on the ship. Today I stopped by to see what, if anything, people thought of the Ecumenical Celebration yesterday in Sweden. What I stumbled into is a neck-high pile of bile and judgment. On my church and on my tradition.

Thanks a lot.
I don't expect I'll be back any time soon.

However, most of the responses have actually rejected the criticisms set out in the OP!

Secondly, the OP wasn't referring to your church so much as a sister denomination. AFAIUI the Church of Sweden is independent, and probably differs in certain respects from the ELCA. If you stayed around you could help to clarify how they're similar and how they're different.

Myself, I don't have any bile for the Church of Sweden. I studied in Sweden many years ago, and occasionally attended worship in Lutheran churches there. It was an enriching time in my life.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You might like to take a look at its list of member churches, which includes all the Lutherans, and tell me that they don't have a thing or two to tell us about Christian unity.

Can you think of anywhere else in the world where the Vineyard, apparently all the local varieties of Orthodoxen, the Catholics, the Pentecostals and the Baptists all sit down together, along with the various Lutherans, and are happy to acknowledge the latter as Christians?

The Canadian prairies. Link: Prairie Centre for Ecumenism. Membership is Lutherans (3 varieties), Baptists, RC, Anglican, Presbyterians & Methodists (both in and outside of the United Church of Canada), Orthodox, and several others. Lots of shared things here.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
an institution that promotes gender ideology and abortion, and therefore is not actually christian.

Wow. This is obviously some new litmus test of orthodoxy I'm not familiar with.

Please explain the "therefore".

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I can't imagine that Martin Luther would look at the Church of Sweden and be anything but appalled that they claimed to be his theological descendants.

So what? I think the really newsworthy item in this event is that the Pope (as in "is the Pope a Catholic?") publicly acknowledged the applicability of Luther's teaching to the Church today, including his own:

quote:
He recently called the German theologian a reformer of his time who rightly criticized a church that was "no model to imitate."

"There was corruption in the church, worldliness, attachment to money and power," Francis told reporters this summer.

They are the same abuses Francis has criticized in the 21st-century Catholic Church he now leads.

I'm disappointed uffda has seemingly almost missed everything on this thread after the OP. A colleague on an international committee on which I serve is a Swedish Lutheran pastor (another is a Uniting Church pastor). I count her as a sister in Christ, and why should I not?

We might have our differences, but anything that bucks the global trend to isolationism and withdrawal behind secular lines is a good thing.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

What's "gender ideology" when it's at home?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

TBH, I doubt whether Tomas de Torquemada would recognise the Roman Catholic Church of today, but that hardly means it's no longer Catholic. Things change. Thank God.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose the interesting question is whether these labels have any meaning when the content has changed so much.

In many cases not really, which is why many churches have been able to merge with others. Elsewhere, sticking with what's familiar is more about loyalty to a family or local tradition, to a social group, or to a prestigious and memorable heritage than it is about theology. This is true in Sweden, where the CofS's value is in maintaining the national identity by way of public rituals rather than by offering particular doctrines for the contemplation of the Swedish public.

Anyway, it occurs to me that there's a mutual PR benefit to this RC/CofS event. The small CofS gets to cosy up to a large, prestigious, highly visible institution in the form of the RCC, and the far more conservative RCC gets credit for hanging out with a much more liberal, tolerant institution in the CofS.

You might see a sort of trickery in this, because the CofS is not actually going to become any more conservative, and the RCC is unlikely to end up particularly liberal. But each absorbs a little of the aura of the other. The RCC might have more to gain because it's surely under far more pressure than the CofS. OTOH, cynics might grumble that this is just more of the same: Pope Francis talking up tolerance and togetherness but not changing his church's rules in any practical sense.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
and withdrawal behind secular lines is a good thing.

Why use the term Christian or Lutheran to refer to what you are when you don't even believe in God? Even the term Christian excludes those that don't self-identify as Christians. Can't there just be something like an International Committee of Nice People that does collectively whatever the ICNP deems nice people should do as a collective? St. Paul warned of those having the appearance of godliness but denying the power thereof. Now, we aren't even bothering with the pretense of God.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

You might see a sort of trickery in this, because the CofS is not actually going to become any more conservative, and the RCC is unlikely to end up particularly liberal. But each absorbs a little of the aura of the other. The RCC might have more to gain because it's surely under far more pressure than the CofS. OTOH, cynics might grumble that this is just more of the same: Pope Francis talking up tolerance and togetherness but not changing his church's rules in any practical sense.

To be fair to His Holiness, it's not really like he's able to.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The pope's visit is a godsend to conservative Christians. They get to hate on a lot of people all at once.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
and withdrawal behind secular lines is a good thing.

Why use the term Christian or Lutheran to refer to what you are when you don't even believe in God? Even the term Christian excludes those that don't self-identify as Christians. Can't there just be something like an International Committee of Nice People that does collectively whatever the ICNP deems nice people should do as a collective? St. Paul warned of those having the appearance of godliness but denying the power thereof. Now, we aren't even bothering with the pretense of God.

The worship and doctrine of The Episcopal Church has, featured intermittently on these boards since I signed up in 2001. I would suggest, therefore, that you take the raisin cake from your own eye before pronouncing on the mote in your Swedish Lutheran brothers.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Gorpo, did you by any chance study at Moore College? Lecturers there, too, skip over John 3 .

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Point of information: Dr Munib A. Younan is the bishop of The Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Lands. He is far from an archbishop. He is the elected president of the Lutheran World Federation, but it is far from being an archbishop.

My son personally knows Dr. Younan and worked under him for a full year. My son has the highest respect for him as a man of faith and a leader.

To the point of alleging that Younan thinks Jesus and Mohammed are equal, nothing can be further from the truth. Younan has a clear understanding that Jesus is the Son of God. He testifies to that every time he preaches.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why use the term Christian or Lutheran to refer to what you are when you don't even believe in God?

Didn't your church have someone in it called Spong or Pike or something?

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
an institution that promotes gender ideology and abortion, and therefore is not actually christian.
Wow. This is obviously some new litmus test of orthodoxy I'm not familiar with.

Please explain the "therefore".

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I can't imagine that Martin Luther would look at the Church of Sweden and be anything but appalled that they claimed to be his theological descendants.
So what? I think the really newsworthy item in this event is that the Pope (as in "is the Pope a Catholic?") publicly acknowledged the applicability of Luther's teaching to the Church today, including his own:
quote:
He recently called the German theologian a reformer of his time who rightly criticized a church that was "no model to imitate."

"There was corruption in the church, worldliness, attachment to money and power," Francis told reporters this summer.

They are the same abuses Francis has criticized in the 21st-century Catholic Church he now leads.
I'm disappointed uffda has seemingly almost missed everything on this thread after the OP. A colleague on an international committee on which I serve is a Swedish Lutheran pastor (another is a Uniting Church pastor). I count her as a sister in Christ, and why should I not?

We might have our differences, but anything that bucks the global trend to isolationism and withdrawal behind secular lines is a good thing.

I´m not criticising the Pope for his visit to Sweden, let alone moaning about it. In fact, I think this is a great event. I only wanted to express the irony that it is the Pope who is remembering a supposed "lutheran" church about the importance of Luther´s teaching, which they no longer hold. Neither have a denied that true christians in lutheran churches (as in all other denominations) are real brothers and sisters in Christ. Of course, the church as an institution is corrupt, with atheists taking the leadership of it and doing their best to assure christianity disappears from the map as quick as possible. That´s why they´ll make anything in the church as boring as possible and will avoid any orthodox christian teaching as "fundamentalist". You have to admit they do a great job. Neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins are not as good as driving people away from churches as are liberal church leaders.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The world wide Lutheran church does not promote abortion.

It says that governments should not dictate a woman's choice but it encourages women to consider carefully their reproductive decisions.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Aha! We're at the true christian stage already.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Aha! We're at the true christian stage already.

That began at the OP.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Of course, the church as an institution is corrupt

The universal Church as a human institution is corrupt, yes. That's life. But it also bears in it the hope of redemption.

quote:
with atheists taking the leadership of it and doing their best to assure christianity disappears from the map as quick as possible.

Ah. I must have missed the bit about exactly what "gender ideology" is and how it's promoted, and why the peculiar combination of this and "promoting abortion" is a direct ticket to Hell over and above anything else.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

There is a difference between the church being a human institution and, therefore, subject to human weaknesses and being corrupt.

Sure, in any bureaucracy, there is waste.

However, I do think the vast majority of Lutheran leaders try to live honest lives--and I think a majority of the Roman establishment try to be honorable too.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What's "gender ideology" when it's at home?

Yes, I found that baffling as well. It's Brazilian Portuguese in which ideologia is clearly of feminine gender. Not Swedish.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
atheists taking the leadership of [the church] and doing their best to assure christianity disappears from the map as quick as possible.

A conspiracy of atheists seeking to destroy religion by infiltrating the highest positions of leadership. Did they perhaps arrange the assassination of Princess Diana and fake the moon landings as well?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I thought the leaders of the Church of Sweden (and others, presumably) were being accused of being agnostic.

Now, they're atheists , according to gorpo.

What next, I wonder? Fellow fallen angels of Lucifer, maybe? Brothers and sisters of Beelzebub?

I wonder if gorpo is thinking of taking over from Jack Chick RIP...

IJ

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
atheists taking the leadership of [the church] and doing their best to assure christianity disappears from the map as quick as possible.
A conspiracy of atheists seeking to destroy religion by infiltrating the highest positions of leadership. Did they perhaps arrange the assassination of Princess Diana and fake the moon landings as well?

It's probably not the case that these clergy want Christianity to disappear (which would presumably remove their own jobs). The issue is rather that having 'non-believers' in leadership posts in the church is unlikely to encourage lay church members in their faith, should they have any.

In fact, I've read (pp.237-238) that the degree of secular political control over the CofS has been particularly high over the past century, and that the church basically acquiesced in the face of this. The CofS has now been disestablished, but would appear to have retained a strong secular focus.

That being the case it's perhaps unsurprising that issue of whether the Church remains within the Christian tradition has been touched on by a commentators. According to one Swedish Lutheran bishop it's not necessary for clergy in the CofS to 'believe in Jesus Christ'.And a minister and a professor of theology have recently resigned regarding the official CofS responses to Christian persecution in the Middle East.

The conservatism of some English-language online critics of the CofS is perhaps to be expected. There may be more balanced commentary available in Swedish; OTOH, most 'ordinary' Swedes are probably uninterested in what the CofS's clergy believe about Jesus or crucifixes, etc. Islam is a topical issue of concern, though.

[ 02. November 2016, 01:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Callan:
The worship and doctrine of The Episcopal Church has, featured intermittently on these boards since I signed up in 2001. I would suggest, therefore, that you take the raisin cake from your own eye before pronouncing on the mote in your Swedish Lutheran brothers.

I've often said TEC and all mainline churches in the United States struggle to distinguish themselves from the Rotary Club. However, TEC is not as far gone as the Church of Sweden. Sure, some within dream of being like the Church of Sweden. I would even say we are on our way to being like the Church of Sweden. Personally, TEC will not survive if it becomes like the Church of Sweden. The US doesn't need a national church to fulfill the role now performed by the Church of Sweden. Give it another 30 years and neither will Sweden. I suspect The Episcopal Church of the future should it conserve will be somewhat more conservative than it is now. In the future, there will be less of a reason to even go to church much less pursue ordination if you believe the whole thing even the existence of God is just a metaphor for something. We don't need the church to teach our children to be nice. We have cartoons for that.

quote:
originally posted by Ricardus:
Didn't your church have someone in it called Spong or Pike or something?

Both should have been removed from the episcopacy. Letting Pike off was TEC's way of signalling to the wider culture that they didn't take the core doctrines of Christianity seriously. I'm sure they did that to stay relevant. Problem was that people who do take the core doctrines of Christianity seriously look for a church that takes them seriously. The people who don't take them seriously no longer have much reason to attend church.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... In fact, I've read (pp.237-238) that the degree of secular political control over the CofS has been particularly high over the past century, and that the church basically acquiesced in the face of this. ...

Interesting, and if true, seriously depressing. However, equally depressing that anyone should publish something with the contentious subheading,
"Europe's regulated and monopolized (sic) religious economies",
and expect to be taken seriously. There's some quite interesting arguments in the article, but that subheading indicates an approach to Christian faith that verges on blasphemy.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

While I am in no way contesting the historical aspects of the quoted article, one must remember that Rodney Stark is by no means a disinterested academic; his thesis over many years has been that a "free market" religious economy is of necessity more vibrant than any State-oriented system.

My claim for saying this is having studied his "General Theory of Religion" some years ago, leading to an extended essay, when I was studying for my Masters in Anthropology and Sociology of Religion. I felt that he had not always understood the European situation and had been unduly influenced by American culture.

Nevertheless, I am not querying the actual facts that he states about the Church of Sweden (about which I know very little!)

[ 02. November 2016, 17:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

.........as we all know the Pope is the Anti-Christ, the Whore of Babylon, etc.etc.. Against that a liberally-minded, possibly atheistic Church of Sweden, seems closer to the Kingdom of God than gorpo's outfit. Give us a break, guys!!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The Church of Sweden has some good hymns (as you'd expect from a Lutheran denomination).

Here's one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiH9qB4hMog&nohtml5=False

This was the closing hymn at Mariakyrkan, Vaxjo, on Advent 3 a few years ago. The girls in albs are a group of confirmands - they acted as servers and acolytes during the Eucharist.

All looks fairly mainstream Christian to me...

IJ

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Which reminds me - a recent Mystery Worshipper report from Visby Cathedral. Again, sounds pretty mainstream Christianity to me, though admittedly the sermon was preached by an English bishop!

http://shipoffools.com/mystery/2016/3068.html

IJ

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It has been reported yesterday that 500 years after the beginning of the Reformation that split western christianity, Pope Francis has celebrated the reformation in Sweden yesterday, along with representatives of the Lutheran World Federation.

What the news don´t tell us is that the "churches" that are celebrating with the Pope aren´t in any way representatives of the though of the 16th century Reformation. "Churches" that would elect an archbishop who thinks Jesus and Mohammed are equal, or the preaching of salvation trough faith in Christ is seen as offensive to religious pluralism, cannot in any respectful way be called "lutheran".

You mean that those "churches" aren't anti-Semitic in the way Luther's Church was? How sad for you.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Dr. Younan does refer to God as Allah, but that is a common name for God in Arab lands no matter whether one is Christian or Muslim. Does not mean Jesus and Mohammed are equal for Christian Arabs.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Dr. Younan does refer to God as Allah, but that is a common name for God in Arab lands no matter whether one is Christian or Muslim.

Not this again [Disappointed]

Allah is not just a "common name for God", it's the Arabic word for "God".

Its use to denote God by Christians speaking Arabic is no more heretical, (and no less so), than English-speaking people referring to the deity as "God".

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

And the Romans used deus, except that it referred to a whole menagerie of supernatural beings.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not the same thing. Deus means a god, Allah means the God.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Point of information: Dr Munib A. Younan is the bishop of The Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Lands. He is far from an archbishop. He is the elected president of the Lutheran World Federation, but it is far from being an archbishop.

My son personally knows Dr. Younan and worked under him for a full year. My son has the highest respect for him as a man of faith and a leader.

To the point of alleging that Younan thinks Jesus and Mohammed are equal, nothing can be further from the truth. Younan has a clear understanding that Jesus is the Son of God. He testifies to that every time he preaches.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Dr. Younan does refer to God as Allah, but that is a common name for God in Arab lands no matter whether one is Christian or Muslim. Does not mean Jesus and Mohammed are equal for Christian Arabs.

I assume that the elected archbishop to whom gorpo was referring was not the president of the LWF, but rather was the Archbishop of Uppsala, who is the primate of the Church of Sweden.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Some details concerning whom can be found in our good friend Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antje_Jackel%C3%A9n

It appears that she and Pope Francis agree on a number of issues, though not the Dead Horses....

IJ

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not the same thing. Deus means a god, Allah means the God.

Deus can also mean *the* God (lots of prayers in Latin begin with something like Omnipotens sempiterne Deus...). Latin lacks articles, definite or indefinite.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not the same thing. Deus means a god, Allah means the God.
Deus can also mean *the* God (lots of prayers in Latin begin with something like Omnipotens sempiterne Deus...). Latin lacks articles, definite or indefinite.

If someone says deus alone without context, it is impossible to know which god they mean.
If someone says Allah there need be no context to know exactly who they mean.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Deus (and the English word 'god') have plural forms and can therefore refer to polytheistic gods, e.g. Neptune or Thor. Allah can only ever be singular (and probably has an in-built definite article), and can therefore only refer to a monotheistic, 'one and only' God.

Thus an Arabic Christian can refer to God as Allah, but nobody could call Neptune 'an allah'.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[It's] depressing that anyone should publish something with the contentious subheading,
"Europe's regulated and monopolized (sic) religious economies",
and expect to be taken seriously. There's some quite interesting arguments in the article, but that subheading indicates an approach to Christian faith that verges on blasphemy.

I don't think of the subtitle as blasphemous at all.

It's not a comment on the nature of God, nor on the spiritual value of any particular denomination. It refers to the fact that every religious institution exists in the material realm of class, culture, history and politics and money, etc., and lives, acts, grows or declines according to its place in a given society.

Now, it may seem distasteful to claim that a 'religious economy' exists in which churches compete for members in a given environment, and in which individuals use various criteria in choosing one church over another, but I don't think it's an attack on the Lord Almighty to say so.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Rodney Stark is by no means a disinterested academic; his thesis over many years has been that a "free market" religious economy is of necessity more vibrant than any State-oriented system.

[...]I felt that he had not always understood the European situation and had been unduly influenced by American culture.

I know that Stark et al's theory has a number of detractors, but I do think it's a useful idea, even in the Europe. It adds a further layer to our understanding of church development. I do think it probably needs to be used alongside other theories.

One researcher's found it relevant to post-Communist Hungary. Regarding Sweden and Denmark, a relatively recent article (p. 57-59) references Stark et al's theory as a possible explanation, among others, for the low level of religiosity there. As I say, I should think all of these explanations are significant in some way.

But with regard to the OP, the CofS is in an interesting situation. It appears to be closely tied to national identity, and morally in tune with the Swedish people. By contrast the CofE appears to be more distant from the wider public and less clear about its place in society. The CofE has more people actually attending services, but if these people are increasingly different from the wider public (i.e. if they're more and more likely to be evangelicals) its ability to speak to and for the wider public might decline. The CofS doesn't have this problem.

Moreover, the fact that most (non-immigrant) Swedes identify culturally with the Lutheran CofS probably made it a straightforward place for the Pope to visit for his Reformation celebrations. Celebrating with Lutherans in a country where very many of the inhabitants stand outside that tradition might have been problematic, even if the Lutherans there were much more practising and their clergy more orthodox than is the case in Sweden.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But with regard to the OP, the CofS is in an interesting situation. It appears to be closely tied to national identity, and morally in tune with the Swedish people. By contrast the CofE appears to be more distant from the wider public and less clear about its place in society. The CofE has more people actually attending services, but if these people are increasingly different from the wider public (i.e. if they're more and more likely to be evangelicals) its ability to speak to and for the wider public might decline. The CofS doesn't have this problem.

If a society is increasingly becoming secular/non-christian, isn´t it natural that the remaining christians are going to be increasingly different from the wider society in some aspects? If a church is completely in tune with a predominantly non-christian society, then it has a real problem. It is no wonder that churches that are completely "in tune" with what secular society expects are increasingly empty. Most people nowadays are not interested in institutional religion, but the remaining ones who seek churches do not want to go to churches who teach exactly the same stuff they hear anywhere else.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Given your blanket condemnation of the Church of Sweden, gorpo, perhaps you would kindly watch this video of the Easter morning service from the principal church in a town of about 19000 inhabitants, and let us know how unChristian and/or secular it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_5UR800n04&nohtml5=False

I assume you understand Swedish?

IJ

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

gorpo

I can't argue with what you've said here. But you should be aware that in countries where there are state churches, attendance and faith aren't the only criteria by which the churches evaluate their influence. Indeed, their clergy may feel they have more responsibility for, or a deeper connection to, non-churchgoers than churchgoers. This makes sense in a country where the church sees itself as having a duty towards everyone, regardless of whether or not they have a faith or go to church.

Many in the CofE and the CofS take this view. But the difference is that the CofE is far more split regarding this role. Many of its clergy will be committed to the idea of the church as essentially wedded to English identity; others focus on their congregations, bringing people into the church through an evangelism that has little to do with 'Englishness' as such. Many more clergy have to juggle both ideas uneasily, I think.

Context probably has a lot to do with the attitudes that clergy and congregations adopt. The CofE exists in a far more pluralistic and socially unequal society than the CofS does. Moreover, the CofE isn't supported financially by the state in the way the CofS is, so you could argue that it has to be more versatile simply in order to survive. But that versatility makes it less united.

The irony is that a strongly evangelistic and evangelical church may create more believers and worshippers, but in our culture that kind of church is also going to be more alienated from a large proportion of the wider society - unless it can convert a really huge number of people, which seems unlikely.

Brazil is obviously very different. Despite the huge number of RCs there it has no state church but it does have high levels of religious participation. This means its churches don't have to worry too much about what will antagonise the wider secular population, and I presume that no single denomination carries the burden of representing 'Brazilianness'.

[ 06. November 2016, 12:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When I referred Arab Christians using the word Allah for (the) God, I meant that they use the word in common with Arab Muslims, not that the word Allah is a just a common word.

It was Dr. Younan that signed the documents with the pope on behalf of the Lutheran World Federation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-latest-hundreds-cheer-pope-francis-arrival-in-sweden/2016/10/31/5d13e4c4-9f6d -11e6-8864-6f892cad0865_story.html

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gramps49

I don't think anyone on this thread was arguing that Arab-speaking Christians shouldn't refer to God as Allah.

The comment in the OP about Islam was probably a reference to the Lutheran archbishop in Sweden who was unwilling to say in her public job interview in 2013 that Jesus had any more to offer than Mohammed.

This was mentioned in one of the links I posted above. I admitted that most links on the subject were likely to be from conservative and (fairly hostile) sources, particularly those I was finding in English. For that reason, it's probably hard to get a fully accurate sense of what the chosen candidate, Antje Jackelén, was getting at.

However, thanks to my rusty Swedish and Google Translate, I feel that in her interview in 2013 (and in later conversations) she was expressing a fairly liberal but not particularly original contextual approach to the Bible. There are presumably CofE bishops who would agree with most of what she said, although in a more pluralistic public Christian setting they might have expressed themselves differently.

That being said, I don't think someone like Antje Jackelén (her sex and her Lutheranism notwithstanding) would become a CofE archbishop, as things stand. She might be a better fit for the ELCA, perhaps?

[ 07. November 2016, 21:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But with regard to the OP, the CofS is in an interesting situation. It appears to be closely tied to national identity, and morally in tune with the Swedish people. By contrast the CofE appears to be more distant from the wider public and less clear about its place in society. The CofE has more people actually attending services, but if these people are increasingly different from the wider public (i.e. if they're more and more likely to be evangelicals) its ability to speak to and for the wider public might decline. The CofS doesn't have this problem.

If a society is increasingly becoming secular/non-christian, isn´t it natural that the remaining christians are going to be increasingly different from the wider society in some aspects? If a church is completely in tune with a predominantly non-christian society, then it has a real problem. It is no wonder that churches that are completely "in tune" with what secular society expects are increasingly empty. Most people nowadays are not interested in institutional religion, but the remaining ones who seek churches do not want to go to churches who teach exactly the same stuff they hear anywhere else.

It's a bit more complicated than that though. I find many aspects of modern "secular" society more Christian than the "Christian" society we had in the past. Our treatment of transexuals, non-heterosexual orientation, children, the poor, women and ethnic minorities is considerably better.

Indeed, I'm struggling to know what your problem is, unless your reference to "gender ideology", which you've never explained, means you think persecuting and refusing to acknowledge trans-gender people is somehow "Christian", at which point it's pistols at dawn.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a bit more complicated than that though. I find many aspects of modern "secular" society more Christian than the "Christian" society we had in the past. Our treatment of transexuals, non-heterosexual orientation, children, the poor, women and ethnic minorities is considerably better.

Indeed, I'm struggling to know what your problem is, unless your reference to "gender ideology", which you've never explained, means you think persecuting and refusing to acknowledge trans-gender people is somehow "Christian", at which point it's pistols at dawn.

That's interesting. I'd say that society has become more tolerant in some ways particularly with regard to some minorities, which is an almost unqualified Good Thing.

But in many other ways, I'd say that British society at least is increasingly divergent from Christian influence and values - particularly with regard to the general attitude to some other minorities and acceptable distain for the poor, the unemployed, the weak and the sick.

Churches in general have been slow to take notice of the minorities you've mentioned, but I don't think it is a fair thing to say that society is generally a better exhibitor of Christian values than the church.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I think it depends on how long a time scale you're looking at. Comparing now with, say, the 1940s, I find it difficult to find many negatives. I agree that the degree to which despising the poor, the underprivileged and the disadvantaged has become acceptable again is distressing, but the irony here is that very many Christians voted and will continue to vote for the politicians driving that despising. That HTB/Trump thread is a case in point here.

None of which, I suspect, is what Gorpo's on about. I think I know what he's actually gunning at, but I want him to clarify.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I guess we see what we want to see. My position is that the church has been quietly working in unpopular and largely unseen ways for decades and that society rarely is able to replicate it. As churches decline, that provision is rarely filled in by the state, society or anyone else.

That's not to say that the church hasn't failed in many other ways, but it still isn't right to say that Society does a better job of exhibiting Christian values than the church. The church can be crappy, society is usually worse.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I guess we see what we want to see. My position is that the church has been quietly working in unpopular and largely unseen ways for decades and that society rarely is able to replicate it. As churches decline, that provision is rarely filled in by the state, society or anyone else.

That's not to say that the church hasn't failed in many other ways, but it still isn't right to say that Society does a better job of exhibiting Christian values than the church. The church can be crappy, society is usually worse.

But that wasn't my contention. My contention is that our secular society of today is more Christian than our supposedly Christian society of decades ago.

[ 08. November 2016, 11:00: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, but not these days necessarily overtly Christian.

None the worse for that, though, IMHO.

YMMV.

IJ.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think money has a lot to do with it. Rich societies can afford to spend more money on the poor, which removes the burdensome incentive for the 'traditional' European family. Capitalism is king, and making and spending money keeps the world turning, whether you're a married woman, a gay man or a Somali in Birmingham.

I'm not knocking money; I'd like a lot more of it. But perhaps the message is that the type of Christianity you get depends on the status of the society it exists in. The CofS may represent the pinnacle (as some would see it) of church-based Christianity precisely because Sweden is such a rich, comfortable country. Christian conservatism simply doesn't seem necessary to more than a tiny number of Christians.

Money being so significant, the CofE might become more like the CofS if it was funded in a similar way. For example, certain parishes or dioceses might be less reliant on funds from wealthy evangelical congregations if its buildings were maintained by the state, or perhaps by local communities, as Simon Jenkins recommends.

[ 08. November 2016, 18:22: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0