Fundamentalism revisited
Kevin Donnelly
but there's a very useful article on Fundamentalism in the Guardian for
Monday 28th June. No doubt some kind soul will find the URL for
it, but it's by Giles Fraser on page 14, title Book Club Bullies.
It would be helpful to me personally if a constructive exchange
of views were to follow. Is it possible?
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Wythenshawe Prompt Organiser
http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/prompt
Website www.kevdon.demon.co.uk
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>I don't know if it is the "right" time, as in Biblical time or kairos,
>but there's a very useful article on Fundamentalism in the Guardian for
>Monday 28th June. No doubt some kind soul will find the URL for
>it, but it's by Giles Fraser on page 14, title Book Club Bullies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1248669,00.html
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"I let the melody shine, let it cleanse my mind, I feel free now"
michael falconer
news:A$a1wdBIsD4AFwJ$@kevdon.demon.co.uk...
Probably not possible at all. How many of us are even prepared to examine
our own assumptions and presuppositions about What and Who we beleive in? I
have yet to meet the Christian who is prepared to say " I COULD BE
WRONG"............................All expect total agreement all the time.
Robert Marshall
> "Kevin Donnelly" <ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:A$a1wdBIsD4AFwJ$@kevdon.demon.co.uk...
>> I don't know if it is the "right" time, as in Biblical time or
>> kairos, but there's a very useful article on Fundamentalism in the
>> Guardian for Monday 28th June. No doubt some kind soul will find
>> the URL for it, but it's by Giles Fraser on page 14, title Book
>> Club Bullies.
>> It would be helpful to me personally if a constructive exchange
>> of views were to follow. Is it possible?
>
>
> Probably not possible at all. How many of us are even prepared to
> examine our own assumptions and presuppositions about What and Who
> we beleive in? I have yet to meet the Christian who is prepared to
> say " I COULD BE WRONG"............................All expect total
> agreement all the time.
I think Fraser is being pretty unfair too, it's one thing to accept
that others may have valid viewpoints which differ from one's own,
accepting that they might be more valid that one's own is far too
threatening - but that is that other thread.
Robert
--
Intelligence is nothing but analysed faith - Franz Schubert
Gareth McCaughan
[Kevin Donnelly, hoping for a constructive exchange of views:]
>> I don't know if it is the "right" time, as in Biblical time or kairos,
>> but there's a very useful article on Fundamentalism in the Guardian for
>> Monday 28th June. No doubt some kind soul will find the URL for
>> it, but it's by Giles Fraser on page 14, title Book Club Bullies.
[Mark:]
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1248669,00.html
Well, I've read it. It seems reasonable enough on the whole,
though fundamentalists and others in their theological vicinity
are likely to find it rather patronizing and oversimplified.
I reckon his most dubious statements are these:
- "The common denominator is a refusal to accept that a
sacred text can be legitimately read in more than one way."
It's perfectly possible for fundamentalists to accept
that a sacred text can legitimately be read in more than
one way. They *will* typically say that there are limits
on the ways in which a text can be read, and that *some*
texts have only one reasonable interpretation, but neither
of those propositions seems unreasonable to me. (Maybe it
would be better to tweak the second one: some texts's
reasonable interpretations are very tightly "clustered",
with only small differences between them.)
- "the written word is wholly unsuited to the transmission
of a single message."
On the contrary: if you really want to transmit a single
message, and if that message isn't very simple, then the
written word is likely to be the best hope you've got.
To use the written word that way, you need to use it
with care, and you probably need to adopt a style quite
different to any found in the Bible, so GF does have a
point, but he overstates his case.
- "Of course, the reasons for resisting the idea that a text
requires interpretation are social and political, not principally
theological."
It's a useful rule of thumb that statements prefaced by
"Of course" or "As everybody knows" or other such
intimidatory clauses are the ones most likely to be
wrong. I expect it's very enlightening to look for
the social and political influences on fundamentalism;
and on liberalism, and anythingelseism, too. But the
proximate cause of belief that the Bible has (in general)
a single clear meaning *is* theological.
I don't know what point GF is trying to make by linking
fundamentalism with poverty, uncertainty and the like,
though it's not hard to guess. I expect theological
liberalism is equally linked with prosperity and material
complacency; and I have conjectures about social correlates
of other varieties of Christianity. So what? Surely GF
isn't so naive as to think himself, nor so cynical as
to expect his readers to think, that such correlation
does anything to invalidate (or validate) the theological
phenomena they concern.
We would all be better off for trying to understand where
our theological disputants are coming from, as GF says,
but we would also be better off if we could consistently
refrain from trying to stereotype them and explain away
their beliefs in terms of their upbringing or circumstances.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:36:40 +0100, Kevin Donnelly put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>I don't know if it is the "right" time, as in Biblical time or kairos,
>>but there's a very useful article on Fundamentalism in the Guardian for
>>Monday 28th June. No doubt some kind soul will find the URL for
>>it, but it's by Giles Fraser on page 14, title Book Club Bullies.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1248669,00.html
How is it useful?
AFAIK I’d be considered Fundamentalist, and for me and lots of
others like me the issue was never ‘only one way of reading the Texts’
or something the like, but that there are some ways that are so
self-serving and violate so much the reasonable meanings of it that
are an offense to God and His Word.
The article itself seemed to me nothing more than character
assassination.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +55 (11) 5685 2219
Av Sgto Geraldo Santana, 1100 6/71 lea...@dutra.fastmail.fm
04.674-000 São Paulo, SP BRASIL
http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/
Phil
news:2kbbfl...@uni-berlin.de...
You need to get out more. You could visit my house and hear the phrase "I
could be wrong about...." ad infinitum.
Phil
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004
Steve Hague
>
> Probably not possible at all. How many of us are even prepared to examine
> our own assumptions and presuppositions about What and Who we beleive in?
I
> have yet to meet the Christian who is prepared to say " I COULD BE
> WRONG"............................All expect total agreement all the time.
What a strange selection of Christians you seem to meet Michael. None of the
ones I know expect total agreement any of the time.
Steve Hague.
Robert Marshall
> quoting Fraser off the Guardian web page - I assume!
>>Fur has been flying in the small Gloucestershire village of
>>Brimscombe. Local boy done good Nick Page, who hosts the BBC2
>>Escape to the Country programme, was to be the star guest at the
>>local fete. But just half an hour before the start he pulled out,
>>objecting to Christian propaganda
>
> And precisely what Christian propaganda was this? What was on the
> table that was so controversial? A few tracts? A prayer letter?
>
It was some creationist literature
>>But to describe the prime minister as a fundamentalist is flippant
>>nonsense that seriously misplaces the meaning of the term. Using the
>>F-word as a generalised insult for all those with religious
>>convictions allows the real thing to slip by unchallenged.
>
> Then he goes on to make sweeping generalisations himself!
>
>>The common denominator is a refusal to accept that a sacred text can
>>be legitimately read in more than one way. This goes hand in hand
>>with the belief that scripture has a straightforward meaning, often
>>twisted by clever sophistry dancing to secular tunes of gay
>>liberation
>
> So is the question about the legitimacy of the interpretation or the
> legitimacy of the text itself? This is perhaps the problem for many
> of those who claim a liberal POV. Is the real challenge to them the
> interpretation of what is *clearly* laid out in scripture (leaving
> aside matters of genuine disagreement) or is the whole notion that
> scripture has authority a problem for them?
>
That wouldn't be a sweeping generalisation would it? (not that I
disagree with your sweeping generalistaion that the article is full of
s.g's)
>>Even within the traditionally inclusive Church of England
>
> How inclusive has it *really* been??? Apologies to my friends in the
> CofE, but the CofE like any other denomination has never been
> *truly* united.
If you'd like to produce a large denomination that is truly united
offer it here and I'm sure we'll find a few cracks in it :-)
Dave Shield
> - "the written word is wholly unsuited to the transmission
> of a single message."
>
> On the contrary: if you really want to transmit a single
> message, and if that message isn't very simple, then the
> written word is likely to be the best hope you've got.
I'm not sure I quite agree.
The problem with a written explanation is that it's inherently
one-way (at least in the form being discussed here). If
you've got a non-simple single message to convey, then the
*best* approach would surely be a two-way dialogue. That
way you at least have the opportunity of clarifying and
correcting misunderstandings.
Now if this isn't possible, then the written form is probably
better than the alternative (one-way) mechanisms on offer.
But I'd have thought that a two-way verbal discussion would
generally be preferable, if such a thing was feasible.
Dave
Dave Shield
>> Even within the traditionally inclusive Church of England
>
> How inclusive has it *really* been??? Apologies to my friends in the
> CofE, but the CofE like any other denomination has never been *truly*
> united.
I think that this is the point.
The CofE has tended to hold inclusivity as being more important
that unity. In other words, it contains people who can disagree
with each other quite violently, and still regards them as part
of the same body (sometimes whether they like it or not!)
Now there are clearly limits to how far you can push that approach,
and it's quite likely that different standards have been applied
at different times. But in general, the tendency has been to err
on the side of being too lax, rather than too strict.
That seems like a reasonable definition of "inclusive" to me.
Now whether this is a *good* thing or not, is another question.
> <controversial mode> Maybe it *would* be better for
> the CofE to divorce itself and then it could be free to follow God
> rather than man......</controversial mode>
Well, since most people within the CofE would hold that they *are*
trying to follow God (even if they're not sure about that lot over
there), then I'm not sure what difference that would make.
It might stop various people getting hung up on what "the other
lot" are doing, and allow them to *concentrate* on following God.
But I suspect that the damage done during the separation might
well be greater than any potential benefits that might emerge.
(And I'm not as optimistic as you seem to be that there would
be much such benefits anyway).
Dave
Nick Milton
<D.T.S...@csc.liv.ac.uk> wrote:
>Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> - "the written word is wholly unsuited to the transmission
>> of a single message."
>>
>> On the contrary: if you really want to transmit a single
>> message, and if that message isn't very simple, then the
>> written word is likely to be the best hope you've got.
>
>I'm not sure I quite agree.
I am sure I disagree with Gareth.
It depends entirely on the message.
Some messages need dialogue to be effectively transferred, some have
to be shown, some have to be experienced.
The messages "this is how you dance the foxtrot", "this is what Mozart
sounds like", "this is love", "this is the layout of the city of
Paris" would all be difficult to transfer in writing.
Potentially "this is what ths kingdom of God is like" would also be
difficult to transfer solely in writing.
Nick
Andrew Criddle
GF is operating from a post-modernist position about the
indeterminacy of all texts. If taken literally this position
is IMO self-refuting or at least non-discussable. (GF's text
about the issue has no determinate meaning nor has Gareth's
discussion of GF nor has my reply to Gareth).
If claims that fundamentalists are too ready to assume their
reading of the text to be the only legitimate one, have an
agenda denying all authoritative or privileged readings of
texts then 'fundamentalists' are right to repudiate such
claims.
There is IMO a real case that 'fundamentalists' greatly
underestimate the difficulty of determining the true meaning
of Scripture for today, but such a case is undermined by claims
that no authoritative meaning can be attained in principle.
>
> - "Of course, the reasons for resisting the idea that a text
> requires interpretation are social and political, not principally
> theological."
>
> It's a useful rule of thumb that statements prefaced by
> "Of course" or "As everybody knows" or other such
> intimidatory clauses are the ones most likely to be
> wrong. I expect it's very enlightening to look for
> the social and political influences on fundamentalism;
> and on liberalism, and anythingelseism, too. But the
> proximate cause of belief that the Bible has (in general)
> a single clear meaning *is* theological.
>
It is also part of a general philosophy or world-view. Academic
studies of fundamentailsm emphasise the historic role of Scottish
'Common Sense' philosophy.
'fundamentalists' start more or less consciously or articulately
from the position that ideas that lead to global scepticism or
relativism are for that reason clearly wrong. GF apparently does
not share this approach. IMO the 'fundamentalists' are right on
this point although the way these premises are applied in exegesis
and hermeneutics are often questionable.
Andrew Criddle
Phil
news:87smcft...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
>
> [Kevin Donnelly, hoping for a constructive exchange of views:]
> >> I don't know if it is the "right" time, as in Biblical time or kairos,
> >> but there's a very useful article on Fundamentalism in the Guardian for
> >> Monday 28th June. No doubt some kind soul will find the URL for
> >> it, but it's by Giles Fraser on page 14, title Book Club Bullies.
>
> [Mark:]
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1248669,00.html
>
> Well, I've read it. It seems reasonable enough on the whole,
> though fundamentalists and others in their theological vicinity
> are likely to find it rather patronizing and oversimplified.
Sorry but being a poor, illiterate fundie I dont understand what patronizing
means.
Phil
news:ddq0e0plj9hhieais...@news.markshouse.net...
The argument made is weak, factually inaccurate and slanted. In fact one
wonders if an argument could be more bigoted if one of these ill educated,
bullying, fundie bigots had written it.
"The common denominator is a refusal to accept that a sacred text can be
legitimately read in more than one way." Er no. Fundies (me included) accept
that texts can be read in many ways. We do not accept that texts generally
mean something other than what they say.
"Yet it is precisely here that fundamentalism is most vulnerable, for the
written word is wholly unsuited to the transmission of a single message."
Well if the written word is unsuitable what would he have used? The spoken
word with its inflections, accents and differing dialects is more suitable
is it? "Ich bin ein Berliner" anyone? What a stupid argument he makes.
"It is no coincidence that fundamentalism flourishes in places of low
literacy."
So the Aboriginees are fundamentalists are they? The US is a well known hot
bed of illiteracy more so than say rural China? It isnt a coincidence
because its a nonsense argument. It isnt true.
"The fundamentalist is the bully of the religious book club determined to
regulate the conversation and silence disagreement."
Its those evil fundies wot dunnit.
"The Rev Dr Giles Fraser is vicar of Putney and lecturer in philosophy at
Wadham College, Oxford."
The argument made by Rev Dr Giles Fraser shows that letters in front of your
name are no indication that you can make a decent argument, hide your own
bigotry or deserve to hold a teaching position.
Phil
news:ddq0e0plj9hhieais...@news.markshouse.net...
The argument made is weak, factually inaccurate and slanted. In fact one
Michael J Davis
<michael....@ntlworld.com> writes
>"Kevin Donnelly" <ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:A$a1wdBIsD4AFwJ$@kevdon.demon.co.uk...
>> I don't know if it is the "right" time, as in Biblical time or kairos,
>> but there's a very useful article on Fundamentalism in the Guardian for
>> Monday 28th June. No doubt some kind soul will find the URL for
>> it, but it's by Giles Fraser on page 14, title Book Club Bullies.
>> It would be helpful to me personally if a constructive exchange
>> of views were to follow. Is it possible?
>
>our own assumptions and presuppositions about What and Who we beleive in? I
>have yet to meet the Christian who is prepared to say " I COULD BE
>WRONG"............................All expect total agreement all the time.
Um, well they're on the wrong group here, then!
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<>{
"The very man who has argued you down,
will sometimes be found, years later,
to have been influenced by what you said." CSLewis
<>{
Nick Milton
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"The common denominator is a refusal to accept that a sacred text can be
>legitimately read in more than one way." Er no. Fundies (me included) accept
>that texts can be read in many ways. We do not accept that texts generally
>mean something other than what they say.
I am intrigued as to what you mean here Phil.
I would have thought "read in many ways" implied "can be seen to have
more than one meaning". Are you saying that a text can be read in many
ways, yet only have one meaning (ie "what it says")?
Nick
Angela Rayner
> GF is operating from a post-modernist position about the
> indeterminacy of all texts. If taken literally this position
> is IMO self-refuting or at least non-discussable. (GF's text
> about the issue has no determinate meaning nor has Gareth's
> discussion of GF nor has my reply to Gareth).
I think the position of textual indeterminacy is open to discussion.
Saying that texts have multiple and varied interpretations is not new.
Texts have always had multiple interpretations, but previously, they've
often occurred within what one might call an overall framework. For
example, it is assumed, when one studies English Literature that one will
study (at some point) Shakespeare. Shakespeare was assumed to be good
literature by those who determined good literature, and variations of
textual reading have been accepted because a variety of interpretations
are expected when evaluating literature. However, one only recognises
Shakespeare as good literature when one has been trained to read it
through the eyes of people who have read much literature and gained from
their reading. Now there is a problem because (say), it is legitimate for
non-westerners to question why Shakespeare dominates the curriculum or for
feminists to question why white males dominate the curriculum. We've lost
the framework from within which to call Shakespeare "good", and if one
deconstructs the community of teachers of literature, the literature
itself suffers. Any old person comes along, picks up Shakespeare, can't
understand the archaisms and denounces it as bad. If the community of
interpreters breaks down, then nobody's communiy is normative in
interpreting. I think the situation translates well to the current
discussions about the Bible.
The current problem is with regard to who does the interpreting of the
Bible. Putting the Bible into the hands of every untrained person means
that everybody thinks that they can interpret it. That's why I think the
Protestant principle of "sola scriptura" is flawed. I think that reading
Scripture well does take training. I do not mean the kind of training
that one gets at university or bible college. There is (often) an
assumption with that kind of training that the Bible does have one reading
(often, in the past, the historical-critical reading).
Incidentally, I am not convinced even that it is coherent any more to
speak of "fundamentalism". I can give you hallmarks of people that might
be said to be "fundamentalist", but they do not agree on the
interpretations that they come up with. Fundamentalism is too coherent a
name for a narrative, which is in fact a multiplicity of narratives.
I think the Bible requires interpretation. If we do not admit that we are
interpreters, I think we fail to speak truthfully. Good interpretation
acknowledges that the Bible is being read from a perspective. Why does it
matter? It matters, I think, because the Bible's interpreters are to be
the people of Israel, those who have always heard the Bible read. They
have been part of the on-going drama that we call "Bible". Indeed, we
only have the Bible because of that community. Thus, I believe that the
correct interpreters for the Bible are a community we call "Church".
Now that's not to say that anybody can't read the Bible for themselves,
but there is a question as to why their reading of it should be normative.
How do I know that they will be able to make sense of it? I wouldn't
listen to somebody who picked up a maths textbook, never having done any
maths, and tried to teach me A-Level. We require training to do physics,
to read English Literature, to play bridge, and to speak French. I think
a similar kind of training is required for hearing the Bible. But we have
a problem, and that is, the brokenness of the Church. Whilst the Church
remains so fragmented, we won't even have a framework to hold our
pluralities of meaning. I think multiple interpretations are good, but
they need to exist within a framework from within which they can be
weighed. At the moment, society (and maybe thus the Church) does not
accept authority because of its previous mis-use. At the moment, we want
to believe we're autonomous, free, rational beings who get to narrate what
the Bible does and doesn't say. After all... it's obvious what the
literal meaning is, isn't it? Some of us claim to have furthered our
thinking by acknowledging that we no longer think we're autonomous, free
and rational narrators, but we don't actually know who we are, only what
we're not. We're all suffering a kind of identity crisis that cannot be
solved by sticking plasters over the top of our culture. I fear we're
just going to have to wait it out.
> If claims that fundamentalists are too ready to assume their
> reading of the text to be the only legitimate one, have an
> agenda denying all authoritative or privileged readings of
> texts then 'fundamentalists' are right to repudiate such
> claims.
I'm never clear that the word "fundamentalist" really refers well to any
group. I'd rather use the word as an adjective than a noun, but even in
an adjectival sense, I'm not sure that those reading with a mindset called
"fundamental" are the same as those in the past, reading with the same
mindset.
> There is IMO a real case that 'fundamentalists' greatly
> underestimate the difficulty of determining the true meaning
> of Scripture for today, but such a case is undermined by claims
> that no authoritative meaning can be attained in principle.
It's tricky. I didn't much like GF's comparison of Bible reading with his
wife's book club because a book club is a voluntary community of
like-minded people. I don't think the Church exists in the same way.
The Church does need some way of reading that allows a wideness of
interpretations, at the same time as being able to claim authority for
those readings. This was managed previously by only allowing some of the
community to do the interpreting. There is a sense in which this might
happen again, but one must (I think) earn the trust of the community to do
that kind of work. Doing that kind of work takes years of close
association with a wide variety of members within a community. Our
current problems are severe because we exist at a time in which the whole
of the western world is de-constructing the way it has always read. I
don't like to hear talk of "the true meaning" of Scripture, because I
think there are various true meanings. I don't think that an
authoritative meaning can be attained outside of the interpretative
community. But, again we must ask... "whose interpretative community?
which narrative?"
>>
>> - "Of course, the reasons for resisting the idea that a text
>> requires interpretation are social and political, not principally
>> theological."
>>
>> It's a useful rule of thumb that statements prefaced by
>> "Of course" or "As everybody knows" or other such
>> intimidatory clauses are the ones most likely to be
>> wrong.
I don't know how one would determine whether reasons for resisting might
be social, political or theological. Here was me thinking that political
is theological is social...
>> I expect it's very enlightening to look for
>> the social and political influences on fundamentalism;
>> and on liberalism, and anythingelseism, too. But the
>> proximate cause of belief that the Bible has (in general)
>> a single clear meaning *is* theological.
I'd question whether the Bible has a single clear meaning. In places it
probably does, but how one might use (say) Genesis depends on what one is
trying to say. We require multiple meanings to form analogy, which is a
useful tool for story telling. And the Bible is, apart from being a book
we get to form doctrinal propositions from, the story of Israel. Further,
how do you tell the difference between social, political and theological?
> 'fundamentalists' start more or less consciously or articulately
> from the position that ideas that lead to global scepticism or
> relativism are for that reason clearly wrong. GF apparently does
> not share this approach. IMO the 'fundamentalists' are right on
> this point although the way these premises are applied in exegesis
> and hermeneutics are often questionable.
I think global relativism and scepticism help us to say who we think God
is not. They allow us room to deconstruct pictures of God that are
untrue. That means that we are strengthened in our opposition to idols.
They force a kind of mass doubt that make us return again to Jesus Christ
and ask, "who are you?".
If I do not understand what is meant by fundamentalism, I am more confused
about what is meant by relativism. I really don't think there is any
place to stand over and above where we're standing.
Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"So we say to God: Give us bread... We do not say, give us a prominent
position in assemblies or monuments and statues raised to us, nor silken
robes and musicians at meals, nor any other thing by which the soul is
estranged from the thought of God and higher things; no - but only bread!"
St. Gregory of Nyssa
Simon Crouch
news:Pine.LNX.4.60.04...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>
>[rest of tour-de-force deleted]
>
> I think global relativism and scepticism help us to say who we think God
> is not. They allow us room to deconstruct pictures of God that are
> untrue. That means that we are strengthened in our opposition to idols.
> They force a kind of mass doubt that make us return again to Jesus Christ
> and ask, "who are you?".
>
> If I do not understand what is meant by fundamentalism, I am more confused
> about what is meant by relativism. I really don't think there is any
> place to stand over and above where we're standing.
Relativism is one of those things that can be really hard to pin down, but
it does seem to become problematic when taken to extreme: to push your
analogy further, what is one to say, what is one to believe is one asserts
that there is not even a place to stand? If one has a position of absolute
relativism, how can one say "I believe" about anything? Also, is one to deny
that the "I believe" of someone a thousand years ago has less (or more!)
force than the "I believe" of someone today?
That is not to deny that at any particular time the way we describe
religious things might be imperfect. But there's a difference between
imperfection (which is susceptible to *elucidation*) and approximation
(which is susceptible to *correction*). Dogmatic relativism would blur these
distinctions, I suggest. "We have a place to stand, but it's a bit cloudy"
would be orthodox, but "we have no place to stand" would not be.
OK, I admit it, I partly stole the above from my reading of various bits of
"Mysterium Ecclesiae":
"With regard to this historical conditioning, it must first be observed that
the meaning of the pronouncements of faith depends partly upon the
expressive power of the language used at a certain point in time and in
particular circumstances. Moreover, it sometimes happens that some dogmatic
truth is first expressed incompletely (but not falsely), and at a later
date, when considered in a broader context of faith or human knowledge, it
receives a fuller and more perfect expression. In addition, when the Church
makes new pronouncements she intends to confirm or clarify what is in some
way contained in Sacred Scripture or in previous expressions of Tradition;
but at the same time she usually has the intention of solving certain
questions or removing certain errors.
All these things have to be taken into account in order that these
pronouncements may be properly interpreted. Finally, even though the truths
which the Church intends to teach through her dogmatic formulas are distinct
from the changeable conceptions of a given epoch and can be expressed
without them, nevertheless it can sometimes happen that these truths may be
enunciated by the Sacred Magisterium in terms that bear traces of such
conceptions.
In view of the above, it must be stated that the dogmatic formulas of the
Church's Magisterium were from the beginning suitable for communicating
revealed truth, and that as they are they remain forever suitable for
communicating this truth to those who interpret them correctly. It does not
however follow that every one of these formulas has always been or will
always be so to the same extent. For this reason theologians seek to define
exactly the intention of teaching proper to the various formulas, and in
carrying out this work they are of considerable assistance to the living
Magisterium of the Church, to which they remain subordinated.
For this reason also it often happens that ancient dogmatic formulas and
others closely connected with them remain living and fruitful in the
habitual usage of the Church, but with suitable expository and explanatory
additions that maintain and clarify their original meaning. In addition, it
has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of
these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by
the Sacred Magisterium, presented more clearly or more completely the same
meaning.
As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant
in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more
developed. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first, that
dogmatic formulas (or some category of them) cannot signify truth in a
determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which
to a certain extent distort of alter it; secondly, that these formulas
signify the truth only in an indeterminate way, this truth being like a goal
that is constantly being sought by means of such approximations. Those who
hold such an opinion do not avoid dogmatic relativism and they corrupt the
concept of the Church's infallibility relative to the truth to be taught or
held in a determinate way."
all the best,
Simon.
Phil
news:nds2e0pqps7u54ith...@4ax.com...
Texts can be read in many ways. The writer may have wished to convey more
than one thing by what he wrote. It is unlikely in the extreme that an
author intended that all possible readings of his writing be correct.
Knowing this we should exclude the ridiculous and fanciful and deal with
probable meanings.
Many texts mean only what they say explicitly.
Phil
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004
Bedouin
news:A$a1wdBIsD4AFwJ$@kevdon.demon.co.uk...
> but there's a very useful article on Fundamentalism in the Guardian for
> Monday 28th June. No doubt some kind soul will find the URL for
> it, but it's by Giles Fraser on page 14, title Book Club Bullies.
> It would be helpful to me personally if a constructive exchange
> of views were to follow. Is it possible?
> KD
Having now read the article I am not sure that I agree that it is "useful".
There is little agreement of what is actually meant by the term
"fundamentalism" and the author chooses an extreme set of beliefs to ascribe
to all "fundamentalists" and then seeks to parody those beliefs. I imagine
there would be very few people who would say they hold those views - I
certainly don't think I've met one.
Discussions leading out of that are more likely to end up in debates about
the definition of the term fundamentalism, and whether fundamentalists
believe proposition X; and not in a constructive exchange about whether
proposition X is reasonable.
Quasin
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> - "the written word is wholly unsuited to the transmission
>> of a single message."
>>
>> On the contrary: if you really want to transmit a single
>> message, and if that message isn't very simple, then the
>> written word is likely to be the best hope you've got.
>
> I'm not sure I quite agree.
>
> The problem with a written explanation is that it's inherently
> one-way (at least in the form being discussed here).
That's what I think about sermons. :-)
> But I'd have thought that a two-way verbal discussion would
> generally be preferable, if such a thing was feasible.
Yes! 2-way communication, so people are invited to say "I don't
understand, can you explain that point?" or "but what about this fact
that seems to contradict your theory?" or "nice theory, but how does
it apply to real life?"
So much more is gained by discussion than by lecture, unless the
lecturer is the expert and the rest aren't.
Given that Christianity is experiential, I sure hope the professional
clergy aren't the only experts at a meeting of the church!
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:21:02 +0100, "Phil"
I'm not Phil, but yes, I'd be inclined to agree with him here. Take,
for example, the NT passage about Jesus walking on the water and
calming the storm. Now, it's clearly written as a historical
narrative, and can be taken as just that. But it can also be read
metaphorically and inspirationally ("Jesus calmed the physical storm
for the disciples, and he can also calm the storms of my life"), as
well as giving us an insight into the character of Jesus ("He cared
enough about the disciples to want to help them out"). And it opens up
plenty of ancillary questions that are worthy of further study ("Why
did Jesus carry out such a rather pointless and mechanistic
miracle?"). But, however you read it, it's still fundamentally a
historical narrative and a statement of fact. The narrative says that
Jesus did walk on the water, and there's no sensible reading of the
text which can make it say that he didn't.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"I've got too much life running through my veins going to waste"
Gareth McCaughan
> "Gareth McCaughan" <gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:87smcft...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
> > Mark Goodge wrote:
> >
> > [Kevin Donnelly, hoping for a constructive exchange of views:]
> > >> I don't know if it is the "right" time, as in Biblical time or kairos,
> > >> but there's a very useful article on Fundamentalism in the Guardian for
> > >> Monday 28th June. No doubt some kind soul will find the URL for
> > >> it, but it's by Giles Fraser on page 14, title Book Club Bullies.
> >
> > [Mark:]
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1248669,00.html
> >
> > Well, I've read it. It seems reasonable enough on the whole,
> > though fundamentalists and others in their theological vicinity
> > are likely to find it rather patronizing and oversimplified.
>
> Sorry but being a poor, illiterate fundie I dont understand what patronizing
> means.
Obviously you don't mean what you say, but I'm not sure what
you *do* mean. If you're annoyed at something I've written
(e.g., my spelling of "patronize" or my statement that
GF's article is "reasonable enough on the whole"), then
feel free to tell me what and I'll try to answer.
Andrew Criddle
I'm going to make criticisms of your post below Angela, so
I'm going to start with thanking you for a very helpful and
thought-provoking response.
I think you may be confusing problems of evaluating a text
with problems of understanding it. Someone who claims that
Shakespeare's values are fundamentally hierarchical in a way
alien to modern sensibilities, is not IMHO misunderstanding
Shakespeare, just rather hostile to him. In the asme way the
18th century critics who complained that Shakespeare did not
obey the Greek classical unities and had a taste for very
unhappy endings were not misunderstanding him.
>
> The current problem is with regard to who does the interpreting of the
> Bible. Putting the Bible into the hands of every untrained person means
> that everybody thinks that they can interpret it. That's why I think the
> Protestant principle of "sola scriptura" is flawed. I think that reading
> Scripture well does take training. I do not mean the kind of training
> that one gets at university or bible college. There is (often) an
> assumption with that kind of training that the Bible does have one reading
> (often, in the past, the historical-critical reading).
I think the historical-critical method has an important place
although I absolutely agree it is not the only valid method.
>
> Incidentally, I am not convinced even that it is coherent any more to
> speak of "fundamentalism". I can give you hallmarks of people that might
> be said to be "fundamentalist", but they do not agree on the
> interpretations that they come up with. Fundamentalism is too coherent a
> name for a narrative, which is in fact a multiplicity of narratives.
fundamentalism, for the purpose of this discussion is a strategy
of interpreting texts not a set of beliefs about specific
interpretations of particular passages.
>
> I think the Bible requires interpretation. If we do not admit that we are
> interpreters, I think we fail to speak truthfully. Good interpretation
> acknowledges that the Bible is being read from a perspective. Why does it
> matter? It matters, I think, because the Bible's interpreters are to be
> the people of Israel, those who have always heard the Bible read. They
> have been part of the on-going drama that we call "Bible". Indeed, we
> only have the Bible because of that community. Thus, I believe that the
> correct interpreters for the Bible are a community we call "Church".
>
I agree that religiously relevant interpretations of Scripture
must interpret Scripture as canonical, as the central texts of
a religious community. I am uneasy with any implication that only
genuinely spiritual and holy people can reliably interpret the Bible,
I feel this is an almost Donatist position.
(Cyril of Alexandria was a profound interpreter of Scripture)
> Now that's not to say that anybody can't read the Bible for themselves,
> but there is a question as to why their reading of it should be normative.
> How do I know that they will be able to make sense of it? I wouldn't
> listen to somebody who picked up a maths textbook, never having done any
> maths, and tried to teach me A-Level. We require training to do physics,
> to read English Literature, to play bridge, and to speak French. I think
> a similar kind of training is required for hearing the Bible. But we have
> a problem, and that is, the brokenness of the Church. Whilst the Church
> remains so fragmented, we won't even have a framework to hold our
> pluralities of meaning. I think multiple interpretations are good, but
> they need to exist within a framework from within which they can be
> weighed. At the moment, society (and maybe thus the Church) does not
> accept authority because of its previous mis-use. At the moment, we want
> to believe we're autonomous, free, rational beings who get to narrate what
> the Bible does and doesn't say. After all... it's obvious what the
> literal meaning is, isn't it? Some of us claim to have furthered our
> thinking by acknowledging that we no longer think we're autonomous, free
> and rational narrators, but we don't actually know who we are, only what
> we're not. We're all suffering a kind of identity crisis that cannot be
> solved by sticking plasters over the top of our culture. I fear we're
> just going to have to wait it out.
I was trying to navigate between the fundamentalist claim that the
true meaning is obvious and the post-modernist claim that there is
no true meaning. I am uneasy about saying that the true meaning is,
by definition, the one taught by the united voice of the Church.
>
<SNIP>
>
> > There is IMO a real case that 'fundamentalists' greatly
> > underestimate the difficulty of determining the true meaning
> > of Scripture for today, but such a case is undermined by claims
> > that no authoritative meaning can be attained in principle.
>
> It's tricky. I didn't much like GF's comparison of Bible reading with his
> wife's book club because a book club is a voluntary community of
> like-minded people. I don't think the Church exists in the same way.
> The Church does need some way of reading that allows a wideness of
> interpretations, at the same time as being able to claim authority for
> those readings. This was managed previously by only allowing some of the
> community to do the interpreting. There is a sense in which this might
> happen again, but one must (I think) earn the trust of the community to do
> that kind of work. Doing that kind of work takes years of close
> association with a wide variety of members within a community. Our
> current problems are severe because we exist at a time in which the whole
> of the western world is de-constructing the way it has always read. I
> don't like to hear talk of "the true meaning" of Scripture, because I
> think there are various true meanings. I don't think that an
> authoritative meaning can be attained outside of the interpretative
> community. But, again we must ask... "whose interpretative community?
> which narrative?"
>
IMVHO the very act of reading scripture as the canonical text
of a religious community may be enough to allow authoritative
readings of scripture.
<SNIP>
> > 'fundamentalists' start more or less consciously or articulately
> > from the position that ideas that lead to global scepticism or
> > relativism are for that reason clearly wrong. GF apparently does
> > not share this approach. IMO the 'fundamentalists' are right on
> > this point although the way these premises are applied in exegesis
> > and hermeneutics are often questionable.
>
> I think global relativism and scepticism help us to say who we think God
> is not. They allow us room to deconstruct pictures of God that are
> untrue. That means that we are strengthened in our opposition to idols.
> They force a kind of mass doubt that make us return again to Jesus Christ
> and ask, "who are you?".
IMHO talking about God does involve issues about the analogical
use of language. Issues about the otherness of God and the
inadequacy of language to describe him. But not all or even most
issues of Biblical interpretation are primarily about the problem
of using language about God.
Andrew Criddle
Angela Rayner
> "Angela Rayner" <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.60.04...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>> If I do not understand what is meant by fundamentalism, I am more confused
>> about what is meant by relativism. I really don't think there is any
>> place to stand over and above where we're standing.
>
> Relativism is one of those things that can be really hard to pin down, but
> it does seem to become problematic when taken to extreme: to push your
> analogy further, what is one to say, what is one to believe is one asserts
> that there is not even a place to stand?
That would be ridiculous :-). I was trying to be careful with the wording
when I said that we can't stand other than where we're standing. I didn't
say that there was nowhere to stand at all. There cannot be nowhere to
stand - it's not possible to free fall. Relativism may well be
foundationalism inverted (since you took your stuff from encyclicals, I
admit to taking that from John Yoder).
> If one has a position of absolute
> relativism, how can one say "I believe" about anything?
One cannot. But being able to say "I believe" about something does not
require one to be whatever the opposite of relativist is.
> Also, is one to deny
> that the "I believe" of someone a thousand years ago has less (or more!)
> force than the "I believe" of someone today?
It depends what the "I believe" is, who says it, its more precise context
etc etc.
> That is not to deny that at any particular time the way we describe
> religious things might be imperfect. But there's a difference between
> imperfection (which is susceptible to *elucidation*) and approximation
> (which is susceptible to *correction*). Dogmatic relativism would blur these
> distinctions, I suggest. "We have a place to stand, but it's a bit cloudy"
> would be orthodox, but "we have no place to stand" would not be.
We've no place to build houses that will stay upright except on rock :-).
I think we do have places to stand, but I'm cautious of saying "yes" to
some kind of philosophical foundationalism that lurks behind that.
> OK, I admit it, I partly stole the above from my reading of various bits of
> "Mysterium Ecclesiae":
>
<snip the first part that seems unproblematic.> I suppose I still have
difficulties with the difference between doctrine and discipline though.
I fail to think that good distinctions can be made between them. That
aside, the document so far seems fine.
> As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant
> in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more
> developed. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first, that
> dogmatic formulas (or some category of them) cannot signify truth in a
> determinate way,
If this is a document that asks for realism (as opposed to non-realism),
I've not a problem with it. I think dogmatic formulas, (although part of
the language we use for learning to say what we say), do actually have
referrants.
> but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which
> to a certain extent distort of alter it;
This seems ok when balanced by some of the statements made above it.
However, I really think that sometimes changeable approximation is the
best that we can do. Some of the language, for example, for describing
what happens at the Eucharist only makes sense within an Aristotelean
framework. If one rejects the framework, does one reject the real
presence? I think not. If the above document is consonant with that kind
of understanding, then I don't see a problem. I don't know whether
Aristotelean language is contained in dogmatic formulas, so perhaps this
document refers to the creeds. What is meant by dogmatic formulas? There
will clearly be a problem where we've not all accepted the same dogmatic
formulas.
> secondly, that these formulas
> signify the truth only in an indeterminate way, this truth being like a goal
> that is constantly being sought by means of such approximations.
Much of this hangs on what is meant by an "indeterminant way". I want to
be a bit cautious because when I say "angels, archangels and all of the
company of heaven", I'm a little bit hazy about exactly what I mean. I am
looking forward to meeting archangels - they're clearly something, but I
don't know that I know quite what. I want to be even more cautious with
regard to God. Infinite, ineffable, almighty, omnipotent, benevolent,
omniscient - all words that signify someting of God, but they signify by
approximations. To claim to know God determinantly is one thing, but to
claim that one can speak of God determinatly is another.
> Those who
> hold such an opinion do not avoid dogmatic relativism and they corrupt the
> concept of the Church's infallibility relative to the truth to be taught or
> held in a determinate way."
When I reject relativism or foundationalism, I do so because I think that
to accept them requires acceptance of a philosophical system which I
reject. I realise that the Church must teach in a determinate way, but
all of our articulations of that determinateness (ewww) are indeterminate.
For some reason I want to explain that hesitancy in terms of our
creatureliness. By being other than God, we can only be indeterminant in
our articulation. Of course, it may be that something different is meant
by determinance. I don't know how one would begin to say what was meant
by that :).
Angela Rayner
> Angela Rayner <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.60.04...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>...
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Andrew Criddle wrote:
>
>
> I think you may be confusing problems of evaluating a text
> with problems of understanding it. Someone who claims that
> Shakespeare's values are fundamentally hierarchical in a way
> alien to modern sensibilities, is not IMHO misunderstanding
> Shakespeare, just rather hostile to him. In the asme way the
> 18th century critics who complained that Shakespeare did not
> obey the Greek classical unities and had a taste for very
> unhappy endings were not misunderstanding him.
I don't see how evaluation can be separate from understanding. Perhaps
you could draw the analogy back to Scripture and fundamentalists because
(it being late), I fail to understand what you mean, and it sounds
interesting.
> I think the historical-critical method has an important place
> although I absolutely agree it is not the only valid method.
I prefer the way von-Balthasar writes using metaphor. I'm not keen on the
historical-critical method, but will admit it does have some sort of
place. However, it makes all sorts of presumptions about the text that
I'm not prepared to accept. It presumes the text can mean something
outside of its interpretative community.
>> Incidentally, I am not convinced even that it is coherent any more to
>> speak of "fundamentalism". I can give you hallmarks of people that might
>> be said to be "fundamentalist", but they do not agree on the
>> interpretations that they come up with. Fundamentalism is too coherent a
>> name for a narrative, which is in fact a multiplicity of narratives.
>
> fundamentalism, for the purpose of this discussion is a strategy
> of interpreting texts not a set of beliefs about specific
> interpretations of particular passages.
OK. That agrees with my "adjectival" use of the word.
> I agree that religiously relevant interpretations of Scripture
> must interpret Scripture as canonical, as the central texts of
> a religious community. I am uneasy with any implication that only
> genuinely spiritual and holy people can reliably interpret the Bible,
> I feel this is an almost Donatist position.
Hmmm, I'd tend to agree. However, that is not what I said. I think one
can reliably interpret the Bible so long as one has learned the language
of the community. One does not need to be genuinely spiritual and holy,
just trained to be part of a community in which normative readings take
place. Of course, we hope that this will make you holy, but it takes a
long time.
> I was trying to navigate between the fundamentalist claim that the
> true meaning is obvious and the post-modernist claim that there is
> no true meaning.
The post-modernist claim that "there is no true meaning" is a rejection (I
think) of the modernism that claimed untraditioned meaning. I'd prefer to
say (as somebody who finds oneself 'postmodern' that "there is no meaning
outside of the interpretative community".
> I am uneasy about saying that the true meaning is,
> by definition, the one taught by the united voice of the Church.
I'm not sure that I said that either. I pointed out a problem with
interpretation exists because of the divided voices of the Church. I also
pointed out that there might be various true meanings according to
context. "True meaning" to me, sounds coldly scientific. I would not
claim "true meaning" for a fairy tale, and the Bible is so much more.
But, neither would I deny that the fairy tale was able to shape lives, as
is the Bible, and to produce meanings within those lives. I can't deny,
however, that the Church must be able to speak definitively if possible.
I just think that as things stand, it's a near impossible task.
> IMVHO the very act of reading scripture as the canonical text
> of a religious community may be enough to allow authoritative
> readings of scripture.
That would be up to the community to decide.
> IMHO talking about God does involve issues about the analogical
> use of language. Issues about the otherness of God and the
> inadequacy of language to describe him. But not all or even most
> issues of Biblical interpretation are primarily about the problem
> of using language about God.
Hmm, I'd say it does boil down to issues that relate to the problem of
using language about God and thus the problem of speaking of God's
character. I also think that a lot of the issues surrounding Biblical
interpretation occur through an attempt to use the Bible as a text book
for defining doctrine, for defining cognitive propositions. And I think
that that way of using the Bible owes more to Descartes than to the
Fathers.
Phil
Sorry Gareth I meant it to be humerous going on the context of the article
(where fundie and poor and illiterate were linked by the writer).
I apologise for not being funnier.
regards
Phil
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Gareth McCaughan
>>> Sorry but being a poor, illiterate fundie I dont understand what
>>> patronizing means.
>>
>> Obviously you don't mean what you say, but I'm not sure what
>> you *do* mean. If you're annoyed at something I've written
>> (e.g., my spelling of "patronize" or my statement that
>> GF's article is "reasonable enough on the whole"), then
>> feel free to tell me what and I'll try to answer.
>
> Sorry Gareth I meant it to be humerous going on the context of the article
> (where fundie and poor and illiterate were linked by the writer).
Indeed. I was just concerned that you might have got the
impression that I agreed with him. (He's probably right
that there's a correlation, but the smear I think he's
attempting seems pretty stupid to me as well as unpleasant.)
> I apologise for not being funnier.
If every failure to amuse required apology, then I'd be in
big, big, big trouble.
Kevin Donnelly
<bedouin@yonderblue.?.uk.invalid> writes
OK - is it worth asking in what ranking order certain propositions about
the Bible can be placed? It seems to me that this has always been at
the heart of discussion ever since I first heard the word
fundamentalist.
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Wythenshawe Prompt Organiser
http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/prompt
Website www.kevdon.demon.co.uk
Phil
> Phil Saunders wrote:
>
> >>> Sorry but being a poor, illiterate fundie I dont understand what
> >>> patronizing means.
> >>
> >> Obviously you don't mean what you say, but I'm not sure what
> >> you *do* mean. If you're annoyed at something I've written
> >> (e.g., my spelling of "patronize" or my statement that
> >> GF's article is "reasonable enough on the whole"), then
> >> feel free to tell me what and I'll try to answer.
> >
> > Sorry Gareth I meant it to be humerous going on the context of the
article
> > (where fundie and poor and illiterate were linked by the writer).
>
> Indeed. I was just concerned that you might have got the
> impression that I agreed with him. (He's probably right
> that there's a correlation, but the smear I think he's
> attempting seems pretty stupid to me as well as unpleasant.)
I think you do agree with him to some extent but not to the extent that your
views are objectionable imo.
> > I apologise for not being funnier.
>
> If every failure to amuse required apology, then I'd be in
> big, big, big trouble.
thnx
Bedouin
Indeed - I agree that that would be a useful discussion but that is probably
better without the loaded overtones of the term "fundamentalist", let alone
the sort of parody given in that article.
I for one am a greast supporter of the authority of the bible, but don't
know whether that makes me a fundamentalist.
Nick Milton
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Nick Milton" <nickspamt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nds2e0pqps7u54ith...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:21:02 +0100, "Phil"
>> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"The common denominator is a refusal to accept that a sacred text can be
>> >legitimately read in more than one way." Er no. Fundies (me included)
>accept
>> >that texts can be read in many ways. We do not accept that texts
>generally
>> >mean something other than what they say.
>>
>> I am intrigued as to what you mean here Phil.
>>
>> I would have thought "read in many ways" implied "can be seen to have
>> more than one meaning". Are you saying that a text can be read in many
>> ways, yet only have one meaning (ie "what it says")?
>
>Texts can be read in many ways. The writer may have wished to convey more
>than one thing by what he wrote. It is unlikely in the extreme that an
>author intended that all possible readings of his writing be correct.
>Knowing this we should exclude the ridiculous and fanciful and deal with
>probable meanings.
I suspect this is where the subjectivity comes in. What seems
ridiculous and fanciful to one person, may be probable to another.
Simon Crouch
news:Pine.LNX.4.60.04...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> I suppose I still have
> difficulties with the difference between doctrine and discipline though.
> I fail to think that good distinctions can be made between them.
Please do elaborate: we sort of started off on an exchange about this a
while ago - I'd love to hear your thinking on this problem.
all the best,
Simon.
Angela Rayner
To be honest, I'm not sure that I've got much further on this at all. But
the problem (as I understand it) comes down to the difficulty of calling
one set of practices "doctrine" (which has the implication of not being
changeable) and another set of practices "discipline" (these practices may
differ across communities). You may think it odd to call "doctrine" a set
of practices, but I see doctrine as a way of describing how we practice
what has been revealed.
When I look back to the Old Testament to some of the laws, they are there
for practical reasons. Some of them are no longer practiced by Christians
because the (for example, hygiene) reasons for keeping them have vanished.
I can understand why we might want to say some things are doctrinal - that
Christ was made man, and was begotten of the Father. But bearing in mind
the current divisions within the Church, it is unclear to me why we
fail to uphold certain practices, and whether other practices are open
to being changed.
For example, although I adhere to the [offical] Anglican position on
homosexual practice, I want to ask questions about why we believe what we
do. Has God decreed an eternal law, set in stone about the sexual
practices of his people? Or has God given the Church authority to discern
and pronounce so that we might practice sexuality according to changed
cultural situations? If the Church were to declare the issues surrounding
homosexual practice to be doctrinal, then they would not be open to
change. It seems to me that if Gentiles can be allowed not to retain
Jewish precepts, then there is a kind of authority for objecting to
practices that have served their purpose. I want to be very cautious here
of 'superceding' Jewish practice! Many of our small practices declare
something of the character of God.
If, on the other hand, the Church were to declare the issues to be matters
pertaining to discipline, then it would be possible to carry on different
practices in different parts of the Church. But does it make sense, when
we speak of weighty issues, to be able to wander from one part of the
church to the next, never remembering which cultural practices the
Christians there adhere to? When does changing something substantial
actually affect our essence, our core identity? What is a matter of
substance? When (from our pov) the reasons for doing something have
vanished, should we continue doing it anyway, presuming that God knows
something we don't? Is that too utilitarian a question? Why do we need
"reasons" for doing things? (I personally like what some might regard as
"mindless repetitions" in liturgy because I see them as play. I like the
practices that Anglo-catholics cultivate without thinking about because
it's only after you've been doing them that you learn to think about them
anyway. I've read so many explanations for why we cross ourselves or why
we bow at certain points, all or none of which might hold. But what some
would view as external meaningless ritual becomes for others a new
language and way of worshipping.)
Lots of the kinds of questions I find interesting relate to how and why
God privileges Jewish practices. He sent his Son as a Jewish man - is
that incidental to His purposes or integral to them? What does it mean to
call something integral... how do we know it's integral? What if we call
it integral, and then it comes to be ignored by most of the Church? I
wonder whether Jesus' Jewishness matters as much as Jesus' maleness
matters. How does Jesus' maleness matter? How does Jesus' Jewishness
matter? What does it mean to say that something matters if what we think
matters is ignored by those we call "Christian" just down the road?
I'd want to be clearly convinced that a practice were a doctrinal one
before hearing it declared immutable. I regard the kind of Kingdom that
Christ proclaimed to be a mission, as opposed to a fully worked out
practice. Thus how we determine what is a moral precept or a ceremonial
precept (Aquinas), I fail to be clear about. I do need to read more
Aquinas, I know... I wonder whether what I'm doing is debating the
infallibility of the Church. For example, John Howard Yoder would say:
"In contrast to other views of the church, [the radical reformation model]
is one which holds more strongly than others to a positive doctrine of
fallibility. Any existing church is not only fallible but in fact
peccable. That is why there needs to be a constant potential for
reformation and in more dramatic situations a readiness for the
reformation even to be 'radical'."
I want to claim humility here. An openness to change means that I'm
willing to admit that I might be getting it wrong. But what if what I'm
doing is not practicing humility, but acting out of fear? Am I afraid of
the Church speaking authoritatively in case I don't agree with the
outcome? Is it kinder to speak with authority sooner? I think Yoder here
stands in direct opposition (although there may be subtleties I've yet to
spot) to a more RC model. Part of what I fear about the RC model is that
if the oppressed, the prisoners and the orphans change in their identity
to being oppressed more by the Church's doctrine than anything else, what
does that say about the Church's practice? I think it is crucial that any
kind of church practice is open to being critiqued from the inside. Do
our structures of authority allow for dissenting voices, and if not, how
might they do so? I think that is an important question. What follows
from that is not, "how do we then capitulate to dissenters?", but "how do
we imitate Christ in a way that ensures we're not the people throwing
stones?"
Is the way that we want to change our minds dependent upon what most of
the Church end up practicing or do we trust certain practitioners (not
necessarily the holiest or 'nicest') to formulate doctrine for us? How do
we know whether a conservative and unchanging stance is merely a defensive
response to a culture that would want to eradicate distinctiveness or
whether the stance represents a form of oppression? A lot of what counts
as oppression seems to me to be about who can shout "I'm hurting" loudest.
How do we determine what is genuinely oppressive and what is asking
somebody to carry a cross? I don't know...
These are all rather simple questions... I can't help but get the feeling
that I've missed a nub or a gist somewhere. I also can't help thinking
that the current intellectual climate makes it very difficult to see the
theological centre in certain questions. All of the above seems to lack
the kind of coherence that I'd like to claim for Christian teaching...
So with the rejoinder that I would denounce the voluntary nature of the
believer's church, I leave you with Yoder again:
"I can't bring answers... If I thought I knew where to go from here, I
wouldn't have the right to come and say it, because that wouldn't have
been believer's church process. Part of what it means to be the
believer's church is to believe that there are answers that we don't have
yet. And that we get them, not by inviting someone from twelve miles down
the road to talk from a distant history, but by working together at
specimens, symbols, celebration, studies that say what we can say even
though we know that we don't yet know it. That stated hope is all I intend
to offer. The rest is for you."
Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"What is worst of all is to advocate Christianity, not because it is true,
but because it might prove useful..."
T. S. Eliot
Michael J Davis
<philip....@ntlworld.com> writes
Phil:
>> > Sorry but being a poor, illiterate fundie I dont understand what
>patronizing
>> > means.
>
>Sorry Gareth I meant it to be humerous going on the context of the article
>(where fundie and poor and illiterate were linked by the writer).
I smiled anyway! ;-)
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Computers create equality -
now anyone can make a really big impact
by a simple mistake.
<><
Jet Wood
> Take, for example, the NT passage about Jesus walking on the water
> and calming the storm. Now, it's clearly written as a historical
> narrative, and can be taken as just that. But it can also be read
> metaphorically and inspirationally ("Jesus calmed the physical storm
> for the disciples, and he can also calm the storms of my life"), as
> well as giving us an insight into the character of Jesus ("He cared
> enough about the disciples to want to help them out"). And it opens up
> plenty of ancillary questions that are worthy of further study ("Why
> did Jesus carry out such a rather pointless and mechanistic
> miracle?"). But, however you read it, it's still fundamentally a
> historical narrative and a statement of fact. The narrative says that
> Jesus did walk on the water, and there's no sensible reading of the
> text which can make it say that he didn't.
Clearly you are right to say that one cannot read the narrative as
saying other than Jesus walked on water. But does that get us anywhere?
Equally clearly, what it says is only a vehicle for conveying what it
means, and as you begin to ripple the surface of it, it is apparent that
the image you see through it is refracted in many ways.
--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.
Jet Wood
> Dave Shield wrote:
>> The problem with a written explanation is that it's inherently
>> one-way (at least in the form being discussed here).
>
> That's what I think about sermons. :-)
>
>> But I'd have thought that a two-way verbal discussion would
>> generally be preferable, if such a thing was feasible.
>
> Yes! 2-way communication, so people are invited to say "I don't
> understand, can you explain that point?" or "but what about this fact
> that seems to contradict your theory?" or "nice theory, but how does
> it apply to real life?"
>
> So much more is gained by discussion than by lecture, unless the
> lecturer is the expert and the rest aren't.
>
> Given that Christianity is experiential, I sure hope the professional
> clergy aren't the only experts at a meeting of the church!
The commonest reaction I get when asking people to join in and discuss
things during a sermon is a stilled silence. Any ideas as to how I can
make the proposition more attractive?
Simon Crouch
news:Pine.LNX.4.60.04...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Simon Crouch wrote:
>
> > "Angela Rayner" <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.60.04...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> >> [snippo]
> >> I suppose I still have
> >> difficulties with the difference between doctrine and discipline
though.
> >> I fail to think that good distinctions can be made between them.
> >
> > Please do elaborate: we sort of started off on an exchange about this a
> > while ago - I'd love to hear your thinking on this problem.
Thank you so much for taking the trouble to write in such depth - this is
deeply fascinating. I beg you to be patient with what must be a rather
pedestrian response on my behalf.
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure that I've got much further on this at all. But
> the problem (as I understand it) comes down to the difficulty of calling
> one set of practices "doctrine" (which has the implication of not being
> changeable) and another set of practices "discipline" (these practices may
> differ across communities). You may think it odd to call "doctrine" a set
> of practices, but I see doctrine as a way of describing how we practice
> what has been revealed.
No, no, I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach. (But maybe one has
to enquire more deeply into the relationship and possible distiction between
orthopraxy and orthodoxy. Perhaps James has something relevant here.
Simplisticly, I want to be able to say something like "othopraxy enables
orthodoxy enables orthopraxy enables..." in an continuing loop between the
internal and external fora and that they are separable at an instant but
that they are a unity in their teleology).
I suppose that I start on this problem from the point of view of trying to
answer the question: "what does one have to do and to believe in order to be
a christian?" It is quite possible to formulate in language short credal sta
tements that encapsulate a (correct) answer to the second question: "I
believe x to be the case". One then has to enquire into what "believe", "x"
and "to be the case" means (in order to come to some common understanding of
orthodoxy) and then to enquire as to what that belief entails (in order to
come to orthopraxy). So in my naive, simplistic formulation, I want to be
able to say that "doctrine" consists of those things (beliefs and actions,
that form a reinforcing feedback loop) that are necessary for one to be a
christian or that are implied by those necessities.
So is there any space in this for "discipline"? Again, being terribly naive,
I want to be able to say that it is a "preparatio evangelica"; and more than
that I want to be able to say that it supports us fallible humans, as
individuals and as gathered together in organisations, in maintaining
doctrine (understood as orthodoxy and orthopraxy). In teleological terms,
perhaps what I want to say is that the end of a human consists in living out
the christian life (and that end is described doctrinally) and that
discipline provides the crutches that aid us humans in that end (and perhaps
the scaffolding that holds our organisations up). Different people and
different groups of people are fallible in different ways and therefore we
should expect disciplinary formulations to vary with people, place and time;
whereas doctrine, expressed abstractly in the teleology of the human walk
with God, is immutable.
>
> When I look back to the Old Testament to some of the laws, they are there
> for practical reasons. Some of them are no longer practiced by Christians
> because the (for example, hygiene) reasons for keeping them have vanished.
> I can understand why we might want to say some things are doctrinal - that
> Christ was made man, and was begotten of the Father. But bearing in mind
> the current divisions within the Church, it is unclear to me why we
> fail to uphold certain practices, and whether other practices are open
> to being changed.
You've identified the problem: how does one recognize where the boundaries
between one's arms and one's crutches are? At the extremes, it would seem
quite easy to do this, but there are murky boundaries.
>[snip]
>
> If, on the other hand, the Church were to declare the issues to be matters
> pertaining to discipline, then it would be possible to carry on different
> practices in different parts of the Church. But does it make sense, when
> we speak of weighty issues, to be able to wander from one part of the
> church to the next, never remembering which cultural practices the
> Christians there adhere to?
If you buy my position above, then yes, on some issues it is possible (and
even necessary) to be different, taking Paul's teaching to speak Greek to
the Greeks with a little pinch of allegory
> When does changing something substantial
> actually affect our essence, our core identity? What is a matter of
> substance?
Oof! Too hard at this time of the evening.
> When (from our pov) the reasons for doing something have
> vanished, should we continue doing it anyway, presuming that God knows
> something we don't? Is that too utilitarian a question?
Participating with the "communion of saints" comes to mind here, but I'm not
sure what I want to say about it :-)
>[snip]
>
> I'd want to be clearly convinced that a practice were a doctrinal one
> before hearing it declared immutable. I regard the kind of Kingdom that
> Christ proclaimed to be a mission, as opposed to a fully worked out
> practice. Thus how we determine what is a moral precept or a ceremonial
> precept (Aquinas), I fail to be clear about. I do need to read more
> Aquinas, I know... I wonder whether what I'm doing is debating the
> infallibility of the Church. For example, John Howard Yoder would say:
>
> "In contrast to other views of the church, [the radical reformation model]
> is one which holds more strongly than others to a positive doctrine of
> fallibility. Any existing church is not only fallible but in fact
> peccable. That is why there needs to be a constant potential for
> reformation and in more dramatic situations a readiness for the
> reformation even to be 'radical'."
Although on one level this seems eminently reasonable (and anyone who has
worked in a large company should be ROTFL at the moment), one has to square
it with the promise that the Spirit will guide us into all truth. And again,
exaggerating the claim, is the "credo" of someone from a thousand years ago
worth less than one from now? Of course not, but it is quite reasonable to
claim that the shape of the crutches and of the scaffolding we need changes
as we change as humans.
> Part of what I fear about the RC model is that
> if the oppressed, the prisoners and the orphans change in their identity
> to being oppressed more by the Church's doctrine than anything else, what
> does that say about the Church's practice?
I think that that is an incredibly important thing to say and an incredibly
important issue to deal with.
> [snip]
all the best,
Simon.
Ken Down
wrote:
> Given that Christianity is experiential, I sure hope the professional
> clergy aren't the only experts at a meeting of the church!
There is a place for both forms, dialogue and sermon. It is valuable for
Christians to share with one another their experiences and their
understandings. It is also valuable to have someone who is specially trained
in theology to explain the correct meaning of Scripture and doctrine.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Angela Rayner
Ask them not to say anything and then make lots of outrageous
pronouncements :)
Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"So we say to God: Give us bread... We do not say, give us a prominent
Andrew Criddle
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Andrew Criddle wrote:
>
> > Angela Rayner <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.60.04...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>...
> >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Andrew Criddle wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think you may be confusing problems of evaluating a text
> > with problems of understanding it. Someone who claims that
> > Shakespeare's values are fundamentally hierarchical in a way
> > alien to modern sensibilities, is not IMHO misunderstanding
> > Shakespeare, just rather hostile to him. In the asme way the
> > 18th century critics who complained that Shakespeare did not
> > obey the Greek classical unities and had a taste for very
> > unhappy endings were not misunderstanding him.
>
> I don't see how evaluation can be separate from understanding. Perhaps
> you could draw the analogy back to Scripture and fundamentalists because
> (it being late), I fail to understand what you mean, and it sounds
> interesting.
>
>
ground between what the Bible (or any other text) means
to those for whom it is authoritative and what it means
to those who reject it.
I think that someone who rejected the Bible could still
perceive that the Bible's view of God is incompatible
with polytheism pantheism and (radical) dualism, and agree
that the Bible disapproves of revenge as a human goal.
He or she might regard some of these points as reasons to
reject the Bible but this would not prevent accurate
perception of them.
Andrew Criddle
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>The commonest reaction I get when asking people to join in and discuss
>things during a sermon is a stilled silence. Any ideas as to how I can
>make the proposition more attractive?
I don't think you can, and I'm not sure that you should. Most people
don't like speaking up in a large crowd of people, and those that do
tend to be the ones that like the sound of their own opinions. I think
there's a place for having a Q&A session at the end of a speech (or
sermon), but you can't realistically expect genuine dialogue in a
large group of people. That's one of the reasons why I consider that
the real heart of any church is in the housegroup (or cell group, or
whatever you want to call it), where there are few enough people for
all to contribute to a discussion.
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"Lose yourself in the music, the moment, you own it, you better
never let it go"
David Aldred
<cwy...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>The commonest reaction I get when asking people to join in and discuss
>things during a sermon is a stilled silence. Any ideas as to how I can
>make the proposition more attractive?
Start by making it easier - ask people to discuss things with the people
next to them, or with the people they came with. After doing that a few
times, you might start to get people being more willing to say something
more publicly.
Most people regard a sermon as a time when they will listen, absorb and
reflect upon what is being said: joining in implies a rather different
dynamic and needs preparation.
--
------------------ -------------------------
|\avid Aldred / Da...@familyaldred.org.uk \ Nottingham, England
|/ --------------------------------
Gareth McCaughan
[me:]
>> Indeed. I was just concerned that you might have got the
>> impression that I agreed with him. (He's probably right
>> that there's a correlation, but the smear I think he's
>> attempting seems pretty stupid to me as well as unpleasant.)
[Phil:]
> I think you do agree with him to some extent but not to the extent that your
> views are objectionable imo.
Cool. I'm sure I have other views that you'd find objectionable. :-)
Alec Brady
<ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I would not claim "true meaning" for a fairy tale,
Really? So if the story says "as he sat there in the room, a pair of
legs fell down the chimney and started walking around" you'd say that
there's no way of knowing how such a sentence could be verified
because it doesn't have a 'true meaning'?
(BTW, I'm not an out-and-out verfificationist, but...well, we can
discuss that separately if we need to).
--
Alec Brady
Angela Rayner
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:39:06 +0100, Angela Rayner
> <ac...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> I would not claim "true meaning" for a fairy tale,
>
> Really? So if the story says "as he sat there in the room, a pair of
> legs fell down the chimney and started walking around" you'd say that
> there's no way of knowing how such a sentence could be verified
> because it doesn't have a 'true meaning'?
What do you mean by verified? Are you asking something like "did it
really happen"? Are you asking, "what does it mean for the character in
the story that the legs fell down the chimney?" Are you asking whether we
know what legs and chimneys are? Are you asking whether the legs refer to
something comparable with legs in real life (after all, legs can't walk
without bodies)? I'm not saying that the text would be entirely useless
without a community to read it in, but it is only a text worth reading
because it has been preserved as something worth reading. Why is it worth
reading? What does "true meaning" mean in a context in which something is
worth reading? Is there a moral? Is the true meaning that you ought to
block up your chimney to prevent this kind of thing happening? Does it
relate to Wallace and those automatic trousers? Do you need to know about
Wallace to make sense of the story?
> (BTW, I'm not an out-and-out verfificationist, but...well, we can
> discuss that separately if we need to).
I have no idea what one of those is so it's ok :)
Angela Rayner
> Thank you so much for taking the trouble to write in such depth - this is
> deeply fascinating. I beg you to be patient with what must be a rather
> pedestrian response on my behalf.
Not at all. I think I'm rather wandering around in the dark :-).
> No, no, I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach. (But maybe one has
> to enquire more deeply into the relationship and possible distiction between
> orthopraxy and orthodoxy. Perhaps James has something relevant here.
> Simplisticly, I want to be able to say something like "othopraxy enables
> orthodoxy enables orthopraxy enables..." in an continuing loop between the
> internal and external fora and that they are separable at an instant but
> that they are a unity in their teleology).
Right praise leads to right action. It sounds like lex orendi lex
credendi. Again, separable at at instant, but they have teleological
unity. I can't help but think that this is too simplistic though. And
besides which, it doesn't touch so much on questions of authority - ought
we to pray differently or believe differently as our culture changes?
> I suppose that I start on this problem from the point of view of trying to
> answer the question: "what does one have to do and to believe in order to be
> a christian?"
I'm not convinced that being a Christian is about beliefs. I have a high
sacramental understanding that means that we come to understand what the
Church teaches after having been immersed in her practices. That's not to
say Christians don't believe some quite distinctive things, but I just
don't see Jesus talking about beliefs in the way that we think of them as
axioms of proposition, and so I don't know how necessary they are for
following (being a Christian). They become how we describe what we live,
I acknowledge. But being a Christian is about following Jesus alongside
his followers - that is, eating with him and being his friends, as a
friend of mine puts it. Thus the difference between doctrine and
discipline is some way away from "what must I do to be saved?", although
obviously disciplinary practices kick in immediately :).
> It is quite possible to formulate in language short credal sta
> tements that encapsulate a (correct) answer to the second question: "I
> believe x to be the case". One then has to enquire into what "believe", "x"
> and "to be the case" means (in order to come to some common understanding of
> orthodoxy) and then to enquire as to what that belief entails (in order to
> come to orthopraxy).
:-) I agree with you, but that is why it's necessary to have a community
of authority. For example, what happens if we say:
I believe Christ is our great high priest.
Here "Christ" means the historic man Jesus and the second person of the
Trinity, begotton before all worlds, where "and" does not denote two
persons.
"Our" means "the Church", the Christian community - the Kingdom of God,
extending to all those who follow Christ, but encompassing those who
don't. He doesn't cease to be a high priest for others, even if they
don't believe it.
Priest - well priest means an elder in a church, one who stands between
God and humankind, an elder. It might also mean "one who leads cattle".
Now does the fact that Jesus Christ is one of these mean that all future
instances of ones of these ought to be Jewish? How do we know that this
one isn't the final instance of what it means to be a priest? Does the
difference between Jesus and Old Testament priests change what it now
means to be a priest? If it does, and one no longer needs to descend from
the right family, why are we concerned about apostolic succession? Does
the word "priest" encompass "Jewish"? Does the word "priest" encompass
"male"?
One little statement the "orendi", if you like does not automatically make
the "credendi" clear. I believe right praise does lead to right practice,
but what if others praise differently - does that automatically make their
practice heterodox? I don't want to say that because that implies "wrong
praise", rather than just "different praise". We don't automatically know
orthodoxy without being trained to recognise it, to have some community
that makes something (about priesthood, in the above example) normative.
> So in my naive, simplistic formulation, I want to be
> able to say that "doctrine" consists of those things (beliefs and actions,
> that form a reinforcing feedback loop) that are necessary for one to be a
> christian or that are implied by those necessities.
I think that that says too much. Doctrine is the language that one uses
to describe one's Christianity. I don't think it's necessary to be saved,
as such, but it is necessary as a language to describe the Church's
experience. Being a Christian is an altogether simpler exercise that will
probably involves a certain faithful use of language, an expression of
teachings, but I just don't know that the fishermen, tax collectors,
mothers and sick people learned that language until they'd got up off
their mats, been healed and hung around for a while. All I'm trying to
say is that salvation does not depend on understanding (I don't think) or
we'd all be doomed.
> So is there any space in this for "discipline"? Again, being terribly naive,
> I want to be able to say that it is a "preparatio evangelica"; and more than
> that I want to be able to say that it supports us fallible humans, as
> individuals and as gathered together in organisations, in maintaining
> doctrine (understood as orthodoxy and orthopraxy).
I think that there are a large number of supporting practices that enable
us to maintain doctrine, but I'm not sure that I can tell you what they
all are. Have we lost something that pertains to our essence by no longer
requiring women to cover their heads in worship?
> In teleological terms,
> perhaps what I want to say is that the end of a human consists in living out
> the christian life (and that end is described doctrinally) and that
> discipline provides the crutches that aid us humans in that end (and perhaps
> the scaffolding that holds our organisations up).
Indeed. I agree with all that you say here, but sometimes our disciplines
or practices, comprise our body of teachings. It's not as though one is
the organisation, and one the scaffolding. They're not so easy to pry
apart in order to discover whether the removal or alteration of one means
we lose something. It is that difficulty which causes me to ask how we
know how to practice faithfully.
> Different people and
> different groups of people are fallible in different ways and therefore we
> should expect disciplinary formulations to vary with people, place and time;
> whereas doctrine, expressed abstractly in the teleology of the human walk
> with God, is immutable.
This splits the two again. It at least requires a community to name what
is disciplinary and what is not. It does not help us answer the very
practical questions I want to ask about the way Christians ought to be
shaped, and thus about how they ought to behave. I do expect disciplinary
formulations to vary with time... Do you think it would be acceptable to
say (as Dave and I were chewing over the other day) that everything not
contained in the Nicene creed (and thus declared by the entirety of the
Church) is disciplinary? Can it only be disciplinary before we are able
to hold a general ecumenical council?
> You've identified the problem: how does one recognize where the boundaries
> between one's arms and one's crutches are? At the extremes, it would seem
> quite easy to do this, but there are murky boundaries.
Yes. This is the problem or, what do we do when we disagree about those
boundaries?
>> When does changing something substantial
>> actually affect our essence, our core identity? What is a matter of
>> substance?
>
> Oof! Too hard at this time of the evening.
I could hear that "Oof!" from my side of the computer screen :).
>> infallibility of the Church. For example, John Howard Yoder would say:
>>
>> "In contrast to other views of the church, [the radical reformation model]
>> is one which holds more strongly than others to a positive doctrine of
>> fallibility. Any existing church is not only fallible but in fact
>> peccable. That is why there needs to be a constant potential for
>> reformation and in more dramatic situations a readiness for the
>> reformation even to be 'radical'."
>
> Although on one level this seems eminently reasonable (and anyone who has
> worked in a large company should be ROTFL at the moment),
I've missed the reference!
> one has to square
> it with the promise that the Spirit will guide us into all truth. And again,
> exaggerating the claim, is the "credo" of someone from a thousand years ago
> worth less than one from now? Of course not, but it is quite reasonable to
> claim that the shape of the crutches and of the scaffolding we need changes
> as we change as humans.
Indeed. But so does the shape of the house (because we can't climb stairs
when we are old, and we risk falling down them when young). Where once
our house was built to welcome strangers, it now looks like a fortress.
We no longer feel warm in a mud hut in Iceland. We feel too warm in an
Igloo in Nigeria. (Obviously the answer that springs to mind is a
heavenly bungalow, with many rooms, variable central heating and an
auto-loo seat shutter. That ought to mean everybody is happy!)
>
>> Part of what I fear about the RC model is that
>> if the oppressed, the prisoners and the orphans change in their identity
>> to being oppressed more by the Church's doctrine than anything else, what
>> does that say about the Church's practice?
>
> I think that that is an incredibly important thing to say and an incredibly
> important issue to deal with.
What I also didn't make clear is that I think Yoder's model is deficient
too. It's just differently deficient. Even I'm a little bit wary of
saying the Church is peccable...
Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"It is difficult to convince a modern Christian that to be the life of the
world, the Church must not 'keep smiling' at the world, putting the 'All
Welcome' signs on the churches, and adjusting its language to that of the
best seller. The beginning of the Christian life - of the life in the
Church - is humility, obedience, and discipline."
Alexander Schmemann
Simon Crouch
news:Pine.LNX.4.60.04...@lucien.toothycat.net...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Simon Crouch wrote:
>
> Right praise leads to right action. It sounds like lex orendi lex
> credendi. Again, separable at at instant, but they have teleological
> unity. I can't help but think that this is too simplistic though. And
> besides which, it doesn't touch so much on questions of authority - ought
> we to pray differently or believe differently as our culture changes?
I depends what you mean by "differently" ;-) In a sense, it's inevitable
that what we do and what we think will be different since much of the
background to our lives is different than, say 1800 years ago. An early
christian would have inhabited a world filled with (non-divine) spirit
forces and would have thought it quite natural to involve them in his or her
praxis. What one needs to discern is what is unchanged/unchageable - the
ultimate denotation of that praxis rather than its fog of connotations,
perhaps.
> > I suppose that I start on this problem from the point of view of trying
to
> > answer the question: "what does one have to do and to believe in order
to be
> > a christian?"
>
> I'm not convinced that being a Christian is about beliefs.
Neither am I (even when being naive!), and I hesitated while writing that
over whether it made any sense separating "believing and doing" or even to
use the terms at all. (I was reminded of St Francis' command to "go and
preach the Gospel. You may find you need to use words occasionally"). But
eventually I decided that one has to admit belief(s), even if not expressed
in language, as part of the process of assent.
> I have a high
> sacramental understanding that means that we come to understand what the
> Church teaches after having been immersed in her practices. That's not to
> say Christians don't believe some quite distinctive things, but I just
> don't see Jesus talking about beliefs in the way that we think of them as
> axioms of proposition, and so I don't know how necessary they are for
> following (being a Christian). They become how we describe what we live,
> I acknowledge. But being a Christian is about following Jesus alongside
> his followers - that is, eating with him and being his friends, as a
> friend of mine puts it.
This is a very good way of putting it. If one falls into the idea that
belief is propositional, then one is falling into grave error. However, at
some level of granularity, beliefs should be amenable to propositional
expression, lest we should not be able to "believe in our hearts and confess
with our lips".
> Thus the difference between doctrine and
> discipline is some way away from "what must I do to be saved?", although
> obviously disciplinary practices kick in immediately :).
A couple of things that have made a great impression on me from catholic
theology are the ideas that the walk with God can be expressed best as a
teleology of what it is to be a human and that secondly, and closely
associated with this idea, that formation (and especially the formation of
conscience) plays a vital part in the process of alignment with that
teleology. Does one use doctrine to express (linguistically and
non-linguisticall) the teleology and discipline to express the formation?
>[snip]
> Now does the fact that Jesus Christ is one of these mean that all future
> instances of ones of these ought to be Jewish? How do we know that this
> one isn't the final instance of what it means to be a priest? Does the
> difference between Jesus and Old Testament priests change what it now
> means to be a priest? If it does, and one no longer needs to descend from
> the right family, why are we concerned about apostolic succession? Does
> the word "priest" encompass "Jewish"? Does the word "priest" encompass
> "male"?
Hard questions. "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of
Kings is to search them out". One has to use the guidance given to us and
natural law to scramble our way towards these things.
>[snip]
>
> All I'm trying to
> say is that salvation does not depend on understanding (I don't think) or
> we'd all be doomed.
Indeed, but salvation would seem to depend on some act of the will in giving
assent to something. To those who are given will, there must be sufficient
conception for that will to assent.
>
> > Different people and
> > different groups of people are fallible in different ways and therefore
we
> > should expect disciplinary formulations to vary with people, place and
time;
> > whereas doctrine, expressed abstractly in the teleology of the human
walk
> > with God, is immutable.
>
> This splits the two again. It at least requires a community to name what
> is disciplinary and what is not. It does not help us answer the very
> practical questions I want to ask about the way Christians ought to be
> shaped, and thus about how they ought to behave. I do expect disciplinary
> formulations to vary with time...
Agreed entirely. I suppose I see a big body of stuff that is clearly
disciplinary, a quite small body of stuff that is clearly doctrinal (and a
slightly larger body of stuff that seems to be entailed by that doctrinal
bosy) and a medium sized body of stuff in the murky overlap. Practically
speaking I try to apply the principle of equiprobabilism (as applied by the
community) to determine stuff in the overlap. (Freedom with a conservative
slant, if you like.)
> Do you think it would be acceptable to
> say (as Dave and I were chewing over the other day) that everything not
> contained in the Nicene creed (and thus declared by the entirety of the
> Church) is disciplinary?
No, because the fathers of Nicaea and Constantinople were not writing a
systematic exposition of doctrine - they were addressing particular problems
in the church at that moment (with an emperor urging them on at the time!).
They chose to address some with doctrinal formulations and others with
disciplinary formulations (the canons). The N-C creed is an explicit
discernment of a portion of the "regula fidei".
On a side-note arising from my probing the "filioque" question, I would also
note that even in the doctrinal formulations it's arguable whether what was
written by the councils was "declared by the entirety of the Church". Both
councils were overwhelmingly (exclusively in the case of Constantinople)
Eastern and there is evidence that portions of the creed were received (that
is, understood) in different ways in the West even at this early stage!
> Can it only be disciplinary before we are able
> to hold a general ecumenical council?
No. The truth is the truth even if we haven't formulated it or agreed what
it is ;-)
> > You've identified the problem: how does one recognize where the
boundaries
> > between one's arms and one's crutches are? At the extremes, it would
seem
> > quite easy to do this, but there are murky boundaries.
>
> Yes. This is the problem or, what do we do when we disagree about those
> boundaries?
Follow a strict and cautious approach if it involves the cessation of a
definite long held practice. Follow the course of freedom if that practice
itself is doubted.
>
> >> When does changing something substantial
> >> actually affect our essence, our core identity? > >
> > Oof! Too hard at this time of the evening.
>
> I could hear that "Oof!" from my side of the computer screen :).
I think I could have a brief go at it now :-) Following up on the idea of
formation, Gaudium et Spes says:
"16 In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not
impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him
to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks
to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by
God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be
judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he
is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner
conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.
In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the
search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems
which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the
more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside
from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of
morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without
losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little
for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows
practically sightless as a result of habitual sin."
Changing something substantial does affect our conscience and thus our
ability to achieve our rightful end, our essence. You might turn that
reasoning all the way around to obtain a definition of what is
"substantial"!
> >>What is a matter of
> >> substance?
That which turns us away from our rightful end. And what is our rightful
end? Ah well, I think you'd better put another 50p in the meter to get an
answer to that one...
>
> >> infallibility of the Church. For example, John Howard Yoder would say:
> >>
> >> "In contrast to other views of the church, [the radical reformation
model]
> >> is one which holds more strongly than others to a positive doctrine of
> >> fallibility. Any existing church is not only fallible but in fact
> >> peccable. That is why there needs to be a constant potential for
> >> reformation and in more dramatic situations a readiness for the
> >> reformation even to be 'radical'."
> >
> > Although on one level this seems eminently reasonable (and anyone who
has
> > worked in a large company should be ROTFL at the moment),
>
> I've missed the reference!
Large companies are the best examples I know of of fallible and peccable
organisations. Utter mindless insanity seems to be the norm and consequently
frequent reformations (reorganisations) occur...
all the best,
Simon.
Dave Shield
> Dave Shield wrote:
>> But I'd have thought that a two-way verbal discussion would
>> generally be preferable, if such a thing was feasible.
>
> Yes! 2-way communication, so people are invited to say "I don't
> understand, can you explain that point?" or "but what about this fact
> that seems to contradict your theory?" or "nice theory, but how does
> it apply to real life?"
>
> So much more is gained by discussion than by lecture, unless the
> lecturer is the expert and the rest aren't.
I'd give that a qualified agreement.
Taken as a whole, the learning experience needs to be two-way
in order to be fully effective. There has to be an opportunity
for someone to say "I don't understand" or "what about this".
But that doesn't mean that every single bit of it (taken in
isolation) has to be two-way. There is definitely a role for
the traditional lecture (i.e. one-way communication), as
*part* of the wider learning experience.
I've certainly been in situations (on both sides of the rostrum)
where the answer to "what about this" has been along the lines
of "that's on the next slide" :-)
And I think the same holds true of Christian education.
I'd regard sermons and discussion groups (both formal and
informal) as complementary. I think that in general,
a sermon probably works better as a time to lay out
a single coherent idea, rather than necessarily being
a question-and-answer session (which can very easily
end up concentrating on one relatively minor point,
and obscuring the overall balance of what was intended).
If you think how a seminar or conference session is
traditionally structured - you have a time of one-way
communication (to put over the basic idea), followed by
a time of two-way questioning (to investigate particular
aspects in more detail).
That's not perfect, but it's an extremely workable mechanism.
Why not view sermon+coffee in the same way?
Dave
Andrew Criddle
<SNIP>
> :-) I agree with you, but that is why it's necessary to have a community
> of authority. For example, what happens if we say:
>
> I believe Christ is our great high priest.
>
> Here "Christ" means the historic man Jesus and the second person of the
> Trinity, begotton before all worlds, where "and" does not denote two
> persons.
>
> "Our" means "the Church", the Christian community - the Kingdom of God,
> extending to all those who follow Christ, but encompassing those who
> don't. He doesn't cease to be a high priest for others, even if they
> don't believe it.
>
> Priest - well priest means an elder in a church, one who stands between
> God and humankind, an elder. It might also mean "one who leads cattle".
>
> Now does the fact that Jesus Christ is one of these mean that all future
> instances of ones of these ought to be Jewish? How do we know that this
> one isn't the final instance of what it means to be a priest? Does the
> difference between Jesus and Old Testament priests change what it now
> means to be a priest? If it does, and one no longer needs to descend from
> the right family, why are we concerned about apostolic succession? Does
> the word "priest" encompass "Jewish"? Does the word "priest" encompass
> "male"?
>
IMO the teaching in Hebrews that Christ is a priest after the
order of Melchizedek argues against interpreting his priesthood
in narrowly Jewish terms.
Andrew Criddle
Ken Down
<cwy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The commonest reaction I get when asking people to join in and discuss
> things during a sermon is a stilled silence. Any ideas as to how I can
> make the proposition more attractive?
1. Get out of the pulpit.
2. Get rid of your notes.
3. If the first two don't work, change the congregation.
Nick Milton
<ang...@toothycat.net> wrote:
>> I suppose that I start on this problem from the point of view of trying to
>> answer the question: "what does one have to do and to believe in order to be
>> a christian?"
>
>I'm not convinced that being a Christian is about beliefs.
Or perhaps its more about who you believe in, than what you believe
Gareth McCaughan
> In article <16rrqx4mltj9$.1njicx8falgfv$.d...@40tude.net>, Jet Wood
> <cwy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The commonest reaction I get when asking people to join in and discuss
> > things during a sermon is a stilled silence. Any ideas as to how I can
> > make the proposition more attractive?
>
> 1. Get out of the pulpit.
>
> 2. Get rid of your notes.
>
> 3. If the first two don't work, change the congregation.
#3 is what he's *trying* to do.
Ken Down
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> #3 is what he's *trying* to do.
No, he is attempting to alter the congregation. What he needs is a
completely new one.
Al
> our own assumptions and presuppositions about What and Who we beleive in? I
> have yet to meet the Christian who is prepared to say " I COULD BE
> WRONG"............................All expect total agreement all the time.
I'm generally right about everything.
but I could be wrong..
Jet Wood
> In article <87u0wro...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>, Gareth McCaughan
> <gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> #3 is what he's *trying* to do.
>
> No, he is attempting to alter the congregation. What he needs is a
> completely new one.
For that, I rely on what we have all been promised (Rev 21:5).
Jet Wood
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Jet Wood wrote:
>
>> Quasin offered:
>>
>>> Dave Shield wrote:
>>
>>>> The problem with a written explanation is that it's inherently
>>>> one-way (at least in the form being discussed here).
>>>
>>> That's what I think about sermons. :-)
>>>
>>>> But I'd have thought that a two-way verbal discussion would
>>>> generally be preferable, if such a thing was feasible.
>>>
>>> Yes! 2-way communication, so people are invited to say "I don't
>>> understand, can you explain that point?" or "but what about this fact
>>> that seems to contradict your theory?" or "nice theory, but how does
>>> it apply to real life?"
>>>
>>> So much more is gained by discussion than by lecture, unless the
>>> lecturer is the expert and the rest aren't.
>>>
>>> Given that Christianity is experiential, I sure hope the professional
>>> clergy aren't the only experts at a meeting of the church!
>>
>> The commonest reaction I get when asking people to join in and discuss
>> things during a sermon is a stilled silence. Any ideas as to how I can
>> make the proposition more attractive?
>
> Ask them not to say anything and then make lots of outrageous
> pronouncements :)
LOL!
Jet Wood
> In message <16rrqx4mltj9$.1njicx8falgfv$.d...@40tude.net>, Jet Wood
> <cwy...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>The commonest reaction I get when asking people to join in and discuss
>>things during a sermon is a stilled silence. Any ideas as to how I can
>>make the proposition more attractive?
>
> Start by making it easier - ask people to discuss things with the people
> next to them, or with the people they came with. After doing that a few
> times, you might start to get people being more willing to say something
> more publicly.
I've tried that too, but both my churches have pews, and it isn't
necessarily a trivial matter getting folk to communicate with their near
neighbours.
> Most people regard a sermon as a time when they will listen, absorb and
> reflect upon what is being said: joining in implies a rather different
> dynamic and needs preparation.
True.
David Aldred
<cwy...@hotmail.com> writes
>David Aldred offered:
>
>> Start by making it easier - ask people to discuss things with the people
>> next to them, or with the people they came with. After doing that a few
>> times, you might start to get people being more willing to say something
>> more publicly.
>
>I've tried that too, but both my churches have pews, and it isn't
>necessarily a trivial matter getting folk to communicate with their near
>neighbours.
So the first thing is to get people to fill up the pews a bit more?
We had pews when our then Parish Priest tried this approach - but they
were fairly well filled, so there wasn't that much of a gap to cross!
If you haven't enough people, perhaps you could remove some of the pews!
Then cover the removal of pews in some way in your next sermon and
you'll soon have them talking :-)
Michael J Davis
<philip....@ntlworld.com> writes
>"Nick Milton" <nickspamt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nds2e0pqps7u54ith...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:21:02 +0100, "Phil"
>> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"The common denominator is a refusal to accept that a sacred text can be
>> >legitimately read in more than one way." Er no. Fundies (me included)
>accept
>> >that texts can be read in many ways. We do not accept that texts
>generally
>> >mean something other than what they say.
>>
>> I would have thought "read in many ways" implied "can be seen to have
>> more than one meaning". Are you saying that a text can be read in many
>> ways, yet only have one meaning (ie "what it says")?
>
>Texts can be read in many ways. The writer may have wished to convey more
>than one thing by what he wrote. It is unlikely in the extreme that an
>author intended that all possible readings of his writing be correct.
>Knowing this we should exclude the ridiculous and fanciful and deal with
>probable meanings.
>
>Many texts mean only what they say explicitly.
I not the word 'many' there, Phil.
And yet we - as Christians - can look at an OT text that refers to one
thing, and see retrospectively a prophetic statement that was clearly
not there in the writer's mind. eg Ps 110.
It seems to me that the idea of 'types' (reflections in one person of a
truth to be revealed later) is also God's way of showing us His 'double
entrendres'.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
<><
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master; that’s all."
<><
Michael J Davis
<bedouin@yonderblue.?.uk.invalid> writes
>
>I for one am a greast supporter of the authority of the bible, but don't
>know whether that makes me a fundamentalist.
That's a bit like supporting Man United, because they usually win. ;-)
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Phil
news:b3kPCkDq...@trustsof.demon.co...
> In message <1SiEc.12$W_2.10@newsfe4-gui>, Phil
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> writes
> >"Nick Milton" <nickspamt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:nds2e0pqps7u54ith...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:21:02 +0100, "Phil"
> >> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"The common denominator is a refusal to accept that a sacred text can
be
> >> >legitimately read in more than one way." Er no. Fundies (me included)
> >accept
> >> >that texts can be read in many ways. We do not accept that texts
> >generally
> >> >mean something other than what they say.
> >>
> >> I would have thought "read in many ways" implied "can be seen to have
> >> more than one meaning". Are you saying that a text can be read in many
> >> ways, yet only have one meaning (ie "what it says")?
> >
> >Texts can be read in many ways. The writer may have wished to convey more
> >than one thing by what he wrote. It is unlikely in the extreme that an
> >author intended that all possible readings of his writing be correct.
> >Knowing this we should exclude the ridiculous and fanciful and deal with
> >probable meanings.
> >
> >Many texts mean only what they say explicitly.
>
> I not the word 'many' there, Phil.
I'm glad you did.
> And yet we - as Christians - can look at an OT text that refers to one
> thing, and see retrospectively a prophetic statement that was clearly
> not there in the writer's mind. eg Ps 110.
Your assumption that it was not there in the writer's mind is just an
assumption. I dont know what was in the writers mind.
Phil
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date: 02/07/2004
Quasin
>
> If you think how a seminar or conference session is
> traditionally structured - you have a time of one-way
> communication (to put over the basic idea), followed by
> a time of two-way questioning (to investigate particular
> aspects in more detail).
>
> That's not perfect, but it's an extremely workable mechanism.
> Why not view sermon+coffee in the same way?
>
Years ago, I was inspired by a Corrie ten Boom book in which she
mentions that (in her childhood) people at lunch on Sunday would
discuss the sermon. That sounded like fun. The next Sunday at the
coffee after the worship program, I asked a friend, "what did you
think of the sermon?" Friend looked embarrassed and said she doesn't
listen to the sermon. She uses that time to think about and plan her
coming week.
I asked another friend what she thought of the sermon. She said she
doesn't listen to sermons, she uses that time to look around at who is
present and decides which of them might need prayer, and prays for them.
I asked a third friend what she thought of the sermon. She said she
doesn't listen to sermons, she uses that time for contemplative prayer.
I gave up trying to find a discussion partner.
BTW, each of these friends had attended that particular Episcopalian
church for over 15 years as adults, rarely if ever missed a Sunday
morning, all were on or had formerly been on the vestry. These were
not causal drop-ins!
For the past few years I have attended a Monday night prayer group
consisting of people who go to a semi-charismatic non-denominational
church. About once a month someone will comment on how great the
previous day's sermon was. I ask, "what did he talk about?" They
grope to remember, and might come up with a half sentence vaguely
worded comment, or no one can remember, "but it was really good."
If my committed church-going friends from these two churches are at
all typical, sermons - as they are being done - aren't worth the
effort that goes into them.
I don't know the answer, maybe it's too soon to look for an answer,
maybe y'all need to start with the question - are sermons having the
effect the sermon givers intend?
Forget theory of worship program design - what, if any, actual effects
is the sermon having on people?
Then take another step back, what is the purpose or goal of the church
program as a whole? What programs or methods would be best targeted
to achieving those goals?
The best methods might include a traditional sermon - or might not. I
suspect a lot of how worship programs are being done is based on how
they were done in the past decade or past century, without
investigating what the church's goals are and whether those goals are
being accomplished.
(Can you tell I used to be a management consultant? :-))
Kim Tame
wrote:
A few more ideas to break the ice;
Ask questions when the children are in, or during an all age service
if you have them.
Ask really easy questions to start with! I started a service about
moving on by asking where everyone came from.
For another service linking physical sight with recognition of Jesus,
I put some optical illusions on the OHP, and invited people to say
what they could see.
At the beginning of a sermon about the Lord's prayer, I asked how long
people had been saying the Lord's prayer, and some old ladies were
very proud of saying a really big number.
Or get them to write things on a piece of paper, and read it out
later. This could be part of the prayers; writing down concerns in
the community, for instance.
Getting them to pass things round can spark conversation - I used to
have a real preserved locust for when talking about John the Baptist.
Now I have a big plastic one instead.
--
Kim
Andrew Criddle
Speaking from my own experience, I try to listen carefully
to the sermon.
However I tend not to remember most sermons for more than a
day or so.
Exceptions are where the sermon is unusually good or where at
first I don't agree with a major point in it.
In some of the cases where I don't agree at first I become
persuaded on reflection. Those sermons can in retrospect be
particularly good.
Regrettably most of the sermons I don't agree with at first
I still don't agree with after reflection. How far this is my
fault and how far the fault of the preacher I don't know.
Andrew Criddle
Alec Brady
wrote:
>If my committed church-going friends from these two churches are at
>all typical, sermons - as they are being done - aren't worth the
>effort that goes into them.
...regardless of how little that may be!
>I don't know the answer, maybe it's too soon to look for an answer,
>maybe y'all need to start with the question - are sermons having the
>effect the sermon givers intend?
>
>Forget theory of worship program design - what, if any, actual effects
>is the sermon having on people?
What is 'theory of worship program design'? Do I need to know the
answer to this question? Is it based on something called a 'worship
program'?
>Then take another step back, what is the purpose or goal of the church
>program as a whole? What programs or methods would be best targeted
>to achieving those goals?
As regards sermons, I think a good starting point would be limiting
the minister to two minutes. Anything that can't be said in that time
won't be taken away by most people.
I except Ken from this - I still ponder the 'alabaster jar' talk.
>The best methods might include a traditional sermon - or might not. I
>suspect a lot of how worship programs are being done is based on how
>they were done in the past decade or past century, without
>investigating what the church's goals are and whether those goals are
>being accomplished.
'Saint-making'. How do we investigate whether that's being
accomplished?
>(Can you tell I used to be a management consultant? :-))
[Shakes head a little too enthusiastically] Noooo...
--
Alec Brady
Gareth McCaughan
> Years ago, I was inspired by a Corrie ten Boom book in which she
> mentions that (in her childhood) people at lunch on Sunday would
> discuss the sermon. That sounded like fun. The next Sunday at the
> coffee after the worship program, I asked a friend, "what did you
> think of the sermon?" Friend looked embarrassed and said she doesn't
> listen to the sermon. She uses that time to think about and plan her
> coming week.
[SNIP: two other people also said "I don't listen to sermons,
because ..."]
Just as another small set of data points, whenever I've tried
to discuss the sermon with people at the church I attend they
seem to have listened. But this is a university city, and the
people here are quite an academic lot, which I think helps.
(Because if you've been to university then you've probably
spent quite a lot of time sat in a room with lots of other
people listening to someone talking at length.)
Dave Shield
> A few more ideas to break the ice;
>
> Ask questions when the children are in, or during an all age service
> if you have them.
>
> Ask really easy questions to start with! I started a service about
> moving on by asking where everyone came from.
<etc, etc>
I'd also suggest priming two or three members of the congregation
beforehand. If you ask a question, and there's a silence while
people wonder what to say (and whether they should say anything),
then the longer it goes on, the harder it becomes to break.
If you've warned a couple of people beforehand, they can chip in
with something reasonably promptly. It's then a bit less daunting
for everybody else.
That might be less necessary if you're starting with the children.
They are probably more likely to take the question at face value,
and actually be prepared to answer it. They won't yet have learnt
that the sermon is the time for worrying about whether you locked
the back door, or if the video will kick in properly this time,
or how exactly to phrase that awkward passage in the document
you're currently working on....
Dave
Dave Shield
> Years ago, I was inspired by a Corrie ten Boom book in which she
> mentions that (in her childhood) people at lunch on Sunday would
> discuss the sermon. That sounded like fun. The next Sunday at the
> coffee after the worship program, I asked a friend, "what did you
> think of the sermon?" Friend looked embarrassed and said she doesn't
> listen to the sermon. She uses that time to think about and plan her
> coming week.
>
> I asked another friend what she thought of the sermon. She said she
> doesn't listen to sermons, she uses that time to look around at who is
> present and decides which of them might need prayer, and prays for them.
>
> I asked a third friend what she thought of the sermon. She said she
> doesn't listen to sermons, she uses that time for contemplative prayer.
>
> I gave up trying to find a discussion partner.
I'm not too surprised - I'd probably have given a similar answer.
I certainly find it difficult to remember the details of a sermon
sufficiently to hold a sensible discussion half an hour later,
with a number of other activities coming in between.
Recall that I was drawing an anology with academic seminars,
where the questions come immediately afterwards. You don't
have the talk, sing a couple of songs, go for a pub meal,
arrange the next meeting and *then* ask for questions on the talk.
Which isn't to say that discussing the sermon isn't worth doing -
I just think you need to be more realistic about it. Rather than
springing it on someone afterwards, it would make more sense for
three or four of you to agree beforehand that this is what you
would do. And probably o take notes during the sermon - not
necessarily to transcribe he whole thing, but to jot down two
or three main points that trike you, or any particular questions
that it throws up.
Then use those as a starting point for discussion. (Which if
our groups are anything to go by, will end up on a series of
major side-tracks, but there's nothing wrong with that).
Plus give things a little time to settle down. Those attending
seminars are used to the idea that it'll be followed by a time
for questions, so will be subconsiously listening with that in
mind. If you're not used to approaching sermons in that way,
it's not going to be easy to make the mental switch.
But it's certainly sounds a sensible approach to how to get
more out of the sermon. And I'm sure you'd find the preacher
only too happy to assist.
Dave
Simon Robinson
> doesn't listen to sermons, she uses that time for contemplative prayer.
LOL!
Seriously, reading some of the posts here is making me wonder whether
perhaps some churches shouldn't reconsider the role that sermons have in
their services. I have to admit I tend to regard sermons mostly as being
that boring bit in the middle of the service when I sit there wishing I
could go away and do something productive. Reading this thread I'm starting
to realise that I'm perhaps not so unusual in that regard.
Of course you do occasionally get really good sermons that are worth
listening to, but unfortunately it's very hard to predict when those will
occur.
Simon
--
------------------------------------------------
Simon Robinson
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
------------------------------------------------
Michael Gaskell
> Of course you do occasionally get really good sermons that are worth
> listening to, but unfortunately it's very hard to predict when those will
> occur.
God's Word has only ever been for those with ears to hear it and apply it,
if a person really thinks that their time is being wasted, it most probably
is. The answer? perhaps they could ask God to forgive them and turn from
their sins, then His word will make sense and stimulate them or
alternatively they can keep trying to glean the crumbs that fall their way
from the bread of life.
--
Michael
Kevin Donnelly
<D.T.S...@csc.liv.ac.uk> writes
What's that wisdom about never appearing with children and animals? Oh,
yes, "And a little child shall lead them"... usually up the garden path!
Years ago a friend of mine took his very young son to church (CoE) for
the first time. When the priest made his appearance in cassock and
surplice the little boy pointed with his hand and exclaimed in a loud
voice "What's he got that on for?"
There goes somebody destined to ruin the school nativity
play....
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Wythenshawe Prompt Organiser
http://copsewood.net/mailman/listinfo/prompt
Website www.kevdon.demon.co.uk
Paul Roberts
And what does this have to do with whether a sermon is good or not?
Or are you just seeing this as another opportunity to tell everyone how much
better a Christian you are than the rest of us?
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address
Dave Shield
> Years ago a friend of mine took his very young son to church (CoE) for
> the first time. When the priest made his appearance in cassock and
> surplice the little boy pointed with his hand and exclaimed in a loud
> voice "What's he got that on for?"
Which is a very reasonable question.
The Sensible Response (TM) would be to suggest that he go
and ask the priest about it (preferably after the service!).
[What do you mean, you can tell I don't have children?]
The best similar story I've got is about a visiting preacher who got
one of the churchwardens (a solidly built farmer) to sit in a chair
in the middle of the nave, and invited the children to try and pull
him out of it. One of them, who shall remain nameless[1] then had
to be restrained from pulling quite so hard, since we were managing
to move him (which would have rather ruined the point of the sermon).
This was followed by the preacher standing in front of the churchwarden
holding a bar of chocolate[2], and backing down the nave, followed by
the churchwarden.
And what did this show? Cue bright spark[3]: "Bribery!"
This was apparently the Wrong Answer[4]
Which all goes to show - never appear with children,
and never *ever* appear with clergy kids!
Dave
[1] My brother
[2] The preacher, not the churchwarden
[3] Me!
[4] It was meant to demonstrate "Love".
I *still* think my answer was better, 30 years later.
Michael Gaskell
news:ccdkh4$rrl$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
I don't believe that one Christian can better than another or anyone else
for that matter. I only seek to be a real Christian.
--
Michael
Paul Roberts
> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ccdkh4$rrl$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
[snip]
>> Or are you just seeing this as another opportunity to tell everyone
>> how much better a Christian you are than the rest of us?
>
> I don't believe that one Christian can better than another or anyone
> else for that matter. I only seek to be a real Christian.
If you are attempting to follow Christ then you are a real Christian. Just
like the rest of us.
Quasin
> Quasin <Quas...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Forget theory of worship program design - what, if any, actual effects
>>is the sermon having on people?
>
> What is 'theory of worship program design'? Do I need to know the
> answer to this question? Is it based on something called a 'worship
> program'?
Someone somewhere put together the typical Sunday morning program of
music, prayer, and lecture.
(I dislike the term "worship service" because it sounds like we are
supposedly providing a service God needs from us. So I refer to it as
a worship program.)
>
>>investigating what the church's goals are and whether those goals are
>>being accomplished.
>
>
> 'Saint-making'. How do we investigate whether that's being
> accomplished?
>
Yes! What changes are we trying to entice people to make in their
lives? What the best ways to help people grow spiritually? What do
we mean by spiritual maturity? What are the various roads to getting
there?
Alec Brady
wrote:
>Alec Brady wrote:
>> Quasin <Quas...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Forget theory of worship program design - what, if any, actual effects
>>>is the sermon having on people?
>>
>> What is 'theory of worship program design'? Do I need to know the
>> answer to this question? Is it based on something called a 'worship
>> program'?
>
>Someone somewhere put together the typical Sunday morning program of
>music, prayer, and lecture.
Why 'someone'? Maybe the apostles based it on the synagogue service,
maybe not; but what we have now has had nineteen-and-a-half centuries
to mature, with input from all sorts of people.
'Program' sounds too functional for my taste. How about 'liturgy'
('work of the people')?
>(I dislike the term "worship service" because it sounds like we are
>supposedly providing a service God needs from us. So I refer to it as
>a worship program.)
Maybe it's 'service' as in 'maintenance' (machinery) or 'delivery'
(tennis) or as used in catering ('silver service'). :¬)
>>>investigating what the church's goals are and whether those goals are
>>>being accomplished.
>> 'Saint-making'. How do we investigate whether that's being
>> accomplished?
>
>Yes! What changes are we trying to entice people to make in their
>lives? What the best ways to help people grow spiritually? What do
>we mean by spiritual maturity? What are the various roads to getting
>there?
Two good starting points would be St. Ignatius Loyola and the Wesleys,
perhaps. The Franciscans have been working for more than seven hundred
years (ie over a third of the history of Christianity) on the question
'what are the best ways to help people grow spiritually'. Something
tells me we're not going to do better than them!
--
Alec Brady
Ken Down
<kp.tame'nospam'@virgin.net> wrote:
> A few more ideas to break the ice;
Good ideas, Kim. However I think that one important factor is the
artificiality of the question. If you stand in front of a congregation, big
smile on your face, and say "Now, can we all share what we know about blue
moons?" there will be an embarrassed silence.
If, on the other hand, you glance at your watch and say "Oh dear, my watch
seems to have stopped. Can anyone tell me the time?" you will be drowned out
by people giving you the answer - particularly if asked towards the end of
the sermon.
Ken Down
sar...@supanet.com (Andrew Criddle) wrote:
> However I tend not to remember most sermons for more than a
> day or so.
I recall a tale about a someone complaining that sermons were a waste of
time. The authority figure to whom he (or she) complained instructed the
person to fetch him some water and handed him a sieve. After several
unsuccessful attempts to carry water in the sieve the complainant further
complained that the task was impossible as the sieve wouldn't hold water.
"No," the authority figure replied, "but look at how clean it is now."
Ken Down
<alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
> I except Ken from this - I still ponder the 'alabaster jar' talk.
You are most kind.
Anyone who doesn't know what Alec is talking about can visit
http://www.nwtv.co.uk and look under Religion.
Ken Down
wrote:
> If my committed church-going friends from these two churches are at
> all typical, sermons - as they are being done - aren't worth the
> effort that goes into them.
Well, the Bible does talk about the "foolishness" of preaching!
However I do think that:
Most sermons are boring
Many sermons are too long
Many clergy are poor communicators
Most sermons are delivered in a boring manner
Simon Robinson
news:na.23aa3a4ccb....@argonet.co.uk...
> I recall a tale about a someone complaining that sermons were a waste of
> time. The authority figure to whom he (or she) complained instructed the
> person to fetch him some water and handed him a sieve. After several
> unsuccessful attempts to carry water in the sieve the complainant further
> complained that the task was impossible as the sieve wouldn't hold water.
>
> "No," the authority figure replied, "but look at how clean it is now."
Hmmm. An amusing story, but I don't quite get how giving someone misleading
instructions about fetching water when the real intent is to clean the sieve
is supposed to be related to whether or not sermons are a waste of time.
Ken Down
<lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> wrote:
> Hmmm. An amusing story, but I don't quite get how giving someone
> misleading instructions about fetching water when the real intent is to
> clean the sieve is supposed to be related to whether or not sermons are a
> waste of time.
Oh dear, I hate spelling things out.
Sermons may not stick in your mind, but on their way through from one ear to
the other they do have an effect which is presumed to be beneficial.
It's much the same as with advertising. Continual drip-feeding of the idea
that XYZ, despite its price, is good for you, will eventually have you
queueing up in the supermarket to buy it.
Charles
> In article <ccnc9j$aha$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Simon Robinson
> <lIfYouWan...@UseMyWebsite.com> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm. An amusing story, but I don't quite get how giving someone
> > misleading instructions about fetching water when the real intent is to
> > clean the sieve is supposed to be related to whether or not sermons are a
> > waste of time.
>
> Oh dear, I hate spelling things out.
>
> Sermons may not stick in your mind, but on their way through from one ear to
> the other they do have an effect which is presumed to be beneficial.
>
> It's much the same as with advertising. Continual drip-feeding of the idea
> that XYZ, despite its price, is good for you, will eventually have you
> queueing up in the supermarket to buy it.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
Ah! The sieve was *brain* washed, then ?;-)
I would offer an alternative spelling-out, based on Watchman Nee's
interpretation of the first part of John 13. The very least that a
sermon ought to be able to do is to wash the worldly dust off one's
spiritual feet. Ideally of course, this would be done by meeting any
brothers and sisters, and sermons would achieve significant levels of
teachingas well. But in the (apparently) more common situation, at least
the feet (or sieves) get washed.
--
Charles
Michael J Davis
<alec....@virgin.net> writes
Q:-
>>Yes! What changes are we trying to entice people to make in their
>>lives? What the best ways to help people grow spiritually? What do
>>we mean by spiritual maturity? What are the various roads to getting
>>there?
>
>Two good starting points would be St. Ignatius Loyola and the Wesleys,
>perhaps. The Franciscans have been working for more than seven hundred
>years (ie over a third of the history of Christianity) on the question
>'what are the best ways to help people grow spiritually'. Something
>tells me we're not going to do better than them!
Actually, IMHO, the problem today is more how to attract their attention
in the first place, helping them to grow is relatively easy.
How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
spirituality is only a form of self worship?
Gareth McCaughan
> Actually, IMHO, the problem today is more how to attract their
> attention in the first place, helping them to grow is relatively easy.
>
> How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
> spirituality is only a form of self worship?
Is that last sentence actually what you meant to write?
Michael J Davis
<?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> writes
>How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
>spirituality is only a form of self worship?
Whoops! As will be obvious - I hope - there's an unintentional double
negation in there.
Corrected version:-
How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
spirituality is OK, when it really is only a form of self worship?
Sorry
Alec Brady
<?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Actually, IMHO, the problem today is more how to attract their attention
>in the first place, helping them to grow is relatively easy.
>
>How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
>spirituality is only a form of self worship?
The pagan Romans were very keen on 'mix and match' religion - cf Sulis
Minerva in Bath. We managed to get their attention, so I don't see
that as being a problem. As Ronald Hutton says, Christianity won
because it was a better religion. It had in one package what the
Romans could only get by mixing and matching - mystery, salvation,
answers to prayer, morality, cosmology etc. etc.
More of a problem is the way that we have turned people off
Christianity by associating it with - what? boredom? hypocrisy?
self-righteousness?
--
Alec Brady
Kim Tame
<?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <XekcIkC$rR8A...@trustsof.demon.co>, Michael J Davis
><?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> writes
>>How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
>>spirituality is only a form of self worship?
>
>Whoops! As will be obvious - I hope - there's an unintentional double
>negation in there.
>
>Corrected version:-
>
>How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
>spirituality is OK, when it really is only a form of self worship?
>
>Sorry
>
>Mike
>[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
A big yes and a big but.
The 'but' being that with the choices now on offer within
Christianity, there really is something for everyone, and an
acknowledgement that we are all different is something I see as a good
thing. I'm very glad that in my town, there is the choice of happy
clappy, silent and contemplative, etc., worship. If someone seems to
be interested in some form of new age spirituality, it's relatively
easy to point them in the direction of some form of Christianity that
will fulfil their needs.
The opposite of 'pick and mix' can be one style, imposed on all by a
small group, which is equally self worship.
--
Kim
Michael J Davis
<alec....@virgin.net> writes
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:48:31 +0100, Michael J Davis
><?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Actually, IMHO, the problem today is more how to attract their attention
>>in the first place, helping them to grow is relatively easy.
>>
>>How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
>>spirituality is only a form of self worship?
>
>The pagan Romans were very keen on 'mix and match' religion - cf Sulis
>Minerva in Bath. We managed to get their attention, so I don't see
>that as being a problem. As Ronald Hutton says, Christianity won
>because it was a better religion. It had in one package what the
>Romans could only get by mixing and matching - mystery, salvation,
>answers to prayer, morality, cosmology etc. etc.
>
always with you'.
>More of a problem is the way that we have turned people off
>Christianity by associating it with - what? boredom? hypocrisy?
>self-righteousness?
>
Pomposity?
Most of all, the idea that one has to be good to be a Christian, rather
than the other way around.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
"God has privileged us in Christ Jesus to live above the ordinary human plane
of life. Those who want to be ordinary can do so, but as for me, I will not."
Smith Wigglesworth
<><
Steven Kitson
>More of a problem is the way that we have turned people off
>Christianity by associating it with - what? boredom? hypocrisy?
>self-righteousness?
Guilt?
--
Be that as it may.
Michael J Davis
<kp.tame'nospam'@virgin.net> writes
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:25:04 +0100, Michael J Davis
><?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <XekcIkC$rR8A...@trustsof.demon.co>, Michael J Davis
>><?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
>>>spirituality is only a form of self worship?
>>
>>Whoops! As will be obvious - I hope - there's an unintentional double
>>negation in there.
>>
>>Corrected version:-
>>
>>How can we stop people thinking that 'mix and match' (or supermarket)
>>spirituality is OK, when it really is only a form of self worship?
>>
>>Sorry
>>
>>Mike
>>[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
>
>
>A big yes and a big but.
>
>The 'but' being that with the choices now on offer within
>Christianity, there really is something for everyone, and an
>acknowledgement that we are all different is something I see as a good
>thing. I'm very glad that in my town, there is the choice of happy
>clappy, silent and contemplative, etc., worship. If someone seems to
>be interested in some form of new age spirituality, it's relatively
>easy to point them in the direction of some form of Christianity that
>will fulfil their needs.
What I personally find horrifying is that different styles of worship
are regarded as being different types of Christianity. Fortunately in
the RCC, I do *all* those things you mention, including silent
adoration, Ignatian prayer, Taize, and Choral Evensong (oh, OK - I go to
an Anglican Church for that). Unless one can and has done them all
freely, one is not free to choose!
>The opposite of 'pick and mix' can be one style, imposed on all by a
>small group, which is equally self worship.
Yes. Nice point.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]