University Christian Unions in the last 10 years have not been ecumenical in my daughter's experience - two different CUs.
I'm sure you're right, but again, all these things are relative. If you come from some Brethren backgrounds then fellowshipping with Pentecostals is going to look very edgy and ecumenical ... let alone Anglicans or the URC.
If you're Methodist, URC or broad Anglican then the whole shebang is going to look very tight and exclusive.
"Ecumenical" in the sense of "cross-denominational" (Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal etc. ... so long as they're Evangelical) - though definitely not including RC or Orthodox, of course.
Steve, not only does nobody have any fucks left to give about your particular special story, you are personally responsible for a global collapse of the sub-prime fuck-lending market.
"Ecumenical" in the sense of "cross-denominational" (Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal etc. ... so long as they're Evangelical) - though definitely not including RC or Orthodox, of course.
Actually the CU at my university included both an RC and a Cypriot Greek Orthodox....
And my point was that we were actually doing interdenominational unity when the rest weren't because they'd got very little to unite around and were only paying lip service to ecumenism. And BTW in most cases all of us probably believed more of their denominations' official doctrinal standards than they did themselves.
No, nothing has changed, Steve. Christian Unions are not ecumenical and never has been - they are conservative Evangelical.
Sometimes other people attend, that doesn't change the reality of what they are supposed to agree to in order to be a leader or speaker at a Christian Union.
You would really help yourself if you avoided talking about things you clearly know JACK SHIT about.
I do know the situation in my Uni when I was there; and I've some reason to believe that similar situations existed quite widely at that time. I don't think we used the word 'ecumenical' of ourselves. Just that we were nevertheless doing more practical inter-denominational unity than those who made much more noise about being 'ecumenical'.
No you clearly don't know the situation in your Christian Union. If it was affiliated with the UCCF, which has been around since the 1920s, it was Evangelical not ecumenical.
There is nothing to debate here: you are simply wrong.
I'm grateful to Doc Tor for a new word in my vocabulary: Ultracrepidarian.
I wonder whether it is related to another word that might apply to Steve?
Uttercrappydoctrinairianism.
More seriously, Steve, I'm sure your CU was very practically grass-roots ecumenical within its own frame of reference.
Also, I notice something significant about Steve's comments about the other, more liberal churches round about at that time whom, he asserts, made more noise about ecumenical issues but didn't do anything about it.
I also notice that he claims that his student fellows were closer to the true doctrines and teachings of their respective churches than the other adherents.
Can we see a pattern here?
I know we all define ourselves against 'the other' to a certain extent but it strikes me that Steve's default position when assessing people and situations is to measure to what extent they are in agreement with him.
I'm sure we all do that to some extent but it seems to be a Langton stock-in-trade that is particularly marked.
My recollection is that CUs are in the habit of telling their members that other Christians are faithless and insipid and believe that all religions are equally valid and other such lies. They do this in order to hang on to their members who might otherwise start to question their bizarre take on Christianity. What I do know is that through the chaplaincy team when I was at uni members of a great many denominations came together for worship, including Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Methodists, Reformed, Baptists and others. Meanwhile the CU postered halls occupied by freshers to divert new students away from the chapels (I found this out because they advertised meeting at 9:30 for church and I thought this might enable me to go to church and then go out with the hiking club; turned out what they had in mind was a three hour round trip to one of their approved churches).
Those other people's ecumenism must have been shallow because they were unaware of the real teachings of one another's churches ABOUT FUCKING CONSTANTINIANISM AND STATE CHURCHES BY GOD.
.
Still waiting for the apology, Steve. Don't be too long. There's a lad.
I also notice that he claims that his student fellows were closer to the true doctrines and teachings of their respective churches than the other adherents.
With the exception of the RCs, the other Christian groups were pretty universally liberal. At that time traditional confessions were still official in most denominations and the Evangelicals were largely in agreement with them, and the liberals increasingly not. And that includes that Evangelicals of all denominational colours agreed with more of those confessions than the liberals who belonged to the various churches. And as I pointed out earlier, the very fact that they agreed with so little traditional Christianity meant that they were even more attached to and worried about their denominational differences, which in turn rather inevitably got in the way of inter-denominational activities on their part.
Ironically I got on quite well with the RC Chaplain, saw Ian Paisley's infamous Oxford Union debate at a Cathsoc meeting at the Catholic Chaplaincy, first came across the 'Good News' NT there, and still value a Knox translation Bible the Chaplain acquired for me.
Heck, back on the old Ship we had a thread about acceptance of the 39 Articles and I seem to recall a certain Anabaptist scored higher than most of the Anglicans.
I'm not surprised that you scored higher than many Anglicans when it came to the 39 Articles. They've moved on from the 16th century. You haven't.
Ah, but what - apart from increasing vagueness and confusion, and letting the world around them squeeze them into its own mould (Romans 12; 2, Phillips) - have they moved on to??
I'm grateful to Doc Tor for a new word in my vocabulary: Ultracrepidarian.
[Personal information redacted]
Back to the discussion, if that be the right word. My sisters and I all went to Sydney Uni. They joined the Evangelical Union, which was by and large ecumenical but of course excluded RCs, the Orthodox (very few of them in those days), and anything else that had not emerged from the 16th century onwards. I did not - I joined the Anglican Society which was comprised largely of those from MOTR and high church Sydney parishes and those from county dioceses. Eye opening and set my path from then on.
I'm not surprised that you scored higher than many Anglicans when it came to the 39 Articles. They've moved on from the 16th century. You haven't.
Ah, but what - apart from increasing vagueness and confusion, and letting the world around them squeeze them into its own mould (Romans 12; 2, Phillips) - have they moved on to??
The 21st century. Do, as I am wont to say, try and keep up.
I'm not surprised that you scored higher than many Anglicans when it came to the 39 Articles. They've moved on from the 16th century. You haven't.
Ah, but what - apart from increasing vagueness and confusion, and letting the world around them squeeze them into its own mould (Romans 12; 2, Phillips) - have they moved on to??
The 21st century. Do, as I am wont to say, try and keep up.
Listen, you self-righteous, pompous heap of shit, if the CofE hadn't moved on from the 16th century then as an Anabaptist you might find yourself in trouble with the authorities.
The dear old CofE, warts and all, moves on from its Erastian past (by and large) and its initial mid-16th century moderate Calvinism and that's still not good enough for you.
The CofE is like the curate's egg. Good in parts. There are good bits, there are stinky bits. There are indifferent bits. Same as anything else.
If you want us to list what's wrong with it,vee could all do that. It's easy. Blogging out of your arse is easy too. Being a complete and utter twat obviously comes easily to you as well.
We don't divulge RL information regarding Shipmates, without their express permission. If you have such permission, please message me so that I can verify that with the Shipmate(s) concerned.
My comment was aimed at Steve Langton, not you, Mousethief, unless you were somehow channelling or ventriloquising him.
What was that Carly Simon song?
'You're so vain, I bet you think this thread is about you ...'
Well, I posted, and then you posted immediately thereafter with no reference other than position as to whom your pronoun was referring. In English, such a pronoun is generally taken to refer back to the most recent thing it could refer to. Which in this case would be me. Someday you'll get this English language thing. Keep trying.
I replied to Steve Langton's post. You'd obviously inserted one in the meantime. I hadn't seen that when I posted. If I'd done so I'd have made it clear that I was referring to Mr Langton and not Mr Mousethief.
You can't tell me anything about the Queen's English. I dah talk tidy. Wenglish.
I can both say and spell "arse" just fine. I just don't use that word, and use "ass" instead. Because dialect. You might should take a linguistics class or something. Sheesh.
Jesus said to them, O simpletons, with hearts so slow to believe everything the prophets have spoken! Did not Christ have to suffer all this so as to enter into His glory. Then starting from Moses and through all the prophets, he explained to them in all the Scriptures what referred to himself
I am guessing that in speaking to followers in distress the reference to 'simpletons' will have been much more kindly expressed than the mere words suggest.
Comments
Whatever happened to Fusion? That emerged as some kind of charismatic alternative to the UCCF.
I'm out of touch with all of that these days.
I'm sure you're right, but again, all these things are relative. If you come from some Brethren backgrounds then fellowshipping with Pentecostals is going to look very edgy and ecumenical ... let alone Anglicans or the URC.
If you're Methodist, URC or broad Anglican then the whole shebang is going to look very tight and exclusive.
Allergicelical?
Arse-holillogical?
Asperger-gelical?
Antidisestablishmentarianism-epistemological?
Aunt Sally-sophisticomological
Anabaptistemiological-sausage-a-lollipsicle ...
"Aspergel" sounds like a topical treatment for Autism. No offense, ASD persons.
Perhaps Steve has been right all along.
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system ...'
Actually the CU at my university included both an RC and a Cypriot Greek Orthodox....
And my point was that we were actually doing interdenominational unity when the rest weren't because they'd got very little to unite around and were only paying lip service to ecumenism. And BTW in most cases all of us probably believed more of their denominations' official doctrinal standards than they did themselves.
Of course we might have predicted that Steve knows more about this subject than the rest of us put together.
Even when what he is saying is demonstrably wrong.
Sometimes other people attend, that doesn't change the reality of what they are supposed to agree to in order to be a leader or speaker at a Christian Union.
You would really help yourself if you avoided talking about things you clearly know JACK SHIT about.
And so it came to pass that Steve never spoke again.
There is nothing to debate here: you are simply wrong.
I'm grateful to Doc Tor for a new word in my vocabulary: Ultracrepidarian.
I wonder whether it is related to another word that might apply to Steve?
Uttercrappydoctrinairianism.
More seriously, Steve, I'm sure your CU was very practically grass-roots ecumenical within its own frame of reference.
Also, I notice something significant about Steve's comments about the other, more liberal churches round about at that time whom, he asserts, made more noise about ecumenical issues but didn't do anything about it.
I also notice that he claims that his student fellows were closer to the true doctrines and teachings of their respective churches than the other adherents.
Can we see a pattern here?
I know we all define ourselves against 'the other' to a certain extent but it strikes me that Steve's default position when assessing people and situations is to measure to what extent they are in agreement with him.
I'm sure we all do that to some extent but it seems to be a Langton stock-in-trade that is particularly marked.
Just sayin' ...
.
Still waiting for the apology, Steve. Don't be too long. There's a lad.
And I'm sure there are friendships across theological boundaries.
But it is still an undeniable fact that being an organisation affiliated to UCCF means something rather than nothing.
With the exception of the RCs, the other Christian groups were pretty universally liberal. At that time traditional confessions were still official in most denominations and the Evangelicals were largely in agreement with them, and the liberals increasingly not. And that includes that Evangelicals of all denominational colours agreed with more of those confessions than the liberals who belonged to the various churches. And as I pointed out earlier, the very fact that they agreed with so little traditional Christianity meant that they were even more attached to and worried about their denominational differences, which in turn rather inevitably got in the way of inter-denominational activities on their part.
Ironically I got on quite well with the RC Chaplain, saw Ian Paisley's infamous Oxford Union debate at a Cathsoc meeting at the Catholic Chaplaincy, first came across the 'Good News' NT there, and still value a Knox translation Bible the Chaplain acquired for me.
Heck, back on the old Ship we had a thread about acceptance of the 39 Articles and I seem to recall a certain Anabaptist scored higher than most of the Anglicans.
I thought you said you had issues with the Apostles' Creed. I thought you gave little quarter to traditions.
I must have imagined such things.
Ah, but what - apart from increasing vagueness and confusion, and letting the world around them squeeze them into its own mould (Romans 12; 2, Phillips) - have they moved on to??
[Personal information redacted]
Back to the discussion, if that be the right word. My sisters and I all went to Sydney Uni. They joined the Evangelical Union, which was by and large ecumenical but of course excluded RCs, the Orthodox (very few of them in those days), and anything else that had not emerged from the 16th century onwards. I did not - I joined the Anglican Society which was comprised largely of those from MOTR and high church Sydney parishes and those from county dioceses. Eye opening and set my path from then on.
The 21st century. Do, as I am wont to say, try and keep up.
No wonder they're in decline....
The dear old CofE, warts and all, moves on from its Erastian past (by and large) and its initial mid-16th century moderate Calvinism and that's still not good enough for you.
The CofE is like the curate's egg. Good in parts. There are good bits, there are stinky bits. There are indifferent bits. Same as anything else.
If you want us to list what's wrong with it,vee could all do that. It's easy. Blogging out of your arse is easy too. Being a complete and utter twat obviously comes easily to you as well.
The whole point of the original cartoon is that the egg is bad but the curate is too polite to tell the bishop.
Of course an egg cannot be good in parts.
If you mean that there is good and bad within the CofE, find a bloody phrase to use that actually means that.
Hostly furry hat on
We don't divulge RL information regarding Shipmates, without their express permission. If you have such permission, please message me so that I can verify that with the Shipmate(s) concerned.
Otherwise, don't do it.
DT
HH
Hostly furry hat off
What was that Carly Simon song?
'You're so vain, I bet you think this thread is about you ...'
Fair call.
I will stop using the term.
Well, I posted, and then you posted immediately thereafter with no reference other than position as to whom your pronoun was referring. In English, such a pronoun is generally taken to refer back to the most recent thing it could refer to. Which in this case would be me. Someday you'll get this English language thing. Keep trying.
I replied to Steve Langton's post. You'd obviously inserted one in the meantime. I hadn't seen that when I posted. If I'd done so I'd have made it clear that I was referring to Mr Langton and not Mr Mousethief.
You can't tell me anything about the Queen's English. I dah talk tidy. Wenglish.
You can't even say or spell 'arse' properly.
I do speak the Queen's English as well mind isn't it?
I am guessing that in speaking to followers in distress the reference to 'simpletons' will have been much more kindly expressed than the mere words suggest.