My own opinion on Marx is that back in the 1840s he got the diagnosis right, but the treatment wrong. Personally, I think the variety of faceless international capitalism that we have today is worse than anything Marx saw in the 1840s, but I do not see anyone in politics - right or left - falling over themselves to do anything about it. Even at their most radical, they nibble around the edges and continue to accept their share of the backsheesh from politics' corporate sponsors.
I admit that there is plenty of No True Scotsman there. I share with the ancient fathers a fondness for cheap shots in a good cause.
I did say the formulation was a lot more common in the past. There was even a popular genre of atheist pamphlets in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries where various authors accused their enemies of atheism, based on their wickedness rather than any philosophical position on the non-existence of a deity. Protestants put out pamphlets accusing the Pope specifically (and Catholics generally) of atheism based on various corruptions and wicked deeds. Catholic authors did likewise for Protestants. There were even historical examples where some infamous long-dead person (Caligula, various Borgias, etc.) was criticized for their atheism with a long and detailed list of their various depravities and perversions. In the nineteenth century the genre fell out of fashion, replaced with penny dreadfuls and similar offerings that simply offered up a bunch of depravities and perversions without trying to force them into some kind of philosophical or theological framework, cutting out the middle man to give the reading public what they really wanted in the first place.
Probably just cause for me not to, then. He's hardly the most discerning of people as exemplified by his stance on LGBT+
Give the guy a break.
No. Why should he be exempt?
Because the Pope is not an evangelical. If you´re roman catholic, orthodox, or muslim, you get a free pass to hold your beliefs without being trashed by the virtue-signalling progressive "christians". If you´re evangelical, every single thing you think, say and do will be scrutinized by virtue-signalling people concerned with the "poor and opressed". Guess what, they hate that specific group, so they will do everything to catch them in error, and acuse them of being a "death squad theology" or something like that. Kind of like witch-hunt. Aren´t these progressive christians and their compassionate theologies lovely?
Eh? We were talking about getting kids reading. At least I thought we were. What were you talking about?
We were not talking about comparing those authors who got kid reading either in terms of numbers nor in terms of quality. You were the one who made it into a competition. Which element did not exist before then.
While it mouths pious slogans it is a fundamentally atheistic ideology because no one who believes there is a God judging the sons of men would support the likes of Franco, Pinochet, Trump, or Bolsonaro.
You need to open your eyes and look around. This is especially ironic coming as it does on a thread about Evangelical cognitive dissonance.
Probably just cause for me not to, then. He's hardly the most discerning of people as exemplified by his stance on LGBT+
Give the guy a break.
No. Why should he be exempt?
Because the Pope is not an evangelical. If you´re roman catholic, orthodox, or muslim, you get a free pass to hold your beliefs without being trashed by the virtue-signalling progressive "christians". If you´re evangelical, every single thing you think, say and do will be scrutinized by virtue-signalling people concerned with the "poor and opressed". Guess what, they hate that specific group, so they will do everything to catch them in error, and acuse them of being a "death squad theology" or something like that. Kind of like witch-hunt. Aren´t these progressive christians and their compassionate theologies lovely?
In case you missed it: I am an equal opportunity hater - I think all of your varieties of Christianity are a sack of shit.
I just think some are better than others measured by the human cost of your beliefs.
I’ve never understood Christian distaste for Marxism or Marxist thought. Marxism is one of the most sophisticated and systematic accounts of life under capitalism, and capitalism is quite abhorrent to all Christian ethics. Christians, as a whole, are quite dismissive of Marx. When you get into conservative Christians they just willfully misunderstand and distort his thinking, as far as I’m concerned. It’s quite strange.
I agree that Marx provides a valuable analysis of capitalism, which Christians should engage with seriously. He recognized more than anyone before him what set capitalism apart from previous societies and what made it tick. Of course Marxism is more than an analysis of capitalism, though- it is a philosophy addressing, at least implicitly, all facets of life with an underlying materialist conception of nature, history, and life in general.
Materialism does, to be fair, do a good job of explaining many phenomena that happen in a society driven by greed, but for many things it only gives part of the picture. The materialism and economic determinism of Marxism forces consistent Marxists to explain a lot of things- especially complex human activities like religion and art- in a highly reductionist way.
When the early Marxists presented their ideology as "scientific" socialism, as opposed to the idealist or utopian socialism of other schools, it probably sounded very impressive to 19th century audiences but today it just looks like branding for what is really just another school of romanticism- with the combination of genuine insights and wishful thinking that entails.
Likewise Marx's prediction that communism was not only an inevitable culmination of humanity's long, tortuous road, but an imminent one as well, seemed very probably to many people in his time. Many later events seemed to support that too- but at this point it is hard to see how someone could seriously think that communism is the inevitable future of mankind, or that it is even the only way that the contradictions of capitalism can resolve (without wiping civilization out).
So in short I'd say Marx is at his best when he's looking at what's in front of him- the burgeoning capitalist mode of production and the peculiar principles that continue to shape the world today. And his Hegelian inheritance enabled him to analyze these in a particularly dynamic way. When he's explaining the past, though, or predicting the future, his German philosophy puts him on shakier ground.
This doesn't really explain Christianity has so often been inimical to Marxism or leftism generally. Oftentimes of course reactionary Christians will cite Marxism's godlessness and materialism but reactionary Christianity is itself a bulwark of the sons of Mammon. While it mouths pious slogans it is a fundamentally atheistic ideology because no one who believes there is a God judging the sons of men would support the likes of Franco, Pinochet, Trump, or Bolsonaro.
I´d think that Marx himself thinking of christianity as a problem, and marxist regimes in general kind of thinking of religion as a problem and tryng to get rid of it in very violent manners might have something to do with it. Maybe it is so hard for you to understand because the type of "christianity" you´re used to is not actual christianity, it´s just a secular ideology using traditional christian symbols. So, when something attacks the heart of christianity, this doesn´t really touch on liberal christianity cause it´s not christian at all. I´d say progressive christianity hates christianity as much as orthodox marxists. The only difference is the method: while the latter is violent and tryes to destroy it from the outside, the first infiltrated in its hierarchy and makes it harder and harder for actual christianity to be preached inside the institution. The institution will die gradually, or eventually merge with other dying institution so that it can survive a few more years.
Probably just cause for me not to, then. He's hardly the most discerning of people as exemplified by his stance on LGBT+
Give the guy a break.
No. Why should he be exempt?
Because the Pope is not an evangelical. If you´re roman catholic, orthodox, or muslim, you get a free pass to hold your beliefs without being trashed by the virtue-signalling progressive "christians". If you´re evangelical, every single thing you think, say and do will be scrutinized by virtue-signalling people concerned with the "poor and opressed". Guess what, they hate that specific group, so they will do everything to catch them in error, and acuse them of being a "death squad theology" or something like that. Kind of like witch-hunt. Aren´t these progressive christians and their compassionate theologies lovely?
For someone who disparaged others for bashing groups they hate, your posts reek of doing this.
I suppose it helps people avoid dealing with valid criticisms if they can dismiss them instead.
There was even a popular genre of atheist pamphlets in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries where various authors accused their enemies of atheism, based on their wickedness rather than any philosophical position on the non-existence of a deity.
In Paradise Lost (Book VI, line 370) in the war in heaven the army of Satan is called 'the atheist crew'. Milton probably did not intend to even imply that Satan and his followers did not believe in the existence of God.
I think more often than not in the early modern period the prefix 'a-' has the sense 'does not care about' or 'does not respect' rather than 'does not believe in the existence of'; just as calling someone 'amoral' is not a report on their theory of metaethics.
Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask why Marx thought religion (and specifically Christianity) was a problem.
It was because he saw (and I don't think anyone can reasonably deny this) Christianity walking lock-step with Capitalism, promising good little workers their reward in Heaven, while the bosses had their rewards now on Earth.
Having spead the message that God would send dissenters, troublemakers, and proto-socialists to Hell, Marx saw the Church as the problem, not the solution.
Marx's rightful complaint of religion was it's alliance with the political and economic power, and use to keep the average person in suffering and misery for the benefit of the wealthy-powerful. The failed revolutions of 1848 and 1832 amid the rush to industrialize - more than half of Europe had versions of serfdom until 1848.... Capitalism as developed then was aimed the same way as it is presently, but the suffering is exported to the developing world instead of local. Those who do terror to us are objecting to their exploitation if the analysis holds. Whether they are of radicalized Islam, Bader-Meinhoff.
Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask why Marx thought religion (and specifically Christianity) was a problem.
It was because he saw (and I don't think anyone can reasonably deny this) Christianity walking lock-step with Capitalism, promising good little workers their reward in Heaven, while the bosses had their rewards now on Earth.
Having spead the message that God would send dissenters, troublemakers, and proto-socialists to Hell, Marx saw the Church as the problem, not the solution.
But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines. who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.
For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throng of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs.
It should be noted that many of the "eloquent Divines" Douglass condemns are the theological (and in a few cases literal) ancestors of white American evangelicalism.
It should be noted that Marx and Douglass were exact contemporaries, both born in 1818.
I’ve never understood Christian distaste for Marxism or Marxist thought. Marxism is one of the most sophisticated and systematic accounts of life under capitalism, and capitalism is quite abhorrent to all Christian ethics. Christians, as a whole, are quite dismissive of Marx. When you get into conservative Christians they just willfully misunderstand and distort his thinking, as far as I’m concerned. It’s quite strange.
I agree that Marx provides a valuable analysis of capitalism, which Christians should engage with seriously. He recognized more than anyone before him what set capitalism apart from previous societies and what made it tick. Of course Marxism is more than an analysis of capitalism, though- it is a philosophy addressing, at least implicitly, all facets of life with an underlying materialist conception of nature, history, and life in general.
Materialism does, to be fair, do a good job of explaining many phenomena that happen in a society driven by greed, but for many things it only gives part of the picture. The materialism and economic determinism of Marxism forces consistent Marxists to explain a lot of things- especially complex human activities like religion and art- in a highly reductionist way.
When the early Marxists presented their ideology as "scientific" socialism, as opposed to the idealist or utopian socialism of other schools, it probably sounded very impressive to 19th century audiences but today it just looks like branding for what is really just another school of romanticism- with the combination of genuine insights and wishful thinking that entails.
Likewise Marx's prediction that communism was not only an inevitable culmination of humanity's long, tortuous road, but an imminent one as well, seemed very probably to many people in his time. Many later events seemed to support that too- but at this point it is hard to see how someone could seriously think that communism is the inevitable future of mankind, or that it is even the only way that the contradictions of capitalism can resolve (without wiping civilization out).
So in short I'd say Marx is at his best when he's looking at what's in front of him- the burgeoning capitalist mode of production and the peculiar principles that continue to shape the world today. And his Hegelian inheritance enabled him to analyze these in a particularly dynamic way. When he's explaining the past, though, or predicting the future, his German philosophy puts him on shakier ground.
This doesn't really explain Christianity has so often been inimical to Marxism or leftism generally. Oftentimes of course reactionary Christians will cite Marxism's godlessness and materialism but reactionary Christianity is itself a bulwark of the sons of Mammon. While it mouths pious slogans it is a fundamentally atheistic ideology because no one who believes there is a God judging the sons of men would support the likes of Franco, Pinochet, Trump, or Bolsonaro.
I´d think that Marx himself thinking of christianity as a problem, and marxist regimes in general kind of thinking of religion as a problem and tryng to get rid of it in very violent manners might have something to do with it. Maybe it is so hard for you to understand because the type of "christianity" you´re used to is not actual christianity, it´s just a secular ideology using traditional christian symbols. So, when something attacks the heart of christianity, this doesn´t really touch on liberal christianity cause it´s not christian at all. I´d say progressive christianity hates christianity as much as orthodox marxists. The only difference is the method: while the latter is violent and tryes to destroy it from the outside, the first infiltrated in its hierarchy and makes it harder and harder for actual christianity to be preached inside the institution. The institution will die gradually, or eventually merge with other dying institution so that it can survive a few more years.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Marx didn’t like religion. So what. Aristotle wouldn’t have liked Jesus or the Trinity, that didn’t stop theologians from utilizing the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework Marx erected has a lot to offer for an analysis of contemporary culture and the problems we as Christians face. I’m not in favor of dismissing something out of hand because it doesn’t necessarily jive immediately with my governing thoughts.
I´m not oposed to using conceptual frameworks developed by atheists, and I´m not in favor of dismissing it entirely. I am entirely against using it as a substitute for the gospel, and dismissing the biblical gospel entirely just because it doesn´t jive with your prefered ideology. And that is what liberal/liberation theologians do. The problem is not so much of them using non-christian (well, in their case, specifically anti-christian, which makes it harder) philosophies to make sense of the faith, but the fact that they´ve thrown the faith away altogether. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle, but he didn´t stop believing in God as creator, in the incarnation and ressurrection of Jesus, in the inspiration of biblical texts. To compare this with what liberal theologians do is a travesty! They are not using other philosophies to promote christianity. They are using christianity (which they don´t believe) to promote other philosophies.
There are fundies in the US who think the Narnia books are suspect.
And they exist in Australia too. I once was a manager of a small Christian bookshop. Asked for suggestions for school prizes, I included the Narnia series in a list. I received a caustic reply withdrawing any support for the shop because Narnia books were demonically inspired. This was an ultra conservative sect. I had not realised what they were like.
Probably just cause for me not to, then. He's hardly the most discerning of people as exemplified by his stance on LGBT+
Give the guy a break.
No. Why should he be exempt?
We all have blind spots. But you reject liberation theology because Francis doesn't any more? Sigh.
I don't reject liberation theology. I embraced it more than 20 years ago - clearly Francis doesn't otherwise he'd have a different perspective on lots of things in the RCC.
Probably just cause for me not to, then. He's hardly the most discerning of people as exemplified by his stance on LGBT+
Give the guy a break.
No. Why should he be exempt?
We all have blind spots. But you reject liberation theology because Francis doesn't any more? Sigh.
I don't reject liberation theology. I embraced it more than 20 years ago - clearly Francis doesn't otherwise he'd have a different perspective on lots of things in the RCC.
Sorry for my diametric misunderstanding of your position. I thought you were rejecting liberation theology because Francis was reaching out to it. I find Francis' inconsistencies most human. He's reaching beyond his shackled grasp? He can't be bitter and sweet? Politically liberal and sexually not? Evangelicalism does that at one margin.
I don't get this. Nobody is saying that Pope Francis should be exempt from criticism or challenge. The most strident and trenchant criticisms I've encountered of the current Pontiff have come from RCs themselves. Some think he's a breath of fresh air, others that he's some kind of heretic.
He's a Marmite Pope.
We could turn the question round and enquire as to why evangelicals should be exempt?
Granted, there's a lot of evo-bashing on these boards and plenty of Shippies have abandoned evangelicalism or moved through it into other faith positions - or abandoned faith entirely.
But there's nothing to stop someone starting a Catholic cognitive dissonance thread or a liberal theology cognitive dissonance thread.
Yes, US style Trumpagelical dumbomentalism is crass, crap and cracked. But not all evangelicals fall into that category, not even in the US.
I can understand why conservative evangelicals find threads like this tedious, repetitive and misinformed. I've done more than my fair share of evo-bashing on these boards as I worked my own way out of evangelical subcultures.
I hope I don't do it as much these days. I'd like to think I've come to terms with my evangelical background and made my peace with it. I'm not sure I can supply any 'facts' to back that up.
Neither would I like to single out any particular tradition or movement as being any worse than the others. We all shoot our wounded.
All I can say is that at its core evangelicalism seeks to hold and promote something of profound value. It's not alone in that. The problems start in the way that's often expressed or worked out, which is true elsewhere too of course.
I think Gamma's comments are why I try to refer to them as "Fundamentalists". That does define them very well.
However, these people like to do label grabs. They define themselves as Evangelical (although many of us who actually are reject this). They go on to define themselves as the only true evangelicals. They define themselves as Christian (despite rejecting most of the core principles of Christianity), And state that only their views are Christian. Or Bible based Christian.
So it becomes very easy to accept their definintion, and criticise all evangelicals, or all Christians,based on what they say.
In truth, they are a small but vocal group. They should be criticised on what they believe. As should any other faith group. But all people who share some of the labels should be critiques based on what they actually believe, not on what people who grab these labels claim.
I tend to get a bit torqued by the habit Fundamentalists have of hijacking the term Evangelical. Actually, though, when you compare modern Fundamentalism to the original variety back in the 1910s the similarities are not exactly striking. What was submitted to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church were these five points:
The Verbal Inspiration and Infallibility of Scripture
The Virgin Birth
The belief that Our Lord's death was an atonement for sin
The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
The literal truth of the Biblical miracles
They basically represent what I would describe in the context of the first two decades of the twentieth century as a conservative mainline position. Another way of looking at it is that it represents the conservative strain of the old Princeton theology, which is where the Fundamentals movement began c.1890. Their theological tradition continues in the Presbyterian Church of America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, neither of which I would characterise as being "fundamentalist" in the modern sense.
Thank you for quoting that - I absolutely love Fred Clark! If there were more Christians like him, perhaps I wouldn't be dealing with yet another bout of skepticism right now.
Unfortunately, what's triggering my latest bout is that the branch of Christianity I'm in (Eastern-rite Catholicism) seems to have been largely taken over by Evangelical-minded folks of the type Mr. Clark describes. Perhaps because the more broad-minded Christians have been quietly leaving the Roman Catholic church for some reason ( ), and they're all that's left?
The Orthodox Church, at least in the United States and Russia, is undergoing much the same infiltration. They seem to be hell-bent (adjective chosen knowingly) on dragging the Orthodox Church into the back pocket of the US Fundamentalist culture wars. To where say in order to get published with Ancient Faith Publishing, the largest Orthodox publisher in the US, you have to sign a statement of faith pledging that in effect you will never say anything nice about LGBTQ people ever again. Is that in the Creed? Apparently the translation we use in our parish failed to see that in the Greek. Our bad.
.
I comfort myself (though it is cold comfort) with the thought that the iconoclasts took over the Church for a couple hundred years, and yet the Church eventually threw them off. I see this as another iconoclast invasion. And it is, because it doesn't see that every human being, however gay, is an icon of Christ.
The Orthodox Church, at least in the United States and Russia, is undergoing much the same infiltration. They seem to be hell-bent (adjective chosen knowingly) on dragging the Orthodox Church into the back pocket of the US Fundamentalist culture wars. To where say in order to get published with Ancient Faith Publishing, the largest Orthodox publisher in the US, you have to sign a statement of faith pledging that in effect you will never say anything nice about LGBTQ people ever again. Is that in the Creed? Apparently the translation we use in our parish failed to see that in the Greek. Our bad.
.
I comfort myself (though it is cold comfort) with the thought that the iconoclasts took over the Church for a couple hundred years, and yet the Church eventually threw them off. I see this as another iconoclast invasion. And it is, because it doesn't see that every human being, however gay, is an icon of Christ.
That's a big issue for me, too. I completely disagree with both the Catholics and the Orthodox in their assertions, *as as point of doctrine,* that being gay is "intrinsically disordered," in some way other than the general Christian belief that *all* human beings are "intrinsically disordered."
And re the Orthodox Church, are you familiar with the late Fr. Peter Gillquist? I believe he and his companions were the ones who really brought the latest round of Evangelicalism into the RO, back in the '90s. Interestingly*, he was friends with Thomas Howard, who followed the same path but chose the RC.
The Gillquist group was definitely a big part of it- I believe the aforementioned Ancient Faith Radio came out of that milieu. And they really are awful. There are other fundygelical streams flowing in too. Fr. Josiah Trenham is a pretty noteworthy and horrendous example.
The Orthodox Church, at least in the United States and Russia, is undergoing much the same infiltration. They seem to be hell-bent (adjective chosen knowingly) on dragging the Orthodox Church into the back pocket of the US Fundamentalist culture wars. To where say in order to get published with Ancient Faith Publishing, the largest Orthodox publisher in the US, you have to sign a statement of faith pledging that in effect you will never say anything nice about LGBTQ people ever again. Is that in the Creed? Apparently the translation we use in our parish failed to see that in the Greek. Our bad.
That anti-creedal Baptist impulse of “no creed but the Bible” is why most evangelical churches today, unlike their mainline Protestant counterparts, do not recite the Nicene or Apostles creeds in their worship — or pretty much ever. Instead evangelicals have statements of faith — the new creeds we refuse to call creeds.
The statement of faith used by the Southern Baptist Convention and its seminaries is more than 5,000 words long.
At that length, a statement of faith no longer functions as a creed-by-another-name. At that length, the SBC’s statement of faith seems intended to provide denominational lawyers and scribes a pretext for condemning anyone who gets out of line.
Since the Orthodox Church is creedal you'd think statements of faith would be unnecessary and redundant.
Since the Orthodox Church is creedal you'd think statements of faith would be unnecessary and redundant.
Exactly. Conclusion: They want to enforce adherence to something that goes beyond the Orthodox faith. And that something is the fundamentalist culture war.
The statement of faith used by the Southern Baptist Convention and its seminaries is more than 5,000 words long.
.
That makes me wonder how long the 39 Articles are in comparison, and they are not binding on the laity who are bound by nothing more than being able to recite the Creeds with a more or less straight face. It seems that when folks try and do without the Creeds they usually end up with something ten times as long.
Statements of faith are NOT creeds for those that do not like Creeds.
Non-credal faith communities do not have statements and tend to be liberal, not conservative e.g. Quakers and Unitarians
Secondly, it is not unusual for statements of faith to actually affirm that the creeds themselves. This is because all statements of faith are seen as contextual i.e. as pertinent to that denomination/church/organisation at that time in that situation.
15. What then briefly is the substance of this knowledge?
It is contained in the Confession of Faith used by all Christians. It is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, because it is a summary of the true faith which has always been held in Christ’s Church, and was derived from the pure doctrine of the Apostles.
Fwiw, I'd say that it is impossible to have a faith community without having some fundamental creedal understanding of faith.
The only difference between Quakers, Unitarians and other non-creedal groups and those who expressly hold to a creed is that the latter have theirs written down.
Even "we have no creed" has effectively become a creed.
No that is simply to misunderstand the nature of faith. We in western culture seem to fall very easily into the trap of thinking faith is primarily intellectual assent. The evidence from the rest of the World is that it is NOT. Indeed they would not use intellectual assent as a mark of being of the faith but the actual performance of the faith. Participation in the faith communities traditions, ethical and moral code, spirituality, ceremonies and communal life play a much larger part in what faith is.
I thought that Jengie Jon is right about non-Western religions, where doing the religion is more important than believing. In fact, this used to be said about Judaism, don't know enough about it. But many tribal religions seem to be immersive, rather than cognitive. Or in old money, praxis not doxis.
I don't agree. Creedal statements represent the fundamental understanding of the centre of any and all faith communities, in my opinion.
It isn't about everyone believing all of it, but it is about a shared communal understanding of what the faith actually is.
I am with you here. When Quakers say "I believe" or "Quakers believe" (and they do), they are affirming a system of faith whether it's based on intellectual assent or practical engagement. I don't think the bible discriminates between what we believe and how we live it - it is all of a piece whether we say the forma creeds or not.
We are protesting too much in aiming to be different. We're not - at least in our methodology.
Where the difference might lie is in the particular focus of faith and life - there are distinctives there, certainly as in the Quakers' espousal of pacifism. Apart from that Quaker are a church like any other with ways of worshipping (liturgy), expressions of belief (creed) and practical living (discipleship: adherence to a cause).
I can cope if its just praxis. But it's presented as doxis. At last Sunday's liberal evangelical service.
This is where sacraments differ and why I am fundamentally not a Protestant. Sacraments put actions at the centre of faith and keep doctrine in its correct secondary position.
I can cope if its just praxis. But it's presented as doxis. At last Sunday's liberal evangelical service.
This is where sacraments differ and why I am fundamentally not a Protestant. Sacraments put actions at the centre of faith and keep doctrine in its correct secondary position.
Little point doing unless you know what you believe that action represents.
I can cope if its just praxis. But it's presented as doxis. At last Sunday's liberal evangelical service.
This is where sacraments differ and why I am fundamentally not a Protestant. Sacraments put actions at the centre of faith and keep doctrine in its correct secondary position.
Little point doing unless you know what you believe that action represents.
That knowledge does not have to be propositional. Again this is the cognitive bias at the heart of Protestantism in action
I can cope if its just praxis. But it's presented as doxis. At last Sunday's liberal evangelical service.
This is where sacraments differ and why I am fundamentally not a Protestant. Sacraments put actions at the centre of faith and keep doctrine in its correct secondary position.
I can cope if its just praxis. But it's presented as doxis. At last Sunday's liberal evangelical service.
This is where sacraments differ and why I am fundamentally not a Protestant. Sacraments put actions at the centre of faith and keep doctrine in its correct secondary position.
Little point doing unless you know what you believe that action represents.
That knowledge does not have to be propositional. Again this is the cognitive bias at the heart of Protestantism in action
Yes, I agree. I became a Catholic 30 years ago, and I was captivated by the sheer wealth of imagery and symbolism. Well, it faded, but that's another story. But praxis involves a kind of knowledge, and this reminds me of performatives in discourse analysis. Thus, 'I promise' is a promise.
Don't the two run together? The praxis and liturgy are living illustrations of the theology and doctrine. Christ asked us to remember Him in an incarnational and communal way through the combined words and actions of Holy Communion.
Don't the two run together? The praxis and liturgy are living illustrations of the theology and doctrine. Christ asked us to remember Him in an incarnational and communal way through the combined words and actions of Holy Communion.
It's equally possible and valid for the theology to derive from the action rather than any other order.
Comments
I did say the formulation was a lot more common in the past. There was even a popular genre of atheist pamphlets in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries where various authors accused their enemies of atheism, based on their wickedness rather than any philosophical position on the non-existence of a deity. Protestants put out pamphlets accusing the Pope specifically (and Catholics generally) of atheism based on various corruptions and wicked deeds. Catholic authors did likewise for Protestants. There were even historical examples where some infamous long-dead person (Caligula, various Borgias, etc.) was criticized for their atheism with a long and detailed list of their various depravities and perversions. In the nineteenth century the genre fell out of fashion, replaced with penny dreadfuls and similar offerings that simply offered up a bunch of depravities and perversions without trying to force them into some kind of philosophical or theological framework, cutting out the middle man to give the reading public what they really wanted in the first place.
Because the Pope is not an evangelical. If you´re roman catholic, orthodox, or muslim, you get a free pass to hold your beliefs without being trashed by the virtue-signalling progressive "christians". If you´re evangelical, every single thing you think, say and do will be scrutinized by virtue-signalling people concerned with the "poor and opressed". Guess what, they hate that specific group, so they will do everything to catch them in error, and acuse them of being a "death squad theology" or something like that. Kind of like witch-hunt. Aren´t these progressive christians and their compassionate theologies lovely?
You need to open your eyes and look around. This is especially ironic coming as it does on a thread about Evangelical cognitive dissonance.
In case you missed it: I am an equal opportunity hater - I think all of your varieties of Christianity are a sack of shit.
I just think some are better than others measured by the human cost of your beliefs.
I´d think that Marx himself thinking of christianity as a problem, and marxist regimes in general kind of thinking of religion as a problem and tryng to get rid of it in very violent manners might have something to do with it. Maybe it is so hard for you to understand because the type of "christianity" you´re used to is not actual christianity, it´s just a secular ideology using traditional christian symbols. So, when something attacks the heart of christianity, this doesn´t really touch on liberal christianity cause it´s not christian at all. I´d say progressive christianity hates christianity as much as orthodox marxists. The only difference is the method: while the latter is violent and tryes to destroy it from the outside, the first infiltrated in its hierarchy and makes it harder and harder for actual christianity to be preached inside the institution. The institution will die gradually, or eventually merge with other dying institution so that it can survive a few more years.
I suppose it helps people avoid dealing with valid criticisms if they can dismiss them instead.
Bother to google it. It´s all public and notorious information. I won´t post a link for every single assertion of mine. Nobody else does.
Then don't be surprised if everyone else thinks you're making shit up. Again.
I think more often than not in the early modern period the prefix 'a-' has the sense 'does not care about' or 'does not respect' rather than 'does not believe in the existence of'; just as calling someone 'amoral' is not a report on their theory of metaethics.
Excellent summary of your death squad Trumpygelicalism.
It was because he saw (and I don't think anyone can reasonably deny this) Christianity walking lock-step with Capitalism, promising good little workers their reward in Heaven, while the bosses had their rewards now on Earth.
Having spead the message that God would send dissenters, troublemakers, and proto-socialists to Hell, Marx saw the Church as the problem, not the solution.
This seems analogous to Frederick Douglass' position on most white American Christians regarding slavery.
It should be noted that many of the "eloquent Divines" Douglass condemns are the theological (and in a few cases literal) ancestors of white American evangelicalism.
It should be noted that Marx and Douglass were exact contemporaries, both born in 1818.
It´s just another progressive christians / atheists / agnostics unite to bash evangelicals thread. Sorry to ruin it with facts
I´m not oposed to using conceptual frameworks developed by atheists, and I´m not in favor of dismissing it entirely. I am entirely against using it as a substitute for the gospel, and dismissing the biblical gospel entirely just because it doesn´t jive with your prefered ideology. And that is what liberal/liberation theologians do. The problem is not so much of them using non-christian (well, in their case, specifically anti-christian, which makes it harder) philosophies to make sense of the faith, but the fact that they´ve thrown the faith away altogether. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle, but he didn´t stop believing in God as creator, in the incarnation and ressurrection of Jesus, in the inspiration of biblical texts. To compare this with what liberal theologians do is a travesty! They are not using other philosophies to promote christianity. They are using christianity (which they don´t believe) to promote other philosophies.
"I have facts. The best facts. No one has better facts than me. And that's a fact."
Asserting you have facts, then not referencing those facts, makes your entire argument positively Trumpian. It will be treated accordingly.
We all have blind spots. But you reject liberation theology because Francis doesn't any more? Sigh.
And they exist in Australia too. I once was a manager of a small Christian bookshop. Asked for suggestions for school prizes, I included the Narnia series in a list. I received a caustic reply withdrawing any support for the shop because Narnia books were demonically inspired. This was an ultra conservative sect. I had not realised what they were like.
I see what you did there, you made a funny.
I don't reject liberation theology. I embraced it more than 20 years ago - clearly Francis doesn't otherwise he'd have a different perspective on lots of things in the RCC.
Sorry for my diametric misunderstanding of your position. I thought you were rejecting liberation theology because Francis was reaching out to it. I find Francis' inconsistencies most human. He's reaching beyond his shackled grasp? He can't be bitter and sweet? Politically liberal and sexually not? Evangelicalism does that at one margin.
He's a Marmite Pope.
We could turn the question round and enquire as to why evangelicals should be exempt?
Granted, there's a lot of evo-bashing on these boards and plenty of Shippies have abandoned evangelicalism or moved through it into other faith positions - or abandoned faith entirely.
But there's nothing to stop someone starting a Catholic cognitive dissonance thread or a liberal theology cognitive dissonance thread.
Yes, US style Trumpagelical dumbomentalism is crass, crap and cracked. But not all evangelicals fall into that category, not even in the US.
I can understand why conservative evangelicals find threads like this tedious, repetitive and misinformed. I've done more than my fair share of evo-bashing on these boards as I worked my own way out of evangelical subcultures.
I hope I don't do it as much these days. I'd like to think I've come to terms with my evangelical background and made my peace with it. I'm not sure I can supply any 'facts' to back that up.
Neither would I like to single out any particular tradition or movement as being any worse than the others. We all shoot our wounded.
All I can say is that at its core evangelicalism seeks to hold and promote something of profound value. It's not alone in that. The problems start in the way that's often expressed or worked out, which is true elsewhere too of course.
However, these people like to do label grabs. They define themselves as Evangelical (although many of us who actually are reject this). They go on to define themselves as the only true evangelicals. They define themselves as Christian (despite rejecting most of the core principles of Christianity), And state that only their views are Christian. Or Bible based Christian.
So it becomes very easy to accept their definintion, and criticise all evangelicals, or all Christians,based on what they say.
In truth, they are a small but vocal group. They should be criticised on what they believe. As should any other faith group. But all people who share some of the labels should be critiques based on what they actually believe, not on what people who grab these labels claim.
The Verbal Inspiration and Infallibility of Scripture
The Virgin Birth
The belief that Our Lord's death was an atonement for sin
The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
The literal truth of the Biblical miracles
They basically represent what I would describe in the context of the first two decades of the twentieth century as a conservative mainline position. Another way of looking at it is that it represents the conservative strain of the old Princeton theology, which is where the Fundamentals movement began c.1890. Their theological tradition continues in the Presbyterian Church of America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, neither of which I would characterise as being "fundamentalist" in the modern sense.
Thank you for quoting that - I absolutely love Fred Clark! If there were more Christians like him, perhaps I wouldn't be dealing with yet another bout of skepticism right now.
Unfortunately, what's triggering my latest bout is that the branch of Christianity I'm in (Eastern-rite Catholicism) seems to have been largely taken over by Evangelical-minded folks of the type Mr. Clark describes. Perhaps because the more broad-minded Christians have been quietly leaving the Roman Catholic church for some reason (
Tidied up code. BroJames Purgatory Host
.
I comfort myself (though it is cold comfort) with the thought that the iconoclasts took over the Church for a couple hundred years, and yet the Church eventually threw them off. I see this as another iconoclast invasion. And it is, because it doesn't see that every human being, however gay, is an icon of Christ.
That's a big issue for me, too. I completely disagree with both the Catholics and the Orthodox in their assertions, *as as point of doctrine,* that being gay is "intrinsically disordered," in some way other than the general Christian belief that *all* human beings are "intrinsically disordered."
And re the Orthodox Church, are you familiar with the late Fr. Peter Gillquist? I believe he and his companions were the ones who really brought the latest round of Evangelicalism into the RO, back in the '90s. Interestingly*, he was friends with Thomas Howard, who followed the same path but chose the RC.
(*"Interestingly" to us theology geeks, anyway!
Fred Clark once claimed that 'statements of faith' are really long creeds for the anti-creedal.
Since the Orthodox Church is creedal you'd think statements of faith would be unnecessary and redundant.
That makes me wonder how long the 39 Articles are in comparison, and they are not binding on the laity who are bound by nothing more than being able to recite the Creeds with a more or less straight face. It seems that when folks try and do without the Creeds they usually end up with something ten times as long.
Non-credal faith communities do not have statements and tend to be liberal, not conservative e.g. Quakers and Unitarians
Secondly, it is not unusual for statements of faith to actually affirm that the creeds themselves. This is because all statements of faith are seen as contextual i.e. as pertinent to that denomination/church/organisation at that time in that situation.
From John Calvin's Catechism
The only difference between Quakers, Unitarians and other non-creedal groups and those who expressly hold to a creed is that the latter have theirs written down.
Even "we have no creed" has effectively become a creed.
It isn't about everyone believing all of it, but it is about a shared communal understanding of what the faith actually is.
I am with you here. When Quakers say "I believe" or "Quakers believe" (and they do), they are affirming a system of faith whether it's based on intellectual assent or practical engagement. I don't think the bible discriminates between what we believe and how we live it - it is all of a piece whether we say the forma creeds or not.
We are protesting too much in aiming to be different. We're not - at least in our methodology.
Where the difference might lie is in the particular focus of faith and life - there are distinctives there, certainly as in the Quakers' espousal of pacifism. Apart from that Quaker are a church like any other with ways of worshipping (liturgy), expressions of belief (creed) and practical living (discipleship: adherence to a cause).
This is where sacraments differ and why I am fundamentally not a Protestant. Sacraments put actions at the centre of faith and keep doctrine in its correct secondary position.
Little point doing unless you know what you believe that action represents.
That knowledge does not have to be propositional. Again this is the cognitive bias at the heart of Protestantism in action
Aagh. Almost thou persuadest me.
Yes, I agree. I became a Catholic 30 years ago, and I was captivated by the sheer wealth of imagery and symbolism. Well, it faded, but that's another story. But praxis involves a kind of knowledge, and this reminds me of performatives in discourse analysis. Thus, 'I promise' is a promise.
It's equally possible and valid for the theology to derive from the action rather than any other order.