Whether we like it or not, this sort of thing isn't just coming from the 'spires of Oxford of the Spectator Garden Party.'
Yes, I suspect lots of shady business-people are helping to stoke up this sort of thing but I think we are complacent if we blame it all on those posh gits over there ...
I don't think it's complacent to point out the extent to which these things are astro-turfed movements with significant support from very well healed and rich individuals, and that includes Tommy Robinson
If you think they are examples of dissent then make a case for it with your whole chest, but it seems you've gone in your last post from 'I can't see any dissent' to 'dissent is only in the eye of the beholder'.
What I actually said was that these people would claim their stance to be 'dissent.' As I'm not one of them I'm not going to make their case for them.
That's rather different to what you are making out I said.
So the following doesn't end in a rhetorical question, and the answer to it is actually 'no' ?
Of course it counts as 'dissent'
Those Christians who agitate for more conservative causes would also claim to be 'dissenters'.
Whether we like it or not, this sort of thing isn't just coming from the 'spires of Oxford of the Spectator Garden Party.'
Yes, I suspect lots of shady business-people are helping to stoke up this sort of thing but I think we are complacent if we blame it all on those posh gits over there ...
I don't think it's complacent to point out the extent to which these things are astro-turfed movements with significant support from very well healed and rich individuals, and that includes Tommy Robinson
If you think they are examples of dissent then make a case for it with your whole chest, but it seems you've gone in your last post from 'I can't see any dissent' to 'dissent is only in the eye of the beholder'.
What I actually said was that these people would claim their stance to be 'dissent.' As I'm not one of them I'm not going to make their case for them.
That's rather different to what you are making out I said.
So the following doesn't end in a rhetorical question, and the answer to it is actually 'no' ?
Of course it counts as 'dissent'
Those Christians who agitate for more conservative causes would also claim to be 'dissenters'.
Would that not count as 'dissent'?
Ok. Perhaps I should have phrased that more carefully.
But you missed out the next question I asked, which was whether something only counts as 'dissent' if we happen to agree with the cause?
On one level, irrespective of what we might think of those who make take a different stance to ourselves, anything that goes against the grain of perceived prevailing 'norms' or ideology could be seen as a 'dissenting' position.
In the case of the 'Yaxley-Lennons' of this world, recognising that there's 'astro-turfing' going on doesn't elide the fact that astro-turf asshats aren't tapping into an innate conservatism in some quarters and weaponising it.
As I've mentioned already, I have met Christians who were very much attracted by that side of the spectrum but who are now actively combating it.
I'm not saying the astro-turfers are 'dissenting' about the right things but they do see themselves as dissenting against what they see as prevailing 'woke' ideology and 'legacy media' and so on. Yadda yadda yadda.
Without getting into Epiphanies territory I hope, someone who takes a 'Pro-Life' position in a largely 'Pro-Choice' environment is going to claim that they are a 'dissenter' and vice-versa.
Brexiters could claim to be 'dissenters' before the EU Referendum. Remainers could claim to be 'dissenters' afterwards.
That's how these things work.
Easting a mince pie and celebrating Christmas during the Commonwealth period could have been seen as an act of 'dissent.'
Distributing tracts calling for the abolition of Episcopacy during the reign of Charles I likewise.
I'm not taking my 'both/and-ism' to the point where I'd argue for moral equivalence on any 'dissenting' position purely on the basis that it represents a challenge to prevailing 'norms' of whatever kind.
Whether we like it or not, this sort of thing isn't just coming from the 'spires of Oxford of the Spectator Garden Party.'
Yes, I suspect lots of shady business-people are helping to stoke up this sort of thing but I think we are complacent if we blame it all on those posh gits over there ...
I don't think it's complacent to point out the extent to which these things are astro-turfed movements with significant support from very well healed and rich individuals, and that includes Tommy Robinson
If you think they are examples of dissent then make a case for it with your whole chest, but it seems you've gone in your last post from 'I can't see any dissent' to 'dissent is only in the eye of the beholder'.
What I actually said was that these people would claim their stance to be 'dissent.' As I'm not one of them I'm not going to make their case for them.
That's rather different to what you are making out I said.
So the following doesn't end in a rhetorical question, and the answer to it is actually 'no' ?
Of course it counts as 'dissent'
Those Christians who agitate for more conservative causes would also claim to be 'dissenters'.
Would that not count as 'dissent'?
Ok. Perhaps I should have phrased that more carefully.
But you missed out the next question I asked, which was whether something only counts as 'dissent' if we happen to agree with the cause?
On one level, irrespective of what we might think of those who make take a different stance to ourselves, anything that goes against the grain of perceived prevailing 'norms' or ideology could be seen as a 'dissenting' position.
Okay, let's start simply, when you ask for evidences of dissent in your OP, what are you actually expecting to see specifically ?
@Barnabas62 has posted on the value of the 'dissenting' Christian tradition with its emphasis on personal conscience and, in its 'baptistic' and 'Congregational' forms, the autonomy of the local 'gathered' church.
My question is, how does 'dissent' manifest itself now that:
- 'State' and 'established' churches no longer hold as much sway as they did when the original 'seperatists' emerged in the early 1600s - and had become 'denominations' in the modern sense by the 19th century?
- Churches of whatever stripe are essentially 'voluntarist' in the West.
- Many of the things they were 'dissenting' from have receded into the background.
- Things that were once considered radical are now fairly standard and mainstream.
What does it mean to be a 'dissenter' within contemporary 'Western' Christianity?
What are churches that emerged from the radical Reformation or the 'dissenting' tradition offering these days that differs from what might be found in the older 'historic' Churches other than particular 'styles' or customs that they have developed over the years?
Yes, there will be female clergy of course, whereas those are missing in some historic Churches.
But what else?
What does 'dissent' look like when most mainstream churches tend to share the values of the surrounding society?
What do we need to do to demonstrate our 'dissenting' credentials if we feel we should do so?
Being a christian at all in western society is dissenting.
Why do you feel you need to demonstrate dissenting credentials?
The dissent of Christianity has always been and always will be the good news over the prevailing culture.
That looks different in all cultures and through all times.
If I may offer a different perspective on "The West" and "Christianity":
There are lots of places in America where being a Christian is extremely cozy with "Western society." A lot of folks seem to think that "Western Civilization" is the fortress in which the heart of Christ is protected. I see lots of Americans - especially in our government these days - who think that "western society" basically is Christendom.
I think they're screwed up, but it is definitely a common look.
In a lot of small towns in rural America, saying you're a bible-believing Christian is as cozy as flying an American flag on your porch, thanking veterans for their service, and earning an honest living. It's a very powerful cultural association. And that is the prevailing culture all over great swaths of the USA. I also know a lot of people who've been deeply scarred on account of their refusal to conform to this peculiar take on "the gospel."
Obviously, it's not my kind of thing, not my kind of faith, but I think it'd be dishonest of me not to acknowledge its existence. There are lots of places where Jesus Christ and Uncle Sam make very comfortable bedfellows, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
I confess I’m still having trouble with the underlying approach of this thread, in which it seems to me that “dissent” is being asked to do way too much work.
I understand “dissent” in the context of not aligning with a legally established church. And I understand “dissent” when used to mean registering disagreement with a decision or position. Though frankly, I mainly understand “dissent” to mean one or more members of a court noting their disagreement with a decision of the majority of that court.
But trying to identify all kinds of contrary positions that are indications of a modern category labeled “dissent” just doesn’t register with me. Perhaps that’s simply because a category labeled “dissent,” with people who fall into that category being labeled “dissenters,” is too foreign to my American experience. It’s not a category we use, at least not with those labels and not in my experience.
Perhaps I’m just a dissenter when it comes to the assumptions in this thread.
@Barnabas62 has posted on the value of the 'dissenting' Christian tradition with its emphasis on personal conscience and, in its 'baptistic' and 'Congregational' forms, the autonomy of the local 'gathered' church.
My question is, how does 'dissent' manifest itself now that:
- 'State' and 'established' churches no longer hold as much sway as they did when the original 'seperatists' emerged in the early 1600s - and had become 'denominations' in the modern sense by the 19th century?
- Churches of whatever stripe are essentially 'voluntarist' in the West.
- Many of the things they were 'dissenting' from have receded into the background.
- Things that were once considered radical are now fairly standard and mainstream.
What does it mean to be a 'dissenter' within contemporary 'Western' Christianity?
What are churches that emerged from the radical Reformation or the 'dissenting' tradition offering these days that differs from what might be found in the older 'historic' Churches other than particular 'styles' or customs that they have developed over the years?
Yes, there will be female clergy of course, whereas those are missing in some historic Churches.
But what else?
What does 'dissent' look like when most mainstream churches tend to share the values of the surrounding society?
What do we need to do to demonstrate our 'dissenting' credentials if we feel we should do so?
Being a christian at all in western society is dissenting.
Why do you feel you need to demonstrate dissenting credentials?
The dissent of Christianity has always been and always will be the good news over the prevailing culture.
That looks different in all cultures and through all times.
I be interested to hear anything in contemporary Britain that is not set up to allow Christians to do what they want. Christianity is so seeped into the administration and culture that it unthinkingly assumes that is the norm.
The idea that it is not the "prevailing culture" is quite odd sounding to me.
@Barnabas62 has posted on the value of the 'dissenting' Christian tradition with its emphasis on personal conscience and, in its 'baptistic' and 'Congregational' forms, the autonomy of the local 'gathered' church.
My question is, how does 'dissent' manifest itself now that:
- 'State' and 'established' churches no longer hold as much sway as they did when the original 'seperatists' emerged in the early 1600s - and had become 'denominations' in the modern sense by the 19th century?
- Churches of whatever stripe are essentially 'voluntarist' in the West.
- Many of the things they were 'dissenting' from have receded into the background.
- Things that were once considered radical are now fairly standard and mainstream.
What does it mean to be a 'dissenter' within contemporary 'Western' Christianity?
What are churches that emerged from the radical Reformation or the 'dissenting' tradition offering these days that differs from what might be found in the older 'historic' Churches other than particular 'styles' or customs that they have developed over the years?
Yes, there will be female clergy of course, whereas those are missing in some historic Churches.
But what else?
What does 'dissent' look like when most mainstream churches tend to share the values of the surrounding society?
What do we need to do to demonstrate our 'dissenting' credentials if we feel we should do so?
Being a christian at all in western society is dissenting.
Why do you feel you need to demonstrate dissenting credentials?
The dissent of Christianity has always been and always will be the good news over the prevailing culture.
That looks different in all cultures and through all times.
I be interested to hear anything in contemporary Britain that is not set up to allow Christians to do what they want. Christianity is so seeped into the administration and culture that it unthinkingly assumes that is the norm.
The idea that it is not the "prevailing culture" is quite odd sounding to me.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe @WhimsicalChristian lives in Australia, not Britain.
For example I was talking to someone earlier about the assumptions that the state makes about religious authority. There are, in a sense, figureheads that the state essentially protects and supports because they appear in a Christian-like way. There's the Board of Deputies, there's the Archbishop of Canterbury, there's the Archbishop of Westminster. These are all structures of authority in different religions.
But for religions that are not arranged like this, they're basically not talked to. Where are the liberal or secular Jews? Where are the various non-hierarchical Islamic groups?
If you don't have a defined space, do not meet up regularly, no not have charitable status and a defined (preferably national) leadership, you are basically not noticed by the state.
@Barnabas62 has posted on the value of the 'dissenting' Christian tradition with its emphasis on personal conscience and, in its 'baptistic' and 'Congregational' forms, the autonomy of the local 'gathered' church.
My question is, how does 'dissent' manifest itself now that:
- 'State' and 'established' churches no longer hold as much sway as they did when the original 'seperatists' emerged in the early 1600s - and had become 'denominations' in the modern sense by the 19th century?
- Churches of whatever stripe are essentially 'voluntarist' in the West.
- Many of the things they were 'dissenting' from have receded into the background.
- Things that were once considered radical are now fairly standard and mainstream.
What does it mean to be a 'dissenter' within contemporary 'Western' Christianity?
What are churches that emerged from the radical Reformation or the 'dissenting' tradition offering these days that differs from what might be found in the older 'historic' Churches other than particular 'styles' or customs that they have developed over the years?
Yes, there will be female clergy of course, whereas those are missing in some historic Churches.
But what else?
What does 'dissent' look like when most mainstream churches tend to share the values of the surrounding society?
What do we need to do to demonstrate our 'dissenting' credentials if we feel we should do so?
Being a christian at all in western society is dissenting.
Why do you feel you need to demonstrate dissenting credentials?
The dissent of Christianity has always been and always will be the good news over the prevailing culture.
That looks different in all cultures and through all times.
I be interested to hear anything in contemporary Britain that is not set up to allow Christians to do what they want. Christianity is so seeped into the administration and culture that it unthinkingly assumes that is the norm.
The idea that it is not the "prevailing culture" is quite odd sounding to me.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe @WhimsicalChristian lives in Australia, not Britain.
Ah ok. Well I doubt it is much different in Australia given that we share many assumptions about religions.
@Barnabas62 has posted on the value of the 'dissenting' Christian tradition with its emphasis on personal conscience and, in its 'baptistic' and 'Congregational' forms, the autonomy of the local 'gathered' church.
My question is, how does 'dissent' manifest itself now that:
- 'State' and 'established' churches no longer hold as much sway as they did when the original 'seperatists' emerged in the early 1600s - and had become 'denominations' in the modern sense by the 19th century?
- Churches of whatever stripe are essentially 'voluntarist' in the West.
- Many of the things they were 'dissenting' from have receded into the background.
- Things that were once considered radical are now fairly standard and mainstream.
What does it mean to be a 'dissenter' within contemporary 'Western' Christianity?
What are churches that emerged from the radical Reformation or the 'dissenting' tradition offering these days that differs from what might be found in the older 'historic' Churches other than particular 'styles' or customs that they have developed over the years?
Yes, there will be female clergy of course, whereas those are missing in some historic Churches.
But what else?
What does 'dissent' look like when most mainstream churches tend to share the values of the surrounding society?
What do we need to do to demonstrate our 'dissenting' credentials if we feel we should do so?
Being a christian at all in western society is dissenting.
Why do you feel you need to demonstrate dissenting credentials?
The dissent of Christianity has always been and always will be the good news over the prevailing culture.
That looks different in all cultures and through all times.
I be interested to hear anything in contemporary Britain that is not set up to allow Christians to do what they want. Christianity is so seeped into the administration and culture that it unthinkingly assumes that is the norm.
The idea that it is not the "prevailing culture" is quite odd sounding to me.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe @WhimsicalChristian lives in Australia, not Britain.
Ah ok. Well I doubt it is much different in Australia given that we share many assumptions about religions.
Perhaps. But I would suspect that Australia’s lack of a state church, together with all that entails, like bishops sitting in the House of Lords, makes at least some difference, at least with regard to sorts of things you mention in your post immediately prior to the one I quoted.
@Barnabas62 has posted on the value of the 'dissenting' Christian tradition with its emphasis on personal conscience and, in its 'baptistic' and 'Congregational' forms, the autonomy of the local 'gathered' church.
My question is, how does 'dissent' manifest itself now that:
- 'State' and 'established' churches no longer hold as much sway as they did when the original 'seperatists' emerged in the early 1600s - and had become 'denominations' in the modern sense by the 19th century?
- Churches of whatever stripe are essentially 'voluntarist' in the West.
- Many of the things they were 'dissenting' from have receded into the background.
- Things that were once considered radical are now fairly standard and mainstream.
What does it mean to be a 'dissenter' within contemporary 'Western' Christianity?
What are churches that emerged from the radical Reformation or the 'dissenting' tradition offering these days that differs from what might be found in the older 'historic' Churches other than particular 'styles' or customs that they have developed over the years?
Yes, there will be female clergy of course, whereas those are missing in some historic Churches.
But what else?
What does 'dissent' look like when most mainstream churches tend to share the values of the surrounding society?
What do we need to do to demonstrate our 'dissenting' credentials if we feel we should do so?
Being a christian at all in western society is dissenting.
Why do you feel you need to demonstrate dissenting credentials?
The dissent of Christianity has always been and always will be the good news over the prevailing culture.
That looks different in all cultures and through all times.
I be interested to hear anything in contemporary Britain that is not set up to allow Christians to do what they want. Christianity is so seeped into the administration and culture that it unthinkingly assumes that is the norm.
The idea that it is not the "prevailing culture" is quite odd sounding to me.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe @WhimsicalChristian lives in Australia, not Britain.
Ah ok. Well I doubt it is much different in Australia given that we share many assumptions about religions.
Perhaps. But I would suspect that Australia’s lack of a state church, together with all that entails, like bishops sitting in the House of Lords, makes at least some difference, at least with regard to sorts of things you mention in your post immediately prior to the one I quoted.
I should not have assumed that the poster was in the UK.
@Barnabas62 has posted on the value of the 'dissenting' Christian tradition with its emphasis on personal conscience and, in its 'baptistic' and 'Congregational' forms, the autonomy of the local 'gathered' church.
My question is, how does 'dissent' manifest itself now that:
- 'State' and 'established' churches no longer hold as much sway as they did when the original 'seperatists' emerged in the early 1600s - and had become 'denominations' in the modern sense by the 19th century?
- Churches of whatever stripe are essentially 'voluntarist' in the West.
- Many of the things they were 'dissenting' from have receded into the background.
- Things that were once considered radical are now fairly standard and mainstream.
What does it mean to be a 'dissenter' within contemporary 'Western' Christianity?
What are churches that emerged from the radical Reformation or the 'dissenting' tradition offering these days that differs from what might be found in the older 'historic' Churches other than particular 'styles' or customs that they have developed over the years?
Yes, there will be female clergy of course, whereas those are missing in some historic Churches.
But what else?
What does 'dissent' look like when most mainstream churches tend to share the values of the surrounding society?
What do we need to do to demonstrate our 'dissenting' credentials if we feel we should do so?
Being a christian at all in western society is dissenting.
Why do you feel you need to demonstrate dissenting credentials?
The dissent of Christianity has always been and always will be the good news over the prevailing culture.
That looks different in all cultures and through all times.
I be interested to hear anything in contemporary Britain that is not set up to allow Christians to do what they want. Christianity is so seeped into the administration and culture that it unthinkingly assumes that is the norm.
The idea that it is not the "prevailing culture" is quite odd sounding to me.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe @WhimsicalChristian lives in Australia, not Britain.
Ah ok. Well I doubt it is much different in Australia given that we share many assumptions about religions.
Perhaps. But I would suspect that Australia’s lack of a state church, together with all that entails, like bishops sitting in the House of Lords, makes at least some difference, at least with regard to sorts of things you mention in your post immediately prior to the one I quoted.
I should not have assumed that the poster was in the UK.
Well, to be fair, the odds are in your favor with that assumption.
I'm trying to explore the question of what 'dissent' means in contemporary terms now that:
1) State and established churches no longer hold as much sway as they once did.
2) To all intents and purposes most churches from the self-styled 'dissenting tradition' aren't particularly 'dissenting' in any discernible way when compared with society around them.
If we claim to belong to a 'dissenting' tradition, as @Barnabas62 does, what does that actually mean in practice and what does it look like?
As our American friends here are pointing out it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to make that kind of claim in their particular setting.
With the greatest respect to @Barnabas62 the best he seems able to come up with is being something of an outlier in the workplace or having a preference for congregational forms of church governance.
Is that it?
That's the question I'm asking.
What does it actually mean?
If you are a habitual Tory voters in a solidly Labour area are you a 'dissenter'?
If you are a habitually Labour voters in a solidly Conservative area are you a 'dissenter'?
To all intents and purposes other than how things are structured I don't see a great deal of difference between an evangelical Anglican church and an evangelical Baptist one - or their liberal equivalents for that matter.
Yet one will be considered to be in the 'dissenting' tradition and the other not.
@Barnabas62 has posted on the value of the 'dissenting' Christian tradition with its emphasis on personal conscience and, in its 'baptistic' and 'Congregational' forms, the autonomy of the local 'gathered' church.
My question is, how does 'dissent' manifest itself now that:
- 'State' and 'established' churches no longer hold as much sway as they did when the original 'seperatists' emerged in the early 1600s - and had become 'denominations' in the modern sense by the 19th century?
- Churches of whatever stripe are essentially 'voluntarist' in the West.
- Many of the things they were 'dissenting' from have receded into the background.
- Things that were once considered radical are now fairly standard and mainstream.
What does it mean to be a 'dissenter' within contemporary 'Western' Christianity?
What are churches that emerged from the radical Reformation or the 'dissenting' tradition offering these days that differs from what might be found in the older 'historic' Churches other than particular 'styles' or customs that they have developed over the years?
Yes, there will be female clergy of course, whereas those are missing in some historic Churches.
But what else?
What does 'dissent' look like when most mainstream churches tend to share the values of the surrounding society?
What do we need to do to demonstrate our 'dissenting' credentials if we feel we should do so?
Being a christian at all in western society is dissenting.
Why do you feel you need to demonstrate dissenting credentials?
The dissent of Christianity has always been and always will be the good news over the prevailing culture.
That looks different in all cultures and through all times.
In theory, yes.
In practice?
Is Patriarch Kyrill being a 'dissenter' by acting as Putin's stooge?
Are the MAGA pastors Trump surrounds himself with 'dissenters'?
Does GB News represent some form of 'dissent' simply by including some reflections from a Baptist church? Whereas the nasty 'woke' BBC doesn't, even though it has a religious 'Thought For The Day' slot on Radio 4 each weekday morning, a religious news programme on a Sunday and 'Songs of Praise' on the telly, albeit no longer at a 'prime' slot?
I met an Australian born cleric recently who told me he felt his homeland was even more secular than the UK.
I can't say I hot that impression. There seemed to be plenty of churches of all stripes about.
I can't speak for Aussie TV. What little I saw seemed pretty dire apart from ABC and a public service channel beginning with S. SBC?
People complained how 'woke' these were but it seemed to me that these were the only channels worth watching.
@chrisstiles has challenged me to define what I'm expecting by the term 'dissent' and that's a very good question. Whatever it means I don't think it means cosying up to the likes of Putin, Trump or Farage.
Nor does it mean always going along with everything that comes from other political directions either.
We'd probably all draw lines in different places but I certainly don't want the likes of GB News representing me nor Reform or Yaxley-Lennon trying to unfurl a Christian banner and abusing that for their own nefarious ends.
A shorter summary. Dissent still means what it meant. Disagreement with the majority in power as a matter of conviction.
What does that mean in terms of “who is the majority, what actions will follow dissent, what will be the cost?”. The picture is very variable!
At least where I live, being an outlier is less expensive than it used to be when people got ostracised, imprisoned or executed for it. I wish that were more generally true.
Of course. What I am saying is that 'where you live' is no longer 'outlier' territory for the most part.
Even your 'liberal evangelicalism' isn't as rare or as much of an 'outlier' as you apparently to believe. I know several Baptist and Anglican evangelical settings which I would place in the 'liberal evangelical' category and evangelicals in more conservative settings who incline in more liberal directions on certain issues.
What I am questioning is the extent to which those churches and individuals who see themselves as in the 'dissenting tradition' are actually any more 'dissenting' in many respects than those which aren't.
That isn't to criticise them or single them out for censure but it is to say that things are a lot more 'blurred' and less clear cut than they were back in the 17th century when John Taylor issued scurrilous tracts against Sectaries and Schismatiques and the Establishment clamped down on independent church groups.
I'm also suggesting, whether we like it or not, that certain positions that we might consider conservative or 'reactionary' are perceived as 'dissenting' by those who espouse them or agitate on those causes.
I'm not saying I agree with those positions necessarily, simply that they too may be going against the grain to a certain extent.
'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,' and all that.
One person's 'dissenter' may be someone else's reactionary.
All Christian traditions have examples of people pulling in different directions and some kind of consensus gradually emerging.
'Athanasius contra mundum.'
However we organise ourselves and however conservative, liberal or somewhere in between we are in our theology for all practical intents and purposes I don’t see that much difference in the level of 'dissent' between my local Methodist church, say, and my local RC parish.
That's not to condemn either of them. There are lovely and wonderful people in both and they do a lot of good in the community.
But 'dissenting' is as 'dissenting' does and I don’t see a great deal of 'out there', or 'outlying' dissent with any of them.
I suppose, if nothing else, we ask this well known question. Consider that you may be mistaken?
And for the umpteenth time I repeat my favourite Frank Herbert quote, from Dune Messiah, to a powerful person.
“If you put away from you those who tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections”.
A kind of legacy about the easily underestimated value of minority opinions.
I 'get' what you are saying but the kind of thing you are referring to with the Frank Dune quote happens anywhere and everywhere and not only in settings that would consider themselves hot-beds of 'dissent.'
The issue of how far that goes is a contextual one.
We've both agreed that Hans Kung was a 'dissenter' in RC terms - every body was Kung view fighting, it got a little bit frightening and required expert timing - 😉 but he wouldn't have appeared that way in a Baptist setting, say, or an Orthodox one come to that.
But as sure as eggs are eggs he'd have had some views that wouldn't 'fit' a Baptist paradigm and others that wouldn't have slotted neatly with an Orthodox one.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with asking questions or being an outlier but what looks like an outlier position in some settings doesn't necessarily look that way in others.
In some ways the 'dissenting' groups of the 17th century were more radical than the surrounding society, in other ways they were probably highly conservative. Some of them would make the Taliban look moderate.
Dissent always arises in a context. How could it be otherwise?
The potential for dissent is a different matter. For most of us, there are limits to loyalty. I’m very loyal to the concept that unrest has a redeeming value.
I don't think it would solve or resolve anything. I'm asking rhetorical questions to try and establish what we mean by the term.
As our American Shipmates have indicated it's not a term that holds a great deal of traction in their particular context.
I don't think @Barnabas62 and myself are miles apart in our world-view and approach. We just happen to have different ecclesial abodes and do things differently on a Sunday morning.
What I'm wondering is how 'non-conformist' any of this actually is in practice.
I'm thinking aloud not trying to batten everything down to a tick-box questionnaire survey to show how 'conformist' or 'non-cornformist' we might be.
I s'pose one of the things I'm trying to say is that it's possible for someone to be in a church which isn't from a 'dissenting' tradition to be more 'dissenting' in practice than those that are.
Similarly it's possible for someone in a church that could be classified as a 'sect' in sociological (rather then pejorative) terms to be more open, eirenic and 'non-sectarian' than people in historic Big C Churches who would claim not to be 'sectarian' and yet despise or look down upon smaller independent groups they'd consider to be 'sects.'
If I may offer a different perspective on "The West" and "Christianity":
There are lots of places in America where being a Christian is extremely cozy with "Western society." A lot of folks seem to think that "Western Civilization" is the fortress in which the heart of Christ is protected. I see lots of Americans - especially in our government these days - who think that "western society" basically is Christendom.
I think they're screwed up, but it is definitely a common look.
In a lot of small towns in rural America, saying you're a bible-believing Christian is as cozy as flying an American flag on your porch, thanking veterans for their service, and earning an honest living. It's a very powerful cultural association. And that is the prevailing culture all over great swaths of the USA. I also know a lot of people who've been deeply scarred on account of their refusal to conform to this peculiar take on "the gospel."
Obviously, it's not my kind of thing, not my kind of faith, but I think it'd be dishonest of me not to acknowledge its existence. There are lots of places where Jesus Christ and Uncle Sam make very comfortable bedfellows, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
The US is indeed different in the regard that if you are a christian, you are naturally a dissenter in many western societies.
You'd probably relate to number 8 in terms of your feelings on many US Christians.
"The true love of ecumenism trumps the sentimental love of patriotism"
His gem is that Christianity is political but:
"Strategically Christians should work for a world that asymptotically approaches the kingdom of God."
Asymptotically is such a great image. Two lines that get closer and closer together but never quite touch because ultimately it is God that brings in the kingdom in its fullness.
I like what Kim Fabricius says there too, @WhimsicalChristian but would point out that it doesn't appear - to me at least - to map neatly over onto some of the things Christians on the populist right might advocate.
That said, I think we do need to take the polarisation out of some of the rhetoric around these things.
The reference to Jim Wallis doesn’t tell the full story.
After he came back to the faith with a new and radical outlook, Jim and a student friend cut out of a copy of the Bible all references to God’s heart for the poor and the obligations of people of faith to care and support them. He and the friend got opportunities to speak at some of the conservative churches within which he had been brought up.
They used to take this defaced Bible with them as part of their testimony of having returned to the faith. They would open it, show the damage done to it and folks were horrified at the defacement of the Holy Word.
Then came the punch line.
“This is a Bible from which we’ve removed all references to God’s heart for the poor and our necessary response.
Is this your Bible?”
A highly political act. I don’t think they got invited back.
@WhimsicalChristian : Well placed, I think I agree with the article you posted. I'm generally a big fan of Bonhoeffer, though I think Metaxes did a hatchet job on the guy.
Though I also observe that in politics, "political" Christians are often on different sides of arguments, each faithful in their own eyes, I think consistently. And I can respect that, to a point. Though knowing that the Ku Klux Klan was - in its own eyes - a Christian organization does turn my stomach a bit. There must be limits. I will give them the credit that they are - in their own eyes - dissenting from what they believe to be a fallen and sinful culture that has stepped away from the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, I must also say that I think their sense of that Gospel is profoundly distorted, heretical.
And curious for a liberal, I do think "heresy" is sometimes a word that deserves the ugly implications of its ancient use. Some things are simply wrong and deserve to be called out. Our president has already peddled in enough heresy for my disgust and I think his administrative policies follow accordingly.
Speaking of limits, asymptotically is a neat image, reminds me of a mathematical limit. And I think a lot of spiritual life is like this, even across religions.
I've always been wary of, if not outright allergic to patriotism. I'm game for ecumenism, but I think such conversations need to be conducted with dignity and respect. And there are some cases where someone saying "But I'm a Christian!" is not adequate for me to say that we're sharing fellowship. Heresies are still real. And I expect someone else of integrity may say the same to me. In divine things, I tend universalist, but in ecclesial matters I prefer honest recognition of distinctions. It's one reason I'm Protestant, as much as I may believe in a universal Catholic faith.
@WhimsicalChristian : Well placed, I think I agree with the article you posted. I'm generally a big fan of Bonhoeffer, though I think Metaxes did a hatchet job on the guy.
Though I also observe that in politics, "political" Christians are often on different sides of arguments, each faithful in their own eyes, I think consistently. And I can respect that, to a point. Though knowing that the Ku Klux Klan was - in its own eyes - a Christian organization does turn my stomach a bit. There must be limits. I will give them the credit that they are - in their own eyes - dissenting from what they believe to be a fallen and sinful culture that has stepped away from the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, I must also say that I think their sense of that Gospel is profoundly distorted, heretical.
And curious for a liberal, I do think "heresy" is sometimes a word that deserves the ugly implications of its ancient use. Some things are simply wrong and deserve to be called out. Our president has already peddled in enough heresy for my disgust and I think his administrative policies follow accordingly.
Speaking of limits, asymptotically is a neat image, reminds me of a mathematical limit. And I think a lot of spiritual life is like this, even across religions.
I've always been wary of, if not outright allergic to patriotism. I'm game for ecumenism, but I think such conversations need to be conducted with dignity and respect. And there are some cases where someone saying "But I'm a Christian!" is not adequate for me to say that we're sharing fellowship. Heresies are still real. And I expect someone else of integrity may say the same to me. In divine things, I tend universalist, but in ecclesial matters I prefer honest recognition of distinctions. It's one reason I'm Protestant, as much as I may believe in a universal Catholic faith.
Yep. Patriotism is heresy because it is a reversion to tribalism.
I also tend universalist in divine things. Above my pay grade. Happy to leave it to God.
But we should absolutely call out christian heresy if we see it.
In Orthodox terms a kind of tribal patriotism or nationalism masquerading as Christianity is indeed a heresy - it's called phyletism and has been declared heretical by various internal councils.
That's small c councils not the Big C ones like Nicea, Chalcedon, Ephesus etc.
Unfortunately, phyletism is rife and some Orthodox bishops milk it for all they're worth.
If 'individualism' and fissaporousness is the besetting sin of Protestantism (arguably), then nationalism and ethnocentricism is the besetting sin of Orthodoxy.
It's compounded at the moment, particularly in the US by 'confederate' style conservative evangelical Protestants adopting Orthodoxy as they think it'll provide good soil for their virulent views.
As if we haven't got enough home-grown nutcases without importing them from elsewhere...
Comments
So the following doesn't end in a rhetorical question, and the answer to it is actually 'no' ?
In that environment, we're all dissenters relative to someone else's dominant culture.
Ok. Perhaps I should have phrased that more carefully.
But you missed out the next question I asked, which was whether something only counts as 'dissent' if we happen to agree with the cause?
On one level, irrespective of what we might think of those who make take a different stance to ourselves, anything that goes against the grain of perceived prevailing 'norms' or ideology could be seen as a 'dissenting' position.
In the case of the 'Yaxley-Lennons' of this world, recognising that there's 'astro-turfing' going on doesn't elide the fact that astro-turf asshats aren't tapping into an innate conservatism in some quarters and weaponising it.
As I've mentioned already, I have met Christians who were very much attracted by that side of the spectrum but who are now actively combating it.
I'm not saying the astro-turfers are 'dissenting' about the right things but they do see themselves as dissenting against what they see as prevailing 'woke' ideology and 'legacy media' and so on. Yadda yadda yadda.
Without getting into Epiphanies territory I hope, someone who takes a 'Pro-Life' position in a largely 'Pro-Choice' environment is going to claim that they are a 'dissenter' and vice-versa.
Brexiters could claim to be 'dissenters' before the EU Referendum. Remainers could claim to be 'dissenters' afterwards.
That's how these things work.
Easting a mince pie and celebrating Christmas during the Commonwealth period could have been seen as an act of 'dissent.'
Distributing tracts calling for the abolition of Episcopacy during the reign of Charles I likewise.
I'm not taking my 'both/and-ism' to the point where I'd argue for moral equivalence on any 'dissenting' position purely on the basis that it represents a challenge to prevailing 'norms' of whatever kind.
Okay, let's start simply, when you ask for evidences of dissent in your OP, what are you actually expecting to see specifically ?
Being a christian at all in western society is dissenting.
Why do you feel you need to demonstrate dissenting credentials?
The dissent of Christianity has always been and always will be the good news over the prevailing culture.
That looks different in all cultures and through all times.
If I may offer a different perspective on "The West" and "Christianity":
There are lots of places in America where being a Christian is extremely cozy with "Western society." A lot of folks seem to think that "Western Civilization" is the fortress in which the heart of Christ is protected. I see lots of Americans - especially in our government these days - who think that "western society" basically is Christendom.
I think they're screwed up, but it is definitely a common look.
In a lot of small towns in rural America, saying you're a bible-believing Christian is as cozy as flying an American flag on your porch, thanking veterans for their service, and earning an honest living. It's a very powerful cultural association. And that is the prevailing culture all over great swaths of the USA. I also know a lot of people who've been deeply scarred on account of their refusal to conform to this peculiar take on "the gospel."
Obviously, it's not my kind of thing, not my kind of faith, but I think it'd be dishonest of me not to acknowledge its existence. There are lots of places where Jesus Christ and Uncle Sam make very comfortable bedfellows, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
I understand “dissent” in the context of not aligning with a legally established church. And I understand “dissent” when used to mean registering disagreement with a decision or position. Though frankly, I mainly understand “dissent” to mean one or more members of a court noting their disagreement with a decision of the majority of that court.
But trying to identify all kinds of contrary positions that are indications of a modern category labeled “dissent” just doesn’t register with me. Perhaps that’s simply because a category labeled “dissent,” with people who fall into that category being labeled “dissenters,” is too foreign to my American experience. It’s not a category we use, at least not with those labels and not in my experience.
Perhaps I’m just a dissenter when it comes to the assumptions in this thread.
I be interested to hear anything in contemporary Britain that is not set up to allow Christians to do what they want. Christianity is so seeped into the administration and culture that it unthinkingly assumes that is the norm.
The idea that it is not the "prevailing culture" is quite odd sounding to me.
But for religions that are not arranged like this, they're basically not talked to. Where are the liberal or secular Jews? Where are the various non-hierarchical Islamic groups?
If you don't have a defined space, do not meet up regularly, no not have charitable status and a defined (preferably national) leadership, you are basically not noticed by the state.
Ah ok. Well I doubt it is much different in Australia given that we share many assumptions about religions.
I should not have assumed that the poster was in the UK.
@chrisstiles - read the OP.
I'm trying to explore the question of what 'dissent' means in contemporary terms now that:
1) State and established churches no longer hold as much sway as they once did.
2) To all intents and purposes most churches from the self-styled 'dissenting tradition' aren't particularly 'dissenting' in any discernible way when compared with society around them.
If we claim to belong to a 'dissenting' tradition, as @Barnabas62 does, what does that actually mean in practice and what does it look like?
As our American friends here are pointing out it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to make that kind of claim in their particular setting.
Neither @Bullfrog nor @Nick Tamen see things that way.
With the greatest respect to @Barnabas62 the best he seems able to come up with is being something of an outlier in the workplace or having a preference for congregational forms of church governance.
Is that it?
That's the question I'm asking.
What does it actually mean?
If you are a habitual Tory voters in a solidly Labour area are you a 'dissenter'?
If you are a habitually Labour voters in a solidly Conservative area are you a 'dissenter'?
To all intents and purposes other than how things are structured I don't see a great deal of difference between an evangelical Anglican church and an evangelical Baptist one - or their liberal equivalents for that matter.
Yet one will be considered to be in the 'dissenting' tradition and the other not.
What does it actually mean in practical terms?
That's the question.
In theory, yes.
In practice?
Is Patriarch Kyrill being a 'dissenter' by acting as Putin's stooge?
Are the MAGA pastors Trump surrounds himself with 'dissenters'?
Does GB News represent some form of 'dissent' simply by including some reflections from a Baptist church? Whereas the nasty 'woke' BBC doesn't, even though it has a religious 'Thought For The Day' slot on Radio 4 each weekday morning, a religious news programme on a Sunday and 'Songs of Praise' on the telly, albeit no longer at a 'prime' slot?
I met an Australian born cleric recently who told me he felt his homeland was even more secular than the UK.
I can't say I hot that impression. There seemed to be plenty of churches of all stripes about.
I can't speak for Aussie TV. What little I saw seemed pretty dire apart from ABC and a public service channel beginning with S. SBC?
People complained how 'woke' these were but it seemed to me that these were the only channels worth watching.
@chrisstiles has challenged me to define what I'm expecting by the term 'dissent' and that's a very good question. Whatever it means I don't think it means cosying up to the likes of Putin, Trump or Farage.
Nor does it mean always going along with everything that comes from other political directions either.
We'd probably all draw lines in different places but I certainly don't want the likes of GB News representing me nor Reform or Yaxley-Lennon trying to unfurl a Christian banner and abusing that for their own nefarious ends.
What does that mean in terms of “who is the majority, what actions will follow dissent, what will be the cost?”. The picture is very variable!
At least where I live, being an outlier is less expensive than it used to be when people got ostracised, imprisoned or executed for it. I wish that were more generally true.
Even your 'liberal evangelicalism' isn't as rare or as much of an 'outlier' as you apparently to believe. I know several Baptist and Anglican evangelical settings which I would place in the 'liberal evangelical' category and evangelicals in more conservative settings who incline in more liberal directions on certain issues.
What I am questioning is the extent to which those churches and individuals who see themselves as in the 'dissenting tradition' are actually any more 'dissenting' in many respects than those which aren't.
That isn't to criticise them or single them out for censure but it is to say that things are a lot more 'blurred' and less clear cut than they were back in the 17th century when John Taylor issued scurrilous tracts against Sectaries and Schismatiques and the Establishment clamped down on independent church groups.
I'm also suggesting, whether we like it or not, that certain positions that we might consider conservative or 'reactionary' are perceived as 'dissenting' by those who espouse them or agitate on those causes.
I'm not saying I agree with those positions necessarily, simply that they too may be going against the grain to a certain extent.
'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,' and all that.
One person's 'dissenter' may be someone else's reactionary.
All Christian traditions have examples of people pulling in different directions and some kind of consensus gradually emerging.
'Athanasius contra mundum.'
However we organise ourselves and however conservative, liberal or somewhere in between we are in our theology for all practical intents and purposes I don’t see that much difference in the level of 'dissent' between my local Methodist church, say, and my local RC parish.
That's not to condemn either of them. There are lovely and wonderful people in both and they do a lot of good in the community.
But 'dissenting' is as 'dissenting' does and I don’t see a great deal of 'out there', or 'outlying' dissent with any of them.
And for the umpteenth time I repeat my favourite Frank Herbert quote, from Dune Messiah, to a powerful person.
“If you put away from you those who tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections”.
A kind of legacy about the easily underestimated value of minority opinions.
Which is why I keep asking questions.
I 'get' what you are saying but the kind of thing you are referring to with the Frank Dune quote happens anywhere and everywhere and not only in settings that would consider themselves hot-beds of 'dissent.'
The issue of how far that goes is a contextual one.
We've both agreed that Hans Kung was a 'dissenter' in RC terms - every body was Kung view fighting, it got a little bit frightening and required expert timing - 😉 but he wouldn't have appeared that way in a Baptist setting, say, or an Orthodox one come to that.
But as sure as eggs are eggs he'd have had some views that wouldn't 'fit' a Baptist paradigm and others that wouldn't have slotted neatly with an Orthodox one.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with asking questions or being an outlier but what looks like an outlier position in some settings doesn't necessarily look that way in others.
In some ways the 'dissenting' groups of the 17th century were more radical than the surrounding society, in other ways they were probably highly conservative. Some of them would make the Taliban look moderate.
It's all down to context.
The potential for dissent is a different matter. For most of us, there are limits to loyalty. I’m very loyal to the concept that unrest has a redeeming value.
What do you think being labelled a 'non-conformist' would do for you? What are you trying to solve?
As our American Shipmates have indicated it's not a term that holds a great deal of traction in their particular context.
I don't think @Barnabas62 and myself are miles apart in our world-view and approach. We just happen to have different ecclesial abodes and do things differently on a Sunday morning.
What I'm wondering is how 'non-conformist' any of this actually is in practice.
I'm thinking aloud not trying to batten everything down to a tick-box questionnaire survey to show how 'conformist' or 'non-cornformist' we might be.
I s'pose one of the things I'm trying to say is that it's possible for someone to be in a church which isn't from a 'dissenting' tradition to be more 'dissenting' in practice than those that are.
Similarly it's possible for someone in a church that could be classified as a 'sect' in sociological (rather then pejorative) terms to be more open, eirenic and 'non-sectarian' than people in historic Big C Churches who would claim not to be 'sectarian' and yet despise or look down upon smaller independent groups they'd consider to be 'sects.'
That's the sort of thing I'm driving at.
The US is indeed different in the regard that if you are a christian, you are naturally a dissenter in many western societies.
I love Kim Fabricius on political theology
You'd probably relate to number 8 in terms of your feelings on many US Christians.
"The true love of ecumenism trumps the sentimental love of patriotism"
His gem is that Christianity is political but:
"Strategically Christians should work for a world that asymptotically approaches the kingdom of God."
Asymptotically is such a great image. Two lines that get closer and closer together but never quite touch because ultimately it is God that brings in the kingdom in its fullness.
That said, I think we do need to take the polarisation out of some of the rhetoric around these things.
After he came back to the faith with a new and radical outlook, Jim and a student friend cut out of a copy of the Bible all references to God’s heart for the poor and the obligations of people of faith to care and support them. He and the friend got opportunities to speak at some of the conservative churches within which he had been brought up.
They used to take this defaced Bible with them as part of their testimony of having returned to the faith. They would open it, show the damage done to it and folks were horrified at the defacement of the Holy Word.
Then came the punch line.
“This is a Bible from which we’ve removed all references to God’s heart for the poor and our necessary response.
Is this your Bible?”
A highly political act. I don’t think they got invited back.
Though I also observe that in politics, "political" Christians are often on different sides of arguments, each faithful in their own eyes, I think consistently. And I can respect that, to a point. Though knowing that the Ku Klux Klan was - in its own eyes - a Christian organization does turn my stomach a bit. There must be limits. I will give them the credit that they are - in their own eyes - dissenting from what they believe to be a fallen and sinful culture that has stepped away from the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, I must also say that I think their sense of that Gospel is profoundly distorted, heretical.
And curious for a liberal, I do think "heresy" is sometimes a word that deserves the ugly implications of its ancient use. Some things are simply wrong and deserve to be called out. Our president has already peddled in enough heresy for my disgust and I think his administrative policies follow accordingly.
Speaking of limits, asymptotically is a neat image, reminds me of a mathematical limit. And I think a lot of spiritual life is like this, even across religions.
I've always been wary of, if not outright allergic to patriotism. I'm game for ecumenism, but I think such conversations need to be conducted with dignity and respect. And there are some cases where someone saying "But I'm a Christian!" is not adequate for me to say that we're sharing fellowship. Heresies are still real. And I expect someone else of integrity may say the same to me. In divine things, I tend universalist, but in ecclesial matters I prefer honest recognition of distinctions. It's one reason I'm Protestant, as much as I may believe in a universal Catholic faith.
Yep. Patriotism is heresy because it is a reversion to tribalism.
I also tend universalist in divine things. Above my pay grade. Happy to leave it to God.
But we should absolutely call out christian heresy if we see it.
That's small c councils not the Big C ones like Nicea, Chalcedon, Ephesus etc.
Unfortunately, phyletism is rife and some Orthodox bishops milk it for all they're worth.
If 'individualism' and fissaporousness is the besetting sin of Protestantism (arguably), then nationalism and ethnocentricism is the besetting sin of Orthodoxy.
It's compounded at the moment, particularly in the US by 'confederate' style conservative evangelical Protestants adopting Orthodoxy as they think it'll provide good soil for their virulent views.
As if we haven't got enough home-grown nutcases without importing them from elsewhere...