Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
I don't know, "normal" Calvinists (The Wee Flea springs to mind, as does the late Ian Paisley) can be pretty unpleasant.
Oh I'm well aware. I daresay Paisley Jr likely has contacts within that crowd, but it's still another level of unpleasantness. These are Rushdoony's spiritual sons (and they are of course overwhelmingly sons).
That's not entirely true, Christian Reconstructionists are a vocal but relatively small proportion of 'neo-Calvinists' (which as a movement is on the wane anyway).
The reality is that Oxbridge and Durham are huge recruitment grounds for clergy in the Church of England - obviously people from all kinds of backgrounds attend those universities. But it does mean that a particular kind of civic and religious loyalty has a big influence.
There have been changes I agree but there is still a very narrow - and unrepresentative - pool of people who are admitted to all 3. Steps have been taken to recruit from schools in less thriving areas but sadly you can find that those so recruited are hardly from hard up families.
I will confess to being an Oxbridge graduate. In the year 1 went up, 5 out of 100 odd were from state schools and only 1 other person was from a working class background like mine.
I don't think it was because I was too working class for them - and I'm pretty sure my background was more middle class than EM'S but far less so than most Oxbridge graduates or applicants at that time.
But I do think kids from grammar schools and public schools had the advantage as their curriculum had covered things we hadn't at that time in 'bog standard comprehensives'.
Anyhow ... coming back to the 'politeness' thing and leaving aside the very apparent class distinctions that bedevil the CofE (not that they are unimportant of course) ... over in Purgatory EM made a cogent comment that people who often talk about 'speaking truth to power' often do nothing of the kind.
I agree with him on this.
My question is, how do we do so without getting into posturing or doing stuff that might make us feel better but which doesn't actually make much difference in the overall scheme of things.
I don't think it was because I was too working class for them - and I'm pretty sure my background was more middle class than EM'S but far less so than most Oxbridge graduates or applicants at that time.
But I do think kids from grammar schools and public schools had the advantage as their curriculum had covered things we hadn't at that time in 'bog standard comprehensives'.
Anyhow ... coming back to the 'politeness' thing and leaving aside the very apparent class distinctions that bedevil the CofE (not that they are unimportant of course) ... over in Purgatory EM made a cogent comment that people who often talk about 'speaking truth to power' often do nothing of the kind.
I agree with him on this.
My question is, how do we do so without getting into posturing or doing stuff that might make us feel better but which doesn't actually make much difference in the overall scheme of things.
One question I remember well: "Which Universities did your parents go to?" My answer: "My ability to contribute to this college has nothing to do with their academic record - in fact they left school at 13.5 & 16, my dad having spent the last term being sent out to pick potatoes."
I wonder they let me in. Still I suppose an Attila and a scholarship made some sense of the decision.
As for the politeness thing, choose your battles carefully. If you are in a position to speak out/act then do so. Be clear, factual and offer reasons and alternatives to give ground to what you are saying. No one wants empty rhetoric or impossible to deliver promises - there's more than enough around already. Say it and stick to it, giving it everything. That's if you really believe in it: if you don't just keep out as your cover will soon be blown
My husband didn't get into Oxford, despite being academically brilliant. He felt that a combination of having attended a state comprehensive and having a strong Glasgow accent did for him.
At my school, we were advised not to apply for Oxford or Cambridge, and I don't think that any of us did - certainly no-one I knew then went to either.
I got an offer from Cambridge then promptly failed the STEP. Only one person from my FE college (a young woman I was rather keen on, incidentally) made it to either Oxford or Cambridge.
@ExclamationMark I think the prominence of public school backgrounds amongst the upper hierarchy in the Church of England is a real barrier. And the problem is that it's difficult for those with that background to understand how abnormal a background that is, particularly the very distinctive form of Anglicanism found in public school chapels (and to a lesser extent, Oxbridge and Durham college chapels).And
The reality is that Oxbridge and Durham are huge recruitment grounds for clergy in the Church of England - obviously people from all kinds of backgrounds attend those universities. But it does mean that a particular kind of civic and religious loyalty has a big influence.
I was under the impression that they were supposed to be intelligent people who were trained to "think outside the box" - clearly not! Why?
My husband didn't get into Oxford, despite being academically brilliant. He felt that a combination of having attended a state comprehensive and having a strong Glasgow accent did for him.
At my school, we were advised not to apply for Oxford or Cambridge, and I don't think that any of us did - certainly no-one I knew then went to either.
Prolonging the tangent a little...
My grammar school headmaster was a Cambridge man, and advised us to aim for that particular seat of learning (which one or two of us duly did). He murmured something about *Another Place*, and I think a few of us ended up by the Isis...
(I was offered a place at Exeter - rather infra dig in those far-off days).
To further the tangent, a friend who grew up in Yorkshire applied to Oxford in the 1950s. It was the time of the 'Kenyan Emergency' and her brother was doing his National Service.
At the interview a prim old dear with a plummy Joyce Grenfell type accent asked her about her family.
'Well, my father is a miner and my brother is in Kenya ...'
'In Keenya?' said the old dear. 'Why, is he a settlah?'
'No,' replied my friend, unable to resist imitating the woman's cut-glass accent, 'He's a soldjah!'
She didn't get in.
A teacher at school told me about a friend of his who'd applied to Oxford in the late 1960s.
He'd just sat down when the interviewer leaned forward accusingly 'Your father's a postman ...'
He'd just sat down when the interviewer leaned forward accusingly 'Your father's a postman ...'
Yep another interview question came to mind "How will you cope with other people whose backgrounds and outlook are different from yours?
EM "How will they cope with me?"
I still got a place and a scholarship: perhaps if I'd kicked the Rugby Ball into the waste bin I would have got all my fees paid instead of the 1/3rd I did.
(In those days scholarships were based on either links to schools or daddy's job or academic achievement in the entrance exam: mine was the latter. Sons of Clergymen got quite a nice bung while those from a certain public school (no names sorry) got a very large bung indeed.
My son was rejected by Cambridge - comprehensive boy from Merseyside.
Went to Southampton got a first.
Is now a professor and senior adviser to a Secretary of State at Westminster.
So Cambridge can basically F**k Right Off!
My son was rejected by Cambridge - comprehensive boy from Merseyside.
Went to Southampton got a first.
I was considered somewhat bonkers by my (independent) school because, planning to study Mechanical Engineering, I turned down a place at Imperial College London and elected to go to So'ton instead. I never regretted it (I got a 2:1 by the way).
My son was rejected by Cambridge - comprehensive boy from Merseyside.
Went to Southampton got a first.
I was considered somewhat bonkers by my (independent) school because, planning to study Mechanical Engineering, I turned down a place at Imperial College London and elected to go to So'ton instead. I never regretted it (I got a 2:1 by the way).
My son went to Imperial first to do physics and left after a year. There was a bunch of nasty ex public school boys who went in for casual nastiness. He wasn't brought up that way. Loved So'ton too - did music.
My wife went to Cheltenham Ladies and refused Oxbridge in favour of Durham (good northern lass.) School were incandescent.
He'd just sat down when the interviewer leaned forward accusingly 'Your father's a postman ...'
Yep another interview question came to mind "How will you cope with other people whose backgrounds and outlook are different from yours?
EM "How will they cope with me?"
I still got a place and a scholarship: perhaps if I'd kicked the Rugby Ball into the waste bin I would have got all my fees paid instead of the 1/3rd I did.
(In those days scholarships were based on either links to schools or daddy's job or academic achievement in the entrance exam: mine was the latter. Sons of Clergymen got quite a nice bung while those from a certain public school (no names sorry) got a very large bung indeed.
Not being one to look a gift horse in the mouth I think I got £500 towards the costs of university from Sons of the Clergy. I get the impression the reasoning is "your father is a decent chap who for some unfathomable reason took holy orders rather than make a mint in the City but we wouldn't want to see One Of Us be disadvantaged".
My son was rejected by Cambridge - comprehensive boy from Merseyside.
Went to Southampton got a first.
I was considered somewhat bonkers by my (independent) school because, planning to study Mechanical Engineering, I turned down a place at Imperial College London and elected to go to So'ton instead. I never regretted it (I got a 2:1 by the way).
My son went to Imperial first to do physics and left after a year. There was a bunch of nasty ex public school boys who went in for casual nastiness. He wasn't brought up that way. Loved So'ton too - did music.
My wife went to Cheltenham Ladies and refused Oxbridge in favour of Durham (good northern lass.) School were incandescent.
That's surprising given that there are next to no actual Northern people at Durham! You're much more likely to encounter them at Oxbridge. It's like how no actual Scottish people go to St Andrews, it's all rich Americans.
Why are these intimidating interview questions allowed?
Things are VERY different now. Both Oxford and Cambridge - ime especially Cambridge - bends over backwards to recruit students from underrepresented backgrounds. Much like with US Ivy League schools, their wealth means they can afford to be extremely generous with regards to bursaries and scholarships.
Mrs. The_Riv was driving to see our daughter a couple of days ago and saw a large truck with a very bold HEAVY METAL CHURCH emblazoned on the sides. Accompanying those words was the logo of the top half of a skeleton giving the finger with both hands. It read, "Hey Satan!"
I am told Heavy Metal Mass is quite popular in Finland.
Why are these intimidating interview questions allowed?
Things are VERY different now. Both Oxford and Cambridge - ime especially Cambridge - bends over backwards to recruit students from underrepresented backgrounds. Much like with US Ivy League schools, their wealth means they can afford to be extremely generous with regards to bursaries and scholarships.
I'm not so sure tbh based on reading a recent college yearbook and a recent college contact appealing for funds. This from a college that was better than most in the recent past.
Yes many colleges have large landownings (Trinity having the land on which Felixstowe and Harwich container ports are built) which bring in a lot and have made steps to connect with students from underrepresented backgrounds. They are also charities which means that a lot more money is retained for use.
There remains a vast over representation from certain groups which shows there's a long way to go if my college yearbook is anything to go by. OK it doesn't give backgrounds but it lists schools ... again I know there are more bursaries there so it isn't a one on one correlation of school to background.
I like to see the stats and what sits behind them - ie a failing school doesn't necessarily equal someone from a a poor background nor a performing school a person living in poverty and difficulty.
The old system of grants had its issues: mortgage interest was a deductible from parents income but rent was not. I know a person from a council houyse background whose parents had to contribute 1/3rd of their grant as the rent was high whereas a school friend living with his mum and stepdad got a 100% grant - the stepdad being a very rich person indeed earning £50k + (in 1977) in a very specialized area of work. His grant was based on his mum's income, not the household's as was the case for the first person: of course his stepdad gave him an allowance but with no formal adoption, he (stepdad) was not included in the assessment.
Means testing always screws some people over and provides loopholes for others, doubly so when it's not even the beneficiary's means that are being tested. Universal provision funded by general taxation. Job done.
Does this thread still have anything to say about an overabundance of politesse in Christianity? Or has that topic died impaled on the poleax of school admissions?
It's like how no actual Scottish people go to St Andrews, it's all rich Americans.
My daughter went to St Andrews and she is an actual Scottish person. She tells me that the year she went (2014) the figures were - 33% Scottish, 33% American, 33% English and rest of the world.
She said the Americans tended to be those who were wealthy, but not wealthy enough to attend e.g. Princeton. St Andrews was seen as a win/win for Americans -not too expensive, but with a good reputation. The whole William and Kate thing gave it good publicity internationally.
Okay, returning to the OP: what would it mean for Christianity to become less polite? Way back early in the thread, people mentioned the idea of calling out hypocrisy. What else?
Okay, returning to the OP: what would it mean for Christianity to become less polite? Way back early in the thread, people mentioned the idea of calling out hypocrisy. What else?
I still maintain there’s an overbroad generalization at work here. Christianity isn’t polite or impolite. Some Christians and groups of Christians are polite or impolite.
What people seem to be talking about in this thread is mainstream British Christians and churches (as exemplified by the Oxbridge tangent) and/or mainstream, predominantly white Norrh American Christians and churches.
It’s not surprising that the focus here is on those groups, as that’s what most of us are familiar with. But to equate them with “Christianity” is problematic and, one might say, impolite.
I think one problem I observe in liberal RC and Mainline Protestant churches is a kind of performative impoliteness, if you will. You hear preaching and praying about ending inequality, the abuse of power, including the outcast, challenging our complacency, about “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable,” etc., and then you go home to your upper middle class life with de facto segregated (by class and education if not always by race) housing and schools and the countless tax breaks and barriers put up by people like you in your community to affordable housing, mass transportation, and Green infrastructure.
You go home to conversations with fellow Christians and with others that hardly ever mention religion and when they do it is almost always mockingly or disparagingly, and you feel a little embarrassed but you feel too much like a hypocrite to say much, so you say nothing at all or just laugh along. I’m certainly guilty of this. I know some very exemplary Christians are not! But I think I many congregations have social messages that they say are prophetic but in practice seem just to be branding to fill pews, Sunday schools, and collection plates (or more accurately to stop the bleeding in those areas).
It’s not surprising that the focus here is on those groups, as that’s what most of us are familiar with. But to equate them with “Christianity” is problematic and, one might say, impolite.
True. So should Christians in these groups try harder to have fellowship with other Christians who do not fit this mold? What kind of fellowship should this be?
It’s not surprising that the focus here is on those groups, as that’s what most of us are familiar with. But to equate them with “Christianity” is problematic and, one might say, impolite.
True. So should Christians in these groups try harder to have fellowship with other Christians who do not fit this mold? What kind of fellowship should this be?
Fellowship would be great, but awareness is a start. Christianity > my experience of Christianity.
"I come to bring a sword" strikes me as being a bit rude.
I wouldn’t call it rude. Provocative, but not rude. Are cultural assumptions and definitions about politeness and impoliteness/rudeness also at work here?
Simple answer to the OP: Yes. We are boring, middle class, polite society people.
I have been reading Ezekiel. If you read and understand his wording in the context (rather than in the polite way it is presented in our bible), it is really pointed.
He talks about Jerusalem - the heart of society and their religious basis - fucking its way around the powers in society, fucking everything in sight.
But then, the church is far too entwined in politics, which likes to be "polite" - politely espounding abhorent policies.
After meeting this week someone described something as "a bugger" - and then looked to see if it was acceptable language. Yes - perfectly.
We need to stop being polite. We need to tell some people to fuck off.
The terminology is Anglocentric. But from what I see in many places, the principles still apply.
And from what I see in many places, the principles do not apply. So which is “Christianity”?
The OP asks if “Christianity” is too polite. It doesn’t ask if predominantly white, predominantly middle and upper class mainstream expressions of Christianity in the UK and Western Europe or North America or Australia and New Zealand are too polite. But repeatedly in this thread, responses assume that the latter equate to “Christianity.”
It’s understandable that we all answer from our own experiences. My experience includes African American Christianity, which has a long history of what John Lewis called “good trouble” in the pursuit of social justice. My experience also includes lots of American Evangelicals who, while I may not agree with them, I can’t fault being too polite about their faith.
The problem is not that the observations here are wrong. But their accuracy depends on them being observations of specific experiences of Christianity, not of Christianity as a whole. And it’s problematic when any of us equate our experiences of Christianity with “Christianity.”
There's also a culture context to the "too polite" part of the question. What's considered polite, or otherwise, is also going to vary depending on who you are and what your community considers how people should behave.
There's also a culture context to the "too polite" part of the question. What's considered polite, or otherwise, is also going to vary depending on who you are and what your community considers how people should behave.
Yes. Plus the word itself can carry connotations of, say, class or (in)sincerity that differ from culture to culture.
I wouldn’t call it rude. Provocative, but not rude.
Maybe I'd say bombastic?
"I'm such an important, world-changing figure, people will be brawling with members of their own family because of me."
Which in Jesus' case, almost certainly turned out to be true. But I can easily someone at the time hearing that and thinking "Aw fuck, dude, get over yourself."
Would it have been unduly cynical of this lassie from a bog-standard comp who has never been an Anglican, to have thought that the appointment ten years ago of the current Archbish of C spoke volumes about the church establishment? An old-Etonian oil executive who gave up the good life to minister to the poor and destitute of Onslow Square and rose meteorically through the ranks in short order?
It never seems to happen to those incumbents who tirelessly devote themselves to the support of genuinely deprived parishes, does it? Or have I got that wrong?
Would it have been unduly cynical of this lassie from a bog-standard comp who has never been an Anglican, to have thought that the appointment ten years ago of the current Archbish of C spoke volumes about the church establishment? An old-Etonian oil executive who gave up the good life to minister to the poor and destitute of Onslow Square and rose meteorically through the ranks in short order?
It never seems to happen to those incumbents who tirelessly devote themselves to the support of genuinely deprived parishes, does it? Or have I got that wrong?
There aren't very many ABCs, so it's hard to make a comparison, but the hierarchy of the church has long had a whiff of old-school-tie (not to mention special handshakes) about it.
Then again, George Carey was a secondary modern alumnus from the East End of London and rose to be ABC (admittedly partly because he shares Mrs Thatcher's brand of arseholery).
With a Professor/Academic as a Dad? That is an environment likely to be rather removed from reality.
Justin Welby was a man born to be King - "their man" in Iwerne speak moved to the top job by sponsorship and sleight of hand. I think he's been a disappointment to that Con Evo constituency given some of his recent decisions and utterances.
With a Professor/Academic as a Dad? That is an environment likely to be rather removed from reality.
This seems a bit "four Yorkshiremen" to me. He went to a state secondary modern and a poly prior to theological college. That's not exactly silver-spoon, Eton-and-Oxbridge territory. There are plenty of priests who've never been picked to move up the hierarchy with more prestigious backgrounds or academic pedegree. I do wonder whether York acts as a sort of "exhibition" for the CofE to put on a show of diversity, while Canterbury gets the establishment types. Hence Sentamu at York with Welby at Canterbury.
Comments
That's not entirely true, Christian Reconstructionists are a vocal but relatively small proportion of 'neo-Calvinists' (which as a movement is on the wane anyway).
I will confess to being an Oxbridge graduate. In the year 1 went up, 5 out of 100 odd were from state schools and only 1 other person was from a working class background like mine.
My teachers were surprised.
I don't think it was because I was too working class for them - and I'm pretty sure my background was more middle class than EM'S but far less so than most Oxbridge graduates or applicants at that time.
But I do think kids from grammar schools and public schools had the advantage as their curriculum had covered things we hadn't at that time in 'bog standard comprehensives'.
Anyhow ... coming back to the 'politeness' thing and leaving aside the very apparent class distinctions that bedevil the CofE (not that they are unimportant of course) ... over in Purgatory EM made a cogent comment that people who often talk about 'speaking truth to power' often do nothing of the kind.
I agree with him on this.
My question is, how do we do so without getting into posturing or doing stuff that might make us feel better but which doesn't actually make much difference in the overall scheme of things.
One question I remember well: "Which Universities did your parents go to?" My answer: "My ability to contribute to this college has nothing to do with their academic record - in fact they left school at 13.5 & 16, my dad having spent the last term being sent out to pick potatoes."
I wonder they let me in. Still I suppose an Attila and a scholarship made some sense of the decision.
As for the politeness thing, choose your battles carefully. If you are in a position to speak out/act then do so. Be clear, factual and offer reasons and alternatives to give ground to what you are saying. No one wants empty rhetoric or impossible to deliver promises - there's more than enough around already. Say it and stick to it, giving it everything. That's if you really believe in it: if you don't just keep out as your cover will soon be blown
At my school, we were advised not to apply for Oxford or Cambridge, and I don't think that any of us did - certainly no-one I knew then went to either.
I was under the impression that they were supposed to be intelligent people who were trained to "think outside the box" - clearly not! Why?
Prolonging the tangent a little...
My grammar school headmaster was a Cambridge man, and advised us to aim for that particular seat of learning (which one or two of us duly did). He murmured something about *Another Place*, and I think a few of us ended up by the Isis...
(I was offered a place at Exeter - rather infra dig in those far-off days).
At the interview a prim old dear with a plummy Joyce Grenfell type accent asked her about her family.
'Well, my father is a miner and my brother is in Kenya ...'
'In Keenya?' said the old dear. 'Why, is he a settlah?'
'No,' replied my friend, unable to resist imitating the woman's cut-glass accent, 'He's a soldjah!'
She didn't get in.
A teacher at school told me about a friend of his who'd applied to Oxford in the late 1960s.
He'd just sat down when the interviewer leaned forward accusingly 'Your father's a postman ...'
EM "How will they cope with me?"
I still got a place and a scholarship: perhaps if I'd kicked the Rugby Ball into the waste bin I would have got all my fees paid instead of the 1/3rd I did.
(In those days scholarships were based on either links to schools or daddy's job or academic achievement in the entrance exam: mine was the latter. Sons of Clergymen got quite a nice bung while those from a certain public school (no names sorry) got a very large bung indeed.
Went to Southampton got a first.
Is now a professor and senior adviser to a Secretary of State at Westminster.
So Cambridge can basically F**k Right Off!
My son went to Imperial first to do physics and left after a year. There was a bunch of nasty ex public school boys who went in for casual nastiness. He wasn't brought up that way. Loved So'ton too - did music.
My wife went to Cheltenham Ladies and refused Oxbridge in favour of Durham (good northern lass.) School were incandescent.
Not being one to look a gift horse in the mouth I think I got £500 towards the costs of university from Sons of the Clergy. I get the impression the reasoning is "your father is a decent chap who for some unfathomable reason took holy orders rather than make a mint in the City but we wouldn't want to see One Of Us be disadvantaged".
In 1976 things were different, certainly not better. I was nearly 20 anyway.
That's surprising given that there are next to no actual Northern people at Durham! You're much more likely to encounter them at Oxbridge. It's like how no actual Scottish people go to St Andrews, it's all rich Americans.
Things are VERY different now. Both Oxford and Cambridge - ime especially Cambridge - bends over backwards to recruit students from underrepresented backgrounds. Much like with US Ivy League schools, their wealth means they can afford to be extremely generous with regards to bursaries and scholarships.
I am told Heavy Metal Mass is quite popular in Finland.
Heavy Metal Mass, conspiracy theories, saunas ... perhaps there's a conspiracy behind it all ...
Well, traditionally Cambridge was always more 'Puritan' than Oxford.
Cromwell went to Cambridge.
Oxford was always more 'Church and King'.
I don't think 'Dissenters' were allowed to study there until the 1850s.
I'm not so sure tbh based on reading a recent college yearbook and a recent college contact appealing for funds. This from a college that was better than most in the recent past.
Yes many colleges have large landownings (Trinity having the land on which Felixstowe and Harwich container ports are built) which bring in a lot and have made steps to connect with students from underrepresented backgrounds. They are also charities which means that a lot more money is retained for use.
There remains a vast over representation from certain groups which shows there's a long way to go if my college yearbook is anything to go by. OK it doesn't give backgrounds but it lists schools ... again I know there are more bursaries there so it isn't a one on one correlation of school to background.
I like to see the stats and what sits behind them - ie a failing school doesn't necessarily equal someone from a a poor background nor a performing school a person living in poverty and difficulty.
The old system of grants had its issues: mortgage interest was a deductible from parents income but rent was not. I know a person from a council houyse background whose parents had to contribute 1/3rd of their grant as the rent was high whereas a school friend living with his mum and stepdad got a 100% grant - the stepdad being a very rich person indeed earning £50k + (in 1977) in a very specialized area of work. His grant was based on his mum's income, not the household's as was the case for the first person: of course his stepdad gave him an allowance but with no formal adoption, he (stepdad) was not included in the assessment.
My daughter went to St Andrews and she is an actual Scottish person. She tells me that the year she went (2014) the figures were - 33% Scottish, 33% American, 33% English and rest of the world.
She said the Americans tended to be those who were wealthy, but not wealthy enough to attend e.g. Princeton. St Andrews was seen as a win/win for Americans -not too expensive, but with a good reputation. The whole William and Kate thing gave it good publicity internationally.
-- chrisstiles, Hell Host
What people seem to be talking about in this thread is mainstream British Christians and churches (as exemplified by the Oxbridge tangent) and/or mainstream, predominantly white Norrh American Christians and churches.
It’s not surprising that the focus here is on those groups, as that’s what most of us are familiar with. But to equate them with “Christianity” is problematic and, one might say, impolite.
You go home to conversations with fellow Christians and with others that hardly ever mention religion and when they do it is almost always mockingly or disparagingly, and you feel a little embarrassed but you feel too much like a hypocrite to say much, so you say nothing at all or just laugh along. I’m certainly guilty of this. I know some very exemplary Christians are not! But I think I many congregations have social messages that they say are prophetic but in practice seem just to be branding to fill pews, Sunday schools, and collection plates (or more accurately to stop the bleeding in those areas).
True. So should Christians in these groups try harder to have fellowship with other Christians who do not fit this mold? What kind of fellowship should this be?
I wouldn’t call it rude. Provocative, but not rude. Are cultural assumptions and definitions about politeness and impoliteness/rudeness also at work here?
Unless its a scalpel?
I have been reading Ezekiel. If you read and understand his wording in the context (rather than in the polite way it is presented in our bible), it is really pointed.
He talks about Jerusalem - the heart of society and their religious basis - fucking its way around the powers in society, fucking everything in sight.
But then, the church is far too entwined in politics, which likes to be "polite" - politely espounding abhorent policies.
After meeting this week someone described something as "a bugger" - and then looked to see if it was acceptable language. Yes - perfectly.
We need to stop being polite. We need to tell some people to fuck off.
The OP asks if “Christianity” is too polite. It doesn’t ask if predominantly white, predominantly middle and upper class mainstream expressions of Christianity in the UK and Western Europe or North America or Australia and New Zealand are too polite. But repeatedly in this thread, responses assume that the latter equate to “Christianity.”
It’s understandable that we all answer from our own experiences. My experience includes African American Christianity, which has a long history of what John Lewis called “good trouble” in the pursuit of social justice. My experience also includes lots of American Evangelicals who, while I may not agree with them, I can’t fault being too polite about their faith.
The problem is not that the observations here are wrong. But their accuracy depends on them being observations of specific experiences of Christianity, not of Christianity as a whole. And it’s problematic when any of us equate our experiences of Christianity with “Christianity.”
Maybe I'd say bombastic?
"I'm such an important, world-changing figure, people will be brawling with members of their own family because of me."
Which in Jesus' case, almost certainly turned out to be true. But I can easily someone at the time hearing that and thinking "Aw fuck, dude, get over yourself."
It never seems to happen to those incumbents who tirelessly devote themselves to the support of genuinely deprived parishes, does it? Or have I got that wrong?
There aren't very many ABCs, so it's hard to make a comparison, but the hierarchy of the church has long had a whiff of old-school-tie (not to mention special handshakes) about it.
Then again, George Carey was a secondary modern alumnus from the East End of London and rose to be ABC (admittedly partly because he shares Mrs Thatcher's brand of arseholery).
With a Professor/Academic as a Dad? That is an environment likely to be rather removed from reality.
Justin Welby was a man born to be King - "their man" in Iwerne speak moved to the top job by sponsorship and sleight of hand. I think he's been a disappointment to that Con Evo constituency given some of his recent decisions and utterances.
This seems a bit "four Yorkshiremen" to me. He went to a state secondary modern and a poly prior to theological college. That's not exactly silver-spoon, Eton-and-Oxbridge territory. There are plenty of priests who've never been picked to move up the hierarchy with more prestigious backgrounds or academic pedegree. I do wonder whether York acts as a sort of "exhibition" for the CofE to put on a show of diversity, while Canterbury gets the establishment types. Hence Sentamu at York with Welby at Canterbury.