The Orthodox don't pontificate as to who will or won't be 'there'.
The RCs don't do so these days either.
The Orthodox may have a very prescriptive view of Church - Big C - and regard themselves as having the 'fullness of the faith' but that doesn't mean they are saying that non-Orthodox can't or won't be 'saved'.
It's a very 'Western' tendency if I may say so to make those sort of judgement calls.
The Orthodox will certainly say that they are The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. As indeed the RCs would.
But that doesn't mean they are saying that Methodists, Presbyterians or Anglicans or Baptists or ... can't be 'better' Christians than we are.
Nor does it mean that Protestant and RC Christians won't be in heaven and that the Orthodox will be there instead.
If any Orthodox thinks otherwise then they aren't being true to the Tradition.
We don't think in those terms. We don't restrict salvation to our own tribe.
I know you guys are teasing but you really are so very 'Western' at times ... 😉
Well there you go! Not sure who is copying who. But I’m not sure there’s a version in which the Orthodox are the victims of the punchline. Mind you they might argue there should only be one room?
The Orthodox joke I've heard concerns a Russian sea captain who is steaming along in something of a hurry when he sees a life-raft from a sunken vessel.
Not wishing to stop and pick up the survivors he decides on a process of elimination. He calls across on a megaphone, 'Are you Christians, Muslims or Jews?'
The answer comes back, 'Christians!'
'Are you Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox?'
'Orthodox!'
'Which jurisdiction?'
I've had Orthodox clergy pray over my Protestant wife's grave and say 'memorials' for her.
We don't make distinctions when it comes to the departed.
I also know that there are loads of congregational Christians who don’t presume to second guess the judgment of God. Including Brethren, Baptists, Calvinists etc.
I just thought the thread might benefit from a bit of light relief. Very presumptuous of me.
True. But I’m happy with the view that a calling to be separate is a valid calling. The Amish for example go in for a different form of collective separation, taking their own view of 2 Corinthians 6v 17.
Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”
It’s not only some monastic Catholics who take this view of “in the world but not of it”. Different callings seems to me like a decent way of looking at it. Nor am I discounting the friar calling.
Is there not a distinction between Reformed and Dissenters.
Calvin and Luther came out of the Roman Catholic church, English Puritans came out of the English church, all it seems because they wanted the church to reform to be (in some senses) stricter.
English Dissenter were never really part of the Establishment. They were not of the mindset that things could be Reformed but that they needed to be resisted because they were wrong and evil.
There's this whole thing about being very closely associated with the secular authorities with Calvin, Zwingli and Luther (and arguably a tradition continued via Cromwell in England) which is absent from the dissenters, who tended to see a distinction between "earthly powers" and the "spiritual kingdom".
Over time as Europeans moved into North America these things became less distinct such as with William Penn and groups like the Mennonites apparently trying to become self-sufficient religious colonies.
I don't know how this works in the contemporary groups, I assume that those with Calvinist and Lutheran heritage are no more or less likely to believe that they have some "divine right" to political leadership than those from English Dissenter heritage. As others have said, there's a complication in North American in that "baptist" can be used as a descriptor of groups coming from both directions.
There is. But the Protestant Reformation was essentially an act of dissent. “We don’t accept Catholic authority”. So from that point of view all Reformers were dissenters. But dissent came to mean, in the UK at least, dissenting from the replacement Church of England authority.
The point I probably clouded with too many words was that there were dissenting groups in England who were not ever part of the Church of England. And there were other groups who were, who tried to Reform and when that did not work set up as separate churches.
The first arguably are dissenters the latter are Reformers.
I certainly appreciated your attempt at 'light relief', @Barnabas62 and hoped my responses would be taken in a similar vein.
On the 'Reformed', 'Dissent' distinction, I don’t think @Basketactortale has it quite right on the history.
There were Anabaptists from the Netherlands present in England during the reign of Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More had some of them flogged or even executed I think.
The earlier Lollards could certainly be seen as a 'dissenting' groups I think but we don't really get an indigenous 'seperatist' movement until the 1590s/early 1600s.
These often very tiny groups tended to be called 'Brownists' after one of their early leaders - who later returned to Anglican ministry - or 'Seperatists'.
Thomas Helwys one of the first English Baptists was part of this movement and initially they were all former Anglicans.
There wasn't anything else they could have been in England at that time, other than Anglican or Catholic.
So no, there were never indigenous 'dissenters' who'd not been part of the Church of England. The Act of Uniformity during the reign of Charles II saw up to a third of Anglican clergy either ejected or withdrawing themselves for conscientious reasons from Anglican ministry - hence the term 'non-conformists' - those who would or could not conform to 'this Church of England by law established.'
All Puritans were Anglicans initially. Many remained so.
This is why I've continued to 'push back' to some extent on @Barnabas62's use of the term, because it is very much tied in with a particular historical set of circumstances that no longer apply to the same extent.
That doesn't mean I don’t understand or accept the point he is making, nor the principles or values he is seeking to promote or defend.
I'm not trying to score points by observing that one of the early Seperatist leaders returned to Anglican ministry, but we shouldn't perhaps be surprised as the new groups immediately started squabbling and falling out among themselves.
The 'Pilgrim Fathers' sailing the Atlantic resulted from a split among the Seperatists who'd settled in Holland, from what I can gather.
How 'dissent' manages to hold itself together has always been an issue.
Taken to an extreme we end up with a 'church of one.' A lone individual railing at how inperfect all the churches are. I've seen this with a number of people over the years and yes, it's an extreme position and not representative.
The Christian faith hasn't got a good track record on resolving splits and differences at either a macro or micro level.
What does 'dissent' look like or 'should' look like today?
Let's start my own group down the road?
Has anyone read the novel, Chasing Francis?
It's about a US pastor who discovers Franciscan spirituality.
He tries to introduce it into his congregation and meets some resistance so hives off with some like-minded people to form his own independent Protestant group with a Franciscan flavour.
Neat. Job done.
And apologies for the spoiler.
I enjoyed the book but it felt so American, so consumerist. I understood the imperative but wondered why they didn't simply become Franciscans and become Catholics rather than trying to form their own new hybrid group?
It's all very exciting to form your own new entrepreneurial group but it all felt too neat, like someone setting up a new fast-food franchise.
The stakes were a lot higher - literally in some cases - for early dissenting groups.
In Madagascan villages you'll see half a dozen competing Protestant churches within yards of each other, some indigenous, some belonging to older churches and denominations and some whacky 'health-wealth' ones imported from South Africa.
In Wales, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cornwall there'll be all sorts of former non-conformist chapels cheek-by-jowl and most of them converted into flats or carpet warehouses.
All our churches are becoming 'gathered' or intentional communities to some extent or other. We can't close the stable-door and go back to monolithic 'state churches' or national or territorial religions.
The first arguably are dissenters the latter are Reformers.
Both terms have special meanings in ecclesiastical contexts, Reformed meaning in the tradition of Zwingli or Calvin; and Dissenter meaning those who left or were never part of the Church of England (*) after the Restoration of Charles II. (Old Dissent are the groups that go back to the C 17th; New Dissent are 18th century groups such as the Methodists.) The term Dissenter originally included Roman Catholics, but has since narrowed to only Protestant groups.
English Congregationalists and Presbyterians and Unitarians were thus both Reformed and Dissenters.
(I gather some authorities distinguish between non-conformists who aren't part of the State Church but think they should be, and Dissenters who think there should be no State church, but that's not a universal usage; and either way is compatible with Reformed theology and ecclesiology.)
(*) Or Church of Scotland, but I think the distinction is less important in the Scottish ecclesiastical landscape.
Dissent by its very nature starts off as “against something” rather than “for anything”. Hence the muddled history and fragmentation.
In so far as there was ever a coherent view about what it might have been for, I quoted before this summary of the view of the old UK dissenters (from the Wikipedia article on the Nonconformist Conscience). I think it’s a good set of principles.
Moral Outlook
(The early dissenters) emphasized religious liberty and equality; pursuit of justice; and opposition to discrimination, compulsion, and coercion.
Whether you could form a stable dissenting church on those principles is doubtful. It certainly hasn’t happened!
Protestant Church splits haven’t in general been based on moral values. For example, Congregationalism and methods of Baptism seem much more theological and historical issue than matters of moral outlook.
So is dissent ultimately destructive rather than constructive? It has proved to have destructive elements, but not nearly so much as abuse of authority and power by leaders across the board.
The first arguably are dissenters the latter are Reformers.
Both terms have special meanings in ecclesiastical contexts, Reformed meaning in the tradition of Zwingli or Calvin; and Dissenter meaning those who left or were never part of the Church of England (*) after the Restoration of Charles II. (Old Dissent are the groups that go back to the C 17th; New Dissent are 18th century groups such as the Methodists.) The term Dissenter originally included Roman Catholics, but has since narrowed to only Protestant groups.
English Congregationalists and Presbyterians and Unitarians were thus both Reformed and Dissenters.
(I gather some authorities distinguish between non-conformists who aren't part of the State Church but think they should be, and Dissenters who think there should be no State church, but that's not a universal usage; and either way is compatible with Reformed theology and ecclesiology.)
(*) Or Church of Scotland, but I think the distinction is less important in the Scottish ecclesiastical landscape.
This is a better explanation of the thing I was trying to say. Of course the thing is entirely muddled when there were points in history when almost everyone born in England was deemed to be of the Church (of England) at birth! Still it is true as far as I know that some groups had a direct lineage from the Church (for example led by people who were formerly ordained) and some didn't.
Dissent by its very nature starts off as “against something” rather than “for anything”. Hence the muddled history and fragmentation.
In so far as there was ever a coherent view about what it might have been for, I quoted before this summary of the view of the old UK dissenters (from the Wikipedia article on the Nonconformist Conscience). I think it’s a good set of principles.
Moral Outlook
(The early dissenters) emphasized religious liberty and equality; pursuit of justice; and opposition to discrimination, compulsion, and coercion.
Whether you could form a stable dissenting church on those principles is doubtful. It certainly hasn’t happened!
Protestant Church splits haven’t in general been based on moral values. For example, Congregationalism and methods of Baptism seem much more theological and historical issue than matters of moral outlook.
So is dissent ultimately destructive rather than constructive? It has proved to have destructive elements, but not nearly so much as abuse of authority and power by leaders across the board.
I don't think there is particularly strong evidence that many of these groups prized religious liberty for all. Many seemed to only be interested in religious liberty for themselves, which is perfectly understandable given the angry relationship of public denouncement that existed between them.
I'm trying to avoid value judgements such as which Christian groups have caused more or less damage than others.
The direct death-count on both sides of the Reformation in England was pretty equal - even-stevens. That's no consolation if you were burnt at Smithfield or executed as a Jesuit.
Millions died in Europe during the Thirty Years War, not only from military action but famine,,plague and privation.
I'm not here to 'knock' the 'dissenting' tradition whether in its Old Dissent or newer and more recent forms.
I'm asking what form it should take now that many of the old battles no longer hold as much relevance as they did back in the 17th to the 19th centuries.
In essence, whether we belong to episcopal or presbyterian or congregational models of church, all of us, 'post-Christendom' are in voluntarist or intentional ecclesial communities to a greater or lesser extent.
Heck, even within Orthodoxy we draw a distinction between the 'faithful' who attend regularly and those who only turn up at Easter - even though the rubrics 'allow' for that.
To all intents and purposes in the pluralist West the original 'grounds' for 'dissent' no longer apply.
So how does or should a 'dissenting' imperative express itself now?
What form should it take?
If it's about moral principles, how are those agreed and defined? It doesn't make a great deal of sense to me to argue whether Congregationalists or Baptists or any other group has 'better' or 'worse' moral principles than each other or anyone else - unless it's a clearly off-the-wall group of some kind.
I'm not asking what the values of Old Dissent were. I know perfectly well what they stood for.
What I'm asking is how does that apply now not back then.
My contention against it, if anything, would be that the dissenting tradition itself has become too comfortable. It's become part of the problem, if we can put it that way, rather than part of the solution.
If I were to be blunt, I'd suggest that it was tilting at windmills much of the time.
That would be too harsh, though, I think.
FWIW I'd ask similar questions of my own Tradition. What should Big O Orthodoxy look like in the 'disapora' and away from its privileged and 'established' position in its traditional heart-lands?
Should it form 'ethnic' clubs? Should it try to replicate the features that apply back in the Balkans, Greece or Russia?
The Orthodox aren't 'comfortable' in many parts of the world - particularly the Middle East. Neither are other forms of Christianity.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not out to denounce Old Dissent or those churches that developed out of that. I'm not calling on them to close shop and rejoin those historic Churches they derived from. I'm simply asking them to define what it is they are all about now that the particular conditions that gave rise to them no longer apply in as strongly a way as they did back then.
If anything, I'm saying that we should all row alongside each other at least as we are all facing similar issues in increasingly 'post-Christian' and 'post-Christendom' societies.
I'm not suggesting we pull up the draw-bridge, which is what Patriarch Kyrill seems to be doing.
But if we are aiming to be 'dissenters' in some way, or counter-cultural or whatever term we wish to use, how do we do that, what issues do we dissent against and what should that look like?
We all share common ground on that side of things.
My contention against it, if anything, would be that the dissenting tradition itself has become too comfortable. It's become part of the problem, if we can put it that way, rather than part of the solution.
If I were to be blunt, I'd suggest that it was tilting at windmills much of the time.
I think you may be phrasing things in terms of binary oppositions in a way that no possible tradition/movement could ever qualify.
So the dissenting tradition is too comfortable, but when it wasn't comfortable it was tilting at windmills?
One interesting exercise might be to go back and look at what non-dissenters were saying about their dissenting fellows, I bet it wasn't 'look at these bold dissenters over there keeping the dissenting tradition alive'.
Looking back at my post I think I should have typed 'it is tilting at windmills' rather than 'was'. I'm by no means suggesting that the issues the original dissenters were dissenting against weren't real.
What is implicit in the esteemed @Barnabas62's post is that the dissenting tradition should be making me uncomfortable. I can't honestly say that I feel the least bit uncomfortable about the presence of a United Reformed Church in the town where I live which, to all intents and purposes, is barely distinguishable from the Methodist church around the corner.
They may take a different line to me on some things and may well be able to challenge me on others but they don't make me feel 'uncomfortable.' There's a Coptic congregration meeting not too far away and closer than I'd have to travel to the main services in our parish - but I don't regard them as some kind of threat or source of 'discomfort'.
I wish all of these places well and bear no ill-will towards any of them.
No, I don't see the 'dissenting tradition' as a source of 'discomfort' either now nor in the future. What I do see them able to do and to bring to the table are models of how to function outside 'established' structures - even though those 'establishment' structures are more attenuated now than they were in the past.
What I'd suggest the 'dissenting tradition' is able to do is to engage and mobilise their congregations effectively, and we can all learn from that, even if we are operating within episcopal or presbyterian rather than congregational models of governance.
I'm sure there are other things they can bring to the table.
I've probably mentioned this before but it's interesting how in Dostoyevsky's The Brother's Karamazov, the role of most credible witness in the trial sequence goes to the member of a minority Protestant sect and not to the Orthodox townspeople.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with @Barnabas62. 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough ...'
Rather, I'm trying to tease out what it means to practice 'dissent' today and what that might look like in practice. I'm not trying to set up a binary thing whereby 'conformity' is good and 'non-conformity' bad or anything of that kind.
I'm struggling to make myself clear, I can see that but perhaps the 'struggle' is part of the process?
I think Orthodoxy is making you uncomfortable enough. You may even turn out to be a dissenter. A modest change agent from within?
Not claiming to represent everyone with my kind of mindset, but the truth is I sometimes afflict myself, I try to avoid complacency but sometimes fail.
No, I don't see the 'dissenting tradition' as a source of 'discomfort' either now nor in the future. What I do see them able to do and to bring to the table are models of how to function outside 'established' structures - even though those 'establishment' structures are more attenuated now than they were in the past.
What I'd suggest the 'dissenting tradition' is able to do is to engage and mobilise their congregations effectively, and we can all learn from that, even if we are operating within episcopal or presbyterian rather than congregational models of governance.
Do you think they engage and mobilise their congregations? My impression from your posts so far suggest that you didn't think they did.
I still think it's worth thinking back to how these traditions may have looked like from outside - because 'engage and mobilise' looks very different in an age where these traditions were viewed with suspicion and seen as dangerous
Protestant Church splits haven’t in general been based on moral values. For example, Congregationalism and methods of Baptism seem much more theological and historical issue than matters of moral outlook.
I’m not sure that’s true of splits over the last 40–50 years in American
Protestantism. While Dead Horse issues, and in some cases racism, might be couched in theological terms, it’s really been the morality of those issues that’s been at play.
I was thinking for historically and more UK historically. You’re right of course re LGBTQ+ issues in the US. They remain controversial in UK churches and I don’t actually know whether there have been splits. The Anglican Church has, somehow or other, managed to keep the big tent upright. In any congregational or baptist setting it’s possible for different congregations to go in different directions and that’s probably happened. I guess some folks have migrated.
No, I don't see the 'dissenting tradition' as a source of 'discomfort' either now nor in the future. What I do see them able to do and to bring to the table are models of how to function outside 'established' structures - even though those 'establishment' structures are more attenuated now than they were in the past.
What I'd suggest the 'dissenting tradition' is able to do is to engage and mobilise their congregations effectively, and we can all learn from that, even if we are operating within episcopal or presbyterian rather than congregational models of governance.
Do you think they engage and mobilise their congregations? My impression from your posts so far suggest that you didn't think they did.
I still think it's worth thinking back to how these traditions may have looked like from outside - because 'engage and mobilise' looks very different in an age where these traditions were viewed with suspicion and seen as dangerous
I think my views may be more nuanced than the impression my posts may have given so far.
An interesting observation I came across once in a book about early Protestant missions in the Pacific was that the initial approach was very 'top down' with missionaries gaining trust and traction with tribal leaders - rather like Celtic and Anglo-Saxon missionaries in the 7th century here.
That was generally initiated by Episcopalians and Presbyterians. Once things got underway it was the more 'congregational' groups that gained traction, often by frequent splits and schisms which spread things more widely.
I can certainly see how such groups can be lighter on their feet and more entrepreneurial.
There's an interesting instance in West Yorkshire where the majority of members of a former FIEC fellowship have converted to Orthodoxy.
Very few of them dropped out and around 30 or so were 'received' en-masse.
As they had been a church-plant from 'down south' and most members had moved 'up north' to be part of a new FIEC plant, my contention would be that they'd already developed a strong sense of congregational cohesion such that any 'move' or development that subsequently took place - however unlikely - was easier for them to achieve than it would have been otherwise.
Their cohesiveness and commitment to a particular vision all came from their 'roots'.
Besides, you know me and my 'both-ands'. 😉
@Barnabas62 - yes, of course I remain a 'dissenter' in a more general sense. That would apply whatever church setting I was in.
No, I don't see the 'dissenting tradition' as a source of 'discomfort' either now nor in the future. What I do see them able to do and to bring to the table are models of how to function outside 'established' structures - even though those 'establishment' structures are more attenuated now than they were in the past.
What I'd suggest the 'dissenting tradition' is able to do is to engage and mobilise their congregations effectively, and we can all learn from that, even if we are operating within episcopal or presbyterian rather than congregational models of governance.
Do you think they engage and mobilise their congregations? My impression from your posts so far suggest that you didn't think they did.
I still think it's worth thinking back to how these traditions may have looked like from outside - because 'engage and mobilise' looks very different in an age where these traditions were viewed with suspicion and seen as dangerous
There's an interesting instance in West Yorkshire where the majority of members of a former FIEC fellowship have converted to Orthodoxy.
Very few of them dropped out and around 30 or so were 'received' en-masse.
As they had been a church-plant from 'down south' and most members had moved 'up north' to be part of a new FIEC plant, my contention would be that they'd already developed a strong sense of congregational cohesion such that any 'move' or development that subsequently took place - however unlikely - was easier for them to achieve than it would have been otherwise.
Their cohesiveness and commitment to a particular vision all came from their 'roots'.
Without knowing specifics this sounds like it must have at least been partially top down? Surely a existing FIEC church that had been around for decades would have also had a lot of congregational cohesion?
Sure. My point though is that if people are prepared to up sticks and cross the country to form a new FIEC congregation then that involves a high degree of cohesion in the first place.
So there was already a cohesiveness there which would provided the 'cement' for whichever direction they took next.
I haven't visited the parish but would imagine there was a 'strong leader' thing going on, which doesn't necessarily imply that everyone meekly followed their diktat.
My impression of a lot of 'congregational' settings is that they are dominated by a few key families and personalities.
I think that's definitely the case in independent Congregational settings rather than denominations like the URC.
Most Brethren assemblies and Pentecostal churches I've come across seem to revolve around a few key individuals.
Orthodox parishes the same irrespective of the differences in church governance.
As for how 'dangerous' early dissenters could be, well I'm sure most were exceedingly benign but some were quite whacky Waco types. The Fifth Monarchists anyone?
Although the government was only too keen to use the violent and whacko groups as a convenient excuse to clamp down on all of them.
Moderate Puritans, ok. The extreme ones wouldn't have looked out of place among the Taliban.
I like Richard Baxter as a moderate Puritan. I like George Herbert as a moderate Anglican. I have a soft spot for George Fox and Bunyan, for Winstanley and the Diggers.
I don't have much time for Cromwell. 'God gave them as stubble to our swords.'
I don't know much about Zwingli but he doesn't sound like the sort of bloke I'd want to go out for a pint with. I can't imagine Calvin being a barrel of laughs.
The same probably applies to some of the Fathers and other key figures.
I'm sure St Francis of Assissi was pretty austere and intimidating. I bet he was scarier than we might imagine from tales of him preaching to the dicky-birds.
Sure. My point though is that if people are prepared to up sticks and cross the country to form a new FIEC congregation then that involves a high degree of cohesion in the first place.
So there was already a cohesiveness there which would provided the 'cement' for whichever direction they took next.
I haven't visited the parish but would imagine there was a 'strong leader' thing going on, which doesn't necessarily imply that everyone meekly followed their diktat.
But hang on, you are contrasting a "top down" style in established churches with dissenting churches which are "lighter on their feet and more entrepreneurial".
Then your go to example is one where (due to the strong centralised leadership or otherwise -- and let's come back in a few years and take a look) an entire church moved in the same direction - one that's presumably less entrepreneurial?
The example I gave was one in which I postulated that a high level of congregational cohesion must have already existed in order for it to embark on a new and ostensibly surprising direction without losing that many members.
There's no contradiction necessarily between that and a 'strong leadership' model.
'The leaders led and the people volunteered in the day of Thy power,' as we often quoted back in my 'restorationist' days.
I didn't say anything about lack of enterprise in the direction this particular group has moved in. If anything they'll be bringing their existing 'entrepreneurialness' with them along with the congregational cohesion I've already mentioned.
What happens next and where they'll be in years to come remains to be seen. The particular Orthodox jurisdiction they are affiliated to is arguably rather more entrepreneurial than some, but not all 'convert parishes' take root any more than 'church plants' in other traditions do.
Two out of five Baptist church plants fail, apparently.
Many Fresh Expressions groups have withered on the vine. Very few Anglican religious orders have outlived the lifetimes of their founders.
I think congregational and 'every member ministry' types of church can be more manoeuvrable and 'lighter on their feet' but they can also be more fissaporous and can be prone to dominance by a handful of influential individuals.
As far as Orthodoxy goes here in 'the West', it's gradually begun to break out of its ethnic enclaves and to take root beyond those - albeit from a very small base.
My own parish began with 8 people 30 years ago and didn't really gain any traction until the influx of Eastern European migrants in the 2000s. Now, some of the Romanians have formed their own Romanian parish but that doesn't seem to have affected the number of regular attenders we're getting. It can often be over the 100 mark on a Sunday. That may not sound impressive after 30 years but ...
We've received 16 people by baptism or chrismation over the last 12 months compared with 3 the previous 12 months.
We haven't done anything 'enterprising' to achieve that and although there are more enquirers and catechumens in the pipeline as it were, the numbers seem to be plateauing.
I'm not saying this represents 'revival' or anything of that kind.
The RCs seem to be getting more newcomers than we are.
I could introduce you to some relatively 'enterprising' Orthodox clergy but the upper echelons appear less so, truth be told. Monks don't always make good 'managers'.
We seem to be getting away from the 'dissent' thing to some extent.
The situation you described was one where a dissenting church was really entrepreneurial and became decided to become a non-dissenting church, using your own categories. And this apparently was an example of dissent?
Well, I’ve certainly heard of a number of individual conservative evangelicals (non Anglican) converting to Orthodoxy. I suppose it could happen to a whole congregation.
Dissenting from the tenets of conservative evangelicalism as a matter of conscience is something I’ve actually done. Though I didn’t join the Orthodox, I stayed where I was.
(If it’s not an oxymoron, I categorise myself as a liberal evangelical. Though some liberals I know do regard that as an oxymoron! Doesn’t seem to bother folks in my congregation. They regard me as an asset.)
Dissenting can simply arise as a result of changing one’s mind. But I think @chrisstiles has a point if the mind change has become corporate. That sounds like corporate assent to change following corporate dissent re the status quo! Not quite sure how to describe that in a single word!
This seems almost Mills-ian. Here are a bunch of people who have made a dissenting (free) choice to do something that (apparently) limits their dissent (freedom).
Can I suggest that perhaps dissent is less a lifetime attitude and more a moment? Being in a "dissenting tradition" would appear to me to be a contradiction in terms unless one was constantly making new friends at breakfast that you dissent with and break up with by teatime. Some people do that, we normally call them idiots rather than dissenters.
Maybe what is being described here is something more like freethinking, I'll decide for myself what to think based on my own criteria rather than what others tell me I should be thinking.
Well, that’s remarkable. Free-thinking was a word that crossed my mind.
@Basketactortale
I don’t know if you know Belbin? I took the test when at work and came out as a Plant. A role summarised as follows.
Team policy making is a bit like a team co-operating to milk a cow. And the pail is almost full. Then along comes the Plant and kicks the pail over. But folks can recognise that his awkward questioning often means that the pail needed to be kicked over. Sometimes not. Sometimes just annoying!
I used to say “I can’t help it. The question just occurred to me. The consensus just didn’t look right.The agreement just looks a little too comfortable. Surely there’s more to say?”
Once at a meeting at work, chaired by a very powerful senior person, when an agreement was close to being made, I spoke an observation that seemed obvious to me. But after the words came out, I realised I’d challenged the growing consensus.
Some heads nodded thoughtfully. Then the very senior man said to me “I could really learn to hate you”.
There’s a cost and a value in freethinking. It doesn’t always lead to considered dissent. And it can get you into a lot of trouble. And sometimes you’re just wrong-headed!
The situation you described was one where a dissenting church was really entrepreneurial and became decided to become a non-dissenting church, using your own categories. And this apparently was an example of dissent?
I'm aware of the apparent paradox. What I was trying to say though was that the features we may associate with this group's former affiliation - including entrepreneurship - will translate in some way into their new context.
Heck, if you are going to set up a new Orthodox parish in an area that hasn't had much of an Orthodox presence previously then that's going to take a fair bit of enterprise plus the kind of congregational cohesion they'd already shown by moving from one part of the country to another.
Sure, there'll also be an innate 'conservatism' there too. The FIEC isn't known for its liberal theology.
I'm not saying these people are out and out 'dissenters' - although they have clearly dissented from their own 'dissenting tradition' - such as it is. I don't really believe that many so-called 'dissenting' churches are actually dissenting at all.
They simply come from a background that was actually dissenting at some point but which now isn't really dissenting in any way, shape or form.
Very few of us are actually going against the grain.
Liberal evangelicalism such as @Barnabas62 describes isn't that unusual these days. In fact, I'd say it's become the 'norm' in some evangelical and post-evangelical circles.
It's only a 'dissenting' position if you are operating in a highly conservative context.
The example I've given of a rare example (in the UK) of an evangelical congregation converting to Orthodoxy almost en-masse was simply an attempt to further the debate.
There was an example in the US back in the '80s of an entire evangelical group of around 2000 people becoming Orthodox. It's happened on a smaller scale a few times since.
I'm not predicting that other groups will follow suit. What I am saying is that if there is a dissenting tendency then it can take various forms and lead in various directions.
I think it may have been @Jengie Jon who made an observation on these boards many years ago about a Congregational church somewhere in the UK that made a collective decision to become Roman Catholic. I'd have to look that up but I think it has certainly happened at some point.
I don't want to go into personal career detail but I've been in similar positions to the one @Barnabas62 describes - and that in both employment and in church situations.
I've often been the outlier, the misfit, the gadfly, the one who did not conform. I still bear the bruises.
At the risk of being blunt, if any church or congregation says to me, 'We're dissenters, we go against the grain, we are showing an alternative to wider society ...' my reaction would be, 'No you bloody well aren't. You just like to think you are.'
I don't see much evidence of real 'dissent' coming from what remains of the 'dissenting tradition' today - nor from anyone else for that matter.
Let's not kid ourselves.
Back in my 'restorationist' days we liked to think we were 'restoring' the Church to its 'New Testament purity and power' and even 'going beyond' that to usher in the Kingdom of God in all its fullness. No we bloody well weren't. We were kidding ourselves. Chasing a chimera.
If we say we are 'dissenters' in some way then how are demonstrating that?
If we say we are 'dissenters' in some way then how are demonstrating that?
I'm not sure I'm demonstrating it. Who is?
Yes, and part of what I'm trying to do is tease out exactly you mean by 'it', because it's seems to be functioning as a kind of irregular verb here, and outside scholars of religion ISTM that it's only ever recognised in any kind of laudatory way/or at all well after the event.
The contemporaries of the 'dissenters' wouldn't necessarily have described or recognised what they were doing as 'dissent', and I'm wondering why we'd expect it to be any different.
Even accounting for the fact that religion was more of an all encompassing thing in the past, I'm not sure that everything 'dissenters' did neatly fell under the rubric of their particular tradition. I know a few clergy who have been arrested repeatedly for protesting a particular recent legislation, they view those actions as flowing out of their tradition and faith, there were probably dissenters involved in the various proto-labour movements, did their contemporaries view that as 'dissent' ? I suspect not.
Which is one of the reason why I'm asking the question what 'dissent' looks like today?
It seems to be one of those 'in the eye of the beholder' things.
'I'm an awkward so-and-so and have never fallen into any neat categories in the work place and I've often objected to things at church. Therefore I must be a dissenter.'
Sorry, but I'm sure there has to be more to it than that.
Which is one of the reason why I'm asking the question what 'dissent' looks like today?
But then why would you expect to recognise it ? Are the clergy and layfolk who are involved in - say - Defend Our Juries or Just Stop Oil - dissenters? Or does that not 'count' ?
I’m also challenged to answer that question. The meaning has evolved in my mind during this thread. Freethinking certainly has something to do with it. Also challenging the status quo. So perhaps a concrete example might clarify our thinking? The opinion of Catholic Shipmates would be welcomed.
Was the Catholic Theologian Hans Kung a dissenter? When he wrote “Infallible? An Inquiry”, he basically came down against the current doctrine of Papal infallibility. That resulted in him being called to Rome to explain himself.
In addition, Küng also criticized clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church, wanted to open the clergy and the diaconate to women, called the ban on dispensations for priests who wanted to leave the priesthood "a violation of human rights", and wrote that current Catholic practices "contradicted the Gospel and ancient Catholic tradition and ought to be abolished".
He was stripped of his licence to teach as a Catholic theologian, a move which caused protests from other Catholic theologians and students. He described the processes of examination as a personal inquisition which brought him close to a breakdown.
Yet he remained a priest.
From my POV. If Kung wasn’t a dissenter, then the word no longer has meaning in these modern times.
Those Christians who agitate for more conservative causes would also claim to be 'dissenters'.
Would that not count as 'dissent'?
Does it only become 'dissent' if we agree with the particular cause?
I remember reading an article in a Baptist periodical some years ago where a minister described his involvement in a community scheme which attracted a lot of left-wing and 'alternative' support.
After one of the meetings a Marxist participant took him aside and said, 'It's great that you are here and contributing to this project but can I ask you a question? Why aren't the rest of your congregation here?'
That's part of the point I'm making. Why claim to be in the 'dissenting tradition' if you aren't actually dissenting about anything?
There are people in 'non-dissenting' Christian traditions who probably practice 'dissent' more than those in self-styled 'dissenting' churches. Which isn't to say that all churches that developed from Old Dissent aren't still 'dissenting'aboit something or other.
I don't wish to be brutal but I'm wondering whether the term has any clout or cachet any more other than as a descriptor of the historical roots of some churches.
I’m also challenged to answer that question. The meaning has evolved in my mind during this thread. Freethinking certainly has something to do with it. Also challenging the status quo. So perhaps a concrete example might clarify our thinking? The opinion of Catholic Shipmates would be welcomed.
Was the Catholic Theologian Hans Kung a dissenter? When he wrote “Infallible? An Inquiry”, he basically came down against the current doctrine of Papal infallibility. That resulted in him being called to Rome to explain himself.
In addition, Küng also criticized clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church, wanted to open the clergy and the diaconate to women, called the ban on dispensations for priests who wanted to leave the priesthood "a violation of human rights", and wrote that current Catholic practices "contradicted the Gospel and ancient Catholic tradition and ought to be abolished".
He was stripped of his licence to teach as a Catholic theologian, a move which caused protests from other Catholic theologians and students. He described the processes of examination as a personal inquisition which brought him close to a breakdown.
Yet he remained a priest.
From my POV. If Kung wasn’t a dissenter, then the word no longer has meaning in these modern times.
The RCs would be best placed to answer this one but FWIW, yes I would consider Kung a 'dissenter'.
It's all down to context though. If he were saying those things in any context other than that of an RC priest then no, it wouldn't be that much of a dissenting position.
I wouldn't be a 'dissenter' by saying, 'I have big problems with the idea of Papal Infallibility' because I'm not RC.
It's not an issue to some RCs I speak to either. Are they 'dissenters'?
At any rate The Guardian 'Pass Notes' column came up with my favourite Kung reference.
It said that Kung's views became so controversial that people were fighting over them.
May I introduce a different thought. All of us reading this are likely to live in places with freedom of religion. Which means more than just that the state refrains from telling you that you must believe in this or that religion, it also includes legal and social structures that protect religious groups, to the extent that whilst there are a wide range of groups, they all basically rely on the social and legal structures to function. There are not too many religious groups set up which directly attack the state structures within which they find themselves and there are not many times when the legal structures prevent religious practice.
But there are not none. Two examples I can think of are when JWs refuse transfusions and certain Islamic groups running "illegal" schools. I am told that being in contact with blood threatens a JWs salvation status and yet there are occasions where the state overrides this religious expression, such as when a child is involved.
Arguably, I think, examples like this are more dissent than when religious groups or individuals do things that others do not like. It seems to me that the action has to challenge a power structure for it to be dissent.
There are also cases where religious groups engage in oppression under their won auspices and resent the intrusion of the state. Some expressions of Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy come to mind.
Those Christians who agitate for more conservative causes would also claim to be 'dissenters'.
Would that not count as 'dissent'?
Sure, it might do, are you aware of any such groups that dissent from the margins (as opposed to the spires of Oxford or the Spectator Garden Party) ?
I've met individual Christians from working-class backgrounds who (shudder think that 'Tommy Robinson' is cool and that Farage isn't right wing enough.
Will that do you?
How that translates into actual 'groups' though, I don't know. Yaxley-Lennon didn't seem to get that many people to his recent rallies but sadly he does seem to have support in some quarters.
I've also come across Christians who started out on that side of things but who have done a massive U-turn and now campaign against 'that sort of thing.'
Those Christians who agitate for more conservative causes would also claim to be 'dissenters'.
Would that not count as 'dissent'?
Sure, it might do, are you aware of any such groups that dissent from the margins (as opposed to the spires of Oxford or the Spectator Garden Party) ?
I've met individual Christians from working-class backgrounds who (shudder think that 'Tommy Robinson' is cool and that Farage isn't right wing enough.
What are they doing that constitutes dissent in the Christian context ? (Campaigning in favour of existing hierarchies probably doesn't qualify).
I'm not saying that they are. What I'm saying is that they would see themselves as doing so - by going against prevailing 'woke' culture and so on.
I'm not saying they are right. Far from it.
They would see 'dissent' in its liberal or more left-wing form as capitulation to the zeitgeist and the surrounding culture which they believe has lost its traditional Christian values and moorings.
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 ...
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'.
Also before the comment comes - just because "normal" people join in with support for a cause doesn't mean that the origin of said cause isn't due to an astro-turfing campaign. The Epstein files are full of examples of rich powerful people colluding to stoke culture wars in this way.
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.
What I've been saying consistently all along is that just because someone belongs to a church in the 'dissenting' tradition, that doesn't in and of itself make them a 'dissenter.'
I could claim to be a 'dissenter' because I belong to a Church that is a bit of an outlier in UK terms but I'm not because that would be a daft thing for me to claim.
You made the point earlier that not everything 'Dissenters' did back in the day would have been seen that way by their contemporaries. I agreed.
Some 'dissenting' groups are socially conservative and they would see that as a 'dissenting' quality.
That view might be contested by other people but that's how they view themselves.
Who gets to decide?
On one level I'd say none of us are 'dissenting' or 'non-conformist' enough.
It's down to context. Hans Kung's views were only 'dissenting' in his RC context. They wouldn't have been seen that way elsewhere.
Comments
The RCs don't do so these days either.
The Orthodox may have a very prescriptive view of Church - Big C - and regard themselves as having the 'fullness of the faith' but that doesn't mean they are saying that non-Orthodox can't or won't be 'saved'.
It's a very 'Western' tendency if I may say so to make those sort of judgement calls.
The Orthodox will certainly say that they are The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. As indeed the RCs would.
But that doesn't mean they are saying that Methodists, Presbyterians or Anglicans or Baptists or ... can't be 'better' Christians than we are.
Nor does it mean that Protestant and RC Christians won't be in heaven and that the Orthodox will be there instead.
If any Orthodox thinks otherwise then they aren't being true to the Tradition.
We don't think in those terms. We don't restrict salvation to our own tribe.
I know you guys are teasing but you really are so very 'Western' at times ... 😉
The Orthodox joke I've heard concerns a Russian sea captain who is steaming along in something of a hurry when he sees a life-raft from a sunken vessel.
Not wishing to stop and pick up the survivors he decides on a process of elimination. He calls across on a megaphone, 'Are you Christians, Muslims or Jews?'
The answer comes back, 'Christians!'
'Are you Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox?'
'Orthodox!'
'Which jurisdiction?'
I've had Orthodox clergy pray over my Protestant wife's grave and say 'memorials' for her.
We don't make distinctions when it comes to the departed.
I also know that there are loads of congregational Christians who don’t presume to second guess the judgment of God. Including Brethren, Baptists, Calvinists etc.
I just thought the thread might benefit from a bit of light relief. Very presumptuous of me.
It’s not only some monastic Catholics who take this view of “in the world but not of it”. Different callings seems to me like a decent way of looking at it. Nor am I discounting the friar calling.
I like variety.
Calvin and Luther came out of the Roman Catholic church, English Puritans came out of the English church, all it seems because they wanted the church to reform to be (in some senses) stricter.
English Dissenter were never really part of the Establishment. They were not of the mindset that things could be Reformed but that they needed to be resisted because they were wrong and evil.
There's this whole thing about being very closely associated with the secular authorities with Calvin, Zwingli and Luther (and arguably a tradition continued via Cromwell in England) which is absent from the dissenters, who tended to see a distinction between "earthly powers" and the "spiritual kingdom".
Over time as Europeans moved into North America these things became less distinct such as with William Penn and groups like the Mennonites apparently trying to become self-sufficient religious colonies.
I don't know how this works in the contemporary groups, I assume that those with Calvinist and Lutheran heritage are no more or less likely to believe that they have some "divine right" to political leadership than those from English Dissenter heritage. As others have said, there's a complication in North American in that "baptist" can be used as a descriptor of groups coming from both directions.
The first arguably are dissenters the latter are Reformers.
On the 'Reformed', 'Dissent' distinction, I don’t think @Basketactortale has it quite right on the history.
There were Anabaptists from the Netherlands present in England during the reign of Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More had some of them flogged or even executed I think.
The earlier Lollards could certainly be seen as a 'dissenting' groups I think but we don't really get an indigenous 'seperatist' movement until the 1590s/early 1600s.
These often very tiny groups tended to be called 'Brownists' after one of their early leaders - who later returned to Anglican ministry - or 'Seperatists'.
Thomas Helwys one of the first English Baptists was part of this movement and initially they were all former Anglicans.
There wasn't anything else they could have been in England at that time, other than Anglican or Catholic.
So no, there were never indigenous 'dissenters' who'd not been part of the Church of England. The Act of Uniformity during the reign of Charles II saw up to a third of Anglican clergy either ejected or withdrawing themselves for conscientious reasons from Anglican ministry - hence the term 'non-conformists' - those who would or could not conform to 'this Church of England by law established.'
All Puritans were Anglicans initially. Many remained so.
This is why I've continued to 'push back' to some extent on @Barnabas62's use of the term, because it is very much tied in with a particular historical set of circumstances that no longer apply to the same extent.
That doesn't mean I don’t understand or accept the point he is making, nor the principles or values he is seeking to promote or defend.
I'm not trying to score points by observing that one of the early Seperatist leaders returned to Anglican ministry, but we shouldn't perhaps be surprised as the new groups immediately started squabbling and falling out among themselves.
The 'Pilgrim Fathers' sailing the Atlantic resulted from a split among the Seperatists who'd settled in Holland, from what I can gather.
How 'dissent' manages to hold itself together has always been an issue.
Taken to an extreme we end up with a 'church of one.' A lone individual railing at how inperfect all the churches are. I've seen this with a number of people over the years and yes, it's an extreme position and not representative.
The Christian faith hasn't got a good track record on resolving splits and differences at either a macro or micro level.
What does 'dissent' look like or 'should' look like today?
Let's start my own group down the road?
Has anyone read the novel, Chasing Francis?
It's about a US pastor who discovers Franciscan spirituality.
He tries to introduce it into his congregation and meets some resistance so hives off with some like-minded people to form his own independent Protestant group with a Franciscan flavour.
Neat. Job done.
And apologies for the spoiler.
I enjoyed the book but it felt so American, so consumerist. I understood the imperative but wondered why they didn't simply become Franciscans and become Catholics rather than trying to form their own new hybrid group?
It's all very exciting to form your own new entrepreneurial group but it all felt too neat, like someone setting up a new fast-food franchise.
The stakes were a lot higher - literally in some cases - for early dissenting groups.
In Madagascan villages you'll see half a dozen competing Protestant churches within yards of each other, some indigenous, some belonging to older churches and denominations and some whacky 'health-wealth' ones imported from South Africa.
In Wales, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cornwall there'll be all sorts of former non-conformist chapels cheek-by-jowl and most of them converted into flats or carpet warehouses.
All our churches are becoming 'gathered' or intentional communities to some extent or other. We can't close the stable-door and go back to monolithic 'state churches' or national or territorial religions.
So what do we do now? What do we do next?
English Congregationalists and Presbyterians and Unitarians were thus both Reformed and Dissenters.
(I gather some authorities distinguish between non-conformists who aren't part of the State Church but think they should be, and Dissenters who think there should be no State church, but that's not a universal usage; and either way is compatible with Reformed theology and ecclesiology.)
(*) Or Church of Scotland, but I think the distinction is less important in the Scottish ecclesiastical landscape.
In so far as there was ever a coherent view about what it might have been for, I quoted before this summary of the view of the old UK dissenters (from the Wikipedia article on the Nonconformist Conscience). I think it’s a good set of principles.
Whether you could form a stable dissenting church on those principles is doubtful. It certainly hasn’t happened!
Protestant Church splits haven’t in general been based on moral values. For example, Congregationalism and methods of Baptism seem much more theological and historical issue than matters of moral outlook.
So is dissent ultimately destructive rather than constructive? It has proved to have destructive elements, but not nearly so much as abuse of authority and power by leaders across the board.
This is a better explanation of the thing I was trying to say. Of course the thing is entirely muddled when there were points in history when almost everyone born in England was deemed to be of the Church (of England) at birth! Still it is true as far as I know that some groups had a direct lineage from the Church (for example led by people who were formerly ordained) and some didn't.
I don't think there is particularly strong evidence that many of these groups prized religious liberty for all. Many seemed to only be interested in religious liberty for themselves, which is perfectly understandable given the angry relationship of public denouncement that existed between them.
The direct death-count on both sides of the Reformation in England was pretty equal - even-stevens. That's no consolation if you were burnt at Smithfield or executed as a Jesuit.
Millions died in Europe during the Thirty Years War, not only from military action but famine,,plague and privation.
I'm not here to 'knock' the 'dissenting' tradition whether in its Old Dissent or newer and more recent forms.
I'm asking what form it should take now that many of the old battles no longer hold as much relevance as they did back in the 17th to the 19th centuries.
In essence, whether we belong to episcopal or presbyterian or congregational models of church, all of us, 'post-Christendom' are in voluntarist or intentional ecclesial communities to a greater or lesser extent.
Heck, even within Orthodoxy we draw a distinction between the 'faithful' who attend regularly and those who only turn up at Easter - even though the rubrics 'allow' for that.
To all intents and purposes in the pluralist West the original 'grounds' for 'dissent' no longer apply.
So how does or should a 'dissenting' imperative express itself now?
What form should it take?
If it's about moral principles, how are those agreed and defined? It doesn't make a great deal of sense to me to argue whether Congregationalists or Baptists or any other group has 'better' or 'worse' moral principles than each other or anyone else - unless it's a clearly off-the-wall group of some kind.
I'm not asking what the values of Old Dissent were. I know perfectly well what they stood for.
What I'm asking is how does that apply now not back then.
You’re going to love this! Not.
The present and future role of those of us who come from the dissenting tradition is to afflict the comfortable.
My contention against it, if anything, would be that the dissenting tradition itself has become too comfortable. It's become part of the problem, if we can put it that way, rather than part of the solution.
If I were to be blunt, I'd suggest that it was tilting at windmills much of the time.
That would be too harsh, though, I think.
FWIW I'd ask similar questions of my own Tradition. What should Big O Orthodoxy look like in the 'disapora' and away from its privileged and 'established' position in its traditional heart-lands?
Should it form 'ethnic' clubs? Should it try to replicate the features that apply back in the Balkans, Greece or Russia?
The Orthodox aren't 'comfortable' in many parts of the world - particularly the Middle East. Neither are other forms of Christianity.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not out to denounce Old Dissent or those churches that developed out of that. I'm not calling on them to close shop and rejoin those historic Churches they derived from. I'm simply asking them to define what it is they are all about now that the particular conditions that gave rise to them no longer apply in as strongly a way as they did back then.
If anything, I'm saying that we should all row alongside each other at least as we are all facing similar issues in increasingly 'post-Christian' and 'post-Christendom' societies.
I'm not suggesting we pull up the draw-bridge, which is what Patriarch Kyrill seems to be doing.
But if we are aiming to be 'dissenters' in some way, or counter-cultural or whatever term we wish to use, how do we do that, what issues do we dissent against and what should that look like?
We all share common ground on that side of things.
I think you may be phrasing things in terms of binary oppositions in a way that no possible tradition/movement could ever qualify.
So the dissenting tradition is too comfortable, but when it wasn't comfortable it was tilting at windmills?
One interesting exercise might be to go back and look at what non-dissenters were saying about their dissenting fellows, I bet it wasn't 'look at these bold dissenters over there keeping the dissenting tradition alive'.
What is implicit in the esteemed @Barnabas62's post is that the dissenting tradition should be making me uncomfortable. I can't honestly say that I feel the least bit uncomfortable about the presence of a United Reformed Church in the town where I live which, to all intents and purposes, is barely distinguishable from the Methodist church around the corner.
They may take a different line to me on some things and may well be able to challenge me on others but they don't make me feel 'uncomfortable.' There's a Coptic congregration meeting not too far away and closer than I'd have to travel to the main services in our parish - but I don't regard them as some kind of threat or source of 'discomfort'.
I wish all of these places well and bear no ill-will towards any of them.
No, I don't see the 'dissenting tradition' as a source of 'discomfort' either now nor in the future. What I do see them able to do and to bring to the table are models of how to function outside 'established' structures - even though those 'establishment' structures are more attenuated now than they were in the past.
What I'd suggest the 'dissenting tradition' is able to do is to engage and mobilise their congregations effectively, and we can all learn from that, even if we are operating within episcopal or presbyterian rather than congregational models of governance.
I'm sure there are other things they can bring to the table.
I've probably mentioned this before but it's interesting how in Dostoyevsky's The Brother's Karamazov, the role of most credible witness in the trial sequence goes to the member of a minority Protestant sect and not to the Orthodox townspeople.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with @Barnabas62. 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough ...'
Rather, I'm trying to tease out what it means to practice 'dissent' today and what that might look like in practice. I'm not trying to set up a binary thing whereby 'conformity' is good and 'non-conformity' bad or anything of that kind.
I'm struggling to make myself clear, I can see that but perhaps the 'struggle' is part of the process?
I think Orthodoxy is making you uncomfortable enough. You may even turn out to be a dissenter. A modest change agent from within?
Not claiming to represent everyone with my kind of mindset, but the truth is I sometimes afflict myself, I try to avoid complacency but sometimes fail.
Do you think they engage and mobilise their congregations? My impression from your posts so far suggest that you didn't think they did.
I still think it's worth thinking back to how these traditions may have looked like from outside - because 'engage and mobilise' looks very different in an age where these traditions were viewed with suspicion and seen as dangerous
Protestantism. While Dead Horse issues, and in some cases racism, might be couched in theological terms, it’s really been the morality of those issues that’s been at play.
I was thinking for historically and more UK historically. You’re right of course re LGBTQ+ issues in the US. They remain controversial in UK churches and I don’t actually know whether there have been splits. The Anglican Church has, somehow or other, managed to keep the big tent upright. In any congregational or baptist setting it’s possible for different congregations to go in different directions and that’s probably happened. I guess some folks have migrated.
Whatever, they remain potentially divisive.
I think my views may be more nuanced than the impression my posts may have given so far.
An interesting observation I came across once in a book about early Protestant missions in the Pacific was that the initial approach was very 'top down' with missionaries gaining trust and traction with tribal leaders - rather like Celtic and Anglo-Saxon missionaries in the 7th century here.
That was generally initiated by Episcopalians and Presbyterians. Once things got underway it was the more 'congregational' groups that gained traction, often by frequent splits and schisms which spread things more widely.
I can certainly see how such groups can be lighter on their feet and more entrepreneurial.
There's an interesting instance in West Yorkshire where the majority of members of a former FIEC fellowship have converted to Orthodoxy.
Very few of them dropped out and around 30 or so were 'received' en-masse.
As they had been a church-plant from 'down south' and most members had moved 'up north' to be part of a new FIEC plant, my contention would be that they'd already developed a strong sense of congregational cohesion such that any 'move' or development that subsequently took place - however unlikely - was easier for them to achieve than it would have been otherwise.
Their cohesiveness and commitment to a particular vision all came from their 'roots'.
Besides, you know me and my 'both-ands'. 😉
@Barnabas62 - yes, of course I remain a 'dissenter' in a more general sense. That would apply whatever church setting I was in.
Without knowing specifics this sounds like it must have at least been partially top down? Surely a existing FIEC church that had been around for decades would have also had a lot of congregational cohesion?
So there was already a cohesiveness there which would provided the 'cement' for whichever direction they took next.
I haven't visited the parish but would imagine there was a 'strong leader' thing going on, which doesn't necessarily imply that everyone meekly followed their diktat.
My impression of a lot of 'congregational' settings is that they are dominated by a few key families and personalities.
I think that's definitely the case in independent Congregational settings rather than denominations like the URC.
Most Brethren assemblies and Pentecostal churches I've come across seem to revolve around a few key individuals.
Orthodox parishes the same irrespective of the differences in church governance.
As for how 'dangerous' early dissenters could be, well I'm sure most were exceedingly benign but some were quite whacky Waco types. The Fifth Monarchists anyone?
Although the government was only too keen to use the violent and whacko groups as a convenient excuse to clamp down on all of them.
Moderate Puritans, ok. The extreme ones wouldn't have looked out of place among the Taliban.
I like Richard Baxter as a moderate Puritan. I like George Herbert as a moderate Anglican. I have a soft spot for George Fox and Bunyan, for Winstanley and the Diggers.
I don't have much time for Cromwell. 'God gave them as stubble to our swords.'
I don't know much about Zwingli but he doesn't sound like the sort of bloke I'd want to go out for a pint with. I can't imagine Calvin being a barrel of laughs.
The same probably applies to some of the Fathers and other key figures.
I'm sure St Francis of Assissi was pretty austere and intimidating. I bet he was scarier than we might imagine from tales of him preaching to the dicky-birds.
But hang on, you are contrasting a "top down" style in established churches with dissenting churches which are "lighter on their feet and more entrepreneurial".
Then your go to example is one where (due to the strong centralised leadership or otherwise -- and let's come back in a few years and take a look) an entire church moved in the same direction - one that's presumably less entrepreneurial?
I'm not sure I follow.
The example I gave was one in which I postulated that a high level of congregational cohesion must have already existed in order for it to embark on a new and ostensibly surprising direction without losing that many members.
There's no contradiction necessarily between that and a 'strong leadership' model.
'The leaders led and the people volunteered in the day of Thy power,' as we often quoted back in my 'restorationist' days.
I didn't say anything about lack of enterprise in the direction this particular group has moved in. If anything they'll be bringing their existing 'entrepreneurialness' with them along with the congregational cohesion I've already mentioned.
What happens next and where they'll be in years to come remains to be seen. The particular Orthodox jurisdiction they are affiliated to is arguably rather more entrepreneurial than some, but not all 'convert parishes' take root any more than 'church plants' in other traditions do.
Two out of five Baptist church plants fail, apparently.
Many Fresh Expressions groups have withered on the vine. Very few Anglican religious orders have outlived the lifetimes of their founders.
I think congregational and 'every member ministry' types of church can be more manoeuvrable and 'lighter on their feet' but they can also be more fissaporous and can be prone to dominance by a handful of influential individuals.
As far as Orthodoxy goes here in 'the West', it's gradually begun to break out of its ethnic enclaves and to take root beyond those - albeit from a very small base.
My own parish began with 8 people 30 years ago and didn't really gain any traction until the influx of Eastern European migrants in the 2000s. Now, some of the Romanians have formed their own Romanian parish but that doesn't seem to have affected the number of regular attenders we're getting. It can often be over the 100 mark on a Sunday. That may not sound impressive after 30 years but ...
We've received 16 people by baptism or chrismation over the last 12 months compared with 3 the previous 12 months.
We haven't done anything 'enterprising' to achieve that and although there are more enquirers and catechumens in the pipeline as it were, the numbers seem to be plateauing.
I'm not saying this represents 'revival' or anything of that kind.
The RCs seem to be getting more newcomers than we are.
I could introduce you to some relatively 'enterprising' Orthodox clergy but the upper echelons appear less so, truth be told. Monks don't always make good 'managers'.
We seem to be getting away from the 'dissent' thing to some extent.
The situation you described was one where a dissenting church was really entrepreneurial and became decided to become a non-dissenting church, using your own categories. And this apparently was an example of dissent?
Dissenting from the tenets of conservative evangelicalism as a matter of conscience is something I’ve actually done. Though I didn’t join the Orthodox, I stayed where I was.
(If it’s not an oxymoron, I categorise myself as a liberal evangelical. Though some liberals I know do regard that as an oxymoron! Doesn’t seem to bother folks in my congregation. They regard me as an asset.)
Dissenting can simply arise as a result of changing one’s mind. But I think @chrisstiles has a point if the mind change has become corporate. That sounds like corporate assent to change following corporate dissent re the status quo! Not quite sure how to describe that in a single word!
Eh? Am I also now muddled?
Can I suggest that perhaps dissent is less a lifetime attitude and more a moment? Being in a "dissenting tradition" would appear to me to be a contradiction in terms unless one was constantly making new friends at breakfast that you dissent with and break up with by teatime. Some people do that, we normally call them idiots rather than dissenters.
Maybe what is being described here is something more like freethinking, I'll decide for myself what to think based on my own criteria rather than what others tell me I should be thinking.
@Basketactortale
I don’t know if you know Belbin? I took the test when at work and came out as a Plant. A role summarised as follows.
Team policy making is a bit like a team co-operating to milk a cow. And the pail is almost full. Then along comes the Plant and kicks the pail over. But folks can recognise that his awkward questioning often means that the pail needed to be kicked over. Sometimes not. Sometimes just annoying!
I used to say “I can’t help it. The question just occurred to me. The consensus just didn’t look right.The agreement just looks a little too comfortable. Surely there’s more to say?”
Once at a meeting at work, chaired by a very powerful senior person, when an agreement was close to being made, I spoke an observation that seemed obvious to me. But after the words came out, I realised I’d challenged the growing consensus.
Some heads nodded thoughtfully. Then the very senior man said to me “I could really learn to hate you”.
There’s a cost and a value in freethinking. It doesn’t always lead to considered dissent. And it can get you into a lot of trouble. And sometimes you’re just wrong-headed!
I'm aware of the apparent paradox. What I was trying to say though was that the features we may associate with this group's former affiliation - including entrepreneurship - will translate in some way into their new context.
Heck, if you are going to set up a new Orthodox parish in an area that hasn't had much of an Orthodox presence previously then that's going to take a fair bit of enterprise plus the kind of congregational cohesion they'd already shown by moving from one part of the country to another.
Sure, there'll also be an innate 'conservatism' there too. The FIEC isn't known for its liberal theology.
I'm not saying these people are out and out 'dissenters' - although they have clearly dissented from their own 'dissenting tradition' - such as it is. I don't really believe that many so-called 'dissenting' churches are actually dissenting at all.
They simply come from a background that was actually dissenting at some point but which now isn't really dissenting in any way, shape or form.
Very few of us are actually going against the grain.
Liberal evangelicalism such as @Barnabas62 describes isn't that unusual these days. In fact, I'd say it's become the 'norm' in some evangelical and post-evangelical circles.
It's only a 'dissenting' position if you are operating in a highly conservative context.
The example I've given of a rare example (in the UK) of an evangelical congregation converting to Orthodoxy almost en-masse was simply an attempt to further the debate.
There was an example in the US back in the '80s of an entire evangelical group of around 2000 people becoming Orthodox. It's happened on a smaller scale a few times since.
I'm not predicting that other groups will follow suit. What I am saying is that if there is a dissenting tendency then it can take various forms and lead in various directions.
I think it may have been @Jengie Jon who made an observation on these boards many years ago about a Congregational church somewhere in the UK that made a collective decision to become Roman Catholic. I'd have to look that up but I think it has certainly happened at some point.
I don't want to go into personal career detail but I've been in similar positions to the one @Barnabas62 describes - and that in both employment and in church situations.
I've often been the outlier, the misfit, the gadfly, the one who did not conform. I still bear the bruises.
At the risk of being blunt, if any church or congregation says to me, 'We're dissenters, we go against the grain, we are showing an alternative to wider society ...' my reaction would be, 'No you bloody well aren't. You just like to think you are.'
I don't see much evidence of real 'dissent' coming from what remains of the 'dissenting tradition' today - nor from anyone else for that matter.
Let's not kid ourselves.
Back in my 'restorationist' days we liked to think we were 'restoring' the Church to its 'New Testament purity and power' and even 'going beyond' that to usher in the Kingdom of God in all its fullness. No we bloody well weren't. We were kidding ourselves. Chasing a chimera.
If we say we are 'dissenters' in some way then how are demonstrating that?
I'm not sure I'm demonstrating it. Who is?
Yes, and part of what I'm trying to do is tease out exactly you mean by 'it', because it's seems to be functioning as a kind of irregular verb here, and outside scholars of religion ISTM that it's only ever recognised in any kind of laudatory way/or at all well after the event.
The contemporaries of the 'dissenters' wouldn't necessarily have described or recognised what they were doing as 'dissent', and I'm wondering why we'd expect it to be any different.
Even accounting for the fact that religion was more of an all encompassing thing in the past, I'm not sure that everything 'dissenters' did neatly fell under the rubric of their particular tradition. I know a few clergy who have been arrested repeatedly for protesting a particular recent legislation, they view those actions as flowing out of their tradition and faith, there were probably dissenters involved in the various proto-labour movements, did their contemporaries view that as 'dissent' ? I suspect not.
Which is one of the reason why I'm asking the question what 'dissent' looks like today?
It seems to be one of those 'in the eye of the beholder' things.
'I'm an awkward so-and-so and have never fallen into any neat categories in the work place and I've often objected to things at church. Therefore I must be a dissenter.'
Sorry, but I'm sure there has to be more to it than that.
But then why would you expect to recognise it ? Are the clergy and layfolk who are involved in - say - Defend Our Juries or Just Stop Oil - dissenters? Or does that not 'count' ?
Was the Catholic Theologian Hans Kung a dissenter? When he wrote “Infallible? An Inquiry”, he basically came down against the current doctrine of Papal infallibility. That resulted in him being called to Rome to explain himself.
In addition, Küng also criticized clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church, wanted to open the clergy and the diaconate to women, called the ban on dispensations for priests who wanted to leave the priesthood "a violation of human rights", and wrote that current Catholic practices "contradicted the Gospel and ancient Catholic tradition and ought to be abolished".
He was stripped of his licence to teach as a Catholic theologian, a move which caused protests from other Catholic theologians and students. He described the processes of examination as a personal inquisition which brought him close to a breakdown.
Yet he remained a priest.
From my POV. If Kung wasn’t a dissenter, then the word no longer has meaning in these modern times.
Those Christians who agitate for more conservative causes would also claim to be 'dissenters'.
Would that not count as 'dissent'?
Does it only become 'dissent' if we agree with the particular cause?
I remember reading an article in a Baptist periodical some years ago where a minister described his involvement in a community scheme which attracted a lot of left-wing and 'alternative' support.
After one of the meetings a Marxist participant took him aside and said, 'It's great that you are here and contributing to this project but can I ask you a question? Why aren't the rest of your congregation here?'
That's part of the point I'm making. Why claim to be in the 'dissenting tradition' if you aren't actually dissenting about anything?
There are people in 'non-dissenting' Christian traditions who probably practice 'dissent' more than those in self-styled 'dissenting' churches. Which isn't to say that all churches that developed from Old Dissent aren't still 'dissenting'aboit something or other.
I don't wish to be brutal but I'm wondering whether the term has any clout or cachet any more other than as a descriptor of the historical roots of some churches.
How do you rate Hans Kung, Gamaliel?
The RCs would be best placed to answer this one but FWIW, yes I would consider Kung a 'dissenter'.
It's all down to context though. If he were saying those things in any context other than that of an RC priest then no, it wouldn't be that much of a dissenting position.
I wouldn't be a 'dissenter' by saying, 'I have big problems with the idea of Papal Infallibility' because I'm not RC.
It's not an issue to some RCs I speak to either. Are they 'dissenters'?
At any rate The Guardian 'Pass Notes' column came up with my favourite Kung reference.
It said that Kung's views became so controversial that people were fighting over them.
'Everybody was Kung view fighting ...'
But there are not none. Two examples I can think of are when JWs refuse transfusions and certain Islamic groups running "illegal" schools. I am told that being in contact with blood threatens a JWs salvation status and yet there are occasions where the state overrides this religious expression, such as when a child is involved.
Arguably, I think, examples like this are more dissent than when religious groups or individuals do things that others do not like. It seems to me that the action has to challenge a power structure for it to be dissent.
Sure, it might do, are you aware of any such groups that dissent from the margins (as opposed to the spires of Oxford or the Spectator Garden Party) ?
I've met individual Christians from working-class backgrounds who (shudder think that 'Tommy Robinson' is cool and that Farage isn't right wing enough.
Will that do you?
How that translates into actual 'groups' though, I don't know. Yaxley-Lennon didn't seem to get that many people to his recent rallies but sadly he does seem to have support in some quarters.
I've also come across Christians who started out on that side of things but who have done a massive U-turn and now campaign against 'that sort of thing.'
What are they doing that constitutes dissent in the Christian context ? (Campaigning in favour of existing hierarchies probably doesn't qualify).
I'm not saying they are right. Far from it.
They would see 'dissent' in its liberal or more left-wing form as capitulation to the zeitgeist and the surrounding culture which they believe has lost its traditional Christian values and moorings.
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
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/us-cash-turned-tommy-robinson-into-the-poster-boy-of-uk-far-right
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.
What I've been saying consistently all along is that just because someone belongs to a church in the 'dissenting' tradition, that doesn't in and of itself make them a 'dissenter.'
I could claim to be a 'dissenter' because I belong to a Church that is a bit of an outlier in UK terms but I'm not because that would be a daft thing for me to claim.
You made the point earlier that not everything 'Dissenters' did back in the day would have been seen that way by their contemporaries. I agreed.
Some 'dissenting' groups are socially conservative and they would see that as a 'dissenting' quality.
That view might be contested by other people but that's how they view themselves.
Who gets to decide?
On one level I'd say none of us are 'dissenting' or 'non-conformist' enough.
It's down to context. Hans Kung's views were only 'dissenting' in his RC context. They wouldn't have been seen that way elsewhere.
I don't see why that's so difficult to grasp.