i dont see how seagull. i was responding to your post that being uncompromizing was an ineffective evangelism tactic. I was showing that being compromizing would destroy our witness to the world. The fact is that the churches (in America at least) which are the most uncompromizing on both theological and social issues are also the fastest growing. These churches include evangelicals, pentacostals, seventh day adventists and (if you consider them christian) mormons.
now you're just grasping at straws onlooker. I never mentioned any link between abortionists and the unchurched. mischaracterizing my position won't make yours any better. be that as it may, the OP has expressed his displeasure in our "off-topic" discussion so we should probably take this to a new thread.
As you wish, but first I must be allowed to clear myself of mischaracterising your position. You accused me of equating babies with rapists and murderers. I replied that such an accusation was as unfounded as if I had accused you of equating the unchurched with abortionists and slavers. You see? I did not say you had suggested a link between abortionists and the unchurched: I asserted exactly, fully, completely, entirely, 100% the opposite.
I'm not sure how effective it is, but it seems better than comprising with worldliness. If we compromise, there is really no reason to go to Church. If you're just going to get a baptized version of the world around you, what's the point of sacrificing a day to sleep in so that you can go to Church and sing a few strange songs and hear a guy give some feel good talk? That isn't to say you should come off as an arrogant jerk who knows everything about how the world works, but a humble sort of moral conviction certainly will not hurt.
I see you equating engaging with the world with compromising with the world. There you make a false dichotomy between being intransigence and approachability, where none exists. I want my bishops to engage/dialogue with the world, but I don't want them to compromise with the world, by which is meant finding a compromised doctrine in the middle between Christianity and secularism (ie the diabolical).
Good point Spherelink. I don't think yiu can equate being uncompromising in one's faith with retreating from secular society. Sort of a being in the world but not of it situation. Im envisioning christian soldiers rather than desert fathers.
Well, living in middle England I really don't see that, "come and join us at St. Cake's, we're anti-contraception, abortion, divorce, women priests, gays, evolution, etc" is going to get the unchurched rushing in in their droves. There's an interesting omission in your list: the Roman Catholic Church. The stance of JPII and Benedict XVI was definitely "no compromise". And certainly under Benedict it did not exactly fill the pews. Under the more understanding Pope Francis, early signs are that numbers of people attending church are increasing (source, Sunday Times).
I'm having a bit of trouble with this, perhaps because I'm not sure what "compromising with worldliness" means. The church is involved with worldliness the whole time. It has adapted to the computer age, for example. I really don't think that you're advocating an exclusive brethren or Amish approach. In any event, in England the CofE is in effect part of the state; it is the state church. To say, for example, that "religion and politics" don't mix is nonsense. We need to put forward a moral voice. And people at our church are involved with the community. Many go to work, attend sporting events, go to pubs, play cards, etc. Our local (professional) football club has a "Godslot" in its programme, written by an Anglican priest. And my church has a team ("the Godsquad") in the local pub quiz league. We want to show the unchurched that we're normal and human (and we win our share of prizes too). That's getting out to the unchurched.
It's less about advertising the specifics and more about a simple positive affirmation: Biblical authority. We're anti-abortion, divorce, etc. because we are pro-Biblical authority, and we are pro-Biblical authority because the Bible was given to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sacrifice Biblical authority and Jesus' claims to Lordship on the altar of social acceptability and, to paraphrase an American founder (forgot which one right now), we will deserve neither and lose both. JPII was popular. Benedict XVI, in addition to being conservative, also had the disadvantage of lacking any charisma at all. JPII and Francis both possess(ed) a great deal of charisma, which is very important for Church attendance. For instance, Mark Driscoll of Seattle (not exactly the most conservative town) has thousands-strong mega-church while not compromising the doctrines you mentioned because he is a very charismatic leader. Edit: Just another point I though of after posting, but is Francis really drawing in many converts? It really seems more like he's getting lapsed Catholics who, while not necessarily abandoning Roman Catholicism root-and-branch, have not attended Mass in a while. I think we should be more focused on the totally nominal (don't even pretend to believe, just been baptized) and conversion. As lowly layman pointed out early, there is a difference between being "in the world" and "of the world." The computer, for instance, has nothing to do with "worldliness," it's more about what you do with the computer (or anything else for that matter) that makes something "worldly" or not. I agree that some people can misuse those types of phrases to justify all sorts of pietistic nonsense, but that doesn't mean we should sacrifice Biblical language. I do not see why the establishment of the Church of England (I support establishment despite that supporting it is viewed as borderline heresy on this side of the pond) would mean that the Church would have to compromise her witness to Biblical faith. I absolutely agree. In fact, that's part of what I'm talking about. Jesus' said to go forth and disciple the nations, teaching them all that He commanded. In modern times, that includes rather unpopular positions including the immorality of homosexual conduct, other sexual sins, abortion, etc. That doesn't mean we should make the Church a moralistic crusade to pass legislation (not that advocating better laws is bad), but we need to teach people what the Bible teaches about a moral life and the Biblical faith and Gospel. The Gospel includes the fact that Jesus died for our sins, and so without defining sin we weaken the Gospel in the long-run. Nothing wrong with any of that necessarily. Christians should be involved in outreach and the community. I'm in no way suggesting we hole up and form our own isolated communities.
You aren't seeing the primary matter involved. We are talking about not compromising doctrine. What Christ teaches, what we believe, and where the truth lies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the use of computers or what brand of napkin we have at the local parish coffee hours, or whether or not we have an establishment.
Being ashamed of our Christianity is even more something that won't get the unchurched rushing in. Getting them in is a useful goal, but not a primary one. As a foundation, in Christianity, we believe something that makes the natural sinful man uncomfortable. That is a baseline origin from which we have to begin. Erasing our uncomfortable doctrines is not something we are allowed to do, or if we loved the Truth, we would wish to do. Our best bet is to present our uncomfortable doctrines and explain why they are actually beautiful, if the natural man transformed himself and repented of his life of sin.
If I may interject with one or two observations. Firstly, I think looking at 'which churches are growing' is to use the wrong measure- far more telling is the decline in the USA and collapse in Europe of church attendance and the increase in professed unbelief in any sort of higher power(s). A few counter-examples of growth can do nothing to mask the trend of decline. Moreover, it's looking at it from a rather Developed World perspective, in Latin America, the Roman Catholic Church is being challenged by growing Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations- many of which preach prosperity gospel messages- surely something we'd all agree is a deep perversion of Christ's teaching. In Africa of course part of the religious experience is to continue to demonise vulnerable sections of society- homosexuals, the disabled, women due to a strong belief in witchcraft, and curses and diabolical activity- if things are represented on a straight 'conservative/liberal' spectrum have some African churches gone too far? Also, in addition, the Guardian has recently highlighted some statstics which suggest that actually ones doctrinal position has little to do with Church growth: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...h-growth-theology-evangelical-lesson-liberals However, I think there is a deeper problem actually (to return to our own western context), that is not really being, directly at least, addressed. Which is the nature of religious language, ritual and practice. The bare fact is that downright ignorance of Christianity is increasingly common. The sociological data on Generation Y (1980s-2000s) would suggest that Christianity is little more than the faintest of cultural echoes. The stories, the teachings, the experiences of churches...are now quite alien to great swathes of the population, which is actually why I think: Is not an adequate enough response to the task. In an age that values private autonomy, personal choice and individual style- the idea of blind submission to a set of rules is not enough. Especially if the very worldview and the talk that these things are wrapped up in have become largely incomprehensible to a lot of people. In England I know that Religious Studies is particularly good at undermining Christianity- when its moral positions are presented on various matters (euthansia, abortion, contraception etc.) it looks just like a set of prohibitions that consign one to an unhappy life of obligation and resignation to suffering...'Being Tough' alone is not enough, somehow it has to be shown how such decisions are reached and how they do in fact point to a human flourishing. As spherelink says: I was going to note in a prior post that of course dialogue with the world relies both on a need to listen, and (crucially if it's going to be constructive) some sort of mutually shared or at least understood starting point. This would require some sense of 'natural Theology' that actually some things in the world can actually can to a greater and lesser extent actually point to God (not impossible, seeing as he is meant to be their ultimate author). Rather than simply being 'pro-bible' can it be shown to a reasonable person how Christian doctrine, ethics and spirituality actually do point to the happiness and satisfaction that comes from Truth (if people are still interested in such questions as those of truth of course...another problem!) The alternative I suppose is to go the Barthian way and deride any attempt to connect the best of human thought to any approach to the Divine and insist it can only make sense form the perspective of Faith...but then how do you communicate this to a skeptical world? Whichever way one chooses the problem of communicating this gospel remains.
Out of curiosity, does htis post imply that actually you do support the deliberate termination of some lives in certain circumstances? If it does, could you explain why, if not all human lives are of equal value, 1) why aren't they? and 2) Why shouldn't a set of cells that clearly are a very undeveloped form of humanity shouldn't have cause to be included in this list? To place my cards on the table, I think that the 'consistently pro-life' position espoused by say, Quakers and (although there is some ambiguity about soldiering) Roman Catholicism which assume that the act of killing itself is an intrinsically evil and disordered act with only apparent goods as a consequence, is the only truly consistent one...and, if I may go so far as to say, the only truly Christ-like one.
@Al Personally, I am a nonaggressionist. I am prolife, anti-death penalty, and am sceptical that there ever is such a thing as a just war. As a legal professional, I can see there are circumstances where killing another human being may be juatified, or at least excused, in cases of self defense or in defences of others from an attacker using deadly force. but that certainly doesn' t make the killing of another human being right. The very fact that that the killer needs to justify or get excused for the killing shows that the act was wrong in and if itself, but that some social policy exists that would make penalizing the killer for the action inappropriate. My point in the post you quoted wasn't
meant to suggest that I think there are cases when killing is ok, only that I admit that there may be cases where the answer is not as simple as abortion. I tend to follow the deontological model of ethics. aa dey as Kant is, he really had something with the categorical imperative.
I agree that pure doctrine is not the only factor in Church attendance. There are perhaps innumerable factors for why people attend the different social functions they attend. At the level of attendance numbers, of much greater importance is having a decent preacher or something of that sort. However, I don't necessarily think Church attendance numbers, Church growth, and Church influence rise and fall together. By many estimates, the height of Church attendance was the middle of the 19th Century, yet it's pretty clear that society as a whole was becoming less influenced by the Christian Church at the time. The Church itself, at least here in America, was mostly a baptized temperance society at the height of per capita attendance. As if that's a fair representation of what I'm saying at all. Simply presenting a list of rules and beliefs to be believed without question isn't even mindful of Biblical authority where Christians are exhorted to give an answer to the hope that is within them, to be be gentle as doves and wise as serpents, and to study to show themselves approved unto God. However, our moral positions are not merely on the basis of the fact they promote human flourishing (they do, and I absolutely support explaining how they do). Ultimately, we accept them from a position of faith in God and that He knows what's best for us, even when we can't quite understand why that is. Now, that does not mean we check out our brains at Baptism. Our Faith has produced the largest corpus of intellectually rigorous theologies, apologetics, and philosophies of any on planet Earth. Just because we accept the Bible to be the infallible Word of God does not mean we just read it and whatever interpretation pops to mind is to be accepted without further study. I'd be careful with saying that the point of contact with the unbelieving world must be mutually understood. I agree that we need some sort of "natural theology," but I'm with Augustine, the Medievalists, and the bulk of the Reformers as to apologetics and natural theology: We come from a point of faith seeking understanding. C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton are good modern examples of this sort of apologetic and philosophy. The fact of the matter is that the world makes sense in light of Biblical & Catholic Christianity, but it does not make very much sense if you dig beyond the surface level of the world's philosophies. The only time pagan philosophy does make sense is when it happens to comport very well with more Christian viewpoints. For instance, Aristotle's philosophy in many (if not all) ways comports very well with the Christian worldview. However, Hedonism is a recipe for personal and social disaster precisely because it looks more like the philosophy of the Israelites of the book of Judges rather than the Psalms. Barth provides some useful insights, along with others of his generation less well-known, but he goes off the deep end in eliminating the point of contact. We live in a common world with the unbeliever, and God can be clearly perceived in the things that have been made. Is that obvious to the unbeliever? No, otherwise they wouldn't be an unbeliever! Sometimes the unbeliever will not acknowledge the point of contact. Things which seem to obviously prove that God is there to us they say do no such thing.
What are your "uncomfortable doctrines"? I suspect that they are no means entirely mine, nor those of Archbishop Welby. We want our church to be loving, friendly and welcoming, not dour and disapproving.
Actually there's a lot of eyewash about church attendance. The Murdoch press would have you believe that Anglicans are rushing to the RC Church "in their droves". Such claims are at best hearsay and do not tie in with my experience (I know quite a few RCs who have moved to Anglicanism). But there is one statistic which can be substantiated: the number of people attending CofE Cathedral services has increased substantially since the War. The Chamberlain of York Minster puts this down (at least in part) to anonymity (you can worship without being involved in tea rotas, etc.). But there's also something special on offer in our cathedrals: pageantry, a lovely atmosphere, fine buildings, music, singing etc. A very spiritual experience and miles away from foisting "uncomfortable doctrines" down people's throats. PS CofE and RC church attendances (in England) might have declined but they have not "collapsed".
You and me both. I'm mainstream CofE, an active Anglican described by our Vicar as "one of us". Yet here I feel I'm in a strange land. It's interesting that I find a greater degree of empathy with the posts of Messrs Olsen, Alcibiades and Onlooker.