Protestants have a real belief in the power of the bible to convert people as though it's some sort of quasi-magical document that if you just properly receive it then you'll know Jesus and be saved.
Some Protestant might believe that, but it’s a view that’s pretty foreign to the stream of Protestantism I’ve been part of all my life.
Protestants have a real belief in the power of the bible to convert people as though it's some sort of quasi-magical document that if you just properly receive it then you'll know Jesus and be saved.
Some Protestant might believe that, but it’s a view that’s pretty foreign to the stream of Protestantism I’ve been part of all my life.
Yes, that’s true. To be fair, I’m an Anglican and depending on how you slice the Christian world we come out Protestant more times than not. And, indeed, there are Anglicans who think that about the Bible, just like there are Presbyterians who think that about the Bible, although certainly not all.
Was I trying to do that? I simply provided a counter-example to the proposition "Nobody could possibly become a Christian through the Bible." That's all.
If you are detecting some anger here, you're right. I don't like having people tell me to my face that I don't know what I'm talking about, when it's my own experience. And I've claimed nothing further.
I didn't claim nobody could become a Christian through the bible. I never made any blanket statement of the sort. I also didn't tell you to your face that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry if anything I said came off that way.
Blows off the dust and dons Host hat@Martin54 you have managed to be quite ambiguous about who the last two words of your post are directed to. Given the amount of time you’ve been around I know you know the rules of Purgatory so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they were merely part of the story, and not a personal attack on a shipmate.
In the words of a close street friend when offered the good news story that his sins needed forgiving, and all he had to do was accept Jesus' sacrifice for them, 'Fuck off!'.
The following two posts are following a track very well worn by you. If you have more to say on these lines it deserves a thread of its own rather than sidetracking the general thrust of this thread,
It's to the OP and the conceit that the Bible has any stories worth telling, including gospel (what is that again?) ones, let alone 'modeling', to a Western audience blithely ignorant of them.
I certainly think that applies to 'Word of Faith' style prosperity-gospel stuff when it comes to how proponents of that and similar quasi-theology treat the scriptures.
I don't think I was saying anything like that, though and whilst I can't speak for @Lamb Chopped I don't think she was either - although I can understand how people might get that impression from what we posted.
I do have particular charismatic evangelical influences in my spiritual DNA of course and my current affiliation would regard itself as 'pneumatic'. The Liturgy and sacraments ('ordinances' to some of you) are certainly seen that way but we do insist they aren't 'magic'.
There may be material for a new thread on where we might draw the line - but I don't have a particular problem with the idea of the Holy Spirit 'speaking' or communicating in some mysterious way through scripture and preaching etc.
Heck, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he regularly does that through @Baptist Trainfan's sermons.
Acknowledging 'mystery' and the 'mystical' doesn't necessarily mean we have to go all heebie-geebie.
I don't have a particular problem with the idea of the Holy Spirit 'speaking' or communicating in some mysterious way through scripture and preaching etc.
Heck, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he regularly does that through @Baptist Trainfan's sermons.
You flatter me! That's the pious hope, at any rate, and you will know that Baptists have a quasi-sacramental view of preaching as a place where the auditors meet with God.
But I think - once more - we've rather lost the point of your OP.
I don't have an issue with a quasi-sacramental approach to preaching nor to the 'church meeting' come to that.
Don't tell my parish priest ...
But to return to the OP. As a preacher (and former missionary) you'll clearly have considerable experience of how to present material in a way your congregations or audiences can understand and engage with.
Clearly, when engaging with people who aren't part of your congregation or in a mission context in West Africa you can see ways that work and ways that don't.
I suppose I'm thinking of principles here rather than prescriptive 'methods'.
On a Zoom meeting with an Orthodox missiologist based in Athens once, I asked whether there were any significant differences between Western (Catholic and Protestant) and Orthodox approaches to mission.
Her very erudite answer was that whilst the Orthodox - largely for historical reasons - hadn't had the big missionary movements of the 16th to 19th centuries in the West (often associated with colonialism of course) they would see it more than an issue of 'presence' rather than 'proclamation.'
I liked that. And it isn't exclusively an Orthodox concept either of course.
I have avoided commenting on this thread as well as others because I am confused who this anonymous "he" is here.
Reading through the thread today, though, I am reminded of the number of secular songs which have religious tones. The list goes on and on. Many times the song writers plug into our common recollection of Biblical or other Holy Scripts as a base for their songs. U2 is a good example of such a group. Taylor Swift has done it too. Who remembers My Sweet Lord *Harie Krishna." ? The Fool on the Hill?
I've been watching a lot of videos recently explaining aspects of Mormonism, and I'm thinking about how they work in the opposite way described by some people in this thread.
As you probably know, Mormonism is a complicated religious construction with many religious books and non-obvious ideas. They're also missionary, arguably quite 'serious'. I'm not sure if that's the right word, but along with Jehovah's Witnesses, they seem to feel that attempting to engage with people in the street is important.
Anyway, I was thinking whilst watching these videos that there is so much that makes no sense to a non-believer that it is like Mormons are speaking a completely different language and their cultural vocabulary sounds only vaguely related to anything else. I suspect even other Christians would quickly be confused by their ideas.
Anyway, according to the ex-mormon ex-missionary I was watching, this is obviously expected because they start conversations on a basic level expecting little/no understanding of the faith from people they talk to.
Which makes it sound like it is a surprise if anyone comes into their faith from the outside; as expected the majority of new converts are from family members or people who already have some connection with them.
Another thing I was contemplating: imagine we had a society which was better educated in religions.
That people not only knew about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on but could hold a reasonable length conversation about the faith of people around them.
Would that make it easier or more difficult for churches and their new converts?
Of course the immediate problem is that nobody is going to have a very detailed understanding of faiths in a country with millions of people and a plurality of faiths. But I'm talking about a general increase in familiarity of beliefs outside of their family microcosm.
I posted an acknowledgement on the day, but no sign. Networks!
And thank you for the reality check on thread thrust. I get it at last.
And thank you for the benefit of the doubt; I would never attack a Shipmate thus, especially @Gamma Gamaliel. I see that it could be taken as a veiled response to the immediately previous commentator. I was attacking the whole concept of the Bible having anything to say bar Jesus' pre-Rogerian unconditional positive regard for the other, unless they're absolute bastards. As I explained?
If this derails the thrust of the thread, I apologise and ask for it to be withdrawn.
But last week I was witness to a fascinating conversation in the office, usually I just tune out. The curate and the children's worker were talking about the problem of using
Israel
Bible stories (which are so positive after all...) when the young are seeing what their eponymous descendants are doing to their neighbours who are refugees from them in the first place.
It is not appropriate - and the reason is that it is such an emotive subject it is likely to derail the thread into being about the war in Gaza. Which, as you know, is a subject for Epiphanies.
However on Sunday (which here in Britain is Mothering Sunday), I have decided to preach about Moses in the bulrushes,. I shall be telling the original story "straight", with particular reference to Moses' mother and the Jewish midwives. However I will spend some time placing it into its context as I feel (as with the tale of Noah's Ark") that this is often seen as "a nice story for the children" when in fact it has some horrific aspects. Towards the end I shall make parallels between Moses' family's story, the Kindertransport of the 1930s, and Gaza parents who are sending their children to Qatar for medical treatment while they remain at home. I don't think that's illegitimate but rather a way of relating this ancient text to the "real world".
(For the record, I was not part of the Kindertransport as my parents, recently married, were able to leave Germany at the end of 1938 due to the efforts of a British vice-consul. My sister and I were born after the War but my parents both lost family members in the Holocaust).
As the poster of the OP I'm inclined to think that the only person likely to derail the thread is me.
I can go off on tangents. Or on and on and on.
I think @Baptist Trainfan's outline of his approach to the story of Moses is one of the things I had in mind. A creative way of relating the story to contemporary issues in a way that, hopefully, doesn't play fast and loose with the original text.
I suppose what I'm angling at is how - or whether - we can do that outside of a preaching context and where familiarity with these stories and texts cannot be guaranteed.
@KoF raises some interesting points about the Latter Day Saints.
I've long thought that the only way they draw anyone in is by sheer doggedness and persistence. Heck, a 'conventional' Christian message, if you like, sounds pretty far-fetched to most people. Imagine bolting on some additional wild material in the form of The Book of Mormon.
FWIW even as a Trinitarian Christian I've always thought that the JWs are likely to come across more credibly than the Mormons.
At least they only have a wonky version of the New Testament rather than a whole set of additional beliefs. They don't 'add' so much as reduce and take away, bless 'em.
But KoF raises some interesting issues. The Mormons aren't just riffing with tropes and imagery from conventional or historic forms of Christianity, they are drawing on mythology that even fewer people will be aware of.
Comments
Yes, that’s true. To be fair, I’m an Anglican and depending on how you slice the Christian world we come out Protestant more times than not. And, indeed, there are Anglicans who think that about the Bible, just like there are Presbyterians who think that about the Bible, although certainly not all.
Okay. Thank you.
The following two posts are following a track very well worn by you. If you have more to say on these lines it deserves a thread of its own rather than sidetracking the general thrust of this thread,
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Host hat off
I certainly think that applies to 'Word of Faith' style prosperity-gospel stuff when it comes to how proponents of that and similar quasi-theology treat the scriptures.
I don't think I was saying anything like that, though and whilst I can't speak for @Lamb Chopped I don't think she was either - although I can understand how people might get that impression from what we posted.
I do have particular charismatic evangelical influences in my spiritual DNA of course and my current affiliation would regard itself as 'pneumatic'. The Liturgy and sacraments ('ordinances' to some of you) are certainly seen that way but we do insist they aren't 'magic'.
There may be material for a new thread on where we might draw the line - but I don't have a particular problem with the idea of the Holy Spirit 'speaking' or communicating in some mysterious way through scripture and preaching etc.
Heck, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he regularly does that through @Baptist Trainfan's sermons.
Acknowledging 'mystery' and the 'mystical' doesn't necessarily mean we have to go all heebie-geebie.
I'd say that genuine mysticism is anything but.
But I think - once more - we've rather lost the point of your OP.
Oh yes, I see what you mean ...
I don't have an issue with a quasi-sacramental approach to preaching nor to the 'church meeting' come to that.
Don't tell my parish priest ...
But to return to the OP. As a preacher (and former missionary) you'll clearly have considerable experience of how to present material in a way your congregations or audiences can understand and engage with.
Clearly, when engaging with people who aren't part of your congregation or in a mission context in West Africa you can see ways that work and ways that don't.
I suppose I'm thinking of principles here rather than prescriptive 'methods'.
On a Zoom meeting with an Orthodox missiologist based in Athens once, I asked whether there were any significant differences between Western (Catholic and Protestant) and Orthodox approaches to mission.
Her very erudite answer was that whilst the Orthodox - largely for historical reasons - hadn't had the big missionary movements of the 16th to 19th centuries in the West (often associated with colonialism of course) they would see it more than an issue of 'presence' rather than 'proclamation.'
I liked that. And it isn't exclusively an Orthodox concept either of course.
Reading through the thread today, though, I am reminded of the number of secular songs which have religious tones. The list goes on and on. Many times the song writers plug into our common recollection of Biblical or other Holy Scripts as a base for their songs. U2 is a good example of such a group. Taylor Swift has done it too. Who remembers My Sweet Lord *Harie Krishna." ? The Fool on the Hill?
Moving on.
As you probably know, Mormonism is a complicated religious construction with many religious books and non-obvious ideas. They're also missionary, arguably quite 'serious'. I'm not sure if that's the right word, but along with Jehovah's Witnesses, they seem to feel that attempting to engage with people in the street is important.
Anyway, I was thinking whilst watching these videos that there is so much that makes no sense to a non-believer that it is like Mormons are speaking a completely different language and their cultural vocabulary sounds only vaguely related to anything else. I suspect even other Christians would quickly be confused by their ideas.
Anyway, according to the ex-mormon ex-missionary I was watching, this is obviously expected because they start conversations on a basic level expecting little/no understanding of the faith from people they talk to.
Which makes it sound like it is a surprise if anyone comes into their faith from the outside; as expected the majority of new converts are from family members or people who already have some connection with them.
That people not only knew about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on but could hold a reasonable length conversation about the faith of people around them.
Would that make it easier or more difficult for churches and their new converts?
Of course the immediate problem is that nobody is going to have a very detailed understanding of faiths in a country with millions of people and a plurality of faiths. But I'm talking about a general increase in familiarity of beliefs outside of their family microcosm.
I posted an acknowledgement on the day, but no sign. Networks!
And thank you for the reality check on thread thrust. I get it at last.
And thank you for the benefit of the doubt; I would never attack a Shipmate thus, especially @Gamma Gamaliel. I see that it could be taken as a veiled response to the immediately previous commentator. I was attacking the whole concept of the Bible having anything to say bar Jesus' pre-Rogerian unconditional positive regard for the other, unless they're absolute bastards. As I explained?
But last week I was witness to a fascinating conversation in the office, usually I just tune out. The curate and the children's worker were talking about the problem of using
Or is it forbidden to say that here too?
However on Sunday (which here in Britain is Mothering Sunday), I have decided to preach about Moses in the bulrushes,. I shall be telling the original story "straight", with particular reference to Moses' mother and the Jewish midwives. However I will spend some time placing it into its context as I feel (as with the tale of Noah's Ark") that this is often seen as "a nice story for the children" when in fact it has some horrific aspects. Towards the end I shall make parallels between Moses' family's story, the Kindertransport of the 1930s, and Gaza parents who are sending their children to Qatar for medical treatment while they remain at home. I don't think that's illegitimate but rather a way of relating this ancient text to the "real world".
(For the record, I was not part of the Kindertransport as my parents, recently married, were able to leave Germany at the end of 1938 due to the efforts of a British vice-consul. My sister and I were born after the War but my parents both lost family members in the Holocaust).
I can go off on tangents. Or on and on and on.
I think @Baptist Trainfan's outline of his approach to the story of Moses is one of the things I had in mind. A creative way of relating the story to contemporary issues in a way that, hopefully, doesn't play fast and loose with the original text.
I suppose what I'm angling at is how - or whether - we can do that outside of a preaching context and where familiarity with these stories and texts cannot be guaranteed.
@KoF raises some interesting points about the Latter Day Saints.
I've long thought that the only way they draw anyone in is by sheer doggedness and persistence. Heck, a 'conventional' Christian message, if you like, sounds pretty far-fetched to most people. Imagine bolting on some additional wild material in the form of The Book of Mormon.
FWIW even as a Trinitarian Christian I've always thought that the JWs are likely to come across more credibly than the Mormons.
At least they only have a wonky version of the New Testament rather than a whole set of additional beliefs. They don't 'add' so much as reduce and take away, bless 'em.
But KoF raises some interesting issues. The Mormons aren't just riffing with tropes and imagery from conventional or historic forms of Christianity, they are drawing on mythology that even fewer people will be aware of.