I should mention that I'm not completely conflating little-o orthodox and credal Christianity, though I think that the credal includes the little-o orthodox, but not the reverse, in terms of Venn diagrams. I'm thinking of little-o orthodoxy as including such doctrines as Jesus being really truly the incarnate Son of the one God Who made everything, Who died and was resurrected to (in some sense) save us all from sin and death, and so on, as opposed to (say) that Jesus was just a nice guy with some good ideas and wisdom, but nothing more, or even that there is no God at all. When I started the thread, I was thinking that there were a lot fewer of us (and certainly the minority now) on the Ship nowadays who hold to little-o orthodoxy or even specifically credal doctrinal /dogma orthodoxy. Whether the creed in question includes the filioque or not, I'm thinking of the rest of the basic Christian doctrines about the Trinity common to Anglican, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Roman Catholic, etc.
A denomination can call itself creedal when it anchors its faith and worship in the historic declarations of the Christian tradition. The ELCA does this by receiving the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as faithful summaries of the Church’s teaching, not as optional add‑ons. Being creedal doesn’t mean rigid literalism; it means locating ourselves within the shared story the Church has confessed for centuries. The creeds provide continuity, theological clarity, and a common language across diverse congregations. They keep us rooted without preventing thoughtful interpretation, allowing worship to be both historically grounded and pastorally alive.
I agree. And it's worth thinking about what it means to be "non-creedal". Without that historical grounding, it's possible for people to reinvent Christian faith in all sorts of bizarre and potentially harmful ways. If, instead of "this is what the Church believes", the key thing is "this is what I believe", then the door is opened to allow pretty much any interpretation of the Bible.
I would suggest that this is what we see in the likes of Hegseth and the Christian Nationals. They can come out with all sorts of crazy stuff without any regard to how Christianity has been understood and practised over the past 2000 years.
I don't like the idea of the creeds as a straitjacket, forcing you into a very constricted faith that permits no questions or expansion. But I think we need the creeds as guidelines that help us say "we may go in this direction but not that way".
A denomination can call itself creedal when it anchors its faith and worship in the historic declarations of the Christian tradition. The ELCA does this by receiving the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as faithful summaries of the Church’s teaching, not as optional add‑ons. Being creedal doesn’t mean rigid literalism; it means locating ourselves within the shared story the Church has confessed for centuries. The creeds provide continuity, theological clarity, and a common language across diverse congregations. They keep us rooted without preventing thoughtful interpretation, allowing worship to be both historically grounded and pastorally alive.
I agree. And it's worth thinking about what it means to be "non-creedal". Without that historical grounding, it's possible for people to reinvent Christian faith in all sorts of bizarre and potentially harmful ways. If, instead of "this is what the Church believes", the key thing is "this is what I believe", then the door is opened to allow pretty much any interpretation of the Bible.
I would suggest that this is what we see in the likes of Hegseth and the Christian Nationals. They can come out with all sorts of crazy stuff without any regard to how Christianity has been understood and practised over the past 2000 years.
I don't like the idea of the creeds as a straitjacket, forcing you into a very constricted faith that permits no questions or expansion. But I think we need the creeds as guidelines that help us say "we may go in this direction but not that way".
Splendidly put! The 'Creeds' of themselves can't give us life, but they help us keep to the tried and tested path.
@Gramps49 - if it was a 'loaded' question it was @ChastMastr's question and not mine - although I agree with how he's defined things in his outline of what he considers orthodox, creedal Christianity to mean.
Although we all occupy particular sections or locations along the spectrum as it were, I think we are all trying to think in broader terms than whether this particular Lutheran Synod doesn't accept or recognise another or the internal politics within whatever Church or denomination we are involved with.
We can none of us speak for everyone else of course nor expect our own positions to apply to others - and our respective positions may change over time.
Equally, we can be in a broadly orthodox setting (or a Big O one for that matter) and still drift into excesses or dodgy emphases and so on.
The network of independent charismatic evangelical churches I was involved with for 18 years didn't veer into outright 'heresy' in any creedal sense yet it imbibed all sorts of unhelpful and idiosyncratic emphases and practices that ultimately brought about its splintering and demise.
Would I say they were small o orthodox Christians? Yes - but with heterodox elements.
We are on a slippery slope if we ignore or dismantle received tradition - whether small t or Big T.
Equally, we run the risk of spiritual asphyxiation if we bind the cords too tightly.
I like what the late Tom Smail wrote when he observed that providing we have an elastic band around our waists which secures us to the main 'flow' of received and agreed tradition then we can explore side caverns and passages safely as the 'Ariadne's Thread' of the elastic band will always draw us back.
We wouldn't go caving or potholing without a guide.
Now, the elastic band can be stretched until it snaps of course or else it can be bound so tightly we can't move.
The trick is to work with elasticity within the agreed boundaries.
It just so happens that where I worship the folks are not in much danger of departing from mainstream Christian belief. I do acknowledge that in nonconformist land that’s not always the case.
Do we need Tradition to inform us for example that Hegseth is saying and praying bollocks? I guess some folks do. Just not everyone. For example, Bishop Mariann Budde, whose very appointment to the office of Bishop gives some Traditionalists the heebie-jeebies.
Belief in Tradition is not always a safe protection. Nor is unawareness of it always an inevitable journey to anti-Christian behaviour.
Don't get me wrong. Someone can tick all manner of Tradition boxes and still go awry.
'These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.'
It's not about giving mental assent to a set of propositions.
The Trinity ... [tick]
The Virgin Birth [tick]
Seven Ecumenical Councils [tick]
Or whatever else.
As it happens Tradition would say that what Hegseth is praying and saying is bollocks and mainstream small t tradition would say the same.
I'm not saying that your small t small o orthodox congregation is going to wake up one morning yo find that it has abandoned any semblance of adherence to traditional Christian belief and praxis.
I've had to point out to someone in a PM that I don't regard them as a heretic on the grounds of their church affiliation - nor on any other grounds for that matter.
I may not have expressed myself clearly enough on a previous exchange I had with them and given the impression that I did.
In which case I apologise.
Smail's elastic band analogy applied to the received and agreed tradition we all hold in common if we are mainstream Christians of whatever stripe.
He wasn't thinking of Big T Big O Orthodox Tradition. He had issues with aspects of that and I discussed those with him to some extent on the only occasion I met him.
Do I consider him to have been a 'heretic' on that basis? No.
Would I have considered him a heretic if he'd denied the Trinity?
Yes. Although I wouldn't have burned him at the stake or refused to talk to him or anything like that.
All that said, and please don't take this the wrong way, small t tradition only exists because there was/is an older Big T Tradition from it to derive from or react against or dialogue with in the first place.
There's a mojo from the older Christian traditions and Tradition that flows into and through all Christian communities whether they are aware of it or not.
Your lovely and well-respected non-conformist congregation only has the NT in the first place, for instance, because it has inherited it from Big T Tradition.
Belief in Big T Tradition isn't the same as working that out in practice.
'Faith working through love.'
You can be in a small t Christian tradition, a heterodox Christian tradition and heck, even an 'heretickal' one or have no religious affiliation whatsoever and still live a life closer to the Sermon on the Mount than someone who can tick all the boxes in a cognitive sense but who lives a live completely at variance with the faith they profess.
And it's worth thinking about what it means to be "non-creedal". Without that historical grounding, it's possible for people to reinvent Christian faith in all sorts of bizarre and potentially harmful ways.
Yes. Early Baptists and Independents eschewed creeds (the Baptist Union of Great Britain still doesn't have one, merely a short "Statement of Principle", although this comes from a later time) - the result was that many such churches in the C18 became Unitarian. Some reverted to Trinitarianism, others didn't.,
I would not say dogma is medicine. Love is the medicine for the Soul. Piety is eating the right food. Theology is a gym for the thinking soul to train in adoration and thus the love of God. Dogma is the set of "gym"-routines that are known to help build a strong soul in adoration, thus Love of God. Yes, important, but too easily overstated. This is why a yes/no attitude to it is bad, you do not have a can-do/can't-do attitude towards exercise routines in the gym. You start with what you can do, adapt, modify and build towards achieving the end goal, which is a deeper love of God. Just as the aim of gym routines is a fitter, more flexible, stronger body, not performing the perfect squat.
And it's worth thinking about what it means to be "non-creedal". Without that historical grounding, it's possible for people to reinvent Christian faith in all sorts of bizarre and potentially harmful ways.
Yes. Early Baptists and Independents eschewed creeds (the Baptist Union of Great Britain still doesn't have one, merely a short "Statement of Principle", although this comes from a later time) - the result was that many such churches in the C18 became Unitarian. Some reverted to Trinitarianism, others didn't.,
Totally agree!
As a matter of interest, I googled the UK Evangelical
Alliance Basis of faith.
It’s Traditional mostly but it has additions which make Traditionals uncomfortable.
What it says about the Bible is a substantial addition to the brief “according to the scriptures “ in the Creeds”.
What it says about the church is not the same as the creedal “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. It’s consistent with “locally visible, but universally invisible” (i.e actual membership known only to God).
And the view of atonement is a Penal Substitutionary extension of “died for our sins”. Which is a problem for many, including me.
As a faith basis I could sign up to most but not all of it. Some of it is more Traditional than others.
But, for example, it would protect Baptists from Unitarianism.
As far as I understand it, the original Evangelical Alliance statement of faith drafted in 1846 wasn't intended as a definitive 'creed' as such but a summary of consensus among individuals and groups that considered themselves 'Evangelical.'
I don't know a great deal of the history but I've been told it was developed as a bulwark against Roman Catholicism - RC 'emancipation' in the UK was only achieved in the 1820s and some were alarmed by its more public presence plus the influx of Irish refugees fleeing the Potato Famine.
The Tractarian Movement in the CofE hadn't quite become all 'bells and smells' by that time but Newman had converted to Catholicism in 1845 - and that caused a big stir. I imagine that many evangelicals, both Anglican and 'Dissenters' were concerned that others might follow. Hence the need to define themselves and to define their terms.
From what I can gather the EA Statement of Faith was revised in 2005 but I'm not sure how it differs from the original.
As far as the Baptists - and other 'Dissenters' - go in terms of Unitarianism, my impression is that those that went that way did so much earlier - during the 1700s, although some may have done during the 1600s, I don't know.
Many years ago I read a biography of the fiery Welsh Baptist preacher, Christmas Evans. His career seems to have been one hard slog against against ancient heresies and 'isms' that were resurfacing - and he confessed himself that he drifted from received orthodoxy for a while.
It's long intrigued me how many early heresies came back to bite various Protestant churches in the centuries following the Reformation - Arianism, Sabellianism, Socinianism, Appollinarianism ... all sorts of isms and schisms.
I might be wrong but I get the impression that the Wesleyans tended to be less affected by this, but they could topple over into unbridled religious 'enthusiasm' and excess.
The Anglicans remained more avowedly connected to the historic creeds but individual clergy could give way to Deism and Latitudinarianism and what-not.
Heck, I've met Anglican clergy who were Deist at best or closet Unitarians or who would have been better off in the Quakers where there isn't a 'need' to sign up for any creedal formularies at all.
Protecting Baptists against Unitarianism would clearly be a 'good thing' from an Orthodox stand-point, of course - and as the late Baptist 'renewalist' Douglas McBain acknowledged, Baptists have always been 'inconsistently orthodox'.
Most Baptists I've known have all been small o orthodox as far as I could tell.
They did have the 'down-grade' controversies of the 19th century and a kind of repeat performance of that in the 1970s when a kind of 'adoptionism' seemed to become popular in some circles - and which led to some congregations leaving the Baptist Union and setting up their own independent networks.
FWIW, I'd see the EA Statement of Faith as a 'sectional' positioning statement for a constituency which is becoming harder to define or pin-down. What does 'evangelical' actually mean these days?
Or 'Pentecostalism' too, for that matter?
The only common or defining feature in the latter these days seems to be 'speaking in tongues' but even that isn't a 'given'. I've heard Pentecostals say things like, 'I've tried to speak in tongues but couldn't but my pastor says that's ok and so I carry on attending the meetings ...'
Everything's gone every which way out there.
But there remains a 'dogmatic core' of historic creedal Christianity to which many of us still subscribe across the various Churches and denominations.
FWIW, I'd see the EA Statement of Faith as a 'sectional' positioning statement for a constituency which is becoming harder to define or pin-down. What does 'evangelical' actually mean these days?
Spot on. I think their constituency is largely conservative and historically evangelical nonconformist churches and individuals. Though I think some Anglicans join as individuals.
How the statement of belief may function in practice may be illustrated best by the expulsion of Steve Chalke’s Oasis charity. But that is another story.
Steve came under suspicion when he cast doubt over PSA but it was his more inclusive views over human sexuality that crossed the line. When push comes to shove they will defend conservative Protestant positions.
I had a friend/mentor I should follow up on from a while back. He was, curiously, a Protestant who was very enamored of the Old Ways of the Church, and had picked up a manual on iconography. And he followed the rules to the letter and wrote icons in the old style. The work was quite beautiful, I have a few still in my possession.
And one thing he taught me about was the famous Trinity by Andrei Rublev. It's a simple image of three angels sitting around a table, of course with the bread and wine, all the usual symbolism. But a very important detail in the piece is that there's a vacant space at the table aimed at the viewer, thus making this a participatory event. We are supposed to participate in God, not just take it as doctrine. I think that might be what makes it a dogma, not just a set of rules. It's a mystical reality.
I think folks who understand the trinity as an intellectual exercise or a logical precept are kind of missing the point.
Although people tell me that using the term 'write' rather than 'paint' on reference to icons is something of an affectation.
It's true that icons 'tell a story' but they are 'painted' not 'written'.
I've long understood the Rublev 'Trinity' that way, that we are invited to participate in the divine life as it were - and that's thoroughly Orthodox of course.
Strictly speaking, though, the icon depicts the three angels who visited Abraham near the oak of Mamre - which can be seen in the background.
But there's a Theophany element to that and a eucharistic one in the icon of course.
Would your friend have venerated icons as well as painted - or 'written' - them I wonder?
Or would that have been a step too far?
By 'Old Style' I presume you mean the Byzantine style?
Incidentally, I like those icons of Alaskan Saints that have walruses in them or a Noah's Ark style medieval-looking wooden helicopter coming to take a Saint's relics from an island to the cathedral in Anchorage.
On the Trinity and on participation in the Divine ... yes, absolutely.
If we reduce it all to an intellectual formula we are well wide of the mark.
I don't know a great deal of the history but I've been told it was developed as a bulwark against Roman Catholicism - RC 'emancipation' in the UK was only achieved in the 1820s and some were alarmed by its more public presence plus the influx of Irish refugees fleeing the Potato Famine.
But all creeds etc have a historical context, and many were surely developed as protections "from" rather than as positive statements.
As far as the Baptists - and other 'Dissenters' - go in terms of Unitarianism, my impression is that those that went that way did so much earlier - during the 1700s, although some may have done during the 1600s, I don't know.
I did say C18 = 1700s. My last church was founded in 1686 but there was a Unitarian split-off in 1699 (still going).
Protecting Baptists against Unitarianism would clearly be a 'good thing' from an Orthodox stand-point, of course - and as the late Baptist 'renewalist' Douglas McBain acknowledged, Baptists have always been 'inconsistently orthodox'.
A lovely man who was my Area Superintendent (the nearest we had to Bishops) for a time - although a female colleague felt that he was a bit patronising to women ministers.
There's a Unitarian church near here in Birmingham (the UK one) which seems to be trying to encourage atheists to attend services.
There's an interesting history of skeptics setting up "churches". Conway Hall in London was originally a chapel hundreds of years ago. I think it fairly quickly left religion behind.
Another example I was recently reading about was the churches set up by Chartists, the social movement of working people in the early 19th century. They sound mostly like organisations that were prototypes of trade unions or Marxist cells. I am not sure there was much religious teaching.
I thought the OP was in part to find out which of us are left-wing, progressive heathens. ;^)
Well, whatever else @ChastMastr might be, I don't think he's way, way to the right politically. It all depends on where we measure things from of course.
Another example I was recently reading about was the churches set up by Chartists, the social movement of working people in the early 19th century. They sound mostly like organisations that were prototypes of trade unions or Marxist cells. I am not sure there was much religious teaching.
One of the Chartist leaders in my native South Wales ran a pub. He had a print of Christ and the donkey/colt he rode on Palm Sunday on the wall to which he'd added a caption along the lines of, 'Look at the first thief.'
So, yes there was a fair bit of 'free-thinking' involved and the non-conformist chapels in South Wales and other industrial areas generally disassociated itself from Chartism - or at least the 'Physical Force' variety.
The 'Moral Force' Chartists did attract a fair number of 'chapel' folk.
Early trades unionism owed a great deal to how Primitive Methodists and other 'dissenting' groups organised themselves. It's no accident that the branches of some trades unions were called 'chapels'.
The Tolpuddle Martyrs were Primitive Methodists I think. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.
@Baptist Trainfan - of course there are historic and social factors behind all creeds and confessions - be it Nicea, The Augsburg Confession, The 39 Articles, The Westminster Confession or the EA Statement of Faith.
I was simply outlining some factors that may have been at play in the latter.
The leader of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, George Loveless, was my great, great, great grandfather. His wiki page describes him as a ploughman and a Wesleyan Methodist preacher.
(Nice to have one of the few famous peasants as your ancestor )
I used to work with someone who on Sundays went to a secular service in a hall. Nice readings, uplifting songs and an "improving" talk. She had been raised a Catholic but no longer believed in God but missed the communal experience that worship can bring. I'm not sure if it was a branch of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Assembly#Local_assemblies
I thought the OP was in part to find out which of us are left-wing, progressive heathens. ;^)
Left wing progressive Protestants and Catholics are not unknown in the historical and current UK church. Quite a lot them had and have traditional or Traditional beliefs. Lots of examples to choose, but here’s a well known one - or two!
On the Catholic side, Archbishop Derek Worlock worked in partnership with Anglican Bishop David Sheppard were both passionate advocates of social justice in the mid 20th century.
And of course there are many Wesleyans! I knew Len Murray slightly- ex TUC leader - who used to say that he believed Christians should “get stuck in”. Another social justice champion.
The Christian cake slices somewhat differently this side of the Atlantic.
Comments
Tra la la, tra la la la… 🎶 ❤️
As a side note, please remember Sid Krofft, who was involved in the series, who just passed at 96 the other day.
I am sure that He/They would say “Likewise.”
Indeed, it’s arguably Gnostic—the idea that knowing the right stuff is what saves.
I miss the Onion Dome! O @mousethief, you made such a cool thing!
I agree. And it's worth thinking about what it means to be "non-creedal". Without that historical grounding, it's possible for people to reinvent Christian faith in all sorts of bizarre and potentially harmful ways. If, instead of "this is what the Church believes", the key thing is "this is what I believe", then the door is opened to allow pretty much any interpretation of the Bible.
I would suggest that this is what we see in the likes of Hegseth and the Christian Nationals. They can come out with all sorts of crazy stuff without any regard to how Christianity has been understood and practised over the past 2000 years.
I don't like the idea of the creeds as a straitjacket, forcing you into a very constricted faith that permits no questions or expansion. But I think we need the creeds as guidelines that help us say "we may go in this direction but not that way".
Splendidly put! The 'Creeds' of themselves can't give us life, but they help us keep to the tried and tested path.
Although we all occupy particular sections or locations along the spectrum as it were, I think we are all trying to think in broader terms than whether this particular Lutheran Synod doesn't accept or recognise another or the internal politics within whatever Church or denomination we are involved with.
We can none of us speak for everyone else of course nor expect our own positions to apply to others - and our respective positions may change over time.
Equally, we can be in a broadly orthodox setting (or a Big O one for that matter) and still drift into excesses or dodgy emphases and so on.
The network of independent charismatic evangelical churches I was involved with for 18 years didn't veer into outright 'heresy' in any creedal sense yet it imbibed all sorts of unhelpful and idiosyncratic emphases and practices that ultimately brought about its splintering and demise.
Would I say they were small o orthodox Christians? Yes - but with heterodox elements.
We are on a slippery slope if we ignore or dismantle received tradition - whether small t or Big T.
Equally, we run the risk of spiritual asphyxiation if we bind the cords too tightly.
I like what the late Tom Smail wrote when he observed that providing we have an elastic band around our waists which secures us to the main 'flow' of received and agreed tradition then we can explore side caverns and passages safely as the 'Ariadne's Thread' of the elastic band will always draw us back.
We wouldn't go caving or potholing without a guide.
Now, the elastic band can be stretched until it snaps of course or else it can be bound so tightly we can't move.
The trick is to work with elasticity within the agreed boundaries.
It just so happens that where I worship the folks are not in much danger of departing from mainstream Christian belief. I do acknowledge that in nonconformist land that’s not always the case.
Do we need Tradition to inform us for example that Hegseth is saying and praying bollocks? I guess some folks do. Just not everyone. For example, Bishop Mariann Budde, whose very appointment to the office of Bishop gives some Traditionalists the heebie-jeebies.
Belief in Tradition is not always a safe protection. Nor is unawareness of it always an inevitable journey to anti-Christian behaviour.
By their fruits shall you know them?
'These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.'
It's not about giving mental assent to a set of propositions.
The Trinity ... [tick]
The Virgin Birth [tick]
Seven Ecumenical Councils [tick]
Or whatever else.
As it happens Tradition would say that what Hegseth is praying and saying is bollocks and mainstream small t tradition would say the same.
I'm not saying that your small t small o orthodox congregation is going to wake up one morning yo find that it has abandoned any semblance of adherence to traditional Christian belief and praxis.
I've had to point out to someone in a PM that I don't regard them as a heretic on the grounds of their church affiliation - nor on any other grounds for that matter.
I may not have expressed myself clearly enough on a previous exchange I had with them and given the impression that I did.
In which case I apologise.
Smail's elastic band analogy applied to the received and agreed tradition we all hold in common if we are mainstream Christians of whatever stripe.
He wasn't thinking of Big T Big O Orthodox Tradition. He had issues with aspects of that and I discussed those with him to some extent on the only occasion I met him.
Do I consider him to have been a 'heretic' on that basis? No.
Would I have considered him a heretic if he'd denied the Trinity?
Yes. Although I wouldn't have burned him at the stake or refused to talk to him or anything like that.
All that said, and please don't take this the wrong way, small t tradition only exists because there was/is an older Big T Tradition from it to derive from or react against or dialogue with in the first place.
There's a mojo from the older Christian traditions and Tradition that flows into and through all Christian communities whether they are aware of it or not.
Your lovely and well-respected non-conformist congregation only has the NT in the first place, for instance, because it has inherited it from Big T Tradition.
Belief in Big T Tradition isn't the same as working that out in practice.
'Faith working through love.'
You can be in a small t Christian tradition, a heterodox Christian tradition and heck, even an 'heretickal' one or have no religious affiliation whatsoever and still live a life closer to the Sermon on the Mount than someone who can tick all the boxes in a cognitive sense but who lives a live completely at variance with the faith they profess.
Totally agree!
As a matter of interest, I googled the UK Evangelical
Alliance Basis of faith.
https://www.eauk.org/about-us/how-we-work/basis-of-faith
It’s Traditional mostly but it has additions which make Traditionals uncomfortable.
What it says about the Bible is a substantial addition to the brief “according to the scriptures “ in the Creeds”.
What it says about the church is not the same as the creedal “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. It’s consistent with “locally visible, but universally invisible” (i.e actual membership known only to God).
And the view of atonement is a Penal Substitutionary extension of “died for our sins”. Which is a problem for many, including me.
As a faith basis I could sign up to most but not all of it. Some of it is more Traditional than others.
But, for example, it would protect Baptists from Unitarianism.
Comments invited!
I don't know a great deal of the history but I've been told it was developed as a bulwark against Roman Catholicism - RC 'emancipation' in the UK was only achieved in the 1820s and some were alarmed by its more public presence plus the influx of Irish refugees fleeing the Potato Famine.
The Tractarian Movement in the CofE hadn't quite become all 'bells and smells' by that time but Newman had converted to Catholicism in 1845 - and that caused a big stir. I imagine that many evangelicals, both Anglican and 'Dissenters' were concerned that others might follow. Hence the need to define themselves and to define their terms.
From what I can gather the EA Statement of Faith was revised in 2005 but I'm not sure how it differs from the original.
As far as the Baptists - and other 'Dissenters' - go in terms of Unitarianism, my impression is that those that went that way did so much earlier - during the 1700s, although some may have done during the 1600s, I don't know.
Many years ago I read a biography of the fiery Welsh Baptist preacher, Christmas Evans. His career seems to have been one hard slog against against ancient heresies and 'isms' that were resurfacing - and he confessed himself that he drifted from received orthodoxy for a while.
It's long intrigued me how many early heresies came back to bite various Protestant churches in the centuries following the Reformation - Arianism, Sabellianism, Socinianism, Appollinarianism ... all sorts of isms and schisms.
I might be wrong but I get the impression that the Wesleyans tended to be less affected by this, but they could topple over into unbridled religious 'enthusiasm' and excess.
The Anglicans remained more avowedly connected to the historic creeds but individual clergy could give way to Deism and Latitudinarianism and what-not.
Heck, I've met Anglican clergy who were Deist at best or closet Unitarians or who would have been better off in the Quakers where there isn't a 'need' to sign up for any creedal formularies at all.
Protecting Baptists against Unitarianism would clearly be a 'good thing' from an Orthodox stand-point, of course - and as the late Baptist 'renewalist' Douglas McBain acknowledged, Baptists have always been 'inconsistently orthodox'.
Most Baptists I've known have all been small o orthodox as far as I could tell.
They did have the 'down-grade' controversies of the 19th century and a kind of repeat performance of that in the 1970s when a kind of 'adoptionism' seemed to become popular in some circles - and which led to some congregations leaving the Baptist Union and setting up their own independent networks.
FWIW, I'd see the EA Statement of Faith as a 'sectional' positioning statement for a constituency which is becoming harder to define or pin-down. What does 'evangelical' actually mean these days?
Or 'Pentecostalism' too, for that matter?
The only common or defining feature in the latter these days seems to be 'speaking in tongues' but even that isn't a 'given'. I've heard Pentecostals say things like, 'I've tried to speak in tongues but couldn't but my pastor says that's ok and so I carry on attending the meetings ...'
Everything's gone every which way out there.
But there remains a 'dogmatic core' of historic creedal Christianity to which many of us still subscribe across the various Churches and denominations.
Spot on. I think their constituency is largely conservative and historically evangelical nonconformist churches and individuals. Though I think some Anglicans join as individuals.
How the statement of belief may function in practice may be illustrated best by the expulsion of Steve Chalke’s Oasis charity. But that is another story.
Steve came under suspicion when he cast doubt over PSA but it was his more inclusive views over human sexuality that crossed the line. When push comes to shove they will defend conservative Protestant positions.
And one thing he taught me about was the famous Trinity by Andrei Rublev. It's a simple image of three angels sitting around a table, of course with the bread and wine, all the usual symbolism. But a very important detail in the piece is that there's a vacant space at the table aimed at the viewer, thus making this a participatory event. We are supposed to participate in God, not just take it as doctrine. I think that might be what makes it a dogma, not just a set of rules. It's a mystical reality.
I think folks who understand the trinity as an intellectual exercise or a logical precept are kind of missing the point.
Although people tell me that using the term 'write' rather than 'paint' on reference to icons is something of an affectation.
It's true that icons 'tell a story' but they are 'painted' not 'written'.
I've long understood the Rublev 'Trinity' that way, that we are invited to participate in the divine life as it were - and that's thoroughly Orthodox of course.
Strictly speaking, though, the icon depicts the three angels who visited Abraham near the oak of Mamre - which can be seen in the background.
But there's a Theophany element to that and a eucharistic one in the icon of course.
Would your friend have venerated icons as well as painted - or 'written' - them I wonder?
Or would that have been a step too far?
By 'Old Style' I presume you mean the Byzantine style?
Incidentally, I like those icons of Alaskan Saints that have walruses in them or a Noah's Ark style medieval-looking wooden helicopter coming to take a Saint's relics from an island to the cathedral in Anchorage.
On the Trinity and on participation in the Divine ... yes, absolutely.
If we reduce it all to an intellectual formula we are well wide of the mark.
I did say C18 = 1700s. My last church was founded in 1686 but there was a Unitarian split-off in 1699 (still going).
A lovely man who was my Area Superintendent (the nearest we had to Bishops) for a time - although a female colleague felt that he was a bit patronising to women ministers.
There's an interesting history of skeptics setting up "churches". Conway Hall in London was originally a chapel hundreds of years ago. I think it fairly quickly left religion behind.
Well, whatever else @ChastMastr might be, I don't think he's way, way to the right politically. It all depends on where we measure things from of course.
One of the Chartist leaders in my native South Wales ran a pub. He had a print of Christ and the donkey/colt he rode on Palm Sunday on the wall to which he'd added a caption along the lines of, 'Look at the first thief.'
So, yes there was a fair bit of 'free-thinking' involved and the non-conformist chapels in South Wales and other industrial areas generally disassociated itself from Chartism - or at least the 'Physical Force' variety.
The 'Moral Force' Chartists did attract a fair number of 'chapel' folk.
Early trades unionism owed a great deal to how Primitive Methodists and other 'dissenting' groups organised themselves. It's no accident that the branches of some trades unions were called 'chapels'.
The Tolpuddle Martyrs were Primitive Methodists I think. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.
@Baptist Trainfan - of course there are historic and social factors behind all creeds and confessions - be it Nicea, The Augsburg Confession, The 39 Articles, The Westminster Confession or the EA Statement of Faith.
I was simply outlining some factors that may have been at play in the latter.
(Nice to have one of the few famous peasants as your ancestor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Assembly#Local_assemblies
Left wing progressive Protestants and Catholics are not unknown in the historical and current UK church. Quite a lot them had and have traditional or Traditional beliefs. Lots of examples to choose, but here’s a well known one - or two!
On the Catholic side, Archbishop Derek Worlock worked in partnership with Anglican Bishop David Sheppard were both passionate advocates of social justice in the mid 20th century.
And of course there are many Wesleyans! I knew Len Murray slightly- ex TUC leader - who used to say that he believed Christians should “get stuck in”. Another social justice champion.
The Christian cake slices somewhat differently this side of the Atlantic.