From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 05 2005 - 16:10:49 GMT
Hi Wim,
I should have known you wouldn't let that one go so easily!
> Do you agree with my interpretation of what we are discussing in this
> thread
> as formulated in my post addressed 1 Mar 2005 07:44:14 +0100 at Max:
> 'It's about who can call themselves Dynamic and mystical and not about who
> can call themselves Christian.'?
> More precisely this thread was started by you 24 Nov 2001 12:03:17 -0000.
> It
> originated in my criticism on a tradition employing hireling ministers to
> interpret God's will, thereby disempowering the other believers.
> On 24 Nov 2001 you replied enthousiastically to what I wrote:
> 'religious traditions, systems of education and books (taken as patterns
> of
> value) differ from each other in the amount of freedom they leave for the
> Dynamic.'
So it has been going for three and a half years! No wonder I've forgotten
what started it. I'm grateful for having my memory refreshed.
Seems to me that there are two connected debates running here - possibly why
the debate runs and runs - and I might short circuit some of the
disagreement if I give a summary. One is about the relative Quality of DQ
and SQ; the other is about the relative Quality of Quakerism and
Anglicanism. We disagree about the former, and that surely underlies the
disagreement on the latter.
I think I'd be happy to say that Quakerism has more DQ than Anglicanism, and
that Anglicanism has more SQ than Quakerism. Where we'd probably then differ
is that you would say (assuming you agree with that) that therefore
Quakerism is 'higher up the ladder', but I would then say that this is
because you are privileging DQ over SQ, which I wouldn't agree with. Whether
Anglicanism has higher Quality than Quakerism (or vice versa) would
presumably follow from whatever position was held on DQ/SQ, ceteris paribus.
If you see the aim of the ladder as reaching DQ, then Quakerism is the best
way. If you see Quality as the end point (with DQ and SQ unable to be
separated, and each needed), then Anglicanism (or something else which had
more SQ than Quakerism) would be the better way.
Is that fair?
> The origin of this discussion being my objections to calling Anglicanism
> Dynamical and mystical (at least in comparison with Quakerism), I don't
> mind
> a bit of sidetracking into the question whether Quakerism is Christian.
Sounds like my position might have moved on a bit in our discussions. I'll
leave it to you to provide chapter and verse of the how and where. The
'mystical' bit begs the question, but lets run with the assumption that
Quakerism is more DQ oriented than Anglicanism, that makes sense.
> We agree that 'Christian mysticism' definitionally requires some attention
> to Christ.
<snip>
> As long as there is a (recognized) minority of Christians that doesn't
> agree
> that Christianity has central tenets one has to adhere to in order to call
> oneself "Christian", calling oneself "Christian" without adhering to any
> (which is not the same as disagreeing with them) doesn't imply
> self-denial.
> In several countries (e.g. the Netherlands) Quakers are member of the
> Council of Churches and as such recognized as "Christian" despite their
> refusal to subscribe to any creed.
But isn't that more a philosophical point about the nature of a creed,
rather than a refusal to accept the uniqueness of Christ? I struggle to get
my head around the idea that one can claim to be a Christian and deny the
uniqueness of Christ. After all, Christ = Messiah = Anointed one etc. It's
not a transferable description so far as I am aware. In other words I think
there is a huge gulf between saying that Jesus is THE messiah, and saying
that he is A messiah (or avatar or whatever). I think as soon as you take
the latter route then you are necessarily taking criteria other than Christ
as the test of what being a Messiah is (ie Jesus is one of a class, and we
can assess whether he fits the mould). I don't think that's compatible with
Christian faith, at least as it has been historically understood - Christ is
the standard around which everything else is assessed, he is not assessed by
those other standards. (Think of Pilate saying 'what is truth' in the
context of John's gospel as a whole).
> I doubt whether a majority of people calling themselves "Christian" (at
> least in the Netherlands) really subscribes to every aspect of the Nicene
> Creed in any meaningful and practical sense. Even my father, who is a
> (retired) Protestant pastor doesn't take Jesus being the only-begotten son
> of God literal. Has it ever been polled as far as you know?
Not sure I'd accept polling as a marker of truth. 'Only-begotten' is an
assertion of uniqueness, not first and foremost a statement of conception.
> Historical association of mysticism, Christianity and valuing sacraments
> doesn't seem a strong argument to say that either mysticism or
> Christianity
> requires sacraments as a focus. Why do you say so?
I think it flows from the logic of the incarnation. If you think that there
is no ultimate separation between heaven and earth then a) the sacred can be
found everywhere (I imagine we'd agree on that) but b) in Christian history
certain practices have discerned the sacred (the mystery of salvation) in a
more focussed fashion. I think it's more that if you can't see the
sacraments as a focus for Christian mysticism then you won't be able to
practice it anywhere else. Here it's easy, it's all laid out for you, take
what you learn here and let it teach you how to understand the world.
So I don't think you can break apart an acceptance of the incarnation from a
sacramental understanding of reality. Is that a sufficient answer?
Regards
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 05 2005 - 16:59:42 GMT