{MOVED} Does having an "Internal Narrative" effect one's likelihood of being a Religious Funde?

[Radagast]

It might be interesting to ask whether different spiritualities relate to the liberal/conservative divide. In my experience, conservative groups are very suspicious of the more, shall we say, subjective sorts of spirituality.

But some Pentecostal groups seem to be both conservative and leaning towards more "subjective" sorts of spirituality.

That's why I suggested that there could be differences between denominations, but not primarily based on the liberal/conservative theological divide.

 

[Paidiske]

Hmm. Well, for example, think of vocation to ministry as a test case. It's a highly subjective experience.

More conservative groups are quicker to deny, for example, that women can even have or properly discern that experience. They decide that based on more objective criteria (by objective, obviously, I mean external to the individual subject, not "correct" as such).

 

[Radagast]

Hmm. Well, for example, think of vocation to ministry as a test case. It's a highly subjective experience.

OK, that's an interesting point. What you're getting at is presumably whether the statement "I have had subjective experience X" gets accepted.

And for conservative Pentecostal groups, the answer tends to be "yes," I think. That may indeed connect to the fact that they generally have male and female clergy.

 

[Paidiske]

OK, that's an interesting point. What you're getting at is presumably whether the statement "I have had subjective experience X" gets accepted.

Or whether, in general, subjective experiences of God, even if personal and private, are seen as valid and reliable in the Christian life. I just picked one where the consequences are particularly clearly available to us to observe.

And for conservative Pentecostal groups, the answer tends to be "yes," I think. That may indeed connect to the fact that they generally have male and female clergy.

Which would place them away from the conservative extreme on that spectrum, no? Or do we need to begin by defining conservative and liberal?

 

[Radagast]

Or whether, in general, subjective experiences of God, even if personal and private, are seen as valid and reliable in the Christian life. I just picked one where the consequences are particularly clearly available to us to observe.

Yes, and as a logical thinker, I appreciated that.

Which would place them away from the conservative extreme on that spectrum, no?

No, I'd say they were pretty conservative.

As I think I've said on another thread, I don't think that the liberal/conservative divide relates to the fact that denominations ordain women (or not), but to the kinds of reasons that they have for doing so (or not doing so).

 

[Paidiske]

I am not sure that I accept that anyone on the conservative extreme of Christianity would consider the ordination of women acceptable, or on the liberal extreme who would find it unacceptable. Of course the terrain inbetween the extremes if very complex. Could you give me an example?

 

[Radagast]

I am not sure that I accept that anyone on the conservative extreme of Christianity would consider the ordination of women acceptable, or on the liberal extreme who would find it unacceptable. Of course the terrain inbetween the extremes if very complex. Could you give me an example?

Well, I consider most Pentecostals to be conservative (extremely so, in many cases). Their reasons for ordaining women seem to reflect both an acceptance of personal statements about vocations and spiritual gifts and the fact that the Bible explicitly endorses female prophets (which they generally seem to view their leaders as being).

At the other end, one can presumably be theologically liberal yet liturgically conservative, and not ordain women for that reason. I'm not sure if anybody remains in that box.

 

[jacks]

I think it might be hard to get a handle where people fall individually (Liberal/Conservative) based on what denomination they belong to. My guess many (most?) people don't even know what the church they attend falls on all issues. For myself I've attended very liberal churches (female pastors, openly gay congregations, etc.),very conservative ones and ones I never was sure where they stood. I've been perfectly happy at all of them. I tend to focus on the main themes (love God, love one another) and then enjoyed the fellowship with other believers. I've never gotten into any sort of doctrinal argument at church and if I encounter someone who holds a different view, I just let it go and I think many others do the same for the sake of harmony. (So unlike life here on CF!)

Also I don't know if it is personality type that dictates beliefs; peoples beliefs seem much more mercurial. I'm sure even examining our own beliefs we see that they may change over time and experience, sometimes very quickly, while our personality has remained the same. Now as pastors you probably don't have the luxury of not voicing opinions and turning the other way when you see some doctrinal infraction, but for many in the congregation these issues can really play a secondary role in our spiritual journey.

Of course maybe I'm just too easy going!

 

[Radagast]

I think it might be hard to get a handle where people fall individually (Liberal/Conservative) based on what denomination they belong to.

The denominations themselves can be categorised fairly easily. Pew Forum uses such a categorisation in their surveys.

 

[Lyrasong]

this is interesting.

has anyone does Myers Briggs Inventory? i dont know if there any real science to it or if it a load of bunkum? anyway i scored INFP. so a perceiving, feling introvert. dont really know how it would affect my faith or not.

my walk with God is mine only and cannot be put in any box

So sorry - I missed your post before responding afterward. Interestingly, my designation on the Myers-Briggs was also INFP.

It would seem that temperament and thinking/feeling styles do play a role in how we perceive and live out our faith, but interplay in a complex manner. Not being a psychologist or in any way scientific, it is a juggling of forces which eludes me.

Of course, there is speculation about a ‘God’ gene, which could explain at least belief (and fear on the part of some that mandatory vaccination for Covid-19 could remove ours ... but that’s for a different thread!).

Anyway, kudos to the original poster. There is much food for thought here.

 

[Lyrasong]

By "Fundamentalist" I am referring to people who reject any attribute, feeling or notion about God or Christianity that is not explicitly stated in the bible... An example would be that it is absolutely sinful to own slaves. If someone feels like it is absolutely sinful to own slaves, but it is not explicitly stated as such in the bible, then to believe so is the opposite of Christian Fundamentalism.

We can observe how the Gospels portray Jesus as interacting with the Scriptures ... and with people, in the light of them.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, I consider most Pentecostals to be conservative (extremely so, in many cases). Their reasons for ordaining women seem to reflect both an acceptance of personal statements about vocations and spiritual gifts and the fact that the Bible explicitly endorses female prophets (which they generally seem to view their leaders as being).

Really? Pentecostals are a mixed bunch, in my experience, but I wouldn't have said they were all that conservative. Maybe it depends what markers one is looking for?

I think I also saw you say (but now I can't find it to quote it) that there are very liberal Catholics who don't ordain women; but in my experience, those Catholics want to ordain women and are frustrated with their denomination's refusal to do so.

Anyway, I don't really want to derail this to be all about one issue, I just thought it was a handy example.

 

[Radagast]

Really? Pentecostals are a mixed bunch, in my experience, but I wouldn't have said they were all that conservative. Maybe it depends what markers one is looking for?

Quite possibly.

But I would note that Pew Forum puts no Pentecostals at all in their Mainline/Liberal category.

I think I also saw you say (but now I can't find it to quote it) that there are very liberal Catholics who don't ordain women; but in my experience, those Catholics want to ordain women and are frustrated with their denomination's refusal to do so.

I started to say something like that, thought what you just said, and changed my mind.

Anyway, I don't really want to derail this to be all about one issue, I just thought it was a handy example.

Oh, it is, and it underscores the need to define terms.

 

[Paidiske]

But I would note that Pew Forum puts no Pentecostals at all in their Mainline/Liberal category.

I think that that categorisation is problematic in itself. (I think the "mainline" is more of an American social phenomenon than a useful global category, and it's not synonymous with liberal, either).

To have this conversation properly we probably would need to work out an agreed set of definitions of terms.

 

[Radagast]

I think that that categorisation is problematic in itself. (I think the "mainline" is more of an American social phenomenon than a useful global category

For churches outside the US, they generally consistently partner either with the Mainline/Liberal group or the Evangelical/Conservative group.

I agree that the terms are not ideal.

And, of course, Anglicans (considered globally) span that whole theological spectrum.

 

[Paidiske]

And, of course, Anglicans (considered globally) span that whole theological spectrum.

Even those of us who are formally in communion with Canterbury. It's part of why I think some of those categories get a bit unhelpful.

 

[jacks]

The denominations themselves can be categorised fairly easily. Pew Forum uses such a categorisation in their surveys.

You are correct and that was the point I was trying to make (poorly), that we can categorize and generalize about the institutions, but not necessarily the people who belong to them. I think there is much variation within all the denominations.

 

[Palmfever]

It may be possible for bugs to experience no internal dialog. Comatose humans, who knows? Perhaps. I've met impulsive characters who sometimes seem to have no brain/mouth filter, but that may just be verbalized internal drivel. Thoughts are an internal narrative in my opinion. even the act of attempting to empty ones mind is a narrative. King David's concept of meditation was more of a focus on God, not an emptying of the mind.
Strong's H1897 in the following manner: meditate (6x), mourn (4x), speak (4x), imagine (2x), study (2x), mutter (2x), utter (2x), roaring (1x), sore (1x), talk (1x).

 

[Landon Caeli]

It may be possible for bugs to experience no internal dialog. Comatose humans, who knows? Perhaps. I've met impulsive characters who sometimes seem to have no brain/mouth filter, but that may just be verbalized internal drivel. Thoughts are an internal narrative in my opinion. even the act of attempting to empty ones mind is a narrative. King David's concept of meditation was more of a focus on God, not an emptying of the mind.
Strong's H1897 in the following manner: meditate (6x), mourn (4x), speak (4x), imagine (2x), study (2x), mutter (2x), utter (2x), roaring (1x), sore (1x), talk (1x).

Very rarely do I 'think' in the English language. There are generally no words in my thought process when I'm not talking to someone else... Typically, when I'm alone, I think in images, memories, and feelings.

...Some people cannot do that. They think only in words. I've even met people so perplexed by the idea of not thinking in words, that they don't even believe it to be possible.

 

[jacks]

...Some people cannot do that. They think only in words.

I wonder if that is true. Did they have no thoughts before they knew language. Are their thoughts limited by the number of words they know? This could be an interesting question for a linguist.