Please Review: New Statement of Purpose

~Anastasia~ said:

Thank you, Mark. I'm not looking to exclude people either, but to stay within topic.

But to be honest, I'm not sure some people are able to read what you posted above and understand what we mean at all. There is a segment who will see such things as

"Traditions of men" vs. "what Jesus taught"

or

"Tradition" vs "the Bible".


If that's how they understand it, then I understand their need to argue against it.

Click to expand...

Spot on.

Sojourner1 said:

We would like the feedback and input from the members of this forum on the new SoP that we have written up.

Click to expand...

I knew I had read something more to the point. Mark, to a degree we HAVE defined Tradition. Or at least "Traditional Christianity". Perhaps this is sufficient, or perhaps clarification would be helpful. Right at the moment I'm not putting myself in "the other's shoes" to really critically examine every thought this may lead to.



Definition of Traditional Christianity:

Traditional Christians hold to the traditional beliefs and customs of the early church that Jesus Christ established and believe they should be acknowledged and used in the development of the Church today. Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today. These traditions include sources such as church councils and creeds, writings of the early Church Fathers, testimony of the Lives of the Saints, classic confessions of the faith, etc. Many traditional Christians believe that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God, commonly known as theosis or sanctification. Traditional Christians recognize a variety of sacraments and sacramental acts including, but not limited to; Baptism, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Confession and Absolution, Chrismation (confirmation) etc., and consider them to be additional means whereby God imparts His grace on those who have faith.



Just a minor suggestion. It might be easier to read if it were bulleted or segmented in some way? I see it's not completely cut-and-dried, but here is one attempt

• Traditional Christians hold to the traditional beliefs and customs of the early church that Jesus Christ established and believe they should be acknowledged and used in the development of the Church today. Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today.

• These traditions include sources such as church councils and creeds, writings of the early Church Fathers, testimony of the Lives of the Saints, classic confessions of the faith, etc.

• Many traditional Christians believe that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God, commonly known as theosis or sanctification.

• Traditional Christians recognize a variety of sacraments and sacramental acts including, but not limited to; Baptism, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Confession and Absolution, Chrismation (confirmation) etc., and consider them to be additional means whereby God imparts His grace on those who have faith.

I also see that we don't explicitly mention Scripture, which of course for our Church is central to Holy Tradition. It could be implied since the councils decided on the canon, but I think that's too obscure for many. Can/Should we not mention that we do, in fact, esteem Scripture as the highest authority, or something along those lines?

I have a question about the description of traditional. Does the understanding of the ministry factor into this?

Arcangl86 said:

I have a question about the description of traditional. Does the understanding of the ministry factor into this?

Click to expand...

Could you explain what you mean by the ministry factor? Thanks!

All4Christ said:

Could you explain what you mean by the ministry factor? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Understanding of the ministry, factor in. In other words, do you need to have the 3 fold order, hold a certain opinion on women being ordained, is AS required etc...

Arcangl86 said:

Understanding of the ministry, factor in. In other words, do you need to have the 3 fold order, hold a certain opinion on women being ordained, is AS required etc...

Click to expand...

Ah ok, thanks for explaining. I think these would be great areas that we could explore from within our traditions, but I don't think they should be requirements to be considered a Traditional Christian, by the definition of the forum.

Most traditional Christians would hold to the three fold order, though some (for example, Messianic Jews, as Mark mentioned earlier) would not have the 3 fold order. Many would strongly disagree with ordaining women (such as my Tradition), while others are fine with it.

I think there will be a range of how traditional people are, even within those who identify themselves as Traditional Christians.

This may or may not be the spot to ask, and if it isn't please point me in the right direction. Because Traditional Theology encompases a wide range of things may we have a forum section devoted to Biblical Theology where only Biblical sources are used in discussions?

keltoi said:

This may or may not be the spot to ask, and if it isn't please point me in the right direction. Because Traditional Theology encompases a wide range of things may we have a forum section devoted to Biblical Theology where only Biblical sources are used in discussions?

Click to expand...

Hi Keltoi - I believe that most people who request scripture only discussions post the thread under general theology, or one of the topical theology forums. That said, if you don't see a forum that matches what you have in mind, I think there is a "forum request" sub-forum under the MSC forum.

All4Christ said:

Hi Keltoi - I believe that most people who request scripture only discussions post the thread under general theology, or one of the topical theology forums. That said, if you don't see a forum that matches what you have in mind, I think there is a "forum request" sub-forum under the MSC forum.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I find the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' when applied to religion to be things that are designed to pidgeon-hole and they do not always shed light on anything. It's all so neat and tidy, but I'm not that neat and tidy, Don't call me liberal but calling me conservative does not define me. I suspect the word 'traditional', I know the word 'traditional' suffers from the same problem.

Click to expand...

I totally agree these terms do not define believers well at all, and I eschew most of them. As you say its not neat and tidy and - if we are christian we serve one Lord and Saviour - Jesus Christ.

Why not just call this forum Theology in the Early Church? since that is what the definition seems to say it is about. But 'Traditional' will draw nearly everything in - I really think you may be making an awful lot of work for yourselves moderating that.

dms1972 said:

Why not just call this forum Theology in the Early Church? Since that is what the definition seems to say it is about. But 'Traditional' will draw nearly everything in - I really think you may be making an awful lot of work for yourselves moderating that.

Click to expand...

Because we are not just Theology of the Early Church, those who are in this sub group are Traditional Christians. Most of us have a Liturgical Service, say the Creed, use the smells and bells if you will, and do not use the Bible alone. What we strive for is to explain Traditional Theology and have a safe place away from those in General Theology .

I am all for boxing TT in but the powers that be don't want that

So is it to discuss Liturgy, sacraments, ceremony, ritual and such and the theology behind those across different churches?

Of course I don't have a problem - Sola Scriptura I don't think excluded ceremony and ritual, prayerbooks, and liturgy and such in services, only ceremonialism, ritualism and such, which is when these things are become the prime concern and are no longer in service to God's Word and Spirit. Scripture was central in regulating that.

Ceremonies, and rituals may be based on biblical theological principles and are the way we sustain ourselves as humans the angels on one hand and the animals on the other. But it is supposed to be something living because conjoined with faith, and energised by the Holy Spirit, not a dead formalism, or a sitting on tradition.

"Reality is simply far to great to be contained in propositions. That is why man needs gestures, pictures, image, rhythms, metaphor, symbol, and myth. It is also why he needs ceremony, and ritual, customs, and conventions: those ways that perpetuate and mediate the images and symbols to us." Leanne Payne (The Healing Presence)

You'll probably need to dig a bit to find writers who can communicate well the theology in this area - people like Alexander Schmemann, Thomas Howard, Leanne Payne and others.

But I wonder still if these things would not be better discussed under the different community forums that we already have?

dms1972 said:

I totally agree these terms do not define believers well at all, and I eschew most of them. As you say its not neat and tidy and - if we are christian we serve one Lord and Saviour - Jesus Christ.

Why not just call this forum Theology in the Early Church? since that is what the definition seems to say it is about. But 'Traditional' will draw nearly everything in - I really think you may be making an awful lot of work for yourselves moderating that.

Click to expand...

We don't call it that because that is too narrow. How would we define early Chruch? Where do we draw the line? If we can clarify, great; but we are not going to restrict or limit.

A good indication might be that if you don't agree with this concept, it may be that you don't quite fit as a TT Christian as defined by this forum.

dms1972 said:

So is it to discuss Liturgy, sacraments, ceremony, ritual and such and the theology behind those across different churches?

Of course I don't have a problem - Sola Scriptura I don't think excluded ceremony and ritual, prayerbooks and such in services.


"Reality is simply far to great to be contained in propositions. That is why man needs gestures, pictures, image, rhythms, metaphor, symbol, and myth. It is also why he needs ceremony, and ritual, customs, and conventions: those ways that perpetuate and mediate the images and symbols to us." Leanne Payne

You'll probably need to dig a bit to find writers who can communicate well the theology in this area - people like Alexander Schmemann, Thomas Howard, Leanne Payne and others.

But I wonder still if these things would not be better discussed under the different community forums that we already have?

Click to expand...

Certainly they may be, if they fit with the SoP. The difference is the openness and the tone here.

dms1972 said:

But I wonder still if these things would not be better discussed under the different community forums that we already have?

Click to expand...

No because we would get drowned out as we have before, the tone elsewhere is hostile not in here though. TT is well established even though we might have to tweak the rules here and there once in a while

keltoi said:

This may or may not be the spot to ask, and if it isn't please point me in the right direction. Because Traditional Theology encompases a wide range of things may we have a forum section devoted to Biblical Theology where only Biblical sources are used in discussions?

Click to expand...

You may do so here:
Christian Scriptures

MarkRohfrietsch said:

You may do so here:
Christian Scriptures

Click to expand...

I don't think so because the SoP for that forum only says "The primary text of this forum is the Bible." It doesn't say "The only text of this forum is the Bible."

As far as the SoP, I think it's great. It has always been my understanding that this is a sub-forum for Churches that are oriented around those ancient forms of liturgical worship, or those that are friends of said churches. All are welcome to post in fellowship here (as they should be), but this isn't "General Theology 2.0" where a non-denominational Christian or a Seventh-Day Adventist has carte blanche to post whatever they want - especially if it insults or flies in the face of a Traditional Church.

It's certainly possible to be inclusive while also narrowly defining what's permissible here.

My thanks to all staff, especially you Mark, for your hard work in formulating this.

keltoi said:

I don't think so because the SoP for that forum only says "The primary text of this forum is the Bible." It doesn't say "The only text of this forum is the Bible."

Click to expand...

As far as the users of this CF is concerned, that's basically what it means. You're not going to get any narrower anywhere else on here and there isn't enough interest to warrant creating another sub as far as I can tell.

Anhelyna said:

's fine by me except for one part - yes I know - I'm very picky at times

picky me would prefer to see :-

• We promise to discuss honourably and in true fairness to all, even those with whom we disagree ; no matter our theological differences.

Click to expand...

Good catch on both the spelling and the correct grammar.

MoreCoffee said:

Good catch on both the spelling and the correct grammar.

Click to expand...

Hey, MC, good to see you! How have you been doing? We miss you around here!