Why is there a dislike of Traditional Theology?

[Radagast]

Stuff from Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, and mainline Protestantism.

If you take American Baptist Churches USA and the United Church of Christ as examples of mainline US Protestantism, I am really struggling to see what the five denominations would have in common that wasn't also shared with all Christians.

 

[Paidiske]

Posts #3 and #41 together seemed to equate "liberal" with "Mainline," and "conservative" with its opposite, which I presume is "Evangelical."

I'm not sure "mainline" has an opposite, in that it seems to occupy a place from which others differ in several different directions.

And I will note again, as I so often do in these conversations, that "mainline" in itself is a particularly American phenomenon, and not so helpful when talking about global Christianity (as I sort of took it this thread was trying to do).

 

[Radagast]

I'm not sure "mainline" has an opposite, in that it seems to occupy a place from which others differ in several different directions.

Well, American "Mainline" and "Evangelical" groups mostly have clear counterparts elsewhere (Australian Anglicans are probably an exception that straddles the boundaryline). You can identify the linkages based on the fact that most Protestant denominations themselves nominate counterparts in the USA (one reason that Anglicans are an exception is that the UK is far more significant globally than the US).

But of course, the Pew Forum taxonomy also includes "Historically Black Protestants," which are very US-specific, and the Global South includes religious groups that fit into none of Pew's categories.

 

[prodromos]

Careful friend

“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ' You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:22‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I'm confident that God is aware of his tongue being firmly planted in his cheek when he posted that

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm confident that God is aware of his tongue being firmly planted in his cheek when he posted that

I’m not sure what that means friend.

 

[Radagast]

This thread started with an unsupported criticism of a very poorly defined set of people, and it seems to have gone downhill from there.

 

[prodromos]

I’m not sure what that means friend.

It means he was joking

 

[Newtheran]

I see it a lot in these forums and in real life. What do you think is the motive?

The motive is Isaiah 14:14.

 

[hedrick]

This thread started with an unsupported criticism of a very poorly defined set of people, and it seems to have gone downhill from there.

I agree. I should note that Traditional Theology itself is a bit hard to define. This group was created by a specific group of people. I was a member, and I was known to be a liberal Protestant. So it wasn't intended to cover just EO and Catholic, but also Protestants whose theology and worship is what I'd characterize as historically informed. There are both theologically and socially liberal and conservative in that group. Indeed there are theologically and socially liberal and conservative among EO and Catholics.

I find that I can't comment on "mainline" Christianity as a whole. I know a number of major theologians in the PCUSA, and have some sense of a couple of other denominations, but I simply don't know that much about what is happening in groups such as the American Baptists and UCC.

 

[hedrick]

In the SOP for this forum, the 6 principles were intended to be more important than the precise definition of what theology is and isn't Traditional. The founders of the group were unhappy with the way discussions are carried out in many forums, and wanted a place where people would respect each other's faith and tradition.

Looking through the list of topics, I'm not sure how well this group has worked out. Any topic whose primary purpose is attack is not appropriate, whether its author is from a Traditional group or not. I think as one of the founders i need to spend some more time talking with the moderators about how the group is working.

 

[Tigger45]

That kind of makes sense, but I don't think it lines up that neatly in my head. I'd say one can be conservative or liberal in one's liturgical practice, for example.

When you say “conservative or liberal in one’s liturgical practice” are you referring to ‘high church/ low church or contemporary/historic liturgical practices?

 

[Paidiske]

When you say “conservative or liberal in one’s liturgical practice” are you referring to ‘high church/ low church or contemporary/historic liturgical practices?

Neither, exactly.

The example that came to mind, actually, was something I've seen some people do, where instead of pronouncing something "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," they might say "In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier." To my mind one of those is distinctly more liturgically liberal than the other, even though the words might be expressed in equally high church or historic liturgical contexts.

If that's a helpful example?

 

[prodromos]

"In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier."

I don't understand where people come up with stuff like this. Creation is through all three persons of the Trinity, as is redemption and sanctification.
Lord have mercy.

 

[hedrick]

I don't understand where people come up with stuff like this. Creation is through all three persons of the Trinity, as is redemption and sanctification.
Lord have mercy.

I agree. However theology has tended to identify specific roles with each person. The Nicene Creed identifies specific work of each person. The Father is maker of heaven and earth. The Son came to earth for us. The Spirit spoke by the prophets. So this isn't something they came up with out of nowhere.

The motivation for these wordings is obviously to avoid gender specific terms. I've generally opposed this, for the reason you say: it has modalistic implications. But those implications aren't intended. Theological language always requires qualification, as no normal human term applies to God perfectly. So I'm inclined to accept this in the spirit it's intended.

In the PCUSA this has largely stabilized, after periods when people were trying to use Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer or similar terms all the time. If you look at the language of our prayers carefully, you'll find that we avoid calling God he. But we do still use Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and we have hymns that refer to Father, though at one time that was controversial. We also use female imagery for God at times, though you might not notice it if you're not looking.

(Of course there are probably still congregations that won't use Father. We're a diverse denomination.)

 

[Albion]

As some others have pointed out, many people in other churches don't have anything at all against those churches or their views, and would be happy to welcome them to a visit or glad to know they are Christian if they met them randomly like at a volleyball game. Of these, some correctly realize that the differences between churches do not matter to us as individual believers.

I tend to think along those lines myself. In other words, the reason for asking the question of the thread is understandable, but the answer probably goes to nothing more involved than that in the era of social media people are invited to be belligerent.

 

[Not David]

That kind of makes sense, but I don't think it lines up that neatly in my head. I'd say one can be conservative or liberal in one's liturgical practice, for example.



I suspect that both Radagast and I (whom, I note, both hail from outside the USA), are reading the words "conservative" and "liberal" with slightly different freight than the way some folks in America seem to use them. Because here I think you mean "conservative" as perhaps applies to social issues?

Yes, and probably holding a more fundamentalist view of Christianity.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm surprised it took three pages for this to happen, but in case it is not clear to anyone, I was completely joking with my first post in this thread. It was based on my last encounter with the anti-traditionalists in the OP's other recent thread ("How would you greet a bishop?", now locked), wherein it became obvious that those who have no respect for tradition also have no respect for those who hold to it (not even any one particular tradition, since there were Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics, unspecified people, etc. all posting in there), saying that they would fart in the bishop's face or that they would preach the gospel to him, and all this other disgusting stuff, and when they experienced push back because their ideas were abhorrent, the reply was often to treat the posters who would not put up with that as though we were saying "Everyone who is not of my particular confession/my particular idea of what tradition should be followed is an idiot", even though nothing of the sort was said.

So I figured I would give them something to be mad about if any of them were to come across this thread, since they were already mad that anyone would dare to tell them, for instance, that it is grossly inappropriate to presume to preach to a Christian bishop from a traditional church in order that he may be "saved", in the revivalist sense of the word.

Yes, now that we are in the Traditional forum, we can say that you are dumb if you think you are not! Mwahahaha. (Notice how I wrote everyone in that post, so I'm including myself; only someone who already thinks they know everything and hence refuses to humble themselves is truly an idiot, and I don't think that actually applies to anyone here.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm glad I didn't see the other thread. Sounds appalling.

 

[dzheremi]

Like many threads, it started out good and ended up locked. And the moderator's post that announced the locking got several positive ratings. Including from the OP.

 

[Not David]

Like many threads, it started out good and ended up locked. And the moderator's post that announced the locking got several positive ratings. Including from the OP.

Well, I tried to end it in a good note but some people are just not civilized.