Skip to main content

Two articles on community, secular and sacred

ABC has two interesting articles on community, the first on secular society, the second on the international Anglican church.

There's a good article on the ABC's Drum on the Q&A failure-of-a-debate between Richard Dawkins and George Pell. Try not to let Scott Stephens' pontificative pollysyllability put you off, it's quite a good social comment. Basic point: we're so used to doing whatever we want, just coz we want to, we no longer have any basis for shared community. Questions without answers in a Kingdom of Whatever.

Then John Millbank has an excellent article on the future of the international Anglican communion. Note his presuppositions about the nature of the church:
  • "... the Anglican Communion [is] part of the Universal Catholic Church (it has never been officially identified as "Protestant")..."
  • The Anglican denomination has been "struggling against" Puritanism and Calvinism.
And this only goes to show there really are only two views of church unity: either confessional (Protestant) or personal (Catholic). Both sides throw around the words "gospel", "spirit", "mission" etc, because they have different definitions of each - a different gospel, a different spirit, a different mission, a different everything. As a Protestant, I of course believe that the Catholic denomination is not part of the church catholic - it is apostate, because it does not hold to the Biblical teaching about Jesus, his atonement, salvation, the church... anything, really. Sydney Anglicanism, with African and Asian Anglicanism, has always been unashamedly Protestant; British and American Anglicanism has trended towards Catholicism. Rowan William's departure may cause the faithful Anglican remnant to finally embrace the Reformation. Better five hundred years late than never.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more