Posted on 04/24/2005 2:50:53 PM PDT by sionnsar
a discussion starter
We are constantly searching for words to speak of those who (a) seek in general or specific terms to preserve basic Christian worship, doctrine and discipline, and those who, in contrast, (b) seek in general or specific terms to bring received worship, doctrine and discipline into line with recent and modern ways of thinking, relating and behaving. This morning I heard the Public Radio Religion correspondent use the terms, "orthodox" and "progressive". These are obviously not perfect but they will serve for this exercise of thought.
The point being made on radio was that the "orthodox" are found across and within the Christian denominations of America, from the Catholic to the Bible churches, and that the "progressives" are found also across America from the Catholic through the main-line (old line) denominations to the Unitarian churches. In general the Orthodox are united on doctrinal matters such as the authority of the Bible, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and that He is the only way to the Father for personal salvation; and on moral issues like opposition to abortion, gay rights and euthanasia. Likewise the Progressives are united on their openness to a variety of ways to God and of naming God, together with support for abortion, gay rights and euthanasia.
What is seen across the USA as a general division amongst religious people is also seen within denominations, especially inside the Catholic and main-line Churches. Here the Orthodox seek to preserve some or all of the ethos and traditions of their Church while the Progressives seek to bring the ethos and style of their Church into conformity with what they regard as required modern standards, norms and insights. Thus in the Episcopal Church, those who support innovations such as the blessing of gay couples can be called the Progressives and those who oppose such innovations the Orthodox.
However, be it in the Catholic or Episcopal or Lutheran Church, terms used for general convenience should not to be made the equivalent or strict or careful description. For example, those who are presently called the Orthodox in the Episcopal Church are so called primarily because of their opposition to the "gay agenda"; in other areas they may well be progressives - e.g., in terms of approving women priests, the marriage of divorcees in church, the use of new prayer books, and so on. Likewise those who are Progressives may be supportive of gay rights but be very traditional in their attitude to and use of liturgical texts and church music.
The fact of the matter is that the Orthodox can be progressive and the Progressive can be orthodox in certain ways! After all, the new Pope is most certainly Orthodox in worship, doctrine and discipline, but (in contrast to the Orthodox of the religious supermarket of the USA) he will probably, like his predecessor, be progressive in social, political and economic matters.
In the Early Church "orthodox" was an adjective that described the Church as church rather than individuals as such. One became orthodox by being a faithful member of the Church accepting her teaching and confessing her faith. Today, where individualism is rampant, it has become an adjective for use with individuals first and groups second!
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Sionnsar, I found the blog link you posted...thank you! Youve no idea how discouraging it has been not being able to find blogs by other traditional Anglicans. I was beginning to think i was an oddball (which wouldnt be the first time in my life, but that is a long story).
" Today, where individualism is rampant, it [Orthodox] has become an adjective for use with individuals first and groups second!
Oh??? How "Westocentric" of the good Reverend! :)
Check the site in my tagline. It needs updating (I haven't gotten to it for a week or so), but you'll find lots there.
Be nice, Kolokotronis. He's just moved to the States from England and is speaking specifically to Anglicans.
"see if he brought any good marmalade with him"
Alas, no. Just Marmite (which is proof there is, in fact, a Hell).
One observation: the author observed that the "orthodox" (I'm going to use a little "o" here even though he uses a capital) are united on moral issues and on the centrality of the Bible. I'd have to demur on that latter part. One of the things I have found surprisingly difficult to relate to my Protestant right wing co-nut jobs, who do indeed agree with just about everything that an orthodox Catholic like thinks about moral and social issues, is the different central reference point. Mine is the Church. Theirs is the Bible. Peel it away and explain it, and at the end of the day they still make the assumption that sitting underneath it all is the Bible. But, of course, sitting underneath the Bible is the Church.
Now, no good is served by starting fights in our own camp. Under assault from the pro-deathers on every front, we Baptists, orthodox Catholics and orthodox Orthodox have to stick together. Still, it is interesting to see how the different a priori lead to almost the same place on the issues.
"Alas, no. Just Marmite (which is proof there is, in fact, a Hell)."
Proof positive, my friend. Just the other day I was on the phone with a client in England. The family is coming over here for some business and graduation of their son from college. The client asked if I wanted them to bring me anything and I said marmalade of a certain type and went on to make sure she had understood marmalade and not that poison of the The Evil One, Marmite! She laughed! I hope I get the marmalade!
Does it occur to anyone that this has less to do with reverence and more to do with a love of dressing up in fine vestments? We had a wonderful choir at our old ECUSA church, but there were a few in the choir, apparantly "out of the closet", who as they solemnly processed into the church, wore an expression that struck one as nothing if not erotic/ecstatic. It was downright creepy.
I remember the one, and only, time I ever kissed the Devil's anus (i.e.: ate Marmite). First time in England, at breakfast. There it was, in a nice little package like a pat of butter. I asked someone what it was and he said that it was the same thing as Vegemite, which I also had not had (and never will), but had at least heard of it (thanks to that song "I Come From The Land Down Under" {you remember: "I said do you speak-a my language? He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich. Do you come from the land Down Under?" etc.})
So, I took a piece of toast.
And I took that pat of Marmite, not just one but several. And I lathered it on thick, like peanut butter on a PB&J.
And then I took a great big bite.
Oh...my...GOD!
First imagine a ripe, rotting fish all slimy and puffed up in the sun. Now have it floating on a stagnant open sewer in Southeast Asia. Pull out that fish and take a bite.
I vomited in my napkin.
Marmite: Just Say No.
What I don't understand is how that became a manufactured product. I can understand how it might have been invented. No doubt someone ran out of Scott towels and used a piece of Wonder Bread to clean out the latrine.
But what in blazes ever allowed someone to take the SECOND bite of Marmite at its invention? Much less think "Oh YEAH! I'm gonna make a FORTUNE selling this stuff!"
This just HAS to be one of those foods that cultures make for people to eat on a dare.
"Now have it floating on a stagnant open sewer in Southeast Asia."
I am familiar with those sewers; good analogy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.