Moderator: Moderators
Krijimbesuesi wrote:
Satan is too subtle to allow the battleground to stay in one place for very long. Battlelines are always shifting, and these days it seems like they shift profoundly once a generation or even faster. Much mischief is allowed to happen when Christians fail to reckon on the craftiness of their enemy.
Krijimbesuesi wrote:Returning to the "Sedgwick set", I surmise that one reason they failed to think through the consequences of their approach was that Britain at the time was in the imperial ascendent, and moreover seemed a very "Christian" country. Both these factors would have induced considerable complacency in British Christians generally, so that they slipped into feeling that there was no national moral danger in letting Genesis' historicity go. But we, from the perspective of 2007, seeing what a moral mess the post-imperial country has now sunk into, ought to realise the prophetic pertinence of this warning by Sedgwick's theological arch-critic Henry Cole writing in 1834:
And by the same token, it may be precisely Britain's present sorry state as compared to the 1820s that is now causing increasing numbers of Christians - yes, mostly "evangelicals" - to return to the old paths in this matter. Just a thought; I'd be glad to hear how you account for it.
Michael wrote:The Creationist Debate:The Encounter between the ninle and the Modern Mind
Continuum International, 2006, xiv 222pp
£19.99 ISBN 0 8264 8002 0
Here is a book that seems to be full of promise as it puts the whole Creationist Debate into its historical context, and considers the theological, scientific and philosophical issues surrounding the question of evolution, which has come to the fore in recent years. It is a clear and well-written book and describes the history of science, especially of geology and its vast ages, evolution and human antiquity, all in historical context and leads up to the rise of biblical criticism and Fundamentalism. The book concludes with two chapters on Creationism. The concept of the book is excellent as it seeks to understand Creationism by considering it in the history of Christian thought. This is something I have been striving to do since I first came across Creationism in 1971, when no one in Britain had heard of it!
Krijimbesuesi wrote:Interesting post Michael, as always. However let me tell you the problem I have with the common description of Sedgwick & co. as evangelicals. In a nutshell, I find this to be basically misleading even while being nominally correct.
The word "evangelical", of course, had its genesis and original definition in a church context where all Christians believed in the plain historicity of Gen. 1-11. In other words, it arose as a result of a previous theological conflict addressing quite different questions from those that grew to prominence in the early 19th century. Therefore I question its relevance as a factor in assessing whether 19th-century British Christians adequately handled the great issues of their day, and so I don't automatically assume that because a given individual falls within the classification developed in the mid-18th century or earlier, they have an ipso facto head start in facing the new challenges.
This is a good example of the distinction I like to make between "static" and "dynamic" orthodoxy. I define the first as the knowledge of, and ability to vindicate, the formulae and definitions that emerged from past theological controversies; while the second, sadly much rarer, is the ability to do that essential pioneering work on which future generations may securely rest. It's a matter of applying Luther's famous charge about fighting the battle precisely where the world and the devil are attacking.
To take another example: suppose that in the 4th century the Arians had protested saying, "Look, we're not Judaizers, or Gnostics, or Marcionites, or Montanists, or Patripassians, or Docetists. We hold the orthodox position against all these errors. Isn't that enough?" Well no, it wasn't, because all those were "yesterday's heresies". Likewise Pelagius may have been "Athanasian", but again, that's just "static" orthodoxy up to a point and no further.
Satan is too subtle to allow the battleground to stay in one place for very long. Battlelines are always shifting, and these days it seems like they shift profoundly once a generation or even faster. Much mischief is allowed to happen when Christians fail to reckon on the craftiness of their enemy.
Returning to the "Sedgwick set", I surmise that one reason they failed to think through the consequences of their approach was that Britain at the time was in the imperial ascendent, and moreover seemed a very "Christian" country. Both these factors would have induced considerable complacency in British Christians generally, so that they slipped into feeling that there was no national moral danger in letting Genesis' historicity go. But we, from the perspective of 2007, seeing what a moral mess the post-imperial country has now sunk into, ought to realise the prophetic pertinence of this warning by Sedgwick's theological arch-critic Henry Cole writing in 1834:
‘What the consequences of such things must be to a revelation-possessing land, time will rapidly and awfully unfold in its opening pages of national scepticism, infidelity, and apostacy [sic], and of God’s righteous vengeance on the same!’
And by the same token, it may be precisely Britain's present sorry state as compared to the 1820s that is now causing increasing numbers of Christians - yes, mostly "evangelicals" - to return to the old paths in this matter. Just a thought; I'd be glad to hear how you account for it.
Krijimbesuesi wrote:But we, from the perspective of 2007, seeing what a moral mess the post-imperial country has now sunk into,
ukantic wrote:Krijimbesuesi wrote:But we, from the perspective of 2007, seeing what a moral mess the post-imperial country has now sunk into,
Yep, bring back the good ole days, like before those evil, no good athelutionists came along & ruined everything. They may well have been hard, but after a morally upright hard day in the workhouse, you could at least go for a quiet drink
“By 1750, over a quarter of all residences in St Giles parish in London were gin shops, and most of these also operated as receivers of stolen goods and coordinating spots for prostitution as well (Loughrey and Treadwell, 14). Hogarth's Gin Lane is located in St. Giles, and the most shocking figure in it is the drunken mother. This mother is only a partial exaggeration, however, for, in 1734, one Judith Dufour had provided at least one model. Her two-year old child had been placed in a work house, and there it had been given clothing and tended. Dufour reclaimed her child, strangled it, and left the infant's body in a ditch so that she could sell the clothes (for one shilling, four pence) and buy gin (George, 41).”
If you ask me that’s taking personal enterprise just a little too far.
See also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/post ... .html#hon1
Alan,
be publishing one next yearThere are few decent books on the subject, though Greenwood Press should
Peter Henderson wrote:Two history series that I've particularly enjoyed over the last few years have been (1) Simon Schama's history of Britian and (2) David Starkey's Monarchy. Again, two excellent programmes that could be used as teaching aids in schools (although Michael is probably going to point out the inaccuracies of both)
There where certain periods of British history in particular that I found really interesting.
(1) The period before William the Conqueror. It was interesting that he received such a bad press by the programmes (he was portrayed as being extremely brutal) and yet prior to this (before britain was a united country), people like Alfred the Great were shown to be really kind etc.
(2) The so called glorious revolution of 1688 etc. and the ascendency of Prince Wiliam of Orange to the throne of England. I found out quite a few things I didn't know about him. At the end of the day, the political alliances in these islands and beyond really have been shaped by what were in effect glorified "family fueds".
(3) The period that Krijimbesue is referring to as the "good old days". Simon Schama's portayal of that time is very similar to Alan's link to the talk origins website. Not a period of history I would like to return to. Certain English political parties have of course harked back to that era. (remember the disastrous "back to basics" capaign of the early nineties ?). Thanks but no thanks.
.If you haven't seen it Peter, take a look at Simon Sharma's comment on the Battle of the Boyne. It's actually very chilling and sobering. He asks the audience who won the Battle and replies to his own words "nobody". That was Sharma at his best - challenging the audience's preconceptions
There has been a lot of debate about Alfred over the last decade or so. I'm not a historian but suspect that it was fueled by a book which basically tried to debunk him, suggesting that virtually all we know about him was written as a hagiography by the monk Asser. It is therefore very biased From what I can make out, the debate has now swung away (again) from that position.
Peter Henderson wrote:Yes, I did see that part Roger and found the question a very Poignant statement. What interested me, especially in the light of this place (NI), was that William's wife was catholic and that he (William) was closely related to King James who he defeated. I wonder how many so called loyalists here actually realise this ? I think Sharma also played a couple of clips from Paisley's and Adams' speeches to re-emphasize the point.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests