Very interesting and cool. I think it is very important to note that the readily accepted "European" model of Christianity is but one model of many. They have found as far away as China, Christian symbols scribed utilizing Syrian constructs for explaining and understanding the faith. Not the usual Greco-Roman constructs.redbirdjazzz wrote:I find it interesting that the Celtic Church was influenced much more heavily by Eastern Christianity (not necessarily Byzantine, but Syriac and Egyptian) than it was by Rome. That's why you have the isolationist monasteries out on islands surrounding Ireland and Scotland rather than the more central monasteries found with the Benedictines.
It should also be noted that right now, the VAST majority of Christians DO NOT live in the "Global North". (First world, Industrialized and "Western", Latin worldview) About 590 million Christians live in North America (US and Canada) and Europe (not Russia), another 590 million in Latin America, around 300 million in Africa, and anywhere between 200 million and 500 million in Asia (including Russia) and the Pacific Islands.
Thus, it doesn't make tons of sense when between 30% and 35% of Christians are having 98% of the input and decision making. This is another reason why it is so important for me to allow theologies which are interpreations of the extreme poor, (a situation in which 60-80% of Christians live - and the gap is widening) as well as constructs and insights of other, non Latin Christian traditions. Because that is a MAJOR part of the church.
That paragraph in itself is a dialogue with United States culture, that the experience of the majority has authority.
Very interesting. Victor and Elaine Turner proposed an approach to anthropology which always saw communities and movements in flux. There would be a communitas, a highly idealized, small movement, many times with a charismatic leader, which stressed an egalitarian worldview and "love" as the leading ethic. As times move on, ideals and intrepretations naturally take place, and structure takes over. Simply put, you can't stay a communitas forever. Jesus criticizes a strict adherence to the Torah when a specific situation (like healing on the sabbath or touching a leper) demands the law be technically broken in order to keep up with the spirit of the law. That's the communitas, but the early church had to at some point ritualize this in order to expand, and teach who they are. (Regardless of Constantine's influence)redbirdjazzz wrote:You're definitely right about the people being an interpretive body; Christianity was originally a religion for and of the people (boy does that sound familiar), but way too often bureaucracies take over and ignore the needs of their constituencies. That's why I find this subject is so interesting, because I'm finding out the numerous ways in which the Anglo-Saxons changed Christianity to better suit their worldview and understanding.
The importance (this is now me utilizing Turner) is in maintaining that healthy balance of structure and communitas. Structure is natural and important. Or else people will never agree on the small things enough to tackle the big issues. But no rule/law/interpretation/etc. should be cannonized, and dissent respected when done for pure reasons. By basis of Christianity claiming it is a "living" tradition, God has the ability to reveal something new, re-emphasize something old, or emphazise something from the margins, and we should not be so attached to structure that we cannot deal with new revelation.
EDIT: Turner's book is, The Ritual Process
