The word "churchianity" is certainly not a popular word outside of twi circles. In fact, I just discovered that the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary is the only collegiate dictionary that includes it, among those of which I'm aware. (It's not in the American Heritage, nor the Cambridge.)
In twi practice, it's used as a general insult to all forms of Christianity outside of twi, period. In ex-twi circles, it's frequently used in exactly the same way- as a general insult to all Christian groups other than twi and ex-twi, period. It's among the trite phrases thrown around like saying Trinitarians pray to an oil-can.
Should we even use the word "churchianity"? If we should use it, what, exactly, should we mean by it?
Should we even use the word "churchianity"? If we should use it, what, exactly, should we mean by it?
Are you saying you want to set forth rules as to what anyone, by saying something particular (that might irk you) "SHOULD" mean and/or conversely what they SHOULD NOT be allowed to mean?
I apologize for apparently having used a trigger word from our long gone cult past. NO offense intended to anyone.
Are you saying you want to set forth rules as to what anyone, by saying something particular (that might irk you) "SHOULD" mean and/or conversely what they SHOULD NOT be allowed to mean?
I apologize for apparently having used a trigger word from our long gone cult past. NO offense intended to anyone.
I see it more as a trigger word- but I'm not entirely sure that I SHOULD- thus the discussion.
I had been thinking that it was a twi-original word, meant solely to slam non-twi Christians. It was first used no later than the 1789, long before twi existed, before vpw was born, and before Ohio was even a state (or New Knoxville established as a village.)
Granted, much of the usage we come across is along those lines now.
But, should we be using it in some other manner, and if so, how?
I'm not trying to come up with some Rules with the force of Law, I'm trying to see if there's some practice, some rule of thumb, that should be in effect here that is NOT twi or ex-twi specific.
As seen above, if nobody else, Edwin Paxton Hood (1852) used it in a way to make a positive point by contrast.
I see it more as a trigger word- but I'm not entirely sure that I SHOULD- thus the discussion.
I had been thinking that it was a twi-original word, meant solely to slam non-twi Christians. It was first used no later than the 1789, long before twi existed, before vpw was born, and before Ohio was even a state (or New Knoxville established as a village.)
Granted, much of the usage we come across is along those lines now.
But, should we be using it in some other manner, and if so, how?
I'm not trying to come up with some Rules with the force of Law, I'm trying to see if there's some practice, some rule of thumb, that should be in effect here that is NOT twi or ex-twi specific.
As seen above, if nobody else, Edwin Paxton Hood (1852) used it in a way to make a positive point by contrast.
Emotional concerns, and THIS is an emotion related issue, cannot be resolved by logic, IMO. As I see it, they can only be resolved by healing processes and sustained emotional support. You're either triggered or you're not as a result of something someone says.
Recognizing the fact (mindful awareness) that you've been triggered, is, I suppose, the first step to healing. (AS I currently view the situation).
I'm thankful you're not trying to set rules for anyone regarding this particular trigger word.
I think of this in terms antifragility. Perhaps long hidden fragility, if one considers the emotional impact of the word in their life at this moment.
For more on my understanding of antifragility, rather than expounding it here, I will only mention there's a discussion thread on the subject in the About the Way forum.
Far be it from me to tell anyone what they SHOULD do or how they SHOULD view the experience from their younger days in Wierwille's cult.
A former housemate of mine, God rest his soul, J Fred Wilson, explored something he told me was called Re-evaluation therapy.
Me? I just read and try to fill my brain/mind with alternatives to decide what to keep and what to reject from my cult experience.
The basic tenants of Christianity are:
1. Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden so grievously it required a man to be born, tortured and crucified.
2. God impregnated an unsuspecting woman with His seed to bring about the man that would fulfill 1: above.
3. After the man in 2: above died he was raised from the dead by God.
4. Soon after being raised from the dead, the man in 3: above was ascended into heaven by God, but he promised he will return someday, and raise all his followers from the dead, and they too will ascend into heaven
When you put it that way, the origin myth of Christianity seems quite trite. Yet, your analysis does expose underlying issues with a tradition which has achieved hegemony in the minds and societies of what I can only guess now to be at least a few billion people currently alive humans.
I see it more as a trigger word- but I'm not entirely sure that I SHOULD- thus the discussion.
Since you started this thread for the purpose of discussion, I want to share something I received this morning in an email from a psychologist named Guy Winch. Dr Winch was born and raised in England, I think. He moved to NYC to study and to practice his profession.
What We Get Wrong about Getting Triggered
Getting triggered means having an immediate strong emotional response (e.g., anger or distress) to content or events that evoke a past traumatic experience. What get's triggered, therefore, is the trauma--the feelings and reactions that are associated with the traumatic event.
Trigger warnings were initially instituted (in college campuses) to warn people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that the upcoming media or class includes certain themes, so that the person may either opt out or prepare themselves in order to lower their emotional reactivity to it.
Today, some people use the term 'getting triggered' more broadly to include reactions that are not necessarily associated with past trauma. Indeed, in last month's poll, 46% of people said that getting triggered means they weren't able to control not just their emotions but their thoughts and behavior too.
What we often fail to acknowledge is that if a person gets triggered but does not have PTSD, their sharp emotional response is likely due to an unhealed emotional wound.
This distinction is important because PTSD requires treatment by a mental health professional, while many emotional wounds can be treated (via therapy or self-help) and the sensitivity to them reduced as a result.
The second thing we get wrong relates to trigger warnings. We assume they're both useful and effective. But many recent studies have found that neither is necessarily true.
Are Trigger Warnings Useful?
A variety ofstudieshave found that trigger warnings have a downside for people who have PTSD--they can reinforce a survivor's view of the trauma as being central to their identity--something that is counter-therapeutic and potentially damaging to their mental health as it gives the trauma an even bigger place in their lives than it already has (reminding them, suggesting they can't handle exposures, etc...).
If the upside of trigger warnings was substantial, that would be one thing but as you'll see below,researchhas found they have only meager benefits.
Does that mean we should do away with trigger warnings? Not necessarily, as some people with PTSD might use them to opt out and the issue is still being studied.
Emotional concerns, and THIS is an emotion related issue, cannot be resolved by logic, IMO. As I see it, they can only be resolved by healing processes and sustained emotional support. You're either triggered or you're not as a result of something someone says.
Recognizing the fact (mindful awareness) that you've been triggered, is, I suppose, the first step to healing. (AS I currently view the situation).
I'm thankful you're not trying to set rules for anyone regarding this particular trigger word.
I think of this in terms antifragility. Perhaps long hidden fragility, if one considers the emotional impact of the word in their life at this moment.
For more on my understanding of antifragility, rather than expounding it here, I will only mention there's a discussion thread on the subject in the About the Way forum.
Far be it from me to tell anyone what they SHOULD do or how they SHOULD view the experience from their younger days in Wierwille's cult.
A former housemate of mine, God rest his soul, J Fred Wilson, explored something he told me was called Re-evaluation therapy.
Me? I just read and try to fill my brain/mind with alternatives to decide what to keep and what to reject from my cult experience.
I think you're conflating two things here.
I acknowledge that "churchianity" is what's now called a "trigger word."
I never said I was "triggered", and I never claimed to have an emotional reaction to it.
Frankly, what I called this sort of thing before was "SLOGANEERING", and compared catch-phrases repeated mindlessly by twi'ers and ex-twi with actual thinking. I consider usage of slogans by twi'ers as an excuse to AVOID thinking, and note that when I find a catchphrase being used- generally it's to the detriment of THINKING and of DISCUSSION.
But you can save pages and clips on how to avoid being "triggered" by catchphrases. I never was, and never claimed to be. If I caused any confusion to that point, it was accidental, and I'm sorry.
1789, Samuel Parr, edited by John Johnstone, The works of Samuel Parr, ...: With memoirs of his life and writings, and a selection from his correspondence, volume 1, published 1828, page 341:
In October, 1789 (says Dr. Parr in the Sequel, p.99), when I preached for the Charity Schools at Birmingham, I earnestly recommended to the audience two admirable sermons which Dr. Priestley had written, &c. &c. / This commendation gave great offence; the name of the arch-heritic was poison to the orthodox ears of many of the congregation. One of them in the vestry, immediately after the sermon, ventured even to expostulate with the preacher; and to represent to him that the sermon recommended might he admirable and good Christian doctrine, but that the author was an enemy to the Church, and therefore ought never to be named within its sacred precincts. Parr heard him out, and then calmly replied, "Sir, you are the best vindicator of Churchianity I ever knew."
1852, Edwin Paxton Hood, Lamps of the temple: shadows from the lights of the modern pulpit, page 329:
Such religion is Churchianity; it is not Christianity. Christianity means the religion where Christ is all; Churchianity, the religion where the Church is all
1971, Paul Carter, The Spiritual Crisis of the Gilded Age, page 69:
the sweet and ineffectual Jesus of American Protestant churchianity.
2002, Charles Jenkins, Keeping Sane in a Crazy World, page 84:
The Priest and Levite represent Churchly Movements, They represented Churchianity that is powerless to lift suffering humanity. What is wrong with the world today is that we have too much Churchianity and too little Christianity
Isn't "churchianity" about who gets the glory? And what the giver of the glory gets?
Some people spend practically their entire Sunday in church, attending every service. Why? Do they really need five services every Sunday? Or is it to feel good? Or be seen to be there? Maybe those people also give out the hymn books or collect up something afterwards or put the chairs away. Some people like to be chalice assistant, or to read the lesson from the Bible. Why? What's their motivation? To be seen doing it? Or because there's a need that they can fulfil, in part or whole?
What do these people do on other days? Do they help those in need, minister to the poor in some way, visit prisons, help out at hostels, etc etc? Does their Sunday church time spill into heartfelt actions during the rest of the week? Does what they learn(?) on Sunday carry through into actions in the days following?
What is it that they like about church, anyway? Is it the message, the corporate worship, the being with other Christians and sharing their faith together? Or is it the comforting ritual of the orderliness of a service? Of the sounds, smells, robes? Perhaps such are of genuine help to some people in their faith.
Whatever. I see churchianity as being those people who attend church because it's "what they do," but without it having any impact on their day to day life. Who obey rules from the church that were never even hinted at in the scriptures.
Corporately, I see churchianity as having rules that don't benefit the congregation. Ministers have to be dressed a certain way. Some people can be licensed to perform certain actions - like chalice assistant, or reading from the Bible. And so on.
Who makes these rules? And why? To what purpose?
Rules are good. But when rules take over, then they are not good. And thus, churchianity is born.
The problem there is that you're coming up with a completely new and DIFFERENT meaning for the term.
1852, Edwin Paxton Hood, Lamps of the temple: shadows from the lights of the modern pulpit, page 329:
Such religion is Churchianity; it is not Christianity. Christianity means the religion where Christ is all; Churchianity, the religion where the Church is all.
According to previous usages, "churchianity" isn't "every time there's a church". That was what vpw pushed- he claimed you got a different denomination every single time people disagreed. Edwin P. Hood was rather specific that there's good religious practices- and thus good churches- and bad religious practices- and thus bad churches. He said those where "Christ is all" were good and those where "the Church is all" were bad. If I went by what you said, "churchianity" would be synonymous with "churches" and there would be no need whatsoever for the word "churchianity."
Isn't "churchianity" about who gets the glory? And what the giver of the glory gets?
Some people spend practically their entire Sunday in church, attending every service. Why? Do they really need five services every Sunday? Or is it to feel good? Or be seen to be there? Maybe those people also give out the hymn books or collect up something afterwards or put the chairs away. Some people like to be chalice assistant, or to read the lesson from the Bible. Why? What's their motivation? To be seen doing it? Or because there's a need that they can fulfil, in part or whole?
Having grown up in the RC church and having attended parochial schools, I can say that the faithful who work tirelessly are doing it out of love for their religion. They believe their work is of benefit to God and other followers and believe God will bless them now and in the future in heaven. My mother worked for the local church and helped out where ever she could. Her belief in God got her through some very difficult times in her life.
I am sure there are some who do it to be seen, but for the most part, they love their religion.
It isn’t unusual for people to spend hours doing things they believe in and enjoy doing. Fans of sports can spend all weekend in front of the TV cheering on their favorite teams. Quilters can spend hours a day putting together a new blanket. Hunters can spend an entire season looking for that special animal to mount on their wall.
I see it more as a trigger word- but I'm not entirely sure that I SHOULD- thus the discussion
Fair enough. And thanks for further clarification you provided.
If I was not clear, let me clarify. I used the word churchianity as a mechanism to draw a particular contrast. If I implied or explicitly replied I had perceived you as having been triggered, I apologize.
However, from the emphatic nature of your quick response to my use of the word, I perceived some aspect of triggering.
As to whether YOU SHOULD regard any word as a potential trigger word, it seems to me the key would be awareness/recognition of emotional responses the word or expression might elicit from one or more reader/listener.
IOW, I don't see "churchianity" as a word or concept or notion that any of us, absent the potential for eliciting such an emotional response, can arbitrarily put into the category of "trigger word."
Put another way, perhaps more important than devising rules for considering any given word or expression as such, is one's own recognition and awareness of the impact of our words on others.
Given that awareness, would come responsibility for choosing our word(s) with both love and authenticity. Which, may not always be easy.
Recognizing the fact (mindful SELF awareness) that you've ONE HAS been triggered, is, I suppose, the first step to healing. (AS I currently view the situation).
I am sure there are some who do it to be seen, but for the most part, they love their religion.
Re-reading what I wrote, not sure that I was clear enough that I don't mean everybody who attends church regularly is under "churchianity." Certainly not what I meant. I do know that service in many capacities is deeply meaningful to some attendees, whether doing the flowers, or cleaning and tidying the building, or whatever it is. There are very many people who do these things as an outward expression of their inner faith and a desire to help others. I include myself in that category.
Good for your mum, STL, if she can lovingly serve Christ in that way.
"If I was not clear, let me clarify. I used the word churchianity as a mechanism to draw a particular contrast. If I implied or explicitly replied I had perceived you as having been triggered, I apologize.
However, from the emphatic nature of your quick response to my use of the word, I perceived some aspect of triggering."
I'm glad we cleared up the misunderstanding. It looked to me like you'd already declared I'd been "triggered" over the phrase, and were referring me to Psychologists or other experts to "solve my problem" - as if I had a problem that needed to be solved. Since I wasn't even "triggered", it seemed to me a lot of effort to make.
"I perceived some aspect of triggering."
I admit I'm a little quick on the draw when I see someone diagnose me with incomplete information and begin recommending solutions to problems that don't exist. I think I fall short of actually being "triggered" -by accusations of being triggered. I still don't like it and prefer to set the record straight. BTW, I didn't respond that quickly, I responded about 24 hours later, at my convenience.
Having grown up in the RC church and having attended parochial schools, I can say that the faithful who work tirelessly are doing it out of love for their religion. They believe their work is of benefit to God and other followers and believe God will bless them now and in the future in heaven. My mother worked for the local church and helped out where ever she could. Her belief in God got her through some very difficult times in her life.
I am sure there are some who do it to be seen, but for the most part, they love their religion.
It isn’t unusual for people to spend hours doing things they believe in and enjoy doing. Fans of sports can spend all weekend in front of the TV cheering on their favorite teams. Quilters can spend hours a day putting together a new blanket. Hunters can spend an entire season looking for that special animal to mount on their wall.
I can certainly agree that's why a lot of people serve in their churches, or attend mass daily. I think they're sincere in acting out of love for their religion, and are TRYING to serve God by serving their church. The problem- for those who perceive a problem- is when a church becomes an intermediary BETWEEN a relationship with God and/or Christ, and receives all service IN PLACE OF God and/or Christ.
It's a touchy subject. I won't get in someone's face and say they should spend fewer hours serving their church and a few hours serving alongside their church to help others. I know at least one person in that position, but unless they actually ask me, I will leave them to their business.
When I was very young, my family was quite involved in our local Roman Catholic parish. We had commentators, a Eucharistic minister, and altar boys in my nuclear family. We certainly were sincere whenever we did what we did. It was not many years later when most of us drifted away from that same church, each with our own reasons and for our own reasons. (As for me, that's when I became anti-Christian, anti-religion and especially anti-Bible.)
I'm certain my family was acting with less zeal than many tailgaters, and I don't think it was every about what we actually ENJOYED doing. In this, I can only speak for us, since there can be any number of motivations for everyone else, and certainly there's other parishes where people DO enjoy themselves more than that parish did/does- one not far away from that one.
Isn't "churchianity" about who gets the glory? And what the giver of the glory gets?
Some people spend practically their entire Sunday in church, attending every service. Why? Do they really need five services every Sunday? Or is it to feel good? Or be seen to be there? Maybe those people also give out the hymn books or collect up something afterwards or put the chairs away. Some people like to be chalice assistant, or to read the lesson from the Bible. Why? What's their motivation? To be seen doing it? Or because there's a need that they can fulfil, in part or whole?
What do these people do on other days? Do they help those in need, minister to the poor in some way, visit prisons, help out at hostels, etc etc? Does their Sunday church time spill into heartfelt actions during the rest of the week? Does what they learn(?) on Sunday carry through into actions in the days following?
What is it that they like about church, anyway? Is it the message, the corporate worship, the being with other Christians and sharing their faith together? Or is it the comforting ritual of the orderliness of a service? Of the sounds, smells, robes? Perhaps such are of genuine help to some people in their faith.
Whatever. I see churchianity as being those people who attend church because it's "what they do," but without it having any impact on their day to day life. Who obey rules from the church that were never even hinted at in the scriptures.
Corporately, I see churchianity as having rules that don't benefit the congregation. Ministers have to be dressed a certain way. Some people can be licensed to perform certain actions - like chalice assistant, or reading from the Bible. And so on.
Who makes these rules? And why? To what purpose?
Rules are good. But when rules take over, then they are not good. And thus, churchianity is born.
I think there are two different groups of people in this case. One group uses church in place of helping others. They perform ritualistically at church in one form or another, and believe that's what's required of them- and ALL that's required of them. I also believe there's plenty of Christians who use church either as a springboard to helping others, or as an organization/location to facilitate actually helping others, and are beneficial to their communities- and not just to their parishioners. I know one church parish that seems to focus accordingly.
I think we agree that rules are necessary, but when the rules become the END and not simply the MEANS, then there's a problem.. one we might call "churchianity."
The word "churchianity" is certainly not a popular word outside of twi circles. In fact, I just discovered that the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary is the only collegiate dictionary that includes it, among those of which I'm aware. (It's not in the American Heritage, nor the Cambridge.)
In twi practice, it's used as a general insult to all forms of Christianity outside of twi, period. In ex-twi circles, it's frequently used in exactly the same way- as a general insult to all Christian groups other than twi and ex-twi, period. It's among the trite phrases thrown around like saying Trinitarians pray to an oil-can.
Should we even use the word "churchianity"? If we should use it, what, exactly, should we mean by it?
Thx for posting. I too think it's a general insult to other Christians. I've seen it happen firsthand: Catholics disparage protestants; Protestants disparage catholics. Instead of focusing on what we have in common; we bark insults. I've since learned that the only true way you really know is get involved with the group you think is wrong and experience for yourself -- and maybe even try to teach them the better way if you're so inclined.
Thx for posting. I too think it's a general insult to other Christians. I've seen it happen firsthand: Catholics disparage protestants; Protestants disparage catholics. Instead of focusing on what we have in common; we bark insults. I've since learned that the only true way you really know is get involved with the group you think is wrong and experience for yourself -- and maybe even try to teach them the better way if you're so inclined.
That does seem to be a course of action more likely to produce results. The main complaint to that would be that it actually requires WORK- and a lot of people would rather do things that require no effort. There's a reason "slacktivism" is now a word, also- that's activism that doesn't actually require someone to DO anything. I do think Christians are better-served focusing on all that they have in common, and all that matters, rather than focus on differences. That's not exactly an opposite, but efforts to do that would certainly help to make "churchianity" by any name harder to find, and I consider that a good thing.
Emo Phillips once told a joke I've ripped off here before. I will adapt it slightly and retell it.
I was walking along a bridge one night, and I saw a man standing along the edge, as if he was going to jump. I called out to him, to stop him from jumping, at least long enough to get my camera ready. He looked up and, you've heard of 'the Elephant Man'? Well, this man had a face like a horse. My heart went out to him instantly. "Why the long face?" He said that people always made fun of him, and that nobody loved him. "God loves you." "You think so?" "Do you really think that a handful of atoms millions of years ago would possibly have the sense of humor to make you look like this?" He thought, and said, "You know, I do believe in God." "Really? Are you a Christian? A Jew?" "A Christian," he said. "Me, too. Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant," he said. "Me, too. What franchise?" "Baptist." "Baptist? Me, too. Northern or Southern Baptist?" "Northern Baptist." "Me, too. Northern Conservative or Northern Liberal Baptist?" "Northern Conservative Baptist." "Me, too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?" "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist." "Me, too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?" "Great Lakes Region." "Me, too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1893 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I shouted "Die, heretic!" and I pushed him off the bridge.
I appreciate the joke, but it makes me sad when I see Christians who remind me of it. I'm pleased to say that happens rarely as I go about and live life. Most Christians I've met face to face have been pretty level-headed and don't have a problem helping others to one degree or another.
By way of comparison, it's interesting that someone who cares MORE about their specific denomination might indeed help others- but that's generally either because they're following direct orders, or because the context of helping someone in that instance is one that gives their denomination a lot of credit. They'll help others so long as their group gets the glory. I'm also surprised when I see a "church" building where the name is on the side- and the name of the pastor/leader/fuhrer is in even bigger letters.
That does seem to be a course of action more likely to produce results. The main complaint to that would be that it actually requires WORK- and a lot of people would rather do things that require no effort. There's a reason "slacktivism" is now a word, also- that's activism that doesn't actually require someone to DO anything. I do think Christians are better-served focusing on all that they have in common, and all that matters, rather than focus on differences. That's not exactly an opposite, but efforts to do that would certainly help to make "churchianity" by any name harder to find, and I consider that a good thing.
Emo Phillips once told a joke I've ripped off here before. I will adapt it slightly and retell it.
I was walking along a bridge one night, and I saw a man standing along the edge, as if he was going to jump. I called out to him, to stop him from jumping, at least long enough to get my camera ready. He looked up and, you've heard of 'the Elephant Man'? Well, this man had a face like a horse. My heart went out to him instantly. "Why the long face?" He said that people always made fun of him, and that nobody loved him. "God loves you." "You think so?" "Do you really think that a handful of atoms millions of years ago would possibly have the sense of humor to make you look like this?" He thought, and said, "You know, I do believe in God." "Really? Are you a Christian? A Jew?" "A Christian," he said. "Me, too. Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant," he said. "Me, too. What franchise?" "Baptist." "Baptist? Me, too. Northern or Southern Baptist?" "Northern Baptist." "Me, too. Northern Conservative or Northern Liberal Baptist?" "Northern Conservative Baptist." "Me, too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?" "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist." "Me, too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?" "Great Lakes Region." "Me, too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1893 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I shouted "Die, heretic!" and I pushed him off the bridge.
I appreciate the joke, but it makes me sad when I see Christians who remind me of it. I'm pleased to say that happens rarely as I go about and live life. Most Christians I've met face to face have been pretty level-headed and don't have a problem helping others to one degree or another.
By way of comparison, it's interesting that someone who cares MORE about their specific denomination might indeed help others- but that's generally either because they're following direct orders, or because the context of helping someone in that instance is one that gives their denomination a lot of credit. They'll help others so long as their group gets the glory. I'm also surprised when I see a "church" building where the name is on the side- and the name of the pastor/leader/fuhrer is in even bigger letters.
Excellent joke! My "mother in catholicism" once told me she thought Luther should have stayed in the catholic church despite all the hypocrisy, imperfections and impurities. So was Luther protesting primarily out of self-interest? Still working that one out in my head! "Slacktivism" is a new word for me ... 'keyboard warrior syndrome" maybe? I'm ok with keyboard warriors as long as it's not the only thing one does but only a tool or way to do much more as the need arises.
I think Martin Luther INTENDED to remain in the Roman Catholic Church, and his 97 Theses were meant to stimulate discussions, which were meant to trigger REFORM. However, since there were no reforms, there were limited options, especially for a man of good conscience. Frankly, Switzerland was well-situated as a location for the Protestant Reformation, which is probably why we got both Luther AND Zwingli from there.
If there had been reforms, things would have been very different. Then again, there had been centuries of momentum beforehand, so, looking back, I don't think reforms had a chance in that decade. Things were just too entrenched by then, which was why the whole concept of retail selling of indulgencies didn't seem as outrageous to some people as they would to, say, me in the present, or Luther and Zwingli when and where they were.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
The word "churchianity" is certainly not a popular word outside of twi circles. In fact, I just discovered that the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary is the only collegiate dictionary that includes it, among those of which I'm aware. (It's not in the American Heritage, nor the Cambridge.)
In twi practice, it's used as a general insult to all forms of Christianity outside of twi, period. In ex-twi circles, it's frequently used in exactly the same way- as a general insult to all Christian groups other than twi and ex-twi, period. It's among the trite phrases thrown around like saying Trinitarians pray to an oil-can.
Should we even use the word "churchianity"? If we should use it, what, exactly, should we mean by it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Are you saying you want to set forth rules as to what anyone, by saying something particular (that might irk you) "SHOULD" mean and/or conversely what they SHOULD NOT be allowed to mean?
I apologize for apparently having used a trigger word from our long gone cult past. NO offense intended to anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I see it more as a trigger word- but I'm not entirely sure that I SHOULD- thus the discussion.
I had been thinking that it was a twi-original word, meant solely to slam non-twi Christians. It was first used no later than the 1789, long before twi existed, before vpw was born, and before Ohio was even a state (or New Knoxville established as a village.)
Granted, much of the usage we come across is along those lines now.
But, should we be using it in some other manner, and if so, how?
I'm not trying to come up with some Rules with the force of Law, I'm trying to see if there's some practice, some rule of thumb, that should be in effect here that is NOT twi or ex-twi specific.
As seen above, if nobody else, Edwin Paxton Hood (1852) used it in a way to make a positive point by contrast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Emotional concerns, and THIS is an emotion related issue, cannot be resolved by logic, IMO. As I see it, they can only be resolved by healing processes and sustained emotional support. You're either triggered or you're not as a result of something someone says.
Recognizing the fact (mindful awareness) that you've been triggered, is, I suppose, the first step to healing. (AS I currently view the situation).
I'm thankful you're not trying to set rules for anyone regarding this particular trigger word.
I think of this in terms antifragility. Perhaps long hidden fragility, if one considers the emotional impact of the word in their life at this moment.
For more on my understanding of antifragility, rather than expounding it here, I will only mention there's a discussion thread on the subject in the About the Way forum.
Far be it from me to tell anyone what they SHOULD do or how they SHOULD view the experience from their younger days in Wierwille's cult.
A former housemate of mine, God rest his soul, J Fred Wilson, explored something he told me was called Re-evaluation therapy.
Me? I just read and try to fill my brain/mind with alternatives to decide what to keep and what to reject from my cult experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
When you put it that way, the origin myth of Christianity seems quite trite. Yet, your analysis does expose underlying issues with a tradition which has achieved hegemony in the minds and societies of what I can only guess now to be at least a few billion people currently alive humans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Since you started this thread for the purpose of discussion, I want to share something I received this morning in an email from a psychologist named Guy Winch. Dr Winch was born and raised in England, I think. He moved to NYC to study and to practice his profession.
What We Get Wrong about Getting Triggered
Getting triggered means having an immediate strong emotional response (e.g., anger or distress) to content or events that evoke a past traumatic experience. What get's triggered, therefore, is the trauma--the feelings and reactions that are associated with the traumatic event.
Trigger warnings were initially instituted (in college campuses) to warn people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that the upcoming media or class includes certain themes, so that the person may either opt out or prepare themselves in order to lower their emotional reactivity to it.
Today, some people use the term 'getting triggered' more broadly to include reactions that are not necessarily associated with past trauma. Indeed, in last month's poll, 46% of people said that getting triggered means they weren't able to control not just their emotions but their thoughts and behavior too.
What we often fail to acknowledge is that if a person gets triggered but does not have PTSD, their sharp emotional response is likely due to an unhealed emotional wound.
This distinction is important because PTSD requires treatment by a mental health professional, while many emotional wounds can be treated (via therapy or self-help) and the sensitivity to them reduced as a result.
The second thing we get wrong relates to trigger warnings. We assume they're both useful and effective. But many recent studies have found that neither is necessarily true.
Are Trigger Warnings Useful?
A variety of studies have found that trigger warnings have a downside for people who have PTSD--they can reinforce a survivor's view of the trauma as being central to their identity--something that is counter-therapeutic and potentially damaging to their mental health as it gives the trauma an even bigger place in their lives than it already has (reminding them, suggesting they can't handle exposures, etc...).
If the upside of trigger warnings was substantial, that would be one thing but as you'll see below, research has found they have only meager benefits.
Does that mean we should do away with trigger warnings? Not necessarily, as some people with PTSD might use them to opt out and the issue is still being studied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think you're conflating two things here.
I acknowledge that "churchianity" is what's now called a "trigger word."
I never said I was "triggered", and I never claimed to have an emotional reaction to it.
Frankly, what I called this sort of thing before was "SLOGANEERING", and compared catch-phrases repeated mindlessly by twi'ers and ex-twi with actual thinking. I consider usage of slogans by twi'ers as an excuse to AVOID thinking, and note that when I find a catchphrase being used- generally it's to the detriment of THINKING and of DISCUSSION.
But you can save pages and clips on how to avoid being "triggered" by catchphrases. I never was, and never claimed to be. If I caused any confusion to that point, it was accidental, and I'm sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Isn't "churchianity" about who gets the glory? And what the giver of the glory gets?
Some people spend practically their entire Sunday in church, attending every service. Why? Do they really need five services every Sunday? Or is it to feel good? Or be seen to be there? Maybe those people also give out the hymn books or collect up something afterwards or put the chairs away. Some people like to be chalice assistant, or to read the lesson from the Bible. Why? What's their motivation? To be seen doing it? Or because there's a need that they can fulfil, in part or whole?
What do these people do on other days? Do they help those in need, minister to the poor in some way, visit prisons, help out at hostels, etc etc? Does their Sunday church time spill into heartfelt actions during the rest of the week? Does what they learn(?) on Sunday carry through into actions in the days following?
What is it that they like about church, anyway? Is it the message, the corporate worship, the being with other Christians and sharing their faith together? Or is it the comforting ritual of the orderliness of a service? Of the sounds, smells, robes? Perhaps such are of genuine help to some people in their faith.
Whatever. I see churchianity as being those people who attend church because it's "what they do," but without it having any impact on their day to day life. Who obey rules from the church that were never even hinted at in the scriptures.
Corporately, I see churchianity as having rules that don't benefit the congregation. Ministers have to be dressed a certain way. Some people can be licensed to perform certain actions - like chalice assistant, or reading from the Bible. And so on.
Who makes these rules? And why? To what purpose?
Rules are good. But when rules take over, then they are not good. And thus, churchianity is born.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Good point! Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Having grown up in the RC church and having attended parochial schools, I can say that the faithful who work tirelessly are doing it out of love for their religion. They believe their work is of benefit to God and other followers and believe God will bless them now and in the future in heaven. My mother worked for the local church and helped out where ever she could. Her belief in God got her through some very difficult times in her life.
I am sure there are some who do it to be seen, but for the most part, they love their religion.
It isn’t unusual for people to spend hours doing things they believe in and enjoy doing. Fans of sports can spend all weekend in front of the TV cheering on their favorite teams. Quilters can spend hours a day putting together a new blanket. Hunters can spend an entire season looking for that special animal to mount on their wall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Fair enough. And thanks for further clarification you provided.
If I was not clear, let me clarify. I used the word churchianity as a mechanism to draw a particular contrast. If I implied or explicitly replied I had perceived you as having been triggered, I apologize.
However, from the emphatic nature of your quick response to my use of the word, I perceived some aspect of triggering.
As to whether YOU SHOULD regard any word as a potential trigger word, it seems to me the key would be awareness/recognition of emotional responses the word or expression might elicit from one or more reader/listener.
IOW, I don't see "churchianity" as a word or concept or notion that any of us, absent the potential for eliciting such an emotional response, can arbitrarily put into the category of "trigger word."
Put another way, perhaps more important than devising rules for considering any given word or expression as such, is one's own recognition and awareness of the impact of our words on others.
Given that awareness, would come responsibility for choosing our word(s) with both love and authenticity. Which, may not always be easy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Re-reading what I wrote, not sure that I was clear enough that I don't mean everybody who attends church regularly is under "churchianity." Certainly not what I meant. I do know that service in many capacities is deeply meaningful to some attendees, whether doing the flowers, or cleaning and tidying the building, or whatever it is. There are very many people who do these things as an outward expression of their inner faith and a desire to help others. I include myself in that category.
Good for your mum, STL, if she can lovingly serve Christ in that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"If I was not clear, let me clarify. I used the word churchianity as a mechanism to draw a particular contrast. If I implied or explicitly replied I had perceived you as having been triggered, I apologize.
However, from the emphatic nature of your quick response to my use of the word, I perceived some aspect of triggering."
I'm glad we cleared up the misunderstanding. It looked to me like you'd already declared I'd been "triggered" over the phrase, and were referring me to Psychologists or other experts to "solve my problem" - as if I had a problem that needed to be solved. Since I wasn't even "triggered", it seemed to me a lot of effort to make.
"I perceived some aspect of triggering."
I admit I'm a little quick on the draw when I see someone diagnose me with incomplete information and begin recommending solutions to problems that don't exist. I think I fall short of actually being "triggered" -by accusations of being triggered. I still don't like it and prefer to set the record straight. BTW, I didn't respond that quickly, I responded about 24 hours later, at my convenience.
So, I hope we can put that non-issue to rest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I can certainly agree that's why a lot of people serve in their churches, or attend mass daily. I think they're sincere in acting out of love for their religion, and are TRYING to serve God by serving their church. The problem- for those who perceive a problem- is when a church becomes an intermediary BETWEEN a relationship with God and/or Christ, and receives all service IN PLACE OF God and/or Christ.
It's a touchy subject. I won't get in someone's face and say they should spend fewer hours serving their church and a few hours serving alongside their church to help others. I know at least one person in that position, but unless they actually ask me, I will leave them to their business.
When I was very young, my family was quite involved in our local Roman Catholic parish. We had commentators, a Eucharistic minister, and altar boys in my nuclear family. We certainly were sincere whenever we did what we did. It was not many years later when most of us drifted away from that same church, each with our own reasons and for our own reasons. (As for me, that's when I became anti-Christian, anti-religion and especially anti-Bible.)
I'm certain my family was acting with less zeal than many tailgaters, and I don't think it was every about what we actually ENJOYED doing. In this, I can only speak for us, since there can be any number of motivations for everyone else, and certainly there's other parishes where people DO enjoy themselves more than that parish did/does- one not far away from that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think there are two different groups of people in this case. One group uses church in place of helping others. They perform ritualistically at church in one form or another, and believe that's what's required of them- and ALL that's required of them. I also believe there's plenty of Christians who use church either as a springboard to helping others, or as an organization/location to facilitate actually helping others, and are beneficial to their communities- and not just to their parishioners. I know one church parish that seems to focus accordingly.
I think we agree that rules are necessary, but when the rules become the END and not simply the MEANS, then there's a problem.. one we might call "churchianity."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I guess “churchianity” would be an invented word an amalgamation of church and Christianity.
Substitute “church” for “Christ” and I guess that explains it all. I do hear modern Christian pastors talking about the “unchurched”.
To me all that is more examples of building a Tower of Babel like in Genesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thx for posting. I too think it's a general insult to other Christians. I've seen it happen firsthand: Catholics disparage protestants; Protestants disparage catholics. Instead of focusing on what we have in common; we bark insults. I've since learned that the only true way you really know is get involved with the group you think is wrong and experience for yourself -- and maybe even try to teach them the better way if you're so inclined.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That does seem to be a course of action more likely to produce results. The main complaint to that would be that it actually requires WORK- and a lot of people would rather do things that require no effort. There's a reason "slacktivism" is now a word, also- that's activism that doesn't actually require someone to DO anything. I do think Christians are better-served focusing on all that they have in common, and all that matters, rather than focus on differences. That's not exactly an opposite, but efforts to do that would certainly help to make "churchianity" by any name harder to find, and I consider that a good thing.
Emo Phillips once told a joke I've ripped off here before. I will adapt it slightly and retell it.
I was walking along a bridge one night, and I saw a man standing along the edge, as if he was going to jump. I called out to him, to stop him from jumping, at least long enough to get my camera ready. He looked up and, you've heard of 'the Elephant Man'? Well, this man had a face like a horse. My heart went out to him instantly. "Why the long face?" He said that people always made fun of him, and that nobody loved him. "God loves you." "You think so?" "Do you really think that a handful of atoms millions of years ago would possibly have the sense of humor to make you look like this?" He thought, and said, "You know, I do believe in God." "Really? Are you a Christian? A Jew?" "A Christian," he said. "Me, too. Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant," he said. "Me, too. What franchise?" "Baptist." "Baptist? Me, too. Northern or Southern Baptist?" "Northern Baptist." "Me, too. Northern Conservative or Northern Liberal Baptist?" "Northern Conservative Baptist." "Me, too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?" "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist." "Me, too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?" "Great Lakes Region." "Me, too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1893 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I shouted "Die, heretic!" and I pushed him off the bridge.
I appreciate the joke, but it makes me sad when I see Christians who remind me of it. I'm pleased to say that happens rarely as I go about and live life. Most Christians I've met face to face have been pretty level-headed and don't have a problem helping others to one degree or another.
By way of comparison, it's interesting that someone who cares MORE about their specific denomination might indeed help others- but that's generally either because they're following direct orders, or because the context of helping someone in that instance is one that gives their denomination a lot of credit. They'll help others so long as their group gets the glory. I'm also surprised when I see a "church" building where the name is on the side- and the name of the pastor/leader/fuhrer is in even bigger letters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Excellent joke! My "mother in catholicism" once told me she thought Luther should have stayed in the catholic church despite all the hypocrisy, imperfections and impurities. So was Luther protesting primarily out of self-interest? Still working that one out in my head! "Slacktivism" is a new word for me ... 'keyboard warrior syndrome" maybe? I'm ok with keyboard warriors as long as it's not the only thing one does but only a tool or way to do much more as the need arises.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It depends on how you read the history or how to interpret the film.
The film- both of them.. Luther is released from his vows to the church..
both of them seem to indicate he was released else they would have to abandon him to the Authorities of the Times..
It would seem that they abandoned him for matters of mutual interest..
Or preservation. You know, human instinct..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Too bad that he was taken up among the Christian (?) Nationalists. Look at his further work..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think Martin Luther INTENDED to remain in the Roman Catholic Church, and his 97 Theses were meant to stimulate discussions, which were meant to trigger REFORM. However, since there were no reforms, there were limited options, especially for a man of good conscience. Frankly, Switzerland was well-situated as a location for the Protestant Reformation, which is probably why we got both Luther AND Zwingli from there.
If there had been reforms, things would have been very different. Then again, there had been centuries of momentum beforehand, so, looking back, I don't think reforms had a chance in that decade. Things were just too entrenched by then, which was why the whole concept of retail selling of indulgencies didn't seem as outrageous to some people as they would to, say, me in the present, or Luther and Zwingli when and where they were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.