Of course, @Gramps49. I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise.
I'm not sure any of us this side of the Pond have enough granular knowledge of the Amish to comment in detail, @Nick Tamen. I think @Pomona was simply making a general point that even groups like the Amish or traditional monastics can and do get involved with politics as and when it suits them.
We won't be as aware of the detail over here but we would be aware that it can happen.
On the monastic side ...
Heck, I can think of instances of episcopal and monastic interference in politics in several Orthodox majority countries.
Ephesians 4???? Is that it????!? That doesn't even mention the Parousia! What are these over-realised OT prophecies then @Gamma Gamaliel ?
No, it isn't just Ephesians 4, although that was a key passage for the 'restorationist' groups that emerged from the charismatic scene.
As for over-realised applications of OT prophecies, how long have you got?
There was/is a tendency within those groups which emphasise 'end-times revival' and so on to apply some of the passages from Isaiah and other prophetic writings which speak of future peace and prosperity as it were to their own revivalist expectations.
It would take me a while to list all the references and examples.
The Puritans had a hopeful expectation for the 'triumph of the Gospel' and Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope was a key text for UK restorationists, albeit applied in a more 'realised' and more charismatic kind of way.
There was a lot of rhetoric in NFI, CMI and other 'new church streams' and networks about 'ushering in the Kingdom' and so on in a more 'post-millenial' kind of way than was common among other evangelical charismatics.
Effectively we were a-millenialists with post-millennial overtones who were reacting against the 'dispensationalism' that was common among the Brethren, Pentecostals and other 'feeder groups' that funneled into the mix.
Evangelical and charismatic Anglicans were less prone to this sort of thing but it did rub off on them to some extent, more in terms of style than substance I think.
Generally speaking your average Anglican charismatic outfit was more about building its reach and influence within its own context rather than imagining it was going to take over the world.
Although there was an emphasis there on people reaching key positions of influence.
It would take me a while to unpack the whole 'restorationist' ethos but suffice to say it was a big edifice built on a small number of core texts that were interpreted in a more 'realised' and optimistic way than was common across evangelicalism as a whole.
Oh right! So it's a sort of post-millenial thing where the increasing purity of the church kind of is the Parousia. That makes considerably more sense. I mean, not total sense. But more sense.
But it now seems to be grafted onto a more pre-millenial eschatology where if the church is "good enough" that'll be a sort of "trip-wire" for the Second Coming and then watch out everyone else.
Er actually, @Gamma Gamaliel I was speaking about the Amish PAC that @Nick Tamen mentioned (and I'm grateful for his clarification on the issue) - you're right that most people in the UK barely know about the Amish at all, but I have had a special interest in historic Peace Churches for some time. The Amish are interesting in particular because of the popular perception of them (especially from non-Amish Christians in the US via Amish romance novels and the like) often being at odds with their reality, especially with regards to their particularly horrible animal cruelty practices (the Amish run a large number of puppy mills in the US).
Why is there an idea that a better, purer church will usher in the Parousia? Is there any basis in Scripture, tradition or reason for this? You can see its influence in various bits of hymnody and general attitude but where does it come from?
There is no basis.
The renewal of heaven and earth has always been God's action and perogative.
Matthew 24:36: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Oh right! So it's a sort of post-millenial thing where the increasing purity of the church kind of is the Parousia. That makes considerably more sense. I mean, not total sense. But more sense.
But it now seems to be grafted onto a more pre-millenial eschatology where if the church is "good enough" that'll be a sort of "trip-wire" for the Second Coming and then watch out everyone else.
I wouldn't say 'now', I'd suggest it's been that way with restorationist groups here in the UK since the '70s and '80s.
To quote Boyce The Voice, 'I know. Coz I was there.'
We didn't go in for predicting dates and so on but there were those, particularly among the leaders, who believed that Christ would return within their lifetimes and that what they were doing could 'hasten' it in some way.
2 Peter 3:11-12 speaks about 'hastening' the Day of The Lord through our conduct and it was a standard evangelical trope of course that the Gospel must be preached 'to every creature and then the end shall come.'
So, as @TurquoiseTastic says, it can be made to make some kind of sense.
What we had was a reaction against pessimistic Darby style dispensationalism on the one hand fused with some 'Latter Rain' elements from 1950s Pentecostalism.
It was a heady mix.
Some of those who promulgated this sort of thing are pushing up the daisies and, one hopes, receiving their heavenly reward.
Others are still banging on about it despite all evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, much of the rhetoric was toned down or modified over time, but it wasn't a healthy way to be. We were always on the edge of our seats awaiting the next 'wave'.
Oh right! So it's a sort of post-millenial thing where the increasing purity of the church kind of is the Parousia. That makes considerably more sense. I mean, not total sense. But more sense.
But it now seems to be grafted onto a more pre-millenial eschatology where if the church is "good enough" that'll be a sort of "trip-wire" for the Second Coming and then watch out everyone else.
Yeah, something like that. And I'll admit I'm basically spitballing here.
I think I'm mostly post-millennial. But damn, could I really go for a trip wire these days!
It's weird that anyone would think the church being good enough would trigger the Second Coming. If anything, Scripture seems to point to the opposite of that ("When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
It's not fair to call the Reformed the tradition of splits. It's a tradition of splits and mergers and I would maintain modern Ecumenism comes out of the unifying practice.
However it both changes ones understanding of the Church. The Reformed are far less likely to mistake denominational structure for The Church simply due to its volatility.
It also leads to certain interesting practices. I have quoted this quote from the URCs Statement on Faith and Order before.
For the sake of faith and fellowship
it shall be for the church to decide
where differences of conviction
hurt our unity and peace.
What is important to realise is this is not aspirational but how the URC functions. I was a member when at least one juncture was brought under this principle.
It's weird that anyone would think the church being good enough would trigger the Second Coming. If anything, Scripture seems to point to the opposite of that ("When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Sure and we always struggled with that back in my 'restorationist' days.
We used to argue that if was rhetorical or hyperbolic.
It's weird that anyone would think the church being good enough would trigger the Second Coming. If anything, Scripture seems to point to the opposite of that ("When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Sure and we always struggled with that back in my 'restorationist' days.
We used to argue that if was rhetorical or hyperbolic.
'Rhetorical question expecting the answer "you betcha" '?
To be fair, our theology back in my restorationist days was no more wonky or inconsistent than that of other groups I can think of.
I think part of the problem, as the late Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist observed, was that we were trying to work these things out 'on the hoof' in a way that older and more 'established' traditions don't have to. Consequently we were always trying to juggle things to make them 'fit'.
It saddens me when I see some evangelical traditions that really ought to know better doing the same.
All that said, the depth of the relationships formed there was really quite something. That made the frequent splits and divisions much harder to bear.
It's weird that anyone would think the church being good enough would trigger the Second Coming. If anything, Scripture seems to point to the opposite of that ("When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Well, I did post that this notion of mine was a jest. It's a jest with some pointed thoughts attached to it, but it is a jest.
Thinking of entire denominations, sometimes a split is a healthy thing for both sides. we have a situation in the RCC where the SSPX a group who have been separated from the main body since 1970 when its founder consecrated traditionalist bishops with no mandate from the pope. Thy don't like the new Mass, calling it "Protestant," and they reject large parts of Vatican 2, particularly the documents on ecumenism and relationships with other religions calling them heretical. They also take issue with a more pastoral approach to hot button issues.
The Vatican has spent a lot of time and effort trying to build bridges permitting other groups in the RCC to use the old liturgy for example, but the SSPX simply refuse to accept the teaching of the last Council. And their publications and social media are full of bile and frankly un-Christian stuff against the RCC. They maintain they are the true church and the Vatican etc have led the rest into heresy.
They now plan to consecrate four more bishops saying that the RCC is not a body that they feel can save souls. This is against the express wishes of the pope. The Vatican has told them that they will have excommunicated themselves and put themselves into schism if they go ahead in July.
My feeling is that they should just go ahead and leave for the health of the wider church.
Sometimes schism is a good thing.
It's weird that anyone would think the church being good enough would trigger the Second Coming. If anything, Scripture seems to point to the opposite of that ("When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Well, I did post that this notion of mine was a jest. It's a jest with some pointed thoughts attached to it, but it is a jest.
Yes, but I kid you not, I knew many people who believed this to be the case.
I'm not sure I entirely bought into it myself but it was a notion I was surrounded by in my 20s.
It's not a healthy one either, of course as it breeds a sense of constant dissatisfaction and a kind of 'fleshly' straining to whip everything into shape and a chasing after the wind.
It's not fair to call the Reformed the tradition of splits. It's a tradition of splits and mergers and I would maintain modern Ecumenism comes out of the unifying practice.
However it both changes ones understanding of the Church. The Reformed are far less likely to mistake denominational structure for The Church simply due to its volatility.
It also leads to certain interesting practices. I have quoted this quote from the URCs Statement on Faith and Order before.
For the sake of faith and fellowship
it shall be for the church to decide
where differences of conviction
hurt our unity and peace.
What is important to realise is this is not aspirational but how the URC functions. I was a member when at least one juncture was brought under this principle.
Interesting.
I do note the input of people from the Reformed tradition into 'unifying' initiatives on both a large scale - The Church of South India - and the smaller scale - Taize.
That appears to run alongside a tradition of splits, schisms and mergers - as per Scottish Presbyterianism.
A valuable and interesting point, @Jengie Jon and one to keep an eye on for the future perhaps.
It's weird that anyone would think the church being good enough would trigger the Second Coming. If anything, Scripture seems to point to the opposite of that ("When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Well, I did post that this notion of mine was a jest. It's a jest with some pointed thoughts attached to it, but it is a jest.
Yes, but I kid you not, I knew many people who believed this to be the case.
I'm not sure I entirely bought into it myself but it was a notion I was surrounded by in my 20s.
It's not a healthy one either, of course as it breeds a sense of constant dissatisfaction and a kind of 'fleshly' straining to whip everything into shape and a chasing after the wind.
I think a little push to do better is always a good thing, maybe Wesley's "striving toward perfection." But if you push too hard, you break something. And that's not so great.
There's an art to applying pressure in the appropriate place.
Like there's one error where you assume God is such an absentee that there's no hope for anything so "Do what you will and God will just take care of it all on his own." A la "shall we keep sinning, that grace may abound?" And there's another to assume that you have to coerce everything around you into perfection by fiat. But then you break people, and likely yourself.
Perhaps it's Episcopal of me, or Buddhist, but a middle path can be found. Similar to saying that my church needs not completely alienate itself from culture, nor does my church need to completely immerse itself in its surroundings.
I think the first question to consider here is "Is it true?" As in, "If we got our shit together and were the bestest church ever, would that actually have any effect on the timing of the Second Coming or not?"
Which requires someone to go back to the biblical text and give us some evidence.
After that, maybe, we can get into the question of whether it's helpful to push people to improve themselves. (I vote no. I have a nasty case of OCD, and spent my youth trying to climb out of legalism.)
On reflection, "push" might not be the best metaphor for this kind of encouragement.
Though I think, if anything, I tend more toward the opposite of OCD. Smothering, fatalistic despair has been more often my vice.
Oh me too. Until I realised it was self pity. And that's really no good. So for many Lent seasons my lenten discipline focused on trying not to feel sorry for myself. It worked. But I still have to remember.
As for the OCD and legalism thing? We all start in different places. The trick is lifting ourselves out of whatever our primary failings are. Or rather, being aware of them and praying for God to lift us out of them.
I don't know but I feel that "pull" is better than "push". Maybe looking at Jesus and at "whatever is admirable" as Paul says in Philippians rather than at what we perceive to be failings in ourselves or (worse) others is a more sustainable approach.
Can I just add a story I heard last night, about a split. Our study group was looking at Romans 14, and one of our members told us that when her FIL came back from time as a medical missionary in Africa, and became minister of a church in N. Ireland, some people walked out because he used coloured pens to make a poster!
Our group of far-too-liberal Anglicans were totally unable to come up with a justification for that.
Can I just add a story I heard last night, about a split. Our study group was looking at Romans 14, and one of our members told us that when her FIL came back from time as a medical missionary in Africa, and became minister of a church in N. Ireland, some people walked out because he used coloured pens to make a poster!
Our group of far-too-liberal Anglicans were totally unable to come up with a justification for that.
How about the Cross, as in a piece of the True Cross ...
Now that really would get them going ...
@Lamb Chopped on the issue of whether us getting our acts together, to put it more politely than you have, making a difference to the Parousia and scriptural backing for such an idea, I've already quoted 2 Peter 3:11-12 which talks about 'hastening' the Day of The Lord.
It would appear to suggest that our conduct can somehow bring that closer.
Now, I'm not suggesting that is the 'right' interpretation but it is a proof-text we used to deploy, as well as applying some of the more upbeat prophecies in Isaiah to the 'triumph' of the Church at the end of the age.
I'm not saying we were right to do so but given a particular style of interpretation it can be possible to create that kind of argument.
But then I don't present things in a sola scriptura kind of way these days - which doesn't mean that I don't use scripture in theological discussion of course.
On reflection, "push" might not be the best metaphor for this kind of encouragement.
Though I think, if anything, I tend more toward the opposite of OCD. Smothering, fatalistic despair has been more often my vice.
Oh me too. Until I realised it was self pity. And that's really no good. So for many Lent seasons my lenten discipline focused on trying not to feel sorry for myself. It worked. But I still have to remember.
As for the OCD and legalism thing? We all start in different places. The trick is lifting ourselves out of whatever our primary failings are. Or rather, being aware of them and praying for God to lift us out of them.
Yeah, I grok that. I think my experience is a little different. Mostly agreed on the later. At some point imago dei makes the "God versus Me" thing a little weird. Theosis is a neat concept, or "going on to perfection" as the Methodists put it. Dangerous stuff.
And of course that can lead to schisms when two imagoi go in different directions, each seeing the same deus. One God can produce different likenesses, it seems.
Theosis is similar to the Wesleyan idea of 'entire sanctification' but not identical. It's not meant to be a 'neat idea' but a lived reality. Lord have mercy!
It's a process that starts in this life and only reaches final fulfilment in the life which is to come.
One of the key features of a Saint in the Orthodox understanding of these things is that they don't know they are.
God is not the God of disorder but of peace.
Whenever splits and schisms take place we can be pretty sure that other agencies, human and otherwise, but largely all too human, are involved.
That doesn't mean that God can't bring order out of chaos or work things for good out of bad situations. Of course he can.
But neither does it mean that hiving off down the road to set up a new outfit at the drop of a hat is the way to go either.
Christianity in all its forms can be remarkably fissaporous.
Theosis is similar to the Wesleyan idea of 'entire sanctification' but not identical. It's not meant to be a 'neat idea' but a lived reality. Lord have mercy!
Human beings who don't feel that they are in some way under attack are fissiparous. That is my conclusion, anyway. It accounts for the fact that the right wing of UK politics feels able suddenly to have multiple expressions, rather than holding on to the Tory party at all costs. It's why Christians since Constantine have felt more or less safe to split. We're either circling the wagons or getting the hell away from each other. There is the third, Church of England, way, of kind of doing both at once, by holding everything in agonised stasis while screaming at each other.
Whatever else we may say about Constantine, I'm not sure he made it 'safer' to split.
If anything post-Constantinian Christianity was more uniform than it had been previously.
Things became more fissaporous after the Reformation in the West and particularly with the 'radical Reformation' and also increasingly from the 1830s onwards.
Not that I am advocating state-run religion and Caesaro-Papism to impose uniformity nor am I suggesting that Eastern Christianity hasn't had its fair share of splits and schisms.
Human beings who don't feel that they are in some way under attack are fissiparous. That is my conclusion, anyway. It accounts for the fact that the right wing of UK politics feels able suddenly to have multiple expressions, rather than holding on to the Tory party at all costs. It's why Christians since Constantine have felt more or less safe to split. We're either circling the wagons or getting the hell away from each other. There is the third, Church of England, way, of kind of doing both at once, by holding everything in agonised stasis while screaming at each other.
Thank you so much for adding that word to my lexicon!
I've long been aware of the opposing dynamic, that being threatened builds group cohesion, but...yes! That's a wonderful word for it! And I'm such an Episcopalian!
Comments
I'm not sure any of us this side of the Pond have enough granular knowledge of the Amish to comment in detail, @Nick Tamen. I think @Pomona was simply making a general point that even groups like the Amish or traditional monastics can and do get involved with politics as and when it suits them.
We won't be as aware of the detail over here but we would be aware that it can happen.
On the monastic side ...
Heck, I can think of instances of episcopal and monastic interference in politics in several Orthodox majority countries.
No, it isn't just Ephesians 4, although that was a key passage for the 'restorationist' groups that emerged from the charismatic scene.
As for over-realised applications of OT prophecies, how long have you got?
There was/is a tendency within those groups which emphasise 'end-times revival' and so on to apply some of the passages from Isaiah and other prophetic writings which speak of future peace and prosperity as it were to their own revivalist expectations.
It would take me a while to list all the references and examples.
The Puritans had a hopeful expectation for the 'triumph of the Gospel' and Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope was a key text for UK restorationists, albeit applied in a more 'realised' and more charismatic kind of way.
There was a lot of rhetoric in NFI, CMI and other 'new church streams' and networks about 'ushering in the Kingdom' and so on in a more 'post-millenial' kind of way than was common among other evangelical charismatics.
Effectively we were a-millenialists with post-millennial overtones who were reacting against the 'dispensationalism' that was common among the Brethren, Pentecostals and other 'feeder groups' that funneled into the mix.
Evangelical and charismatic Anglicans were less prone to this sort of thing but it did rub off on them to some extent, more in terms of style than substance I think.
Generally speaking your average Anglican charismatic outfit was more about building its reach and influence within its own context rather than imagining it was going to take over the world.
Although there was an emphasis there on people reaching key positions of influence.
It would take me a while to unpack the whole 'restorationist' ethos but suffice to say it was a big edifice built on a small number of core texts that were interpreted in a more 'realised' and optimistic way than was common across evangelicalism as a whole.
But it now seems to be grafted onto a more pre-millenial eschatology where if the church is "good enough" that'll be a sort of "trip-wire" for the Second Coming and then watch out everyone else.
There is no basis.
The renewal of heaven and earth has always been God's action and perogative.
Matthew 24:36: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
I wouldn't say 'now', I'd suggest it's been that way with restorationist groups here in the UK since the '70s and '80s.
To quote Boyce The Voice, 'I know. Coz I was there.'
@WhimsicalChristian - we held the view that @TurquoiseTastic has outlined alongside the one you have cited, 'of that day or hour ...'
We didn't go in for predicting dates and so on but there were those, particularly among the leaders, who believed that Christ would return within their lifetimes and that what they were doing could 'hasten' it in some way.
2 Peter 3:11-12 speaks about 'hastening' the Day of The Lord through our conduct and it was a standard evangelical trope of course that the Gospel must be preached 'to every creature and then the end shall come.'
So, as @TurquoiseTastic says, it can be made to make some kind of sense.
What we had was a reaction against pessimistic Darby style dispensationalism on the one hand fused with some 'Latter Rain' elements from 1950s Pentecostalism.
It was a heady mix.
Some of those who promulgated this sort of thing are pushing up the daisies and, one hopes, receiving their heavenly reward.
Others are still banging on about it despite all evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, much of the rhetoric was toned down or modified over time, but it wasn't a healthy way to be. We were always on the edge of our seats awaiting the next 'wave'.
Yeah, something like that. And I'll admit I'm basically spitballing here.
I think I'm mostly post-millennial. But damn, could I really go for a trip wire these days!
However it both changes ones understanding of the Church. The Reformed are far less likely to mistake denominational structure for The Church simply due to its volatility.
It also leads to certain interesting practices. I have quoted this quote from the URCs Statement on Faith and Order before. What is important to realise is this is not aspirational but how the URC functions. I was a member when at least one juncture was brought under this principle.
Sure and we always struggled with that back in my 'restorationist' days.
We used to argue that if was rhetorical or hyperbolic.
'Rhetorical question expecting the answer "you betcha" '?
To be fair, our theology back in my restorationist days was no more wonky or inconsistent than that of other groups I can think of.
I think part of the problem, as the late Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist observed, was that we were trying to work these things out 'on the hoof' in a way that older and more 'established' traditions don't have to. Consequently we were always trying to juggle things to make them 'fit'.
It saddens me when I see some evangelical traditions that really ought to know better doing the same.
Well, I did post that this notion of mine was a jest. It's a jest with some pointed thoughts attached to it, but it is a jest.
In this situation,absolutely yes.
Yes, but I kid you not, I knew many people who believed this to be the case.
I'm not sure I entirely bought into it myself but it was a notion I was surrounded by in my 20s.
It's not a healthy one either, of course as it breeds a sense of constant dissatisfaction and a kind of 'fleshly' straining to whip everything into shape and a chasing after the wind.
Interesting.
I do note the input of people from the Reformed tradition into 'unifying' initiatives on both a large scale - The Church of South India - and the smaller scale - Taize.
That appears to run alongside a tradition of splits, schisms and mergers - as per Scottish Presbyterianism.
A valuable and interesting point, @Jengie Jon and one to keep an eye on for the future perhaps.
I think a little push to do better is always a good thing, maybe Wesley's "striving toward perfection." But if you push too hard, you break something. And that's not so great.
There's an art to applying pressure in the appropriate place.
Like there's one error where you assume God is such an absentee that there's no hope for anything so "Do what you will and God will just take care of it all on his own." A la "shall we keep sinning, that grace may abound?" And there's another to assume that you have to coerce everything around you into perfection by fiat. But then you break people, and likely yourself.
Perhaps it's Episcopal of me, or Buddhist, but a middle path can be found. Similar to saying that my church needs not completely alienate itself from culture, nor does my church need to completely immerse itself in its surroundings.
Which requires someone to go back to the biblical text and give us some evidence.
After that, maybe, we can get into the question of whether it's helpful to push people to improve themselves. (I vote no. I have a nasty case of OCD, and spent my youth trying to climb out of legalism.)
Though I think, if anything, I tend more toward the opposite of OCD. Smothering, fatalistic despair has been more often my vice.
Oh me too. Until I realised it was self pity. And that's really no good. So for many Lent seasons my lenten discipline focused on trying not to feel sorry for myself. It worked. But I still have to remember.
As for the OCD and legalism thing? We all start in different places. The trick is lifting ourselves out of whatever our primary failings are. Or rather, being aware of them and praying for God to lift us out of them.
Our group of far-too-liberal Anglicans were totally unable to come up with a justification for that.
Presumably colour is
It's said that in Ulster some protestant houses can be bit stale because they don't hold with any of that potpourri .
You have to read it out loud.
Sorry we ought to be on the "bad jokes" thread...
Heck, I've known even regular Presbyterians get antsy about the sign of the cross.
Now that really would get them going ...
@Lamb Chopped on the issue of whether us getting our acts together, to put it more politely than you have, making a difference to the Parousia and scriptural backing for such an idea, I've already quoted 2 Peter 3:11-12 which talks about 'hastening' the Day of The Lord.
It would appear to suggest that our conduct can somehow bring that closer.
Now, I'm not suggesting that is the 'right' interpretation but it is a proof-text we used to deploy, as well as applying some of the more upbeat prophecies in Isaiah to the 'triumph' of the Church at the end of the age.
I'm not saying we were right to do so but given a particular style of interpretation it can be possible to create that kind of argument.
But then I don't present things in a sola scriptura kind of way these days - which doesn't mean that I don't use scripture in theological discussion of course.
Yeah, I grok that. I think my experience is a little different. Mostly agreed on the later. At some point imago dei makes the "God versus Me" thing a little weird. Theosis is a neat concept, or "going on to perfection" as the Methodists put it. Dangerous stuff.
And of course that can lead to schisms when two imagoi go in different directions, each seeing the same deus. One God can produce different likenesses, it seems.
It's a process that starts in this life and only reaches final fulfilment in the life which is to come.
One of the key features of a Saint in the Orthodox understanding of these things is that they don't know they are.
God is not the God of disorder but of peace.
Whenever splits and schisms take place we can be pretty sure that other agencies, human and otherwise, but largely all too human, are involved.
That doesn't mean that God can't bring order out of chaos or work things for good out of bad situations. Of course he can.
But neither does it mean that hiving off down the road to set up a new outfit at the drop of a hat is the way to go either.
Christianity in all its forms can be remarkably fissaporous.
Somehow we have to work with that difficulty.
Thank you, please pardon my flippancy.
If anything post-Constantinian Christianity was more uniform than it had been previously.
Things became more fissaporous after the Reformation in the West and particularly with the 'radical Reformation' and also increasingly from the 1830s onwards.
Not that I am advocating state-run religion and Caesaro-Papism to impose uniformity nor am I suggesting that Eastern Christianity hasn't had its fair share of splits and schisms.
Thank you so much for adding that word to my lexicon!
I've long been aware of the opposing dynamic, that being threatened builds group cohesion, but...yes! That's a wonderful word for it! And I'm such an Episcopalian!