I am a Christian (presbyterian with a 'Wee Free' background). AMA

[NoHaudinMaWheest]

This is a follow on from the brilliant orthodox Jewish threads to enable people to ask questions about Christianity without derailing those ones.

I was brought up in the Free Church of Scotland. It is often known as the Wee Frees so I have put that in the title but it is a somewhat derogatory term and not one I would usually use.

I left the Free Church when I was about 30 for really complicated reasons. I spent a long time as an Anglican but having recently moved back to Scotland I now go to the mainstream established Church of Scotland.
I have also attended various independent evangelical and Baptist churches in my time.

So I am happy to try to answer any questions but please note I really am not qualified to speak on behalf of Catholics, or many other Christian branches.

I am Eastern Orthodox, charismatic, visit church of England, worship with Catholics and point anyone to Christ by wearing a cross
I do not argue with people about their denomination but if someone wants to know how to get saved, there is only one way: Jesus

Thank you for this, OP.
How Sabbatarian are you?.
My mother was brought up in the West of Scotland in a Wee Free area, and she said that on a Sunday even the parks were closed and the swings chained up!

maireas I was very Sabbatarian growing up. No work on Sundays including school work or housework. We didn't play games, watch TV, only read Christian books and spend quite a lot of time in church.
I think the chaining up swings only happened in the Western Isles where the Free Church and similar denominations are dominent. But whether the swings were chained up or not we wouldn't go on them.
I am a lot less observant now though I still try to avoid unnecessary work, shopping etc on Sunday.

Beverley I don't think any Christians would disagree with you as that is a fundamental tenet of the faith but you have to admit that Christians have developed many different ways of worshipping and practising their faith as well as having different theological views. I think that is what people may be interested in.
I am not aiming to convert anyone.

Hi OP

I have a question.

When Kate Forbes was described in the media as an evangelical Christian I found this very strange. To me ( from a culturally presbyterian upbringing in Scotland) evangelical Christianity is very different to dour Scottish Calvinism.

Can you explain this to me?

So my brain couldn’t quite compute the title of this , and I really hope I won’t offend you , but it did give me a small giggle , as I originally assumed , the background was the background you were using for zoom calls , and the “free wee” was a versions of “ wild weeing “ that walkers sometimes do in woods etc .

My mind was all over the place 🤣.

madamsapple
The Free Church and Calvinism is evangelical in theology. Evangelicalism has become associated with a certain style of worship and church organisation but it is not actually the only kind of evangelicalism.
Having said that the Free Church has changed in practice quite a lot in the last about 25 years, at least in a lot of congregations.

Kate Forbes's views which she explained to the media are pretty much mainstream for most Evangelicals whatever denomination they belong to.

Dour Calvinism is something of a trope in Scotland. It is not necessarily what it looks like from inside a church.

the raffarian 😁

Hi OP. Thanks for starting this thread.

I live in the West Coast of Scotland, although I was brought up in London.

My mother was a Presbyterian from the north of Scotland, and I was baptised as a Presbyterian as a baby. (In London).

My family then started to attend a Baptist church and that is where I essentially stayed, and I had a full immersion baptism when I was thirty.

I have also attended a low Anglican church which had a very evangelical, Bible-based feel to it. I have enjoyed and felt accepted by both the Baptist and low Anglican churches I attended. Now I am actually living in the West Coast, I am a member of the Church of Scotland (which is low, of course).

Do you think that a lot of Christians have this kind of hybrid church-going experience? My impression is that many people do.

I also wonder how many people leave a particular church because the minister changes, and the feel of the church does, too.

The shell beachI think it depends on how much you move about. I know lots of people and family who are and have been life long Free kirkers. I also know lots of Anglicans who have never been anything else.

I also know other people who have moved around like you and I have. I think it reflects our more fluid society now.

The minister can affect the feel of the church and so some people will move but that depends on how many options there are - much easier in the cities.

I have a question based on the second Jewish thread: a poster there used the states of water as an analogy for the Trinity (it wasn't you, OP). As a theologian, I find this problematic (specifically, it's a form of modalism, so a very well-known and ancient heresy). However, sadly, it's an analogy I have heard before, and from people who should know better. My question (as someone who actually has to teach this), is have you ever found a way to explain the Trinity to outsiders that actually works? Something that is both doctrinally sound and understandable?

What did you think about the longstanding protests on Lewis about boats sailing on the Sabbath?

DH and I visited Lewis in 2001 and it was like a ghost town on the Sunday - but I liked the degree of religious observance, personally. It felt very reverent.

My impression from non-Catholic friends is that the more evangelical/ low church they are, the more free they are in switching churches. Orthodox/Eastern Christians hardly ever move (I've taught one person switching from Orthodox to Catholic in 15 years teaching converts, versus around 2 - 4 a year coming from Anglican or protestant backgrounds); Catholics rarely move, although they do often lapse. High church Anglicans don't often move unless it's to become Catholic. But there seems to be quite a bit of movement amongst protestant denominations. I think maybe the exception might be pentecostals, they seem to stick to their own church.

Evangelical means that what it says in the bible has supremacy.
Catholic means that the traditions of the church are more important.
Liberal means that reason and modern experience are more important.

I was a member of the Free Church in the Western Isles for years ( not currently not because my theology has changed but there is not a free church near here)

Evangelical in essence means commited to spreading the gospel, it does not really mean a worship style. Calvin was an evangelical so was John Knox and the vast majority of the Puritans

The full statement of historical presbyterianism is found in the Westminister confession of Faith from 1648 there is also a slightly different Baptist version from a similar time

I will write more later on on why we believe that any images of God or Jesus are not allowed ...
our churches are generally simple with little decoration and no religious art at all ( unless church is meeting in a building with them the Free Church in London rents an Anglican church)
When I was growing up ( incidentally as Strict Baptist) Children's bibles ad story books would not have pictures of Jesus or God, they may have pictures of Moses David Peter Mary but not of Jesus even as a baby

fink I agree about the water analogy. As I said I have heard sermons every Trinity Sunday by reluctant preachers for about 30 years. I don't think I was ever more enlightened at the end than at the beginning.
I tend to stick to my Westminster catechism answer from my childhood while still not really understanding, beyond saying what the Trinity is not (three gods, three aspects of God, all mixed together etc.)
I just think that of course I don't really understand the nature of God and shouldn't really expect to.
I am very glad I don't have to teach it though!

The shell beach I sympathised with the ferry protests. I actually think that having a day of rest is good for all human beings which is why it is part of creation.

Cottagecheese yes our Bible stories also had no pictures of Jesus or even more so of God.

I think the word Evangelical has acquired different meanings in popular thinking so that many people associate it with a informal worship style though obviously that is not its original meaning.

I am not sure what the previous poster meant exactly but made that assumption.

@Fink the best analogy I’ve heard is one used with kids at church. It’s very child like, but I prefer it to the water analogy, precisely because of modalism, and while it is a little cheesy/childish, I actually quite like it. It’s definitely not perfect - (and I say that as someone with an MDiv) but then, nothing is - that is the mystery of God - we’re not meant to be able to fully understand Him.

Aquafresh toothpaste - 3 stripes; all equally toothpaste, all equally important. They cannot be separated, and they all co-exist, but they all have distinct roles to play.

Like I said - it’s not perfect, but I prefer it to the water analogy, or the shamrock.

as on the Orthodox Jewish thread regarding resting on the Sabbath, it is good for our mental and physical health, most people who work in say the NHS when you need to work seven days a week in some settings will tell you that 5 consecutive days is fine 6 you are starting to feel exhausted but 7 consecutive days on is a killer. we know 24/7 society and being always in touch with the office is bad for us

In the Western Isles the strict Sundays were a rest as the vast majority of population historically were crofters ( smallholders) or fishing and they spent all week working hard physically and walking everywhere so a Sunday of resting at home and reading and going to church was like a mini holiday and seeing your family as many men would work long hours and maybe not see their kids too much in the week

@CraftyGin sorry I don't understand this statement unless it's meant to be sarcastic: Catholic means that the traditions of the church are more important. More important than what? Which traditions? According to who?

I think the word Evangelical has acquired different meanings in popular thinking so that many people associate it with a informal worship style though obviously that is not its original meaning.
I am not sure what the previous poster meant exactly but made that assumption.

Yes, thank you to everyone who has explained it, thats what I meant.

My own father was the epitome of the dour Scotsman. He was an aetheist but had been brought up by presbyterian parents. He was joyless. He once told me, you are put on this earth to work, not have fun, which seems to me the antithesis of the happy, informal evangelical style Im thinking of, which is why I asked the question. Now I understand better.

The word ‘evangelical’ has become increasingly loaded. It comes from the Greek word ‘evangelion’ literally meaning ‘good news’ or ‘gospel’, so an evangelical church is simply one which is based on the gospel of Jesus. This would generally be understood to be Protestant churches, and not RC, or even high Anglican, which have a heavier emphasis on tradition.

However, within the UK it has become known by some (particularly those in mainline churches), to refer to a more ‘happy-flappy’, less formal, less liturgical style of worship, more than anything else. I’d see Presbyterians for instance as evangelical, and where I am, they are often rather dour!

Within the US, it’s entirely different of course, and evangelical very much relates to church denominations such as the SBC which are known for their very conservative theology, and denominations such as the PCA are referred to as ‘mainline’, not ‘evangelical’

@StraightOuttaContext I can't comment on Catholic tradition, but the Presbyterian view is that Scripture is the only Rule for life ( SOLA SCRIPTURA) and everything else is subordinate the opinion of any commentary, any preacher, pastor elder, any theologian, any denominational leader etc. This would include at a fundamental level that you obey God rather than the Government if there is a conflict, so if a Government tried to ban reading the bible or teaching your children your faith you disobey,

sometimes the way it works is also referred to as the regulative principle, you can not require anything of a Christian that God does not require nor forbid anything that God doesn't forbid
take alcohol, the Bible clearly says you should not ever be drunk so you can require a believer to never be drunk, but because God doesn't require you to be teetotal a church can not require it's members to be teetotal

Sorry, I think I missed a few lines in my explanation! (That’ll teach me to keep typing while DH is trying to explain the ins and outs of his Amazon return to me )

What I meant to say is that the word evangelical has been understood to be about a style of worship, but I would disagree and would see churches such as very traditional Presbyterian churches as evangelical because of what they preach, not because of how they worship.

I should also say that in referencing RC and high-Anglican, I wasn’t saying my own opinion on them - more on what has become the common interpretation of the word evangelical, and those churches’ prioritising of traditions such as liturgy, confession, rote prayers etc, in addition to straight up and down preaching, would for some (not me) mean that they were not seen to be evangelical in nature.

That's a very loaded set of definitions