|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Separatism, smugness and shit-storms
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This is in response to the long-running seperatism thing that has emerged in Ecclesiantics ... discussion about liturgy seque-ing into debates about church/state relations, 'seperation from the world' and so on.
At the same time, we have debates here about phyletism, ghastly white-supremacist views and so on and how some people with those kind of views are attracted to more traditional forms of historic Christianity - such as Orthodoxy (or indeed some out-there forms of Roman Catholicism).
The 17th century divine Richard Baxter, with his famous 'Mere Christianity' stance, castigated the various religious bodies of his day for what he saw as their besetting sins.
So, he mused that the Romans and Greeks (for which read 'Orthodox') could be smug and triumphalist because theirs were the largest Churches numerically and because they both laid claim to being the original and best ...
At the other end of the spectrum, the separatist Anabaptists could be smug, judgemental and holier-than-thou ...
My question, then, is:
- How possible is it to be involved with a large, historical Church without being 'tainted' or compromised by what one might see as dubious emphases or connections - which may not be 'official' but which appear part of the territory ... ?
- How possible is it to be involved with a sect (understood in a sociological sense rather than a perjorative sense necessarily) without becoming 'sectarian', judgemental, puritanical or critical of those who chose a different path?
The latter applies equally, in my view, to Church, church and sect ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I would largely agree with the premise of the query, though I'm not sure the word 'sect' can be used without pejoritive overtones. I would opt for 'non-traditionalist' or 'ecclesiologically liberal' though of course these too have overtones of their own.
My short answer would be to visit one another's churches from time to time. If we speak of what we know by having seen first hand and spoken with those who we may regard more as distant cousins than as brethren, then we will have a clearer idea of who we are, what we believe, what we do and hence to focus not on the differences but on what we share.
There's an anecdote that I've heard Tom Wright use a few times when he was visiting some Eastern Orthodox leaders, whereby the one shared activity they could all take part in was reading the bible. Though different churches place different amounts of emphasis on it, all can agree that is an important part of church life and to which there should be no barriers.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't regard any Trinitarian Christians as 'distant cousins' but as brethren and sister-en, but I can see the point you are making.
I did wonder whether to use the word 'sect' - it's a loaded term - but decided to do so in the end provided we understand it in a sociological way rather than in its perjorative 'almost a cult' type way.
I've known people from the Brethren and Baptists who would be quite comfortable with the term 'sect' if it were understood in the sociological sense.
I am happy, however, for the purposes of this thread to drop the term 'sect' as it may introduce unhelpful perjorative overtones which I do not intend.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We must all be Sir Percy Blakeney to their Citizen Chauvelin.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
That's splendidly put Martin. What the devil do you mean?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
That's splendidly put Martin. What the devil do you mean?
I'm not sure anyone does.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I don't think it's possible for Christians in these kinds of set-ups to avoid these tendencies. The best they can do is be aware of the temptations and try to manage them.
(AFAIK, it's possible for a Christian group to be neither a 'large historical church' nor a 'sect'. But in terms of PR perhaps it's a better strategy to be either one or the other, regardless of the dangers.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, SvitlanaV2, I'm largely in agreement. There's a lot of wriggle-room, it seems to me, between a full-on Erastian approach along Byzantine lines and a completely separatist, sectarian position.
There's a spectrum here ... as in much else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I also think that from a purely pragmatic point of view it's hard for different Christian movements to justify their existence if they can't convince their members (let alone anyone else!) that their distinctive qualities are worth maintaining in a society where there's a degree of competition from other churches and choices.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
That's splendidly put Martin. What the devil do you mean?
I'm not sure anyone does.
We seek it here, we seek it there. We seek Martin's meaning everywhere.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I thought (wrongly) that Martin was alluding to the etymology of 'Chauvinism', but Wikipedia was my friend and now I know a lot more about the plot of 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' than ever I did before. Though I'll leave it to Martin to expand on its relevance!
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Since I seem to have been some of the inspiration of this thread I guess I ought to put in an appearance.
As a general comment I’m not too happy with arguments about ‘smugness’ and such – such assessments tend to be rather relative – relative in the way that Van Gogh was a bourgeois producer of degenerate art if you were Stalin and a left-wing communist producer of degenerate art if you were Adolf Hitler. As I pointed out back in the thread this escaped from, accusations of smug pretty much cancel each other out, as there are also Anglicans who are smug about their position. More important to get it right, whatever attitude you’re taking – even if you end up being smug. For those who haven’t met me Shipboard before, actually I’m ‘aspergic’ and you should be a bit careful how you read my attitude from my writing – I apparently do come over as smug, actually I’m mainly trying hard to get it right and being horribly anxious about being even as public as this….
Separatism, then; Like it or not, the NT teaches separateness. For just one example, take this;
14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." 18 "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." [2 Cor 6:14-18 (NIV)]
I have distant memories that when I was a teenager in Christian youth groups, the first line of this passage was constantly quoted to simply mean “Don’t have a non-Christian girlfriend/boyfriend/marriage-partner”. Now that is wise, where you have choice, but when you read the whole passage it obviously means far more. We really are meant to be separate.
Let me ask – things have gradually changed over the centuries, but think back to the days of the Roman Imperial Church, the medieval Catholic Inquisition, or Henry VIII’s Church of England explicitly founded for the unity of his state (and Lizzie I’s essentially similar approach); or think of the implications of the 1662 ‘Act of Uniformity’ – How can that scripture about separation be meaningful in such a context of state uniformity?
I’ve a lot more to say, but I’ll leave it roughly there for now. Just one more comment; I think that having a ‘state church’ distorts this whole issue. The state church is trying for unity precisely in the wrong context – unity exactly WITH THE WORLD. The very thing we are most supposed to be separate from. And this poses problems for Christians wanting to take Paul seriously….
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
As I pointed out back in the thread this escaped from, accusations of smug pretty much cancel each other out, as there are also Anglicans who are smug about their position.
Anglicans? Smug? A likely story!
Actually, whilst I don't really agree with Steve about the whole disestablishment thang, I wouldn't accuse him, or any other Anabaptist, of being smug. If one thinks that getting the hell out from underneath the state is what the church should be about one is perfectly entitled to criticise those churches who have failed to do that.
As an Anglican I think that the establishment of Anglicanism is the least of our worries. If I were inventing the C of E from scratch I wouldn't establish it but I don't think that disestablishing it is a major priority. Which is one of the reasons I'm not an Anabaptist (along with the total and utter dearth of proper tat!) But I wouldn't say on that account that Anabaptists are any smugger than the rest of Christendom.
On a personal note, you aren't any more smugger or wronger than most people who post here. You have a distinctive voice and, IME, add something constructive to the conversation. This unrepentant Anglican thinks you add something of merit to the Ship despite the fact he often disagrees with you!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
In many, not all groups that take the passage Steve mentions as the way it must be.
There is a sense of we are right & and everyone else wrong. I know cause I have been there and recovered. Also on reflection
such come apart and be seperate ideas is isolating . My last 20 years of Christianity say that we have to be inclusive, accepting . Not I am just so right. I have been that pompous clot and i now regret that period of my life.
So come let us be together.
Easter blessings ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
My last 20 years of Christianity say that we have to be inclusive, accepting.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in England we've got the CofE for that! Very handy it is too, but it doesn't seem to cover all eventualities. Scholars like Steve Bruce would argue that the gaps are about class and culture as much as (if not more than) theology.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way."
You start by acknowledging that you have much to learn and by honoring the true spirituality of others. You do that by visiting others, listening with open heart and open mind and acknowledge that each has different gifts to offer to God. Only then can any dialogue take place.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
That's splendidly put Martin. What the devil do you mean?
This might help. Apparently it's a reference to the Scarlet Pimpernel.
I'll have to read the wikipedia page a bit more to figure out how it relates. Far as I can tell, it's a complicated antagonism confused by conflicting motives.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Separatism, then; Like it or not, the NT teaches separateness.
I've been following the development of the thread in Ecclesiantics, and I think one reason that it has ended up becoming a bit heated and with talk of 'smugness' going around is statements like this. You - or your church or congregation - may believe that the NT teaches 'separateness'. However, this is very far from obvious and I've no doubt that many Christians will, in all good faith, happen to disagree with your interpretation (as I do, incidentally).
I suspect if you gave more of an impression that you accepted other Christians may sincerely differ from your beliefs instead of simply making bald statements that you think everyone 'must' agree with, the discussion would be more productive!
Just an observation more than anything else.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To second some of what has already been said - no, I don't believe that Steve Langton is 'smug' nor that Anabaptists per se are any 'smugger' than any other type of Christian.
Steve has told us something about himself, I'd like to explain something about my own posting style - and I am aware that it can irritate people. I tend to push out an extreme position in order to get a reaction/stimulate debate and then pull back to a moderate one as the thread unfolds. Well, usually anyway ...
So I was being deliberately provocative over there in Ecclesiantics.
The context of my remarks, though, was a reference to Richard Baxter's comments about the various Christian confessions of his time - how the RCs and the 'Greeks' were triumphalist and thought they had a monopoly on the truth, how the Anglicans and Presbyterians and Independents were guilty of other besetting sins and how the Anabaptists could be holier-than-thou and rather smug in their attitudes towards everyone else.
One could argue that this is the opposite to damning with faint praise as at least he wasn't accusing the Anabaptists of slaughtering people and so on ...
So, no, I don't think that Steve Langton is smug as a person nor do I think that his position is particularly smug - but it is a position that brings a certain set of issues and problems with it. As indeed does a state-church position or a Catholic position or any other position.
I agree with SvitlanaV2, that it behoves all of us, whatever tradition or style of church we're involved with, to be aware of the inherent strengths and weaknesses that come with that particular territory.
Of course, to nail our colours to any particular mast is to define ourselves over against someone else.
'I am Orthodox,' carries with it the corollary that other people might be orthodox (small o), heterodox or heretics.
That's inevitable.
The issue there, then, it seems to me, is how to be Orthodox and yet generous towards others you might consider to be less so.
With the Anabaptist thing, I think the real issue isn't so much smugness and self-righteousness, but the degree of 'separation'.
Steve Langton often refers to the need to be separate from 'the world' - but how do we achieve this? By sitting on top of a pole? By hiding ourselves away in a monastery or some kind of close-knit community or sect hoping to maintain our purity?
Sure, we are to be 'in' the world but not of it. How that works out in each of our individual cases is going to differ, I submit. Steve Langton doesn't separate himself from his model train club, I notice - and I'd suggest he is right not to. There's no harm in it. But if he were to take his argument further then he might be tempted to - because not all the members of the model railway club are going to be Christian or moral or ...
Ok - that's a silly example, but you can see what I'm getting at.
My own view is that most churches these days - whether they be 'state' or 'official' or 'established' churches or independent ones are intentional - if people are still involved with them then it suggests some degree of intentionality. I also believe that as Christendom continues to dissolve then most, if not all, churches (and Churches) will find themselves adopting a more 'gathered' or 'sectarian' model in order to survive. I don't see any way around that.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they will have to become 'separate' in a negative, puritanical or whacky kind of way. But I suspect we will all find it increasingly difficult where to draw the line on some issues.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So I was being deliberately provocative over there in Ecclesiantics.
Duly noted. Be advised that your chosen posting style does not absolve you of responsibility for what you post.
And while I'm at it, please also note that Purgatory exists to debate issues, not to pursue personal attacks, which belong in Hell, and nowhere else.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough, although I wasn't aware that I was pursuing a personal attack on anyone in this instance - although I have certainly been guilty of that in the past ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
If it helps, I will re-iterate that I don't believe that Steve Langton is smug, nor that his position is one of smugness.
But I take the point you are making and acknowledge that I can easily cross the line and have done so in the past. I will post more carefully and abide by the rules for Purgatory.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EloiseA
Shipmate
# 18029
|
Posted
'We must all be Sir Percy Blakeney to their Citizen Chauvelin.'
I think Martin was talking about Baroness Orczy's historical novel The Scarlet Pimpernel in which the English baronet Sir Percy Blakeney rescues doomed aristocrats during the French Revolution and outwits the French envoy to England Citizen Chauvelin.
"We seek him here, we seek him there,
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven?—Is he in hell?
That demmed, elusive Pimpernel."
--------------------
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you odd.” Flannery O'Connnor
Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
EloiseA
Shipmate
# 18029
|
Posted
Sorry, missed Bullfrog's post. I was wondering if Martin meant that we should be as elusive and mysterious as the Pimpernel and escape Citizen Chuavelin's clutches in that way.
--------------------
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you odd.” Flannery O'Connnor
Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by ;
quote:
You - or your church or congregation - may believe that the NT teaches 'separateness'. However, this is very far from obvious and I've no doubt that many Christians will, in all good faith, happen to disagree with your interpretation (as I do, incidentally).
I'm not sure it gets much more obvious than the passage I quoted from Paul - "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord". However, what kind of separateness is taught there is a different matter, and that is what I hope this thread will end up discussing. I'm absolutely not in favour of the endless separation after separation that arises from some approaches to purity in the church.
Some here may recall the damaging situation which arose for evangelicals when, in the late 1960s, the late Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a leading evangelical, called on evangelicals to come out of the theologically 'liberal' denominations, particularly of course the Anglicans. I have consistently thought that this was a misconceived call precisely because it was based on the purity issue. On the one hand, such an approach did tend towards endless separation seeking increasing purity; and on the other hand, as Lloyd-Jones himself recognised, the likelihood was that after only a few generations the new 'pure' church was likely to become itself impure and compromised.
As I see it, it would have been far better to make 'establishment' and the other forms of 'Christian country' the point of separation. It is a clear issue, for starters; either you are seeking a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus (whether in the technically quite extreme form of Anglican establishment or the less technically extreme but often more extremist form seen in among other places NI); or you are accepting that in this era the only Christian nation is the church itself, which is international and shouldn't be linked with individual nations/empires,and also accepting that that international church neither needs nor seeks the use of state power or a position of privilege in the state.
Separation from 'the World' in the form of worldly states is a serious game-changer. A truly voluntary church with membership not offering advantage in the state is more likely to remain relatively 'pure' because people have positively chosen to belong rather than simply taking their 'Christian' status for granted as part of belonging to a 'Christian country'. And churches which become 'impure' in ways that matter will much more likely naturally decline and are not artificially supported by the worldly considerations which affect state churches.
There will always be those who seek excessive purity - they will in general ipso facto cut themselves off and diminish. But a balanced kind of separation based around being distinct from the state will not necessarily lead to such excess. While, as I pointed out, it's not easy to achieve the balance when you are having to be distinct not only from the obvious unbelievers but also from misguided Christians who insist on being entangled with the state.
And I repeat - how do you meaningfully interpret Paul's call for separation in the context of a church whose basic principle is to NOT be separate from its surrounding society but be deeply embedded therein right up to the level of the head of state?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry, slipped up on crediting the initial quote to dj_ordinaire.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Steve Langton often refers to the need to be separate from 'the world' - but how do we achieve this? By sitting on top of a pole? By hiding ourselves away in a monastery or some kind of close-knit community or sect hoping to maintain our purity?
Actually I'm not sure I do refer all that much to the separation from the world. But from the world in the very obvious form of the state, YES. No, you don't achieve the separation by pole-squatting or monasticism, or by the kind of sect that basically hides from the world. But nor will you achieve the separation by actively seeking or perpetuating a privileged position in the state!!
And it should be noted that modern Anabaptism doesn't necessarily reject some involvement in the state and its politics, on the understanding that the involvement is on a level with others of other beliefs, not from a legally privileged position; and on the understanding that we defend the rights of others to differ from us.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
leo; and Jesus came into the world to establish a kingdom or kingdoms 'of this world' for himself? 'Separatism' isn't my thing either. More a case of trying to put asunder a metaphorical 'marriage' that the NT teaching clearly never intended - the union of church and state - with an aim of restoring a proper union of the international church as the ONLY Christian nation the world has or needs. I'm actually the ecumenical guy here....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
As an Anglican I think that the establishment of Anglicanism is the least of our worries. If I were inventing the C of E from scratch I wouldn't establish it but I don't think that disestablishing it is a major priority.
I find it curious when Anglicans say this. Surely disestablishment could have quite a significant impact on the CofE, either for good or ill, and therefore represents a topic of more than marginal interest?
It could lead to the breakup of the Church, with the different forms of churchmanship having no compelling reason to continue living together; to a new vigour born of liberation from the state; to declining media interest in what (arch)bishops have to say; to the potential winding down of the Anglican Communion; to a greater likelihood of union with the Methodists or the URC; to other religious groups jostling for the role of the nation's moral voice; to a reconsideration of the monarch's role as Supreme Governor; to a national willingness to reconsider the role and existence of the monarchy here; to a period of deep reflection among Anglicans as to their role, and indeed, reflection among the nation that looks on while its history and identity change forever....
Or, as some here claim, it might have absolutely no impact on anything apart from having taken up a lot of time that might have been devoted to something far more important. (What would that be?). In a way, though, the very claim that disestablishment is irrelevant itself comes across as somewhat smug. It's almost as if the CofE is so certain of its God-given role in society that the grubby machinations of politicians in dark rooms are of utterly no consequence. Strange!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Seems to me that the church/state thing comes into sharp focus when the state goes to war. Do churches pray for victory or for peace ? Given that all shades of opinion between hawk and dove may be present in the congregation, do the churches try to be equally welcoming to all ? Take sides on the political question or ignore it ?
Anyone know what the Russian Orthodox are saying about current troubles in Ukraine, for example ? Authentic Christian witness ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
By PaulBC
“Also on reflection such come apart and be separate ideas are isolating . My last 20 years of Christianity say that we have to be inclusive, accepting . Not I am just so right. I have been that pompous clot and I now regret that period of my life.
So come let us be together.
Can I start here by making a general point – and come back to the thread issues in a bit….
Take ‘loyalty’; many people talk about loyalty as if it were an absolute virtue. To this I tend to respond on the lines of “Hmmm! So it’s an absolute virtue to be loyal to, say, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, or that Pol Pot guy in Cambodia?” Just asking that question shows, I think, that treating loyalty as an absolute virtue is at least ambivalent….
From there we could go in two basic directions. In one we could say that anything that AH, JS, and PP would accept as ‘loyalty’ would lead you into all kinds of immoral activity and therefore ‘loyalty’ is clearly not an absolute virtue. In the other direction we might say that ‘true loyalty’ would express itself not merely by being an arse-licking yes-man, but rather by seeking the best for the object of your loyalty – and therefore loyally standing up against AH, JS, and PP and telling them when you think they are wrong!!
I’m not sure that quite makes loyalty an ‘absolute’ virtue; it is still a secondary virtue depending on a deeper moral code; but it at least enables a case that you should and can always be ‘loyal’.
The catch, of course, is that if you were ‘loyal’ in that second sense, and stood up to the dictator you were loyal to – well, they almost certainly wouldn’t consider you loyal at all, and you’d most likely end up in a concentration camp, the Gulag Archipelago, or the ‘killing fields’ … and probably dead sooner rather than later….
My point being that in this argument about ‘separatism’ etc., a lot of words and slogans get used in that kind of way – that is, treated as moral absolutes when actually they are relative and a full understanding needs questions like ‘loyalty to whom?’
“coming apart and being separate” is rather in that category; it’s not a virtue or absolute, but depends on what you are separating from, and why, and what is the goal of the separation, that is, what are you separating positively to or for.
“Inclusive, accepting” is rather the same; can you really be ‘inclusive and accepting’ of everything? I mean, a church might have wanted to be inclusive and accepting towards ‘Moors Murderer’ Myra Hindley – but there’d be an obvious problem in her inclusion while still obviously unrepentant!! “Inclusiveness” is not an absolute either.
I’m not suggesting ‘separatism’ as an absolute. If I was I’d be in the ‘Exclusive Brethren’ or similar and probably nowhere near the Ship. The UK Anabaptist Network is a pretty broad body – we’re probably mostly Baptists/Independents, but our local group is certainly far wider, and the Mennonite couple who’ve just gone back to their native Canada were here while the husband studied for a Master’s degree – very isolated. What I’ve been advocating is one major bit of separation – and even there a major part of my motivation is that actually I regard the ‘Christian country’ business as being divisive rather than uniting as its propaganda suggests, and I believe that separation from the state will if anything be beneficial to Christian unity.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As ever, I can see both sides with this one ...
On Disestablishment, I can only speak from the Welsh experience but the Disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Wales hasn't - to my mind - had any observable effect whatsoever. It makes no difference whatsoever to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness (however we measure those things) to the Church in Wales or its standing - or lack of standing - among ordinary Welsh people.
Disestablishment within England would, I believe, have wider and more far-reaching consequences.
Whatever those might be, for good, ill or indifference, I don't see it happening any time soon and certainly not within the reign of the current monarch.
To all practical intents and purposes on the ground, I don't see how our local Anglican parishes are any more or any less 'voluntarist' than the various non-conformist bodies hereabouts. The only difference in voluntarist terms would be that they have more of a 'hinterland' by-and-large and also more people who simply turn up at Christmas or Easter.
Whether Steve Langton or anyone else would consider some of the regulars at both parishes to be 'born again' (using his definition) is a case in point - I suspect he would consider most of them to be in the one parish and remain dubious about some in t'other ...
I don't think the sky would fall in if the CofE were to become Disestablished tomorrow but neither do I think - in the current circumstances - it would achieve a great deal either.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
All that said, I certainly believe there is a case to answer in the case of the Russian Orthodox with the Ukraine (as well as the Ukrainian Catholics and others) and with the various ethno/nationalistic shenanigans that have a tendency to bedevil the Orthodox as a whole.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I can understand concerns about the CofE apparently having a monopoly on certain things - or appearing to want one - and certainly take seriously the claims and anecdotes of Baptist and other Free Church ministers/leaders on these Boards about sniffiness and dismissiveness that they have encountered from time to time from Anglican clergy and others.
I've also met a handful - and thankfully not very many - Anglicans who have been rather suspicious of Free Church people in general.
What I don't detect within Anglicanism per se is a kind of ethnocentric, nationalistic approach - although I daresay this may exist in certain rural areas with retired Colonels and so on.
Sure, there are still divisions along the lines of social-class and so on ... and one could argue that Establishment feeds into that - but using the Welsh example again, I don't see how Disestablishment has made a great deal of difference on that score either.
Anecdotally, I've heard that Anglican churches in Welsh-speaking rural areas are appealing to Welsh speakers who would have gravitated to one or other of the non-conformist churches at one time. This is largely because the bottom has fallen out of these rather more quickly than it has from Anglicanism in those areas.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find it curious when Anglicans say this. Surely disestablishment could have quite a significant impact on the CofE, either for good or ill, and therefore represents a topic of more than marginal interest?
It could lead to the breakup of the Church, with the different forms of churchmanship having no compelling reason to continue living together;
I think they currently live together because they all regard it as 'their' church. I think people come to Anglicanism for a variety of reasons but I've rarely met anyone who says its established status is part of the appeal. (There are a few ultra-High Anglicans who occasionally use our status as the 'national church' as a justification for not going to Rome but this has always struck me as slightly post hoc.)
quote:
to a new vigour born of liberation from the state;
Possibly in the case of the appointment of bishops (I'm not sure what the current process is). Although the appointment of bishops is a murky process regardless of state involvement.
quote:
to declining media interest in what (arch)bishops have to say;
I think the media reports their pontifications because they supposedly represent the largest Christian body in this country, rather than because of establishment - just as the Archbishops of Paris or Prague will get coverage even though their Church has no official status in their respective countries.
quote:
to the potential winding down of the Anglican Communion;
Can't see this happening. Establishment is irrelevant to everyone outside England.
quote:
to a greater likelihood of union with the Methodists or the URC;
AIUI the objection to such union has always been about bishops and apostolic succession.
quote:
to other religious groups jostling for the role of the nation's moral voice;
I've never noticed that other religious groups are currently reticent about their opinions on topical moral issues.
quote:
to a reconsideration of the monarch's role as Supreme Governor; to a national willingness to reconsider the role and existence of the monarchy here;
I would have thought that disestablishment would by definition mean abolishing the Queen's role as Supreme Governor.
quote:
to a period of deep reflection among Anglicans as to their role, and indeed, reflection among the nation that looks on while its history and identity change forever....
Anglicans have never needed an excuse for navel-gazing!
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that the church/state thing comes into sharp focus when the state goes to war. Do churches pray for victory or for peace ? Given that all shades of opinion between hawk and dove may be present in the congregation, do the churches try to be equally welcoming to all ? Take sides on the political question or ignore it ?
Jaroslav Hašek's The Good Soldier Švejk (which everyone should read by the way), set in the First World War, has some very caustic comments about Austrian priests exhorting the troops to slaughter enemy soldiers who were themselves being exhorted to slaughter the Austrians by their own priests. Given that Austro-Hungarian troops saw action against (inter alia) the Italians, both sets of priests must have been Catholic - it's hard to see how the Catholic Church as an institution could have reconciled this ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I ... take seriously the claims and anecdotes of Baptist and other Free Church ministers/leaders on these Boards about sniffiness and dismissiveness that they have encountered from time to time from Anglican clergy and others.
I've also met a handful - and thankfully not very many - Anglicans who have been rather suspicious of Free Church people in general.
I think this is getting less common than it used to be. In any case, the issues involved are not about Establishment but (usually) about Apostolic Succession, the need for a "proper" Episcopacy and the validity of Ordination and Sacraments.
Social class, "enthusiasm" vs. "order", and theology have been known to sometimes have a toe in there somewhere, too!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, although with some of the Anglicans I can think of in the sniffy category, they wouldn't have had a clue about Apostolic Succession or any other succession - they would have essentially have thought of the CofE as the automatic, default option with the alternatives being questionable in some vague and ill-defined way ... probably more to do with the points you raise about 'order' and decorum and 'enthusiasm' as much as anything else ...
One of the chaps I'm thinking of would have only attended church about once or twice a year and have considered Roman Catholicism rather exotic, somewhat 'foreign' and suspect and thought of Free Church people either as religious fanatics at worst or slightly disreputable at best ...
But I do agree, Baptist Trainfan, that this kind of attitude is less apparent than it was.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
So if we look at the Welsh we'll see that disestablishment was ... a good idea? A bad idea? A complete waste of everyone's time?
I'm not sure what the point is, nor what the English should be learning from the experience.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What you'd see would depend on your perspective, of course, SvitlanaV2.
Someone who was a big stickler for Establishment might think it was bad. Someone who was anti-Establishment (in an anti-antidisestablishmentarianism way) would think otherwise.
My own take is that it hasn't made a blind bit of difference to Wales or the Welsh whatsoever.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My point is that Anglican Disestablishment in England would certainly cause more ripples than it ever did in Wales (or possibly Ireland too, for that matter) but it wouldn't be the kind of panacea against all ills that some seem to suggest that it would be.
There are times when I think there might even be aggregate losses if such a thing came about.
But on balance, I think that Anglican Disestablishment would be a what you gain on the roundabouts you lose on the swings thing - with the benefits and detriments effectively cancelling one another out.
I certainly don't think it would - in and of itself - 'improve' the prospects for church unity nor the quality of Christian witness within the nation.
I'm not suggesting that it would harm these things either.
It's all a bit hypothetical because I don't see Disestablishment happening any time soon.
Nor do I see it making that much difference on a week by week, day by day level to the life of individual Anglican parishes. There are those who would argue that the CofE is effectively 'congregational' these days in all but name ...
I'll leave that for others to debate.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by gamaliel;
quote:
My point is that Anglican Disestablishment in England would certainly cause more ripples than it ever did in Wales (or possibly Ireland too, for that matter) but it wouldn't be the kind of panacea against all ills that some seem to suggest that it would be.
Clearly disestablishment in England would make a bigger difference than in Wales. Personally I'm looking for far more than that, because to me the 'establishment' is only part of the problem. 'Panacea against all ills' - if only! But it would hopefully bring a greater clarity to what is going on in all kinds of areas.
again by Gamaliel;
quote:
It's all a bit hypothetical because I don't see Disestablishment happening any time soon.
I thought that myself till recently; I was thinking in terms of 'not this side of the death of the Queen'. My concern has been for the ideas to be out there so everybody's ready! But if there keep being the kind of public discussions there have been recently, including the 'women bishops' and SSM issues, I can see disestablishment being precipitated possibly quite suddenly.
and again;
quote:
Nor do I see it making that much difference on a week by week, day by day level to the life of individual Anglican parishes. There are those who would argue that the CofE is effectively 'congregational' these days in all but name ...
So why is the establishment needed? Because it definitely affects a lot of things outside the parishes, some international....
and again;
quote:
What I don't detect within Anglicanism per se is a kind of ethnocentric, nationalistic approach - although I daresay this may exist in certain rural areas with retired Colonels and so on.
Given how few Anglicans seem to believe in the establishment these days, I don't detect all that much of it. But the aspect that worries me is not "certain rural areas with retired Colonels and so on". What worries me is lots of right-wing types, often young and extremely nationalist, for whom England as a Christian country is part of their muddled perception fuelling their racism and anti-Islamic feeling; the establishment is probably more important to them than it is to most Anglicans. And of course you won't know many such; it's more of an urban phenomenon and your parts are probably not quite urban enough....
and again...
quote:
I certainly don't think it would - in and of itself - 'improve' the prospects for church unity nor the quality of Christian witness within the nation.
Depends what you mean by church unity; And also what you mean by quality of Christian witness.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What worries me is lots of right-wing types, often young and extremely nationalist, for whom England as a Christian country is part of their muddled perception fuelling their racism and anti-Islamic feeling; the establishment is probably more important to them than it is to most Anglicans.
You think that this kind of person will have his anti-Islam feeling dispelled by the disestablishment of the Church of England?
Because I don't buy that. I'd think it more likely that that kind of person would view disestablishment as a kowtow towards all those multi-culti-lefty-foreigners, and would rile them up more.
Either way, I think making a decision about the Establishment based on the behaviour of the kind of person that joins the EDL would be silly.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Really not sure that the young EDL types have darkened any church door recently or for some time - unless it was for a funeral. They are not very churched in my experience, or interested in religion.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by curiosity killed;
quote:
Really not sure that the young EDL types have darkened any church door recently or for some time - unless it was for a funeral. They are not very churched in my experience, or interested in religion.
Probably not the teens and twenty-somethings much, but the rhetoric is definitely out there in such circles - I meant 'young' compared to the stereotype retired colonel Gamaliel referred to. People don't have to be 'churched' to have a very harmful attitude in such matters. It just needs the church to be in that position.
by Leorning Cniht;
quote:
You think that this kind of person will have his anti-Islam feeling dispelled by the disestablishment of the Church of England?
Because I don't buy that. I'd think it more likely that that kind of person would view disestablishment as a kowtow towards all those multi-culti-lefty-foreigners, and would rile them up more.
Either way, I think making a decision about the Establishment based on the behaviour of the kind of person that joins the EDL would be silly.
I just made a statement about where that kind of ethnocentrism and nationalism along with references to the 'Christian country' is nowadays often found in my experience. No, such people will not be influenced much by a political disestablishment, and likely would consider it just lefty stuff; that is why the disestablishment (and the wider removal of Christian privilege) would need to come from within the church - from a body that finally realises that it is the international Body of Christ, not a parochial English affair.
You don't make changes like disestablishment because of the likes of the EDL - you make them because you perceive they are the will of God for the Church. Of course the dubious perceptions of people like the EDL might be part of the evidence for the dubiousness of the establishment....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm with you on some of this, Steve Langton but you clearly haven't understood the Anglican Communion.
The Anglican Communion is a world-wide partnership of churches if you like - or confederation or whatever we might wish to call it. The Church of England is part of the worldwide Anglican communion.
Sure, you know that, but why this insistence that Anglicans in England think of themselves as a 'parochial English affair'?
That's not the case.
One might as well suggest that your Baptist church is parochial and sectarian - rather than - as you see it - part of the international family of all the redeemed ...
Sure, there are issues with Establishment. No-one is suggesting that there isn't.
'This Church of England by Law established' carries a lot of baggage. Some of it unhelpful.
I don't doubt your ecumenism and 'catholic' tendencies - in broad terms - but it could just as easily be argued that you are the one who is exclusive and narrow with your insistence on a particular understanding of what it means to be 'born again' and so on.
This nasty, restrictive national Church that you keep railing on about is probably a heck of a lot more broad and inclusive - some would say too broad and inclusive - than you are.
As other posters have said, you seem to have this view that your particular take on various NT passages are self-evidently pointing towards your particular interpretation. They don't. If they did then everyone would understand them the say way you do. As it is, some people understand them differently.
I know you might find that remarkable and hard to grasp, difficult to believe, but that is the case - whether we like it or not.
You seem to have this view that if the Anabaptists stick at it long enough then everyone will eventually come round to a similar or identical viewpoint.
For my own part, I think it's inevitable that more 'intentional' forms of 'gathered' communities will emerge - and are already - from the remains of Christendom - and that some of the values and practices would overlap or correspond to what Anabaptists have been about for several centuries now.
But I'd equally suggest that there are number of other factors - beyond church/state links etc - that would affect the outcome ... how we deal with the sacraments, notions of priesthood and ministry, Christian initiation etc etc etc.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Furthermore, and sorry to double-post - whilst it is leafy and semi-rural here, anyone who imagines that racism and xenophobia doesn't exist here is deluding themselves. I've come across far more examples of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-anyone else sentiment since I moved here than I ever did living in a large multicultural city in the North of England.
My kids were still quite young when we moved here but they were old enough to be taken aback by some of the attitudes they encountered.
I'm reluctant to give details online but in her work as a primary school teacher my wife has had to deal with all manner of racist attitudes from parents - many of them Christian parents. She once organised a class visit to a mosque and you would not believe the reaction she got from some of the parents.
Some of them were Anglicans but the majority of those who boycotted the trip and gave her a hard time were people from a large, independent charismatic evangelical church in a town I won't name.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Of course, not everyone who is involved with large, independent charismatic evangelical churches are racist and xenophobic - any more than all Anglicans are cuddly and inclusive.
But you take my point ...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Sure, you know that, but why this insistence that Anglicans in England think of themselves as a 'parochial English affair'?
A church that truly saw itself as the international body of Christ wouldn't want to be 'established' or even privileged in one particular country. They would understand that such a position was in conflict with the biblical teaching about both the Christian message and the body that is supposed to result from faith in that message.
also by Gamaliel;
quote:
you seem to have this view that your particular take on various NT passages are self-evidently pointing towards your particular interpretation. They don't. If they did then everyone would understand them the say way you do. As it is, some people understand them differently.
OK, please expound the different interpretation. You may find it harder than you think....
also by Gamaliel;
quote:
But I'd equally suggest that there are number of other factors - beyond church/state links etc - that would affect the outcome ... how we deal with the sacraments, notions of priesthood and ministry, Christian initiation etc etc etc.
For the time being, I'll quite happily settle for losing the state/church link; then we can get on with discussing the other stuff.
quote:
but it could just as easily be argued that you are the one who is exclusive and narrow with your insistence on a particular understanding of what it means to be 'born again' and so on
I'm not sure I've actually specified a very particular understanding of being 'born again' -just the rather obvious, surely, that it has to do with personal faith rather than something that just happens by being born, say, English. As far as I can see the only major alternative in principle is the supposition of 'baptismal regeneration' of infants - which I submit hardly fits the biblical implications of the new birth.
quote:
This nasty, restrictive national Church that you keep railing on about is probably a heck of a lot more broad and inclusive - some would say too broad and inclusive - than you are.
That is one of the ironies of the situation. Essentially there are two options for being a national church; one is to stringently enforce your beliefs on everybody, Inquisition-style - the other is to include everybody (or try to) by being 'broad and inclusive', but ipso facto compromise the beliefs. Anglicanism started with the former bad position and has ended up in the latter position, also bad but in different ways! The separation of church and state principle avoids the persecutory conformity, and also need not compromise. by the way, see my earlier post (4th May 16;43) on using concepts like 'inclusive' as if they were moral absolutes.
again...
quote:
Some of them were Anglicans but the majority of those who boycotted the trip and gave her a hard time were people from a large, independent charismatic evangelical church in a town I won't name.
Oddly, even large independent charismatic evangelical churches can be committed to the 'Christian country' principle, as we've seen and commented on in the NI situation as well. Cromwell was an 'independent' but very much a 'Christian country' person.
And how much of the opposition, in such a case, a visit to a mosque, will have been truly racist rather than religious? It isn't always easy to tell when a religion is very much associated with one ethnic group - look at some of the difficulties there may be in discussing Judaism without appearing 'anti-Semitic' in a racial sense. But I'll say clearly that insofar as this opposition was racist, it was wrong.
Consistent Anabaptist views would obviously not be racist - but I concede not all are consistent.
I took your reference to retired colonels as cue for a bit of teasing; but also the serious point that the 'Christian country' ethos, of which' like it or not, the CofE is a major part, is a significant contribution to right-wing racism and serious Christianity should oppose such attitudes - and that opposition is somewhat handicapped by the implications of being a national established church. Indeed non-Anglican opposition to such attitudes is handicapped by there being a national church which just by existing gives implicit support to that kind of racism....
And again, the NT itself tells us to 'come out and be separate' - which seems more than a bit of a contrast to 'being established and if anything discriminate against the pagans'. Again anyone who thinks they have a better interpretation of the passage is welcome to expound it; shouting at me without such exposition isn't very helpful - if I'm wrong I'd like to know....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I could easily exposit the passages in John 3 and come up with a different conclusion. I won't because my soteriology isn't a million miles from yours. But it can be done. The RCs and Orthodox have been doing it for centuries. That doesn't necessarily make it 'right' of course, but it does mean that there isn't one single, immediately obvious plain-meaning interpretation.
That's the point I was making and I happened to pick this as just one example.
As I keep saying, I have a lot of sympathy with your views on Establishment and so on and the ironies and inconsistencies that this throws up - and you've highlighted them.
I'm sure I could come up with some others too.
So could other people on these Boards.
I also agree that there are unfortunate links between nationalism and ecclesiology in some quarters - less so in the CofE, I would argue, than in some historic Churches I could name.
I don't see how the very existence of Establishment in its current form in England justifies or condones racism or xenophobia in any way, shape or form.
And yes, lots of independent congregations have a 'Christian country' mentality that can, at times, be linked to chauvinist or even racist views. You see this in the US particularly, I think.
So, Disestablishment in and of itself is hardly a barrier to extreme nationalist or chauvinistic views - although one could certainly argue - as you do - that individuals and groups who espouse these things may do so because they've inherited a particular mindset from Christendom ...
I'm no fan of Establishment and I'm in an awkward position by apparently having to defend it. I'm only doing so because of the particular stance you're taking - if that makes sense.
Which makes me an awkward and bolshy so-and-so ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I apologise if my tone became a bit 'shouty', Steve. That wasn't my intention, although I had become slightly exasperated.
The fact is, though, for all the laudable things that are said along the way, I find some of the Anabaptist material I've read to be pallid, joyless and pernickety in the extreme.
I'm sure he's a decent bloke but I've read Stuart Murray Williams's books on Post-Christendom and how churches should look Post-Christendom etc etc and I came away feeling short-charged. I came away with the impression that these guys were distinguished more by what they were 'against' than what they were 'for'.
There was no joy or colour in it. All it was pernickety bloody carpings about flags and uniforms and whether to allow boyscouts and girl guides and so on because the uniforms had 'militaristic' overtones ...
Ok, I'm exaggerating to make a point but that's where this stuff ends up - the Anabaptist equivalent of arguing about how many angels can fit on the point of a pin.
Back in the 17th century some Baptists tied themselves in knots arguing about how many buttons or how much lace it was permissible to have on the bodice of ministers' wives.
Of course, the same kind of cheese-paring pernicketiness can be found in other traditions ... such as some of the gruesome Orthodox spats over which fingers to cross oneself with and so on and so forth ...
That's the context to my reactions here. The principle all sounds wonderful, but in practice ...
The other thing I'd say is that not everyone is coming at the expository aspects from the same direction as you are either. Which is why you're not going to get very far with what you take to be a Sola Scriptura approach when not everyone takes such an approach and when even those that do aren't agreed on what it should look like.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve Langton, a few points.
Firstly, you must surely know that most Anglicans, like RCs and Orthodox, do not rely on the Bible alone. Tradition is important here too. I am happy to follow in the Tradition of my church regarding things like baptismal regeneration. You are clearly not a fan of Tradition, that's fine - just don't tell others that they can't follow Christ when clearly they do, just differently. 'You don't interpret the Bible in the exact way I do, therefore you are not following Christ' is very rude and just not true.
Secondly, the biggest obstacle to the disestablishment of the CoE is the government, not the church. Do you really think Parliament can be bothered to spend time and money on an issue very few people care about when they could be spending it on vote-winners? I don't think the CoE hierarchy is particularly for disestablishment, but getting it past Parliament would be the real hurdle.
Lastly, even if I agreed with you that establishment is worth leaving a church for, where could I go? Someone like me who honours Our Lady and the saints, but is also for female clergy and partnered LGBTQ clergy, doesn't really have a spiritual home in England outside of the Anglican church. For me, those issues are far, far more pressing than establishment or disestablishment. Where would you suggest I go??
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
