Ship of Fools: Was Slavery the last time the Church led on a moral issue?

Thread: Was Slavery the last time the Church led on a moral issue? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027409

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Over the weekend I was at a conference where one of the speakers was talking about Climate Change, and urging Christians to get involved in this issue. "If the Church doesn't take a lead on this, then who will?" he asked. My answer was not the one he wanted (I kept it to myself) - the Church isn't leading on Climate Change, and that isn't affecting the debate at all.

My thoughts went on to other big issues where public thinking has changed massively - equal rights for women, for gays, for animals, caring for the environment - and it seems to me that Christians have come late to all those discussions. (However, they have then often claimed that Christianity was always all in favour of issue X, by a careful rewriting of history!) The only big moral issue I could think of where we did take a lead was the abolition of slavery, and that's a while ago now.

If I'm right I find that rather depressing. So are there other issues which I've missed, where the Church has led, rather than followed, public opinion?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Some churches (think the Reverend Martin Luther King, for example) certainly lead the civil rights movement in this country. On the other hand, some churches violently opposed it too.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Well, I think you could argue for (some parts of) the Christian church as having a big role to play in equal rights for women, since so many of the early suffragists came to it by way of the temperance movement, which was rooted in the churches. However, there were also many sermons preached against the idea of women having the vote, so at best you'd have to say it was a mixed result in terms of Church support for that particular issue.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

But what has influenced public opinion?

Perhaps the Church, but in a rather more subtle and less overt way?

And perhaps it's not so much the Church that has been slow on the uptake, but the leadership of the Church?

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

Karol Wojtyla took on the Soviet Union and Communist oppression in Poland. And yes, in part there had been cooperation with the church before, but still, he was a big leader against it. Christians in China have taken on the treatment of baby girls and disabled and sparked something of a change in those areas. The church in Sweden was very quick to protect refugees and immigrants in the 90s, which is now turning to be a big thing. For that matter, we have still to see a change in the treatment of the poor, homeless, addicts and other groups that the church is often a leading actor in helping.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Some churches (think the Reverend Martin Luther King, for example) certainly lead the civil rights movement in this country. On the other hand, some churches violently opposed it too.

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Well, I think you could argue for (some parts of) the Christian church as having a big role to play in equal rights for women, since so many of the early suffragists came to it by way of the temperance movement, which was rooted in the churches. However, there were also many sermons preached against the idea of women having the vote, so at best you'd have to say it was a mixed result in terms of Church support for that particular issue.

This seems to be a common bit of historical revisionism regarding mainstream churches and most social issues. The clergy who signed the open letter now known as "A Call for Unity" (in response to which Rev. King wrote his much more famous "Letter From Birmingham Jail") certainly represented larger and more respected religious organizations than Rev. King did at the time. In short, the basic tactic seems to be to support the status quo for as long as possible and then, once change has been accepted as not just inevitable but an unquestionably good thing, cherry pick one or two noted dissenters and say "see, the Church™ was an early supporter of X!"

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

Well, churches were if my understanding of history is remotely correct the main space where blacks could gather in groups. As such it was probably one of the driving forces behind the civil rights movement. The parts of the church that sided with the oppressors or didn't side at all were largely inconsequential to their successes and minor actors. Leadership was only shown on the good side, not the bad one.

But yeah, there were churches defending slavery too, so you have a hard time talking about The Church acting at all these days*.

*These days most likely reaching back to just about the time when Paul wrote about "these last days" and criticized some for following Apollos, some for following Peter, etc.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Well, churches were if my understanding of history is remotely correct the main space where blacks could gather in groups. As such it was probably one of the driving forces behind the civil rights movement. The parts of the church that sided with the oppressors or didn't side at all were largely inconsequential to their successes and minor actors. Leadership was only shown on the good side, not the bad one.

I'm not sure this squares with the role white churches played in the creation of the network of segregation academies that sprang up in the American south and were a key aspect of "Massive Resistance".

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

All depends what you mean by 'the church' and 'moral issue'. In mid C20 Britain certain elements of the Church of England - particularly Archbishop William Temple- were very influential in setting the tone for the foundation/ extension (depending on your POV) of the welfare state. Currently, the CofE has been playing a strong part in leading thinking about the ethics of the financial sector. Do these count?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Over the weekend I was at a conference where one of the speakers was talking about Climate Change, and urging Christians to get involved in this issue. "If the Church doesn't take a lead on this, then who will?" he asked. My answer was not the one he wanted (I kept it to myself) - the Church isn't leading on Climate Change, and that isn't affecting the debate at all.

My thoughts went on to other big issues where public thinking has changed massively - equal rights for women, for gays, for animals, caring for the environment - and it seems to me that Christians have come late to all those discussions. (However, they have then often claimed that Christianity was always all in favour of issue X, by a careful rewriting of history!) The only big moral issue I could think of where we did take a lead was the abolition of slavery, and that's a while ago now.

If I'm right I find that rather depressing. So are there other issues which I've missed, where the Church has led, rather than followed, public opinion?

Sure. How about a complete radicalisation of human society based on the worth of the individual and exercised through charity contra values of the Roman Empire?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think it's pretty likely that the wealthier and more established a church becomes and the more its members have a vested interest in 'the system', the more it's going to maintain the status quo.

Personally I don't equate the Church with its leadership, but with the family of believers, i.e. the people. IMO the Church isn't a powerful institution whose job it is to do good for the oppressed - the Church is a body of believers, some of whom are oppressed and some not, and ideally they should all be working together for change. If this isn't possible, the activism of the grass roots is no less 'the Church in action' than the work of the leaders. This probably isn't a very CofE way of looking at it, but there we are.

Anyway, the Labour Party has often been described as owing more to Methodism than to Communism. This is a reference to the low church Non-Conformist roots of many early trades unionists. Some of the leaders would have approved and some not, but as I said, the leaders (i.e. the clergy) don't 'own' Christianity.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Over the weekend I was at a conference where one of the speakers was talking about Climate Change, and urging Christians to get involved in this issue. "If the Church doesn't take a lead on this, then who will?" he asked. My answer was not the one he wanted (I kept it to myself) - the Church isn't leading on Climate Change, and that isn't affecting the debate at all.

My thoughts went on to other big issues where public thinking has changed massively - equal rights for women, for gays, for animals, caring for the environment - and it seems to me that Christians have come late to all those discussions. (However, they have then often claimed that Christianity was always all in favour of issue X, by a careful rewriting of history!) The only big moral issue I could think of where we did take a lead was the abolition of slavery, and that's a while ago now.

If I'm right I find that rather depressing. So are there other issues which I've missed, where the Church has led, rather than followed, public opinion?
Sure. How about a complete radicalisation of human society based on the worth of the individual and exercised through charity contra values of the Roman Empire?

If that's the last time the church has been in the right, we have problems.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I don't Mr. Armin's observation is entirely original, but it is worth repeating. Humankind has indeed made some progress on a number of issues in recent centuries, but the Christian church cannot claim the credit. In some cases, the church had to be dragged kicking and screaming (the work of Galileo and Darwin) and in some cases different factions argued on different sides (slavery, rights for women).

I don't think people look to the church as a whole for leadership on issues, but many people within the church do provide leadership and some will claim to be speaking for the church as a whole (or even, outrageously, for God).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I would say:
at the moment, I think the churches are putting more effort into counteracting the demonisation of immigrants and people on benefits than any other group. There was a report out a few years ago by some of the dissenting churches on myths about people on benefits.
Actually, did anyone watch Hustle? Glossy mainstream drama about con artists who only con people who deserve it. Every so often when I was watching it I had a sense that the writer had been using Church Action on Poverty as a source of ideas for rich people who deserve it. Turns out the head writer was also responsible for the Nativity series on BBC1 a few years back; I think I was probably right about where the ideas were coming from.

Going back in time:
Jubilee 2000 and the Drop the Debt campaign.
Temple certainly backed the creation of the Welfare State. (For that matter, his father preached the sermon at Darwin's state funeral.)
I'm going to bite on the homosexuality issue. My impression is that up until some time in the early nineties the church was probably ahead of wider society on gay rights. It's only now that the church has become the only place where the holdouts have enough power and influence to dig in their heels.
Did the churches have much involvement in reform of nineteenth-century working conditions? Certainly Lord Shaftesbury was a devout Christian. Of course, many nineteenth century atheists were devout proponents of reform too. (And some such as Carlyle were not.)

[ 11. June 2014, 17:51: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I also think that as fewer and fewer British people identify with churches it's going to harder and harder for the churches to claim to offer moral leadership. Demoralised institutions find it hard to 'lead'. This is perhaps a bigger problem for the CofE than for smaller institutions, because the latter know their place (and can make their feelings known behind the scenes) whereas the CofE expects to have a public voice beyond its self-identified constituency. What happens behind the scenes, including in the congregations, doesn't seem to count for much when it comes toCofE leadership.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm going to bite on the homosexuality issue. My impression is that up until some time in the early nineties the church was probably ahead of wider society on gay rights.

It should be noted that there's a vast gulf between "ahead of wider society on gay rights" in the seventies and eighties and actually supporting the rights of gay people. Looking at it from a strictly UK perspective, how many church organizations actively supported the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1967?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I also think that as fewer and fewer British people identify with churches it's going to harder and harder for the churches to claim to offer moral leadership. Demoralised institutions find it hard to 'lead'. This is perhaps a bigger problem for the CofE than for smaller institutions, because the latter know their place (and can make their feelings known behind the scenes) whereas the CofE expects to have a public voice beyond its self-identified constituency. What happens behind the scenes, including in the congregations, doesn't seem to count for much when it comes toCofE leadership.

Several writers (eg Eddie Gibbs, Greg Boyd, Brian McLaren) have argued that the church will have a greater ability to take moral leadership in the future in our diminished role, rather than greater. They speak of the difference of exerting "power under" rather than "power over". That it is easier to "speak truth to power" from the margins that to do so from a place of privilege. I think there's some great truth-- and reason for hope-- in that. I think we're already beginning to see elements of that emerging in some of the outlier voices within Christiandom.

But you're right that it requires a new paradigm (or, as those authors would argue, rediscovering an older, pre-Cosntantine paradigm), a new voice, a new way of understanding both power and our mission.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Several writers (eg Eddie Gibbs, Greg Boyd, Brian McLaren) have argued that the church will have a greater ability to take moral leadership in the future in our diminished role, rather than greater.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Several writers (eg Eddie Gibbs, Greg Boyd, Brian McLaren) have argued that the church will have a greater ability to take moral leadership in the future in our diminished role, rather than greater.

Bleh, sorry 'bout that. And too late for a redo.

How 'bout:

Several writers (eg Eddie Gibbs, Greg Boyd, Brian McLaren) have argued that the church will have a greater (rather than lesser) ability to take prophetic moral leadership in the future precisely because of our diminished status (as opposed to our prior privileged status).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems to be a common bit of historical revisionism regarding mainstream churches and most social issues. The clergy who signed the open letter now known as "A Call for Unity" (in response to which Rev. King wrote his much more famous "Letter From Birmingham Jail") certainly represented larger and more respected religious organizations than Rev. King did at the time.

As an aside it is interesting how large a role moral luck plays in whether one is treated by history as a hero or a villain.

The clergy who signed the Call for Unity were advocating what one could call the 'Wait for Atticus Finch position'. Atticus Finch essentially takes the line that Martin Luther King was arguing against: that black people should just wait for Atticus Finch and other white liberals to free them working through the courts. If the black people take any action to free themselves they'll just get shot by guards (who are just doing their job). Yet, while nobody would cite the Call for Unity letter positively, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is considered a classic text in the struggle for racism and is still taught as such to schoolchildren to this day. (Probably because the novel doesn't address any practical recommendations to any concrete situation.)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Several writers (eg Eddie Gibbs, Greg Boyd, Brian McLaren) have argued that the church will have a greater (rather than lesser) ability to take prophetic moral leadership in the future precisely because of our diminished status (as opposed to our prior privileged status).

Reminds me of the observation someone made that the church's* stated interest in promoting human rights has historically been inversely proportional to its power to do so.

--------------------
*The specific church being discussed was Roman Catholicism, but I suppose it's equally applicable to most other hierarchical religious organizations.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Well, I think you could argue for (some parts of) the Christian church as having a big role to play in equal rights for women, since so many of the early suffragists came to it by way of the temperance movement, which was rooted in the churches. However, there were also many sermons preached against the idea of women having the vote, so at best you'd have to say it was a mixed result in terms of Church support for that particular issue.

Equal rights for SOME women. The suffragette movement was marked by incredible racism and pro-eugenics. Christabel and Emmeline Pankhurst only wanted women who owned property to get the vote (though not Sylvia Pankhurst), and Susan B Anthony wanted black men to lose the vote so (white) women could gain it. Black suffragettes like Ida B Wells are all but forgotten.

As far as I know, the church had no role in opposing the oppression of black women by mainstream white suffragism and feminism.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems to be a common bit of historical revisionism regarding mainstream churches and most social issues. The clergy who signed the open letter now known as "A Call for Unity" (in response to which Rev. King wrote his much more famous "Letter From Birmingham Jail") certainly represented larger and more respected religious organizations than Rev. King did at the time.
As an aside it is interesting how large a role moral luck plays in whether one is treated by history as a hero or a villain.

The clergy who signed the Call for Unity were advocating what one could call the 'Wait for Atticus Finch position'. Atticus Finch essentially takes the line that Martin Luther King was arguing against: that black people should just wait for Atticus Finch and other white liberals to free them working through the courts. If the black people take any action to free themselves they'll just get shot by guards (who are just doing their job). Yet, while nobody would cite the Call for Unity letter positively, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is considered a classic text in the struggle for racism and is still taught as such to schoolchildren to this day. (Probably because the novel doesn't address any practical recommendations to any concrete situation.)

But of course, anything that makes white liberals feel good about themselves and enables them to ignore their own white privilege is going to be embraced.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Some churches (think the Reverend Martin Luther King, for example) certainly lead the civil rights movement in this country. On the other hand, some churches violently opposed it too.
This seems to be a common bit of historical revisionism regarding mainstream churches and most social issues. The clergy who signed the open letter now known as "A Call for Unity" (in response to which Rev. King wrote his much more famous "Letter From Birmingham Jail") certainly represented larger and more respected religious organizations than Rev. King did at the time. In short, the basic tactic seems to be to support the status quo for as long as possible and then, once change has been accepted as not just inevitable but an unquestionably good thing, cherry pick one or two noted dissenters and say "see, the Church™ was an early supporter of X!"

I rather suspect there would be a better argument for revisionism re my example if I hadn't particularly noted that the church also opposed civil rights.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that there's a vast gulf between "ahead of wider society on gay rights" in the seventies and eighties and actually supporting the rights of gay people. Looking at it from a strictly UK perspective, how many church organizations actively supported the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1967?

Doing a quick search on wikipedia. The Wolfenden Report committee had fifteen members, of which two were clergy. The only dissenter from the recommendation that homosexuality be legalised was one of the laity.
Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, supported liberalisation.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Several writers (eg Eddie Gibbs, Greg Boyd, Brian McLaren) have argued that the church will have a greater (rather than lesser) ability to take prophetic moral leadership in the future precisely because of our diminished status (as opposed to our prior privileged status).
Reminds me of the observation someone made that the church's* stated interest in promoting human rights has historically been inversely proportional to its power to do so.

--------------------
*The specific church being discussed was Roman Catholicism, but I suppose it's equally applicable to most other hierarchical religious organizations.

In a way. But in another way, they are saying the reverse-- that being in that position that seems powerless from the world's perspective is precisely what gives us (or will give us) the moral authority to speak truth to power. So that even if we'd had the prophetic insight/courage to promote human rights when we were a large, influential position in society, the very fact that we were in that powerful position would mitigate against our witness.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Mention of ++Michael Ramsey above reminds me that the Church of England's 1966 report 'Putting Asunder' was very influential in divorce law simplification in England and Wales. Of course, you may or may not think that that was a good thing.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Several writers (eg Eddie Gibbs, Greg Boyd, Brian McLaren) have argued that the church will have a greater (rather than lesser) ability to take prophetic moral leadership in the future precisely because of our diminished status (as opposed to our prior privileged status).

Do these authors suggest which churches will be best suited to this role? I made a comment on another thread about how the Quakers and Unitarians have had a significant role to play in getting the law changed to allow SSM. However, from what I can tell, the CofE will be reluctant to 'speak truth to power' if the price to pay is that it must become as small and marginal as the Quakers and Unitarians. Is there much sign that the CofE wants to reinvent itself in this guise? And would it really be wise?

Actually, I'm inclined to think that what we really need at the moment is spiritual leadership, and then the moral leadership will follow. For Christians to talk about morality ahead of spiritual transformation seems topsy-turvy to me. But that could be a separate issue.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Several writers (eg Eddie Gibbs, Greg Boyd, Brian McLaren) have argued that the church will have a greater (rather than lesser) ability to take prophetic moral leadership in the future precisely because of our diminished status (as opposed to our prior privileged status).
Do these authors suggest which churches will be best suited to this role? I made a comment on another thread about how the Quakers and Unitarians have had a significant role to play in getting the law changed to allow SSM. However, from what I can tell, the CofE will be reluctant to 'speak truth to power' if the price to pay is that it must become as small and marginal as the Quakers and Unitarians. Is there much sign that the CofE wants to reinvent itself in this guise? And would it really be wise?

These authors (and myself) are writing from an American evangelical pov, so not really speaking to C of E.

I'm not sure size is as much an issue as influence. The authors I'm referencing really are speaking about the influence the Church (speaking generally) has on society as a whole, whether the Church is in a position of power (socially, politically, economically) or not. I certainly wouldn't want to say it would be "wise" for the C of E to intentionally go after "smallness" but I would say it is "wise" for any Christian church to go after pursuing power in the way Jesus pursued power-- which is to say, in what Boyd calls a "power under" way rather than "power over".

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]
Actually, I'm inclined to think that what we really need at the moment is spiritual leadership, and then the moral leadership will follow. For Christians to talk about morality ahead of spiritual transformation seems topsy-turvy to me. But that could be a separate issue.

Personally, I don't think the two can be separated. As Christians, our morals are a direct result of our spiritual transformation. (Which I guess is a round about way of agreeing with you).

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Church is a vague term, encompassing many mansions.
Some of the dissenting churches lead the anti-slavery movements in both the US and Britian. On the other hand, one of the examples in the book "Bury The Chains" described the horrible conditions on West Indies Sugar Plantations. The main example was owned by the Society for the Propagation of the Word, and the profits used to propagate the gospel. Their slaves were branded with "Word".

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would say:
I'm going to bite on the homosexuality issue. My impression is that up until some time in the early nineties the church was probably ahead of wider society on gay rights. It's only now that the church has become the only place where the holdouts have enough power and influence to dig in their heels.

I can't speak for England, but in the United States, opposition to homosexual rights always had a large component of church involvement both during and before the 90's.
I remember an open legislative session in Boston in the 80's taking testimony on a law making anti-gay violence a hate crime. Unitarian Clergy testified in favor. The only people to testify against it were a representative the Catholic Church Diocese and the minister of a Black Church. Even now, you can see where same sex marriage is prohibited. It largely corresponds to the highly churched parts of the country.

Don't forget the recent anti-homosexual laws in Africa and Russia. Many of the laws were encouraged by local Church leaders.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Several writers (eg Eddie Gibbs, Greg Boyd, Brian McLaren) have argued that the church will have a greater (rather than lesser) ability to take prophetic moral leadership in the future precisely because of our diminished status (as opposed to our prior privileged status).
Reminds me of the observation someone made that the church's* stated interest in promoting human rights has historically been inversely proportional to its power to do so.

The idea that the church is there to speak "prophetically" is one of the modern church's favourite revisionisms.

It's basically a means for the church to comfort itself over the fact that nowadays very few people pay any attention to what it says.

Of course through most of its history the church has aimed to ally itself with secular power (another revisionism is to blame it on Constantine) in order to impose its world view through that state power. During that time the church's response to someone who dared to speak prophetically was to burn them at the stake.

My cynical view of the modern church is that if it was given the choice of regaining its former level of power or giving prophetic leadership through a diminished status it would unhesitatingly grab back the power.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

DH alert.

There seem to be a number of assumptions underlying the OP, such as “chronological snobbery” and some sort of “Whig interpretation of history”-type teleology.

Why must we think that whatever “public opinion” ( or even an influential bien-pensant minority) supports just at the moment is right, clearly in the ascendant, and deserving of the backing of Christians?

Surely it is incumbent on Christians to decide what is right because it is right, no matter what opinion polls show, and then take the attitude of “Athanasius contra mundum” (or “fuck the zeitgeist”).

For example, today we associate eugenics with Nazism, but as JC reminds us, prior to WWII it was an article of faith among leftists, who must have thought at the time that they were definitely on the “progressive” side of history.

Broadly speaking, Christians have taken the lead in opposing abortion (despite the fact that some non-Christians also oppose it, and some Christians support it) on the grounds that it represents the deliberate killing of the most vulnerable and helpless of people (Christ’s “the least of these”).

Their attitude not only flies in the face of public opinion, now and for the foreseeable future, but is hopelessly old-fashioned, harking back to the days of the early church when Christians opposed not only abortion, but also infanticide (which is currently being pushed by “progressives” such as Peter Singer).

FWIW, I have (consistently or inconsistently) changed my attitude on this issue.

I used to join in (silent and non-harassing) protests at abortion clinics, but came to the point where I could no longer do so, on the grounds that I personally would never experience an unwanted pregnancy; that my wife had never been unintentionally pregnant; and that no-one close to me had fallen pregnant as a result of rape.

Now, I see abortion as sometimes the lesser of two evils, but still recognize (in what is roughly Naomi Wolf’s position) that it is an evil nonetheless, and that to pretend that a foetus is not a human being is scientific obscurantism, just as pretending that killing him/her is not problematic is moral obscurantism.

Coming back to the OP, my intention is not to begin a DH debate on abortion, but to show that those Christians who oppose abortion have a good case, but represent a challenge to the dogma that Christians should always be on the side of trendy “public opinion”.

[ 12. June 2014, 00:33: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think it would've been difficult for the churches to lead the way on SSM without first having a game-changing debate about what marriage in general is for. But there's never been such a debate, AFAIK. Moreover, churches have been more or less conservative about marriage because in the past it's been in their interests to be like that; radical forms of family have rarely led to strong churches.

Times have changed, personal autonomy is now king, and the mainstream churches are now edging pragmatically towards greater tolerance. Big pioneering gestures on the delicate and divisive topic of family structures were never on the cards.

(I'm talking here about Protestantism in secularising individualistic Western nations, of course. In countries and regions where group cohesion and church allegiance are still strong there's no pragmatic requirement for the churches to adapt in the same way - although globalisation shows us that no country is an island.)

[ 12. June 2014, 01:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Well, I think you could argue for (some parts of) the Christian church as having a big role to play in equal rights for women, since so many of the early suffragists came to it by way of the temperance movement, which was rooted in the churches. However, there were also many sermons preached against the idea of women having the vote, so at best you'd have to say it was a mixed result in terms of Church support for that particular issue.
Equal rights for SOME women. The suffragette movement was marked by incredible racism and pro-eugenics. Christabel and Emmeline Pankhurst only wanted women who owned property to get the vote (though not Sylvia Pankhurst), and Susan B Anthony wanted black men to lose the vote so (white) women could gain it. Black suffragettes like Ida B Wells are all but forgotten.

As far as I know, the church had no role in opposing the oppression of black women by mainstream white suffragism and feminism.

Yes this is certainly true -- the best-known early feminists were white and upper or upper-middle-class, and certainly very limited in their views of other races and social classes.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Did the churches have much involvement in reform of nineteenth-century working conditions?

Some (a lot) of the church's involvement was helpful but limited in scope. There were moves to change working conditions in the cities and in industry, which by passed the rural and agricultural. Conditions in the sense of environment weren't comparable but the nature of the work, the uncertainty of employment and the treatment of the workers was. Farm workers came very late (in the 1930's) to the dole, to holidays. It wasn't until the 1980's that some of the issues with tied accommodation were changed to mirror that of other industries.

What did the church do? Nothing. Lots of its churchwardens and patrons were major landowners - in one case I'm aware of, the Vicar owned the village where he was priest. Not the 1840's but the 1950's. (Abington Pigotts, Cambridgeshire and the de Courcey Ireland family).

Jade's and Trudy's posts about the feminists also make this point: early feminism was class based and urban. It didn't impact their field working rural sisters. I expect that neither knew nor cared about such things.

[ 12. June 2014, 05:57: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Kaplan Corday:

quote:
There seem to be a number of assumptions underlying the OP, such as “chronological snobbery” and some sort of “Whig interpretation of history”-type teleology.

Why must we think that whatever “public opinion” ( or even an influential bien-pensant minority) supports just at the moment is right, clearly in the ascendant, and deserving of the backing of Christians?

Surely it is incumbent on Christians to decide what is right because it is right, no matter what opinion polls show, and then take the attitude of “Athanasius contra mundum” (or “fuck the zeitgeist”).

I agree with most of that, and didn't think I was advocating the pursuit of the zeitgeist. However, I think it is undeniable that public opinion on various matters has changed in ways that most Christians would approve of, without Christianity having played an obvious role in that change.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

My grandfather, in the early 1900s, was responsible for introducing the farm workers of Mayfield in Sussex to the possibilities of joining Joseph Arch's union. If you look up the dates, you will see this is some time after the union was formed in 1872. Grandad was chapel.
As a result, my grandmother's employer, very concerned about the welfare of her maid (this being before they married, while they were just walking out), took it upon herself to warn her that he was a dangerous young man. She did so, however, when the philanthropist lady of the village was visiting for tea, and she, Miss Anna Bell-Irving, said "Oh no, he is one of the finest young men in the village." And such being the gradient of class, the matter was dropped.

It looks as though there is still a lot of work to be done in the slavery line - perhaps we should be advocating a following of Leviticus with regard to prawns.

[ 12. June 2014, 14:16: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The fight to abolish slavery was largely done by free thinkers.

Churchmen mostly opposed to e.g. the bells of St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol rang a celebratory peal when Wilberforce initially lost the vote in the House of Commons,.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I've just done a unit on Australian Church history.

As I understand it, Christians were involved in better working conditions in the 19th century and the suffragette movement. They also had other significant outreach missions for the poor and despised.

Today the Australian churches are at the forefront of asylum for refugees. Including a shippie which has been in the news often.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
DH alert.

There seem to be a number of assumptions underlying the OP, such as “chronological snobbery” and some sort of “Whig interpretation of history”-type teleology.

Why must we think that whatever “public opinion” ( or even an influential bien-pensant minority) supports just at the moment is right, clearly in the ascendant, and deserving of the backing of Christians?

Surely it is incumbent on Christians to decide what is right because it is right, no matter what opinion polls show, and then take the attitude of “Athanasius contra mundum” (or “fuck the zeitgeist”).

I agree with Kaplan Corday. This premise appears to presuppose that the progression of moral standards is always for the better. I would have thought that the lessons of the first half of the twentieth century would have cured us of this notion.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Not sure you'll count this, but the Fairtrade movement definitely started with the churches and has become mainstream through church and churchgoers campaigning.

Interestingly A Rocha is hoping to duplicate the fairtrade success for the stewardship issues of conservation and climate change, I visited another shipmate's church a few years back, and heard a talk from A Rocha. I couldn't convince my church to even put it on the agenda for consideration (although the way I got a Traidcraft stall there was doing first, asking later). I'm not sure that the churches will be the groundswell in the same way now.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The fight to abolish slavery was largely done by free thinkers.

Churchmen mostly opposed to e.g. the bells of St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol rang a celebratory peal when Wilberforce initially lost the vote in the House of Commons,.

I was worried that something like this emerge when I started the thread. (Despite being accused of chasing the zeitgeist, I'm still inclined to think that slavery is a bad thing, and that abolishing it was a good thing.)

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

Why do you think that the church should have been taking the lead on moral issues ? I wouldn't suggest that you are chasing the spirit of the age, rather that simple moral issues with obvious right answers are more easily found in retrospect than they are at the time.

That seems to be equally true for Christians as others. There may well be some issues where people in 100 years time look back and wonder how people in 2014 could have allowed X, but as to what those issues will be, I don't think my guess or yours is likely to be any better than a typical atheist's.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
"If the Church doesn't take a lead on this, then who will?" he asked.

Whether or not the church led in any other social change movements in the past, the church doesn't lead anything today. It isn't widely viewed as relevant enough for the public to care about much less follow.

So I think any idea the church should or can lead any major change is obsolete.

The church needs to stand for whatever it understands God's eternal purpose and values to be, whether or not any choose to follow.

(But you don't "stand for" something if your behavior contradicts your words and then new words excuse that behavior. As is seen in too many church people & leaders. I'm not talking RCC recent issues. The accusations of widespread hypocrisy in churches of many kinds long predate any recent scandals.)

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I'm still inclined to think that slavery is a bad thing, and that abolishing it was a good thing.)

Like you, I am delighted that slavery was abolished and that Christians played a role in its demise.

However, while we today see it as an unambiguous ( I nearly wrote black and white) issue, with an inevitable outcome, at the time there were Christians on both sides of the debate, and during the American Civil War there were evangelical revivals in both the Union and Confederate armies.

In a previous post I mentioned abortion as a difficult political issue for Christians, and there have been others.

I grew up Methodist in a swathe of suburbia in Melbourne’s east where there were no pubs or other liquor outlets, as a result largely of past Methodist influence and pressure.

At the time, they were convinced that it was the churches’ duty to society oppose in every way the evils for society of alcohol abuse.

Likewise Prohibition in America was backed by both liberal and conservative churches, but today Christians, on the whole, have the gravest doubts about churches’ support for state-enforced teetotalism.

In the same way, today there are churches both for and against the so-called “war on drugs”.

WWII was backed by most Western churches, but some Christians opposed it; the late John Stott, for example, took a pacifist stance at the time.

In other words, in the past some Christians have backed causes on which there is now a near consensus that they were right; others have backed causes on which there is now a near consensus that they were wrong; and it is impossible to know what future generations will make of some of the causes which some churches back today.

At a practical and personal level, it would good if Christians could refrain from the sort of crude spiritual blackmail which labels as “unChristian” any political view different from their own which is held by other Christians.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

KC:

quote:
At a practical and personal level, it would good if Christians could refrain from the sort of crude spiritual blackmail which labels as “unChristian” any political view different from their own which is held by other Christians.

Agree completely - but I haven't seen anyone on this thread behaving that way. Certainly I'm not accusing anyone of being unspiritual simply because they disagree with me. Rather, I'm feeling depressed because Christians don't seem to be the light of the modern world; rather we are those who turn up a party after all the hard work has been done and criticize the decorations.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

There is The Salvation Army's alliance with WT Stead in the Maiden Tribute scandal which led directly to the raising of the age of consent in the UK to 16.

HERE

The salvation Army is now a leading player in anti-human trafficking work.

STATEMENT

[ 16. June 2014, 17:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Comment to Kaplan Corday: slavery has not entirely disappeared by any means.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

"Church" as a broad term to encompass all churches and people of faith doesn't do it justice. Nor does highlighting progressive causes as the ones that are moral. Religious people are also leading the charge against climate change (which I think correlates with creationism, anti-abortion, anti-gay, support for sterner criminal justice, though not certain of the strength of the correlations).

I think we might safely suggest that religious people are leading on other issues too, like the disparity between rich and poor - which is a sign of God's favour on the successful and wealthy. Or the mining of the earth's resources, whether wood, metals or oil etc. Wasn't the Cold War a moral crusade against godless communism? Isn't it a moral crusade to make war in the middle east?

I'm not saying I support these perspectives, but I do harken back to interviews I conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s when I was completing my doctoral research*. I recall young people talking earnestly about the need for a moral resurgence (these were 18-22 year olds), and they were coming at it from a reactionary perspective. At the time, wanting capital punishment (death penalty), restrictions on abortions, flat income rates (same rates for all), and encompassed in a return to traditional perspectives on the family, religious-based male headship, sexual values narrowing this to within opp sex marriage. These were the young people who had the strongest identification with religious values and they were much more uniform than those I'm labelling progressive. The progressives' religious identification being very much weaker and hard to collectively characterise.

*my doctoral research: of the bit relevant to this is where I was looking for clarity regarding personal goals and values in the four areas of relationships, employment, religion and politics, using the Identity Status Interview (this and the Eriksonian approaches to identity development are largely passé I think today)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
"Church" as a broad term to encompass all churches and people of faith doesn't do it justice. Nor does highlighting progressive causes as the ones that are moral. Religious people are also leading the charge against climate change (which I think correlates with creationism, anti-abortion, anti-gay, support for sterner criminal justice, though not certain of the strength of the correlations).

Indeed. I came across an interesting essay [PDF] on the difficulties involve in discerning the "Biblical" position on contemporary issues. An excerpt:

quote:
Today the debate of two centuries ago is often portrayed as the slavers' political and commercial power against the brave abolitionist Christians, especially the evangelicals of Clapham sect, who wanted to be biblical. Thus the Anglican Mainstream website claims that 'Those who cited the Bible to justify their views on supporting slavery based their views actually on economic theory, not on the Bible.' This impression is reinforced by the film, Amazing Grace, which features Ioan Gruffudd as William Wilberforce singing Newton's hymn to other MPs concerned for trade in ports like Liverpool - using the tune we know today, which was not actually set to those words for another 60 odd years over in America.

But sadly, the caricature that the slavers were just selfish capitalists and the abolitionists were the only biblical Christians around is just not true. If anything, it was the other way around. Slavery was viewed as a 'biblical' doctrine, supported by the laws of God and human law, while the abolitionists were seen as dangerous liberals, preaching sedition and revolution. This was the time of the American and French Revolutions, the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man. Even in the film, Wilberforce has to warn Thomas Clarkson about how dangerous the abolitionist cause could seem. Yet, Thomas Paine only applies the word 'slavery' to French citizens during the revolutionary period - not to Africans or the Atlantic trade. Meanwhile, Jefferson and the Founding Fathers of the Declaration of Independence may have believed 'these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' - but they were all slave-owners, who did not apply these truths to their slaves. In fact, some origins of abolition began as a tactic by the British forces in the revolutionary war of independence to get American slaves to defect. It was extremely successful with tens of thousands running away to British side. Clarkson's brother John, against great opposition from authorities in London, eventually led them back across the Atlantic to found Freetown and Sierra Leone.

The 'biblical' case for slavery is clear: early in Genesis, Noah decrees that, as punishment for seeing him naked, Ham's descendants will be slaves for Shem and Japheth (Gen. 9.22-27); Abraham is blessed by God with 'male and female slaves' as a wealthy slaveowner (Gen. 24.35; for Abraham's slaves, see also Gen. 12.5; 14.14; 20.14). Slaves were part ofhis estate, property he passed on to his son Isaac (Gen. 26.12-14). There is provision in the Mosaic legislation for Israelites to buy and sell slaves, and how to treat them (see for example, Exodus 21 and Leviticus25). Slavery was equally accepted in the New Testament, where slaves are told to 'obey their masters . . . with enthusiasm' as though obeying Christ (Eph. 6.5-9; Col.3.22-25; Titus 2.9-10; 1 Peter 2.18-19). Paul returns the runaway slave Onesimus to his master Philemon, and tells slaves who hear his epistles to 'remain in the condition in which you were called' (Phm. 12; 1 Cor. 7.20-24). Particular attention was drawn to 1 Tim 6.1-6, where Paul's instructions, 'let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honour' are given the additional dominical authority as 'the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ'. All of these texts were common in the biblical justification for slavery in the early nineteenth-century.

It was all undergirded by Romans 13.1-7 with its appeal to proper law and order. Wayne Meeks and Willard Swartley have both demonstrated how leading Bible interpreters in universities and churches alike provided 'biblical' support for the 'scriptural' doctrine of slavery. While today's historical criticism can help, Meeks concludes that 'it appears to provide no knock-down argument against such uses of scripture as the apologists for slavery made'.

Particularly interesting is the Biblical case for Apartheid (pp. 3-4), since that was a relatively recent piece of (apparently sincere) Biblical analysis most people now regard as abhorrent.

[ 18. June 2014, 05:05: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Just to throw a fuse into the mix, let's try Slacktivist's "This is not Good News, This is not Salvation"
which describes how George Whitfield, the leader of the Great Awakening in the South of the US, lobbied successfully to make Georgia a slave state, which it had not been before 1738.

quote:
So George Whitfield — who was, as Christian History said, “probably the most famous religious figure of the 18th century” — began lobbying the crown and the trustees of the colony to make slavery legal there.

Whitefield’s efforts were essential to that cause. Without his hard work, slavery might never have become legal in Georgia.

So he is one of those who made a religious case FRO slavery, which still holds among the traditional folklore of the Deep South.

To balance that, I add John Woolman who, as a Quaker (not one of the popular religious groups in the Deep South) was strong advocate for freedom from slavery.

Guess who won - we still have the idea, floating all too visibly among us, that skin colour determines menial status, and wage-slavery, if not the actual responsibilities of slave-owning. And many churches still hold to that view.

[ 19. June 2014, 00:12: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
"Church" as a broad term to encompass all churches and people of faith doesn't do it justice. Nor does highlighting progressive causes as the ones that are moral. Religious people are also leading the charge against climate change (which I think correlates with creationism, anti-abortion, anti-gay, support for sterner criminal justice, though not certain of the strength of the correlations).
Indeed. I came across an interesting essay [PDF] on the difficulties involve in discerning the "Biblical" position on contemporary issues.
quote:

But sadly, the caricature that the slavers were just selfish capitalists and the abolitionists were the only biblical Christians around is just not true. If anything, it was the other way around. Slavery was viewed as a 'biblical' doctrine, supported by the laws of God and human law, while the abolitionists were seen as dangerous liberals, preaching sedition and revolution. ... Wayne Meeks and Willard Swartley have both demonstrated how leading Bible interpreters in universities and churches alike provided 'biblical' support for the 'scriptural' doctrine of slavery. While today's historical criticism can help, Meeks concludes that 'it appears to provide no knock-down argument against such uses of scripture as the apologists for slavery made'.
Particularly interesting is the Biblical case for Apartheid (pp. 3-4), since that was a relatively recent piece of (apparently sincere) Biblical analysis most people now regard as abhorrent.

This was part of my biblical hermeneutics course in seminary-- both sides were "biblical" but the pro-slavery side was able to do so more directly with proof-texting that appeal to inerrantists, whereas the abolitionists had to go more indirectly, citing more "biblical principles" rather than texts that address slavery per se.

This history has not been lost in current debates. Several recent books have explored the similarities between the ways slavery, the role of women, and homosexuality have been addressed by the church.

[code]

[ 19. June 2014, 04:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Guess who won - we still have the idea, floating all too visibly among us, that skin colour determines menial status, and wage-slavery, if not the actual responsibilities of slave-owning. And many churches still hold to that view.

Could you name the churches (well, some of them, since they are "many") which hold the view that "skin colour determines menial status", and quote, or direct us to, their specific teaching on this issue?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Many thanks to Croesos for the link to that fascinating essay. Those of us who have followed and/or echoed in our own experiences Steve Chalk's various epiphanies on hot-button issues will recognise the process. It is the unease which arises when we recognise the problems that a particular kind of moral hermeneutic produces. The essay put it very well here.

quote:
Therefore, to imitate Jesus, it is not enough simply to extract his ethical teaching from the Sermon on the Mount; we must also imitate his loving acceptance of others, especially the marginalized, within an open and inclusive community.

There can be a kind of abstract engagement with morality which actually gets in the way of our appreciation of the burden of rejection, and what it is like to live with the demeaning and disapproval of others. I've always liked this paradox (Salvor Hardin in the Foundation series by Asimov).

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

IME if my moral compass is producing an uneasy conscience re others it's time, at the very least, to think again. Not just check my moral sums for reassurance, but also check whether I'm being more deeply misled about where "true north" really is.

It's deeply uncomfortable to do that kind of rethink, recognise "in the bowels of Christ" that we may be mistaken and the roots of the mistake may be found in patterns of thought on which we had relied on for general help and guidance.

[ 19. June 2014, 07:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Guess who won - we still have the idea, floating all too visibly among us, that skin colour determines menial status, and wage-slavery, if not the actual responsibilities of slave-owning. And many churches still hold to that view.
Could you name the churches (well, some of them, since they are "many") which hold the view that "skin colour determines menial status", and quote, or direct us to, their specific teaching on this issue?

I'd suggest the Southern Baptist Conference in the US: Their public policy does not explicitly state that they are anti-black, but all the dog-whistles about "welfare moms", "inner-city dwellers", etc., are just as visible in their discourse as they are in the Republican Party campaign statements. Goes along with anti-women, anti-choice, anti-gay - quite easy when you know how.

For further detail, read
Slacktivist (one example linked - go through his archive)

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] Did the churches have much involvement in reform of nineteenth-century working conditions?

Yes, The Salvation Army did...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] Did the churches have much involvement in reform of nineteenth-century working conditions?
Yes, The Salvation Army did...

I've been wracking my brain ever since this thread started trying to remember the name of this book, you finally jogged it for me. More info. re evangelical progressive social action
here

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The Founder of The Salvation Army also wrote a book: In Darkest England and the Way Out

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'd suggest the Southern Baptist Conference in the US
For further detail, read
Slacktivist

The Slacktivist link is about George Whitefield’s links with slavery, about which I knew already.

Of the three outstanding figures of the eighteenth century evangelical revivals, the two Calvinists (Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards) both supported slavery, while the Arminian, John Wesley, was bitterly opposed to it.

However, that is not to say that all Calvinists have a predilection for slavery, because in the next century the Calvinist Charles Spurgeon wrote:-
“I do from my inmost soul detest slavery…and although I commune at the Lord’s table with men of all creeds, yet with a slave-holder I have no fellowship of any sort or kind…I would as soon think of receiving a murderer into my church as a man-stealer”.

His American contemporary, and (Arminian) fellow-evangelist, D.L. Moody, also hated slavery, and helped tp raise men and supplies for the Union army.

As for the “many” churches which teach that “skin colour determines menial status”, all you have produced is an unsubstantiated allegation of “dogwhistles” on the part of the Southern Baptist Conference.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Given that the SBC was FOUNDED on the basis of slavery, it isn't exactly surprising that they would continue to support the concept.

You can choose to ignore the obvious racial bias in the Deep South, and the involvement of certain churches in that area in maintaining subservient status for blacks. To an outside observer, it is clear.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Or you can try this impassioned letter from a white pastor in DC.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I have been reading through this thread with interest, and the only thing that I have seen where "the church" in a broad sense seems to have taken the lead is fairtrade. Which in itself it a good thing, but has been supported by some churches, not all, but across demoninational boundaries. This has been very much a grass-roots driven movement, not led from the top, though.

I think the problem is actually slightly different - better put in a different way. While I do agree with Robert with the premise - although I am not sure slavery would count - I would put it differently.

I think the problem is that, in the last few decades we have seen some substantial social progress - gay rights and womens rights, for example - but "the church" has been publically seen as opposing these, rather than supporting them. This is because the loudest voices who claim to represent "the true church" have been anti. Not to mention that the CofE has made decidedly anti-gay and anti-womens rights statements and decisions.

Just as an example, the CofE took some 10 years to ordain women, and 20 years later voted not to allow them to be come bishops. If they had decided to allow women to become clergy at all levels 30 years ago, that would have been radical and leading. However, in that time, the base position has changed - allowing women to become bishops is no longer radical. It is behind the times.

The pace of change in society today tends to leave the church behind. the fight for slavery, for example, took decades, and the church could take its own slow pace, such that 50-60 years after it started, they could look back and claim to have supported it all along. The church still takes this time, but society changes much quicker.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Well not all changes in society are good.

Maybe the church is leading by holding back in some things. [Big Grin]

Interesting that marriages of practicing Christians are more likely to last for example. Now that's obviously not a good thing in all cases but the church still does hold marriage as holy. And that's a good thing in a disposable society.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

And, SC, there are those churches that have turned 180 degrees while refusing to admit that.

A case in point: in the 1970's, many evangelical churches were Ok with the "right-to-choose" re abortions, on the grounds of the harm that clandestine abortions did. Since the swing to poorly-understood conservatism those same churches now hysterically campaign against all abortions, whether needed or not - even those where carrying the pregnancy to term will kill the mother.

AND they say that they have "always" been against "right-to-choose", despite the historic evidence that this is not true.

So they lose on two fronts: they simply no longer care that the mothers may be in harm's way, and they lie about their own history. This is not exactly a good moral position.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well not all changes in society are good.

Maybe the church is leading by holding back in some things.

If it were true that churches offer moral leadership which is entirely about resisting changes which seem to them negative, and has no component at all of encouraging changes which are positive, one would have to conclude that it is a Spirit of Conservatism that they serve and worship rather than the Holy Spirit.

That may be an extreme simplification of what's actually happening, but there's enough truth in it that any Christian ought to be concerned.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well not all changes in society are good.

Maybe the church is leading by holding back in some things.

The problem is, the church has the reputation for resisting change for the sake of it. If they had led on things that were tricky and difficult - like women in leadership or gay marriage - they would have had a far better argument when it came to other issues.

Horseman - yes, these two - the inherent resistance to change, and the downright lies that some churches make - mean that the church has place in terms of moral leadership, so it is ignored. I regret that, because the church could have given some important moral leadership over the last 40 years, in critical areas like financial responsibility and the environment.

As it is, nobody gives a shit what the church says, and that is not because of the encroaching secularism of the society, but because the church has lost its moral lead.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Could "The Church" lead on gun violence? or violence in general?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

...

I think the problem is that, in the last few decades we have seen some substantial social progress - gay rights and womens rights, for example - but "the church" has been publically seen as opposing these, rather than supporting them. This is because the loudest voices who claim to represent "the true church" have been anti. Not to mention that the CofE has made decidedly anti-gay and anti-womens rights statements and decisions.

I found this an excellent thoughtful post. I would offer a dead horse quibble that it's not just the loudest church voices that have been anti-gay and anti-woman. The Republican electoral strategy has been centered on using anti gay rights to motivate the a large number of Christians to vote for Republicans. This Republican strategy is based on the assumption voters can be motivated by an anti-gay campaign and they identify this group as organized around Christianity.

Certainly it's not all Christians, and like the anti-immigration strategy it has significant liabilities as people move away from these positions. But it has been more than a few noisy fringe voices.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The churches were unlikely to lead on gay rights while they were still teaching that sex between men and women was supposed to take place within marriage. Sexual liberation was always an unlikely cause for church authorities to pursue.

Interestingly, I've heard that the antinomian Christians and other small groups and Christian individuals in earlier times advocated or tolerated a theology of sexually liberation, but these groups no doubt remained small and sectarian and would never have achieved a wide following. It's no good just approving of such churches - people also have to support them and join them.

The problem (as some would see it) is that denominations that seek to be large, influential and powerful institutions are limited in how radical they be before they alienate the people who are likely to ensure their success. OTOH, they can't be too 'traditional' and backward-looking, because that loses them their mainstream audience as well. There are probably plenty of sects and churches that have done 'radical' things, but by definition the powers that be in the (would-be) mainstream churches aren't pioneers of radical moral ideas!

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
Could you name the churches (well, some of them, since they are "many") which hold the view that "skin colour determines menial status", and quote, or direct us to, their specific teaching on this issue?

The answer, in case you're wondering, KC, appears to be "no."

[ 20. June 2014, 23:30: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Of the three outstanding figures of the eighteenth century evangelical revivals, the two Calvinists (Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards) both supported slavery, while the Arminian, John Wesley, was bitterly opposed to it.

However, that is not to say that all Calvinists have a predilection for slavery, . . .

I'm not so sure. The Dutch Reform Church and its role as a central pillar of Apartheid springs to mind as a fairly recent example of this sort of thing. It's not universal, but it's a tendency that seems to keep popping up.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
Could you name the churches (well, some of them, since they are "many") which hold the view that "skin colour determines menial status", and quote, or direct us to, their specific teaching on this issue?
The answer, in case you're wondering, KC, appears to be "no."

Um, I’d sort of figured that.

We all know that some churches in the past supported slavery (and serfdom), and that some Christians were and are racist, but the idea that “many” churches today are committed to the doctrine that non-whites are destined to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, is sheer febrile hyperbole.

The only Christian body of whom I am aware who believe in slavery today is the tiny and unrepresentative fringe group of Rushdoony-style Reconstructionists.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0