Thread: Kingdom not of this world? 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=028685
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
This thread is an escapee from Hell, and I'll express the hope that participants here will leave the 'hellish' aspects behind.
In the course of the 'Aaaargh!' thread on hell I was asked by John Holding to suggest an NT text in support of my overall case about state and church. I suggested John 18 v36 where Jesus says his kingdom is 'not of this world'. On that I made the following comment;
quote:
Not just the one line, but take account of the context in which Jesus is on trial before Pilate on a charge, in effect, of seeking to establish a 'Christian country' in the most direct way possible. His response there results in Pilate finding him innocent and seeking to release him. I at least can't think of any way Pilate could have done that if Jesus had proposed any of the kinds of Christian country we have seen since Constantine.
This brought forth a response from Alan Cresswell;
quote:
...there are alternative, equally valid, interpretations to put on that passage. The most obvious being that Jesus is saying that the judgement from Pilate (or, the Sanhedrin) isn't important to Him, he stands before another King who will judge Him and that's the one that counts. Nothing to do with government or Jesus establishing a kingdom (in this world or elsewhere). Jesus isn't establishing Himself as a king, He's stating His credentials as a citizen of another Kingdom and hence not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him.
I wasn't quite happy with this interpretation, and made the point that;
quote:
Except of course that only a few verses later he does explicitly say "You say correctly that I am a king". After that, Pilate really had to be convinced that this meant a different kind of kingship to the kind that he, as Roman Governor, was meant to squash. And since he went out to Jesus' Jewish accusers and said "I find him not guilty at all", I think it fair comment he was convinced.
John Holding got a bit dismissive
quote:
I'll just say with respect to your answer on the first point that your interpretation seems to me to be highly idiosyncratic, going well beyond normal understanding and highly depending on those presuppositions I asked you to avoid.
After a bit of further discussion on an issue Eutychus raised, John got even more dismissive
quote:
As I said, presuppositions and special pleading. Sorry -- that just doesn't wash as a point of view worth consideration.
I wouldn't mind but he's not exactly explaining what presuppositions he thinks I'm making, which makes it difficult for me to even know what the fault is supposed to be, let alone answer it....
So here goes with a bit of exposition;
First, what's the situation here? Jesus has been arrested by the Jewish authorities, the High Priest's people, using Judas as guide and what appears to have been in our terms 'Temple Security' as the arresting force. Jesus is then put on trial for blasphemy, and convicted. They want him dead – and they take him to Pilate for execution.
Why? One reason is given in the text; v31 “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death”. This seems reasonable enough; a client king like one of the Herod family would have the right of capital punishment over his own people, but the priests in Jerusalem were in a very subsidiary position in Pilate's assigned part of Jewish land and were probably lucky even that they were allowed to put to death a Gentile who strayed into the 'Jews only' bit of the Temple. There would be other reasons too.
It could be difficult for the Jewish authorities to kill a popular teacher like Jesus; and having him killed by the Romans would not only shift the problem to Pilate, but also if Jesus died at Roman hands it would discredit his Messianic claims – as in, surely God would not allow his anointed to suffer such a death. They may even have consciously depended on a point Paul raised later – that by OT law a person hanged on a tree was cursed.
Whatever the reason, the Jewish authorities passed Jesus on to Pilate. Pilate wanted to refer it back to them, he didn't want to deal with an internal Jewish religious crime, so they changed gear, in effect, and said “He's a Messianic claimant, he's a threat to Rome's order which you, Pilate, are charged to uphold.
John Holding hasn't given me any criticism I can actually engage with – just vague assertions about my supposed 'presuppositions' and 'special pleading'. Alan Cresswell has made more effort – but is he right?
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
“Jesus isn't establishing Himself as a king”
Really?? As I see it, whatever interpretation we give the text has first of all to be consistent with context. And on Jesus as King, there's both a big context and at least one small immediate context which rather contradict Alan's contention here. I agree that I'm making a presupposition that the NT is the product of a church founded on Jesus' resurrection witnessed by the Apostles; but after all, without that presupposition or assumption, there basically isn't a Christian interpretation worth bothering with anyway.
It is one of the major themes of the NT as a whole that Jesus is the Son of David, God's anointed, the Messiah, in short, the King. This goes all the way from Davidic genealogies to portraying Jesus as ultimately the King of kings to whom in the end 'every knee shall bow'. That's the big context, and what happens at Jesus' trial has to be consistent with that big context. How likely is it that Jesus on trial for his life is going to contradict that big context of the message he commissioned his apostles to take to the world?
The lesser incident is 'Palm Sunday'; in that episode, less than a week before the encounter with Pilate, Jesus puts down a very public “I AM THE KING!!” marker by entering Jerusalem on an donkey. That was interpreted as a deliberate fulfilment of the OT Scripture Zech 9; 9, which says
quote:
“Behold , your king shall come to you, righteous and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey”
The Passover pilgrim crowd 'got' that connection, applauding him with such comments as “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!” or “Blessed be the coming kingdom of our father David!” Are we really to believe that a Jesus who made that very public demonstrative gesture comes before Pilate less than a week later and what he says to Pilate is merely
quote:
“... stating His credentials as a citizen of another Kingdom and hence not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him”.
No, the context tells us very loudly that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the KING. An interpretation which denies that – well, must involve some very special pleading and some very odd presuppositions, surely?
There's a further context point here as well - in interpreting John 18-19, whatever interpretation we come up with has to be consistent with the outcome. And we read in all the gospels that Pilate finds Jesus 'not guilty at all'. But surely if there would be one thing calculated to bring about a verdict of 'Guilty!' it would be “not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him”. We've all seen this kind of thing in recent years – freedom fighter or terrorist, “I don't accept the authority of your court”. And it doesn't work even with a civilised democratic nation such as the UK; it would get even less sympathy from the kind of imperial governor Pilate was. Pilate's likely reaction would be on the lines of “Keep telling yourself that while you die on the cross”. Pilate finding Jesus 'not guilty' speaks very loudly against Alan's interpretation.
And by the way; Jesus didn't reject the authority of this particular earthly power. Look at this – John 19; 10-11
quote:
Pilate said to him, “...Do you not know that I have power (Gk 'exousia'/authority) to liberate you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus replied, “You have no power whatever of your own, but only what is granted you from above”.
That is, Jesus accepts the authority of Pilate as from God; he doesn't reject it, he 'submits to the governing authorities' just as Paul taught in Romans 13.
So as I said, the issue is not as Alan portrays it; the issue is Jesus does claim to be king, but what kind of king and kingdom is he claiming to be? And the answer, the kind of king who gets a 'not guilty' verdict from Pilate. And that is not a king who is advocating 'Christian countries' in any shape or form that might lead to the kind of uprising which it is Pilate's job to prevent....
Discuss.....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In the course of the 'Aaaargh!' thread on hell I was asked by John Holding to suggest an NT text in support of my overall case about state and church. I suggested John 18 v36 where Jesus says his kingdom is 'not of this world'.
And I repeat my contention, which you haven't repeated here, that this verse says nothing whatsoever about the church and its relationship to the State.
quote:
Not just the one line, but take account of the context in which Jesus is on trial before Pilate on a charge, in effect, of seeking to establish a 'Christian country' in the most direct way possible.
This is reading into the text. As far as I can see from John's gospel, the charge against Jesus is not clear at all. Pilate asks the Jews what the charge is and they say "if he was not an evildoer we wouldn't have brought him before you". It's quite a leap from that non-response to a charge of "establishing a Christian country in the most direct way possible".
quote:
His response there results in Pilate finding him innocent and seeking to release him. I at least can't think of any way Pilate could have done that if Jesus had proposed any of the kinds of Christian country we have seen since Constantine.
It is fallacious to argue that Pilate's attempts to release Jesus must mean "he was not trying to establish a Christian country". My own take is that he sought to release Jesus because he began to suspect he might actually be who he said he was, but that this fear was overruled by his fear of the mob and of Rome. quote:
Jesus is then put on trial for blasphemy, and convicted.
Please note this is not the same offence as "seeking to establish a Christian country". quote:
But surely if there would be one thing calculated to bring about a verdict of 'Guilty!' it would be “not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him”. We've all seen this kind of thing in recent years – freedom fighter or terrorist, “I don't accept the authority of your court”.
This is nonsense. A court is there to decide whether or not the defendant has broken the law it seeks to uphold. A refusal on the part of the defendant to recognise the authority of the court may be prejudicial to them, but it has no bearing on whether they are guilty of the offence with which they are charged. quote:
Jesus didn't reject the authority of this particular earthly power. Look at this – John 19; 10-11
quote:
Pilate said to him, “...Do you not know that I have power (Gk 'exousia'/authority) to liberate you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus replied, “You have no power whatever of your own, but only what is granted you from above”.
That is, Jesus accepts the authority of Pilate as from God; he doesn't reject it, he 'submits to the governing authorities'
I somehow don't think Pilate heard Jesus' declaration as a ringing endorsement of his authority. quote:
And the answer, the kind of king who gets a 'not guilty' verdict from Pilate. And that is not a king who is advocating 'Christian countries' in any shape or form that might lead to the kind of uprising which it is Pilate's job to prevent....
Even if it were assumed (and it is an assumption) that this passage shows Pilate finding Jesus not guilty of establishing a rival kingdom to Rome, or not guilty of being "the wrong sort of king" it says nothing at all about the relationship between church and state. That is an anachronism.
[ 24. November 2014, 05:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
“Jesus isn't establishing Himself as a king”
Really?? As I see it, whatever interpretation we give the text has first of all to be consistent with context. And on Jesus as King, there's both a big context and at least one small immediate context which rather contradict Alan's contention here. ...
It is one of the major themes of the NT as a whole that Jesus is the Son of David, God's anointed, the Messiah, in short, the King.
I don't think it's entirely clear that the Bible teaches that the Messiah would be, as you put it, "in short, the King". Though, it's quite possible that the crowds on Palm Sunday thought that. I think it's much safer to say that the Bible teaches that the Messiah will bring in the Kingdom of God, which is not (necessarily) the same thing at all.
Of course, the kingship over Israel starting with Saul and David could be seen as an aberration, a step away from the calling of the people that they have one king, God Himself. The Messiah could easily be the fulfilment of the Davidic kingly line not as a final king in that line, but as the person who brings it to an end by returning the kingship to God where it belongs.
In Revelation, we don't see Christ on the throne. It is the Lamb, Christ, who approaches the throne to open the seals on the scroll.
So, I don't see it as automatically obvious that the Christ is King. It is, of course, a reasonable reading of Scripture. But, it's not the only one.
But that all leaves the bigger question unanswered. Whether Christ is the King, or just heralds in the Kingdom, what exactly is the nature of the Kingdom of God? Is it purely spiritual, or does the Kingdom extend into the whole of life? The repeated statements in Scripture, including within this passage of John, that the rulers of the earth are in their positions of authority by the decision of God who is the true King over all would certainly imply that the Kingdom of God extends beyond Heaven into the Earth.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I still want to hear about that sunshine.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Thanks Eutychus and Alan for at least dealing with me seriously and to the point. You've given me a lot to consider and I'll take my time to try and do it justice.
by Alan C;
quote:
The Messiah could easily be the fulfilment of the Davidic kingly line not as a final king in that line, but as the person who brings it to an end by returning the kingship to God where it belongs.
One query; I thought that the title 'Messiah', meaning literally 'the anointed' is actually synonymous with 'the king'.
My other comment - as far as I'm concerned, Jesus 'fulfils' the Davidic kingship in both ways you mention. He is the final king in the line,not least because he is eternal; but he also, as incarnate Son of God and a member of the Divine Trinity, returns the kingship to God, repairing the breach between divine and human kingships which God allowed in the days of Samuel, Saul, and David.
by Eutychus;
quote:
... it says nothing at all about the relationship between church and state. That is an anachronism.
As I think we covered briefly back in Hell, I guess that depends on how you view the Church. I'm currently reading Scot McKnight's book 'Kingdom Conspiracy' in which he devotes a major chapter to this point. Jesus' kingdom is not just a future still to come abstract, nor is it a kingdom empty of subjects in the here and now. The Church is the kingdom precisely because it consists of the subjects of the king, the people described in John 18 as 'Everyone who loves the truth (and) listens to my voice'.
I'll leave it there for now. You have both been rough but fair; thanks.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Just a hostly reminder that, now that this discussion has moved to Kerygmania, all points made and discussed must be firmly rooted in what the Bible says about the topic, and analysis of relevant Biblical passages.
Trudy, Scrumptious Kerygmania Host
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Church is the kingdom precisely because it consists of the subjects of the king.
While it may be argued, disputably, that kingdoms consist of subjects of the king, I submit that you cannot infer from that assumption that the Church equals the Kingdom, still less substantiate that from Scripture. Consider, for instance, the Kingdom parables of the net and the wheat and the tares.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
While it may be argued, disputably, that kingdoms consist of subjects of the king, I submit that you cannot infer from that assumption that the Church equals the Kingdom, still less substantiate that from Scripture. Consider, for instance, the Kingdom parables of the net and the wheat and the tares.
Or indeed the parable of the sheep and goats where, in effect, people find out they were members of the Kingdom unawares!
However, when Pilate asks, in v33, “Are you the king of the Jews?” he isn't bothered about all that subtlety, is he? His concern is whether this king, this Jesus, is gathering an army to come banging on the gates of Jerusalem, and set up a kingdom of his own in a part of the Roman Empire.
It's not necessary to deny all kinds of other aspects of the Kingdom to appreciate that at that moment, there in Pilate's court this one issue is the most important; and that what Jesus says about it in this literally life-and-death moment must surely have implications for the people who, through faith, become the kingdom's voluntary members and it's workers – indeed its army, but maybe not quite in the usual sense. Those for whom “Jesus is Lord” will want to recognise his Lordship over this matter and not rebel against him over it or kid themselves they know better.
I picked John 18 as my example because it raises the issue most sharply in the context of the then leading worldly power. Obviously my total position is far more widely based.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
John 18 provides evidence that Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world.
Do you concede that neither this passage nor any other establishes a direct parallel between the Kingdom and the Church? Because if you do, then you cannot use it as evidence of what the relationship between Church and state should be.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I believe that the German Lutheran church in WW2 - a state church - believed firmly in matters temporal being separate from matters spiritual - in other words, in the Kingdom not being of this world, in line with your argument here - to the extent that they closed their eyes to Hitler's totalitarianism as being none of their business.
And why do you insist on seeing the Kingdom of God as something one can enjoy being a "member" or a "subject" of? Can you point to a verse in Scripture that says that? The only place I can find is Matthew 8:12, which has the good news that, according to Jesus, quote:
the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
As Host Trudy has said, Kerygmania is for the Biblical discussion. However it has occurred to me that the prior history of this thread has rather muddled some of the issues, and I hope for hostly indulgence to just clarify the broad background position I hold so that we won't go off on too many irrelevant tangents through misunderstandings.
(This was prepared earlier and ahead of Eutychus' last, which it partly answers).
Eutychus made the two following points;
quote:
And I repeat my contention, which you haven't repeated here, that this verse says nothing whatsoever about the church and its relationship to the State.
And that the passage, John 18...
quote:
...says nothing at all about the relationship between church and state. That is an anachronism.
And actually I pretty much agree. The church did just about exist at this point, but not in a form that Pilate knew anything about so he wouldn't exactly be considering it; at this stage none of our later ideas are fully developed. The modern constitutional idea of 'separation of church and state' is a multiple anachronism, not least because as the USA constitution frames it, it is a separation of 'religion' and state, not merely a church-and-state matter.
Indeed in many ways the problem of the USA/modern-liberal concepts of freedom of religion and that 'separation of church-and-state' is that it's a secular concept on an Enlightenment and rationalist basis. Given that most of the world's religions started out as either national in nature or like Islam with a decided concept of a religious state, why would they accept the concept at all? Why would they not prefer to take Peter's position of Acts 5; 29 that “We must obey God rather than men” and if they believe their God requires a religious state, go ahead and try eventually to set up such a state regardless of the constitution? They might well give lip service to the plural state in the meantime, as it would of course be useful to them while they were a minority, but.... Ultimately in most religions the notion of a plural state actually challenges the authority of their god(s).
The West has I believe only been able to develop its pluralism on the foundation of the different approach of Christianity, ironically made known even through the 'Constantinian' churches, even if what they've ended up with is not quite the Christian position as such.
The NT position rests on the following ideas;
First, that you don't become a Christian just by being born in the ordinary human way – you must be 'born again', which is apart from anything else something which can't be legislated for, nor does it happen 'magically' through acts like infant baptism. This makes a 'Christian nation' a difficult thing to have....
Second, that it is the Church itself which is “God's holy nation”, in continuity with the OT people of God Israel, but now worldwide and comprising all who have faith in Jesus. If the Church is God's holy nation, ordinary worldly nations can't claim that place.
Third, that Christians regard themselves as citizens of the kingdom of heaven; and so as 'resident aliens' on earth, who live peaceably among their neighbours. Peter, who actually uses a Greek word meaning near-enough 'resident aliens', doesn't expect this state of affairs to end this side of the Second Coming.
On this understanding Christians are not trying to impose anything on neighbours; rather they are content to live in any kind of states. The above is a summary. I'm trying to avoid misunderstandings, please don't nit-pick it but use it to understand where I'm coming from on the John 18 issues.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I believe that the German Lutheran church in WW2 - a state church - believed firmly in matters temporal being separate from matters spiritual - in other words, in the Kingdom not being of this world, in line with your argument here - to the extent that they closed their eyes to Hitler's totalitarianism as being none of their business.
As a state church, German Lutheranism had all kinds of problems long before the Godwin's law matter arose; they had little in common with my position, brilliant as Luther was on lots of other things. As per my previous, I'm not advocating standard separation of church and state, but a distinctive biblical view - which is why we're doing this in Keryg.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
So what I take away from this is:
1) You concede John 18:36 has nothing to say to the respective roles of church and state (despite this being the basis on which you brought it to the table in the first place) and admit that to claim as much is an anachronism
2) That while you describe 'Constantinian' churches as holding "not quite the Christian position as such" (!), you concede that where it thrives, religious pluralism (as opposed in your mind to state churches and/or religions with aspirations to supplant worldly kingdoms) is at least in part indebted to the influence of 'Constantinian' practice, even if only through historical accident rather than divine first preference as you see it.
Before writing off 'Constantinian' practice wholesale as "not quite Christian", you might like to reflect on the degree to which modern-day anabaptists enjoy many of the benefits of its heritage.
quote:
I'm trying to avoid misunderstandings, please don't nit-pick it but use it to understand where I'm coming from on the John 18 issues.
The nature of Kerygmania is, verily, to nit-pick each others' understanding of Biblical texts. You were the one who loudly heralded your choice of this forum to debate a specific text, John 18:36, apparently in defence of your anabaptist views.*
You appear either implicitly or explicitly to have withdrawn all your key assertions about this verse, so unless you return to discussing specific Bible passages to support your views, I guess either this thread is over or it will get summarily moved to Purgatory.
*As mentioned in Hell, I actually have quite a lot of sympathy for the anabaptist position, but hardly any at all for the basis on which you choose to attempt to defend it, not least John 18:36, or for your summary dismissals of everyone else.
[x-post with Steve's most recent]
[ 24. November 2014, 18:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
1) You concede John 18:36 has nothing to say to the respective roles of church and state (despite this being the basis on which you brought it to the table in the first place) and admit that to claim as much is an anachronism
I concede nothing of the kind. I brought this to the table here on the basis that John 18;36, in its context of a real trial before a real Roman Governor, and in terms of how he would see the situation, is pretty determinative about certain views of the role of Jesus' followers in the world. Nit-picking academic distinctions over 'church' and 'kingdom' and 'state' are only relevant if they would have made a difference to Pilate's verdict.
And what difference would they make? Pilate could only find Jesus 'not guilty' if satisfied he and his followers would not be a military threat; and the grounds on which he was able to make that decision also apply to the real concrete modern church and its place in the world, not just to an abstract academic kingdom.
What is puzzling me here is why you are so keen to dissociate Church and Kingdom. What view of the kingdom do you positively hold that makes it such an issue for you?
The 'anachronism' is not in the understanding that the concept "My kingdom is not of this world" applies to the Church; the anachronism is to read backwards into the situation all the later ideas and understandings, including the modern 'separation of Church and State' idea where I am putting forward a different, biblical not secular view of the Christian approach. I brought the matter to Kerygmania precisely to be easier able to get that distinction across.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You appear either implicitly or explicitly to have withdrawn all your key assertions about this verse,
NO!!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Pilate is concerned about the possibility of a mob of Gallilean yokels storming his palace. His questions, and the answers he gets, confirm that Jesus is not going to lead such a politically disastrous (for Pilate) action. Thus, there is no charge for Him to answer under Roman law.
I think we safely draw from that the conclusion that Jesus would not want us to gain political advantage by violence. We're not to form an army and march on Westminster to impose Christian faith on the nation.
Does that relate to non-violent, gradual processes? If the population, freely, chose to follow Christ would not that faith be part of society? Would it not be part of the decision making process of our Parliaments? Would it not be right to call us a Christian nation? That is an entirely different set of questions that this passage in John doesn't even come close to answering, not even giving us a hint of what the answers might be. And, I can't think of any other Scriptures that would inform discussion of those questions either.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I still want to hear about that sunshine.
Heartfelt though it was, this yearning of mine was best left unexpressed on this board. I apologize for it.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Just to finish some business with Alan Cresswell
By Alan Cresswell;
quote:
In Revelation, we don't see Christ on the throne. It is the Lamb, Christ, who approaches the throne to open the seals on the scroll.
Agreed that we don't see Christ/the Lamb on the throne (or at least not at that point - I'm still checking elsewhere); but what we do see is in Rev 17; 14 this;
quote:
"They will war against the Lamb and the Lamb shall conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings..."
and again in Rev 19; 16 this;
quote:
Then I saw heaven thrown open and a white horse appeared, Its Rider is called Faithful and True.... and his appointed title is; The Word of God. ... On his robe and on his thigh he has his name inscribed; King of kings and Lord of lords."
In light of those texts I'm struggling to understand Alan's further statement that
quote:
So, I don't see it as automatically obvious that the Christ is King. It is, of course, a reasonable reading of Scripture. But, it's not the only one.
And Rev 17 and 19 would seem also to provide a pretty decisive biblical answer to Alan's 'bigger' question as to "Whether Christ is the King, or just heralds in the Kingdom" .
The nature of the kingdom - that's what I've been exploring in relation to John 18-19 and 18; 36 in particular.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John 18;36, in its context of a real trial before a real Roman Governor, and in terms of how he would see the situation, is pretty determinative about certain views of the role of Jesus' followers in the world.
As far as I can see it's pretty determinative of what Jesus' kingdom is not, and little more. It indicates his followers should not confuse his kingdom with worldly ones, but gives no indication as to what their precise roles should be. quote:
Nit-picking academic distinctions over 'church' and 'kingdom' and 'state' are only relevant if they would have made a difference to Pilate's verdict.
These are hardly nit-picking academic distinctions. The concepts in question are vastly different.
The word 'State' does not even appear in the Bible.
'Church' means an assembly of people and by implication in the NT, an assembly of believers.
In the NT 'Kingdom', to my mind, does not mean a set of subjects but the realm in which a sovereign's will is exercised. To equate it with the church is thus a category confusion.
quote:
And what difference would they make? Pilate could only find Jesus 'not guilty' if satisfied he and his followers would not be a military threat
You seem to think Pilate's decision was wholly impartial, founded in logic, and offers a definitive ruling on the nature of Jesus' kingdom and thus the Church (this is ironic not least in that you appear to be appealing to the authority of an earthly power to rule on what the Church is and isn't).
That is not the picture that emerges from the Scriptures in my view. We see Pilate torn between Jesus' testimony, the pressure of the crowd and the advice of his wife, dodging the issues by refusing to convict Jesus, yet handing him over to be killed, and (it can surely not have escaped your notice) arranging for him to be crucified as "King of the Jews" - not "King (not of this world)".
quote:
What is puzzling me here is why you are so keen to dissociate Church and Kingdom.
I, on the other hand, am not puzzled at all as to why you insist on conflating them - it's the only way you can justify putting forward John 18:36 in answer to a question about church and state. quote:
What view of the kingdom do you positively hold that makes it such an issue for you?
Anabaptists usually take the view that local churches should consist solely of professing believers to reflect the believing nature of the universal Church. As I have pointed out, the Kingdom parables of the wheat and the tares, and the net, give an entirely different picture of the Kingdom - a mixed bag until the end of the age. That alone suggests Church and Kingdom are not the same thing.
quote:
I am putting forward a different, biblical not secular view of the Christian approach. I brought the matter to Kerygmania precisely to be easier able to get that distinction across.
I think we can all agree Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world". You have failed to prove, especially on Biblical grounds (rather than your rather huge inferences about why Pilate ruled as he did) your assertion that the Kingdom (bar, in your words, some academic nit-picking) is the same thing as the Church.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I don't think this is quite as clear cut as Steve would have us believe. The New Testament is written within the context of a pagan empire. It has nothing to say about what should happen if and when the emperor is a Christian, how he should conduct himself in relation to the empire etc. Steve has created, I would argue, somewhat of a straw man. No one is arguing that the Church or state should be equated with the kingdom or that the Church and state should be indistinguishable from one another. History shows that this was not the case, such as the incident between Theodosius and St. Ambrose. Christ's dialogue with Pilate only proves that the kingdom is not a threat to the temporal power of the emperor, not that the empire shouldn't be Christian.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Quick responses, more when I've considered the points;
by Eutychus;
quote:
These are hardly nit-picking academic distinctions. The concepts in question are vastly different.
They are pretty academic when you are Pilate worrying whether Jesus is aiming to lead an army and set up a Christian/Messianic state in opposition to you. "My kingdom is not of this world" at least includes the proposition that Jesus does not aim to have state churches in the sense that arose later.
by Eutychus;
quote:
The word 'State' does not even appear in the Bible.
Nor do many words which we nevertheless use in discussing biblical concepts. Actually the nearest equivalent used does seem to be 'kingdom', given that most of what we might call 'states' were in those days kingdoms or empires under human kings.
by Eutychus;
quote:
'Church' means an assembly of people and by implication in the NT, an assembly of believers.
It also appears, in Matthew 16, to mean the wider church, not just local assemblies; and in I Pet 2; 9, it is described as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation" - a description also applied to Israel, the OT kingdom of God and then of David, implying continuity of the church with that kingdom.
by Eutychus;
quote:
In the NT 'Kingdom', to my mind, does not mean a set of subjects but the realm in which a sovereign's will is exercised. To equate it with the church is thus a category confusion.
Clearly the concept of God's Kingdom is wider than just 'the Church' - I have no problem with that. However, John 18;36 is necessarily concerned with the manifestation of the Kingdom in terms of Jesus' followers and how they will behave relative to initially Rome and later other states. That God does indeed rule over everything whether or not it is recognised/acknowledged is not of Pilate's concern; how the earthly manifestation in the followers will behave is very much Pilate's concern.
Consider this - in the sense that God is always King and that even the wicked ultimately do his will and achieve his purposes, God's Kingdom is simply an always and everywhere fact. But if we only mean that, what need was there for Jesus to proclaim the Kingdom as 'coming'? Isn't that precisely about the exercise of God's will not just in the relatively abstract, but concretely in the lives of willing, dedicated subjects called out of the world into the Kingdom? And what is that but, in the present age, the Church?
by Eutychus;
quote:
You seem to think Pilate's decision was wholly impartial, founded in logic, and offers a definitive ruling on the nature of Jesus' kingdom and thus the Church (this is ironic not least in that you appear to be appealing to the authority of an earthly power to rule on what the Church is and isn't).
Credit me with some consistency, please! No, Pilate's decision does not 'offer a ruling' on the nature of the Kingdom/Church. Jesus makes the ruling in his statements to Pilate, and it is decidedly by his authority and not by Pilate's authority. But Pilate's response confirms and if you like concretely illustrates the meaning of Jesus' words.
by Eutychus;
quote:
As I have pointed out, the Kingdom parables of the wheat and the tares, and the net, give an entirely different picture of the Kingdom - a mixed bag until the end of the age.
Would you, like Augustine and others, push that to the point of affirming the state church idea and its necessarily extremely mixed status? The Kingdom and the Church are indeed a mixed bag till the end of the age - but it is still important to be clear on the difference between church and world.
by Eutychus;
quote:
your assertion that the Kingdom (bar, in your words, some academic nit-picking) is the same thing as the Church.
I am not simplistically asserting that Kingdom = Church. I am asserting that the concept "My Kingdom is not of this world" implies and includes, especially in the specific context of a trial before Pilate with Jesus' kingship at issue, that the church does not/should not aim at any of the kinds of worldly authority claimed in the various versions of the concept of a 'Christian country', and that the church must not be confused with the world in that area, whatever terminology of states etc. may be used.
by Ad Orientem
quote:
I don't think this is quite as clear cut as Steve would have us believe.
I don't think it's all that 'clear-cut'; So many different versions of 'Christian country' have been tried that little about the concept is clear at all! What I think is clear-cut, on the basis of the NT as a whole, is that the whole 'Christian country' concept is misguided and the Church is meant to operate in the world and in relation to the world, in a very different and much humbler way. And BTW we now have some 1600 years of experience of how misguided the idea of the 'Christian country' was and is.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It also appears, in Matthew 16, to mean the wider church, not just local assemblies; and in I Pet 2; 9, it is described as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation" - a description also applied to Israel, the OT kingdom of God and then of David, implying continuity of the church with that kingdom.
So, the Church is the continuity of the kingdom of Israel, a nation state with all entails. Why, then, on the basis of Peters description of the Church as a nation do you reject the Church being a nation?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In light of those texts I'm struggling to understand Alan's further statement that
quote:
So, I don't see it as automatically obvious that the Christ is King. It is, of course, a reasonable reading of Scripture. But, it's not the only one.
And Rev 17 and 19 would seem also to provide a pretty decisive biblical answer to Alan's 'bigger' question as to "Whether Christ is the King, or just heralds in the Kingdom"
I know I introduced Revelation, but it's also probably the hardest part of the Bible to use to support an argument. A central theme of the Revelation is that Christ is in charge, that He will defeat all the forces that seek to destroy the Church, as an encouragement to the persecuted Church. So, portraying Christ as King is consistent with that, which might be used as a contrary argument when it sometimes puts Christ into a subordinate position rather than as sitting on the throne.
The point I was trying to make with the statement you are struggling to understand is, I'd hoped, quite simple. The point is that there are alternative understandings of Scripture that are as valid as the ones you are presenting.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Translation-wise, it should be 'FROM this world' - the values aren't worldly ones.
It could be possible to have an earthly kingdom which adopts transcendent values.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
They are pretty academic when you are Pilate worrying whether Jesus is aiming to lead an army and set up a Christian/Messianic state in opposition to you.
I repeat my assertion that this is a massive assumption about what's driving Pilate's thinking and rulings.
As far as I can see the text suggests Pilate simply wanted to, um, wash his hands of Jesus. His decisions were based on expediency, not some thought-out appraisal of Jesus' political ambitions or otherwise. And he hung up a sign calling him "King of the Jews". quote:
"My kingdom is not of this world" at least includes the proposition that Jesus does not aim to have state churches in the sense that arose later.
I'm increasingly convinced (see my current signature) that Jesus did not intend to have churches that look anything like we see today. He promised to build his universal Church.
State and non-state churches alike have a tendency to want to exist as an end in themselves instead of a means to a greater end.
Churches should be service stations on the motorway of life: functional, somewhere for a comfort break, pleasant enough but not somewhere you choose to stay long term or visit as a destination. Instead, many church leaders seem intent on turning their churches into Disneyland.
But we can't turn back the clock and undo church history nor what it's done in society. We need to find our various ways forward from where we find ourselves, not pine after a mythical anabaptist paradise lost.
quote:
But if we only mean that, what need was there for Jesus to proclaim the Kingdom as 'coming'? Isn't that precisely about the exercise of God's will not just in the relatively abstract, but concretely in the lives of willing, dedicated subjects called out of the world into the Kingdom? And what is that but, in the present age, the Church?
You must have a different Bible to me. In mine it says not that we are called out of the world but that we are sent into it. quote:
So many different versions of 'Christian country' have been tried that little about the concept is clear at all!
Unless you can provide some clarity, one might be forgiven for thinking you're attacking a straw man.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
So, the Church is the continuity of the kingdom of Israel, a nation state with all (that) entails. Why, then, on the basis of Peter's description of the Church as a nation do you reject the Church being a nation?
Precisely because we are talking 'New Covenant' and the preaching of the gospel and kingdom outside and beyond Israel, and an NT understanding that being a Christian is not about your human once-birth into a human nation but about being 'born again' which is not 'by the will of man' and certainly not by the legislation of a normal human country.
The point of what Peter says is precisely that the Church itself IS a nation; but that nation is the kingdom of heaven and we are on earth, in our various nations, as 'resident aliens' (Peter does use a Gk word meaning almost exactly that in the early verses of chapter 1). Though many have tried, no ordinary human geographic or ethnic nation can make claim to be that nation, only the international body of the born-again, the 'Body of Christ', the Church.
The continuity with Israel is very important - but so are the 'New Covenant' differences!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by leo;
quote:
Translation-wise, it should be 'FROM this world' - the values aren't worldly ones.
It could be possible to have an earthly kingdom which adopts transcendent values.
And indeed the word 'basileia' can alternatively be translated 'kingship' rather than 'kingdom'. Jesus is still claiming to be a king and Pilate still has to consider what that implies in this world, and therefore what kind of king Jesus is and what kind of kingdom he proposes.
Yes, it is theoretically possible to have an earthly kingdom that adopts transcendant values; but I refer you to Eutychus' signature phrase for how it's worked out so far in practice....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I repeat my assertion that this is a massive assumption about what's driving Pilate's thinking and rulings.
I accept most of what you say about Pilate's other concerns/motivations; but nevertheless, is it really so massive an assumption that when Pilate's first question to Jesus is "Are you the king of the Jews?" he's got a very significant concern about what was normally meant in those days by people making that claim? - and indeed was meant not so far in the future in the Bar Kokhba revolt.
by Eutychus;
quote:
I'm increasingly convinced (see my current signature) that Jesus did not intend to have churches that look anything like we see today. He promised to build his universal Church.
I had noticed your signature! And I broadly agree with the sentiment. But by and large the churches we see today are the product of the 'Constantinian' shift or of (sometimes only partial) reactions against it. That is, the Church Loisy is thinking of is not by a long way the Church Jesus intended!
I don't rule out the idea that like the questionable Israelite choice of a human king, God may overrule and use our bad decisions - but that doesn't make them into actually good decisions! To be more like the Kingdom requires understanding and reversing/repenting-of the bad decisions and returning to biblical faithfulness.
by Eutychus;
quote:
But we can't turn back the clock and undo church history nor what it's done in society. We need to find our various ways forward from where we find ourselves, not pine after a mythical anabaptist paradise lost.
Not arguing; and I wouldn't think that a 21stC church needs to be just a replica of the NT church. But it does need to be built from a 'rock'foundation of NT principles and not on the 'sands' of trying to keep rags of Constantinianism going. The modern Anabaptist movement is much more than just the traditional Anabaptist groups, and does recognise faults as well as the good in the Anabaptist past.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You must have a different Bible to me. In mine it says not that we are called out of the world but that we are sent into it.
I might wonder about your Bible; in mine it says both that we are called out of the world AND that we are sent into it. If we remain 'of the world', if we refuse the call out of it, we are of no use; but our calling out is also clearly a calling to work in the world, to take to the world the things we have been called to.
The word 'ekklesia' actually conveys that meaning of 'called out', doesn't it?
by Eutychus;
quote:
Unless you can provide some clarity, one might be forgiven for thinking you're attacking a straw man.
Don't fall for any of the various attempts to have a 'Christian country' is pretty clear, I'd have thought! The lack of clarity is not on my side but from all the manoeuvres and obfuscations used on the other side to keep their dodgy idea going.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
is it really so massive an assumption that when Pilate's first question to Jesus is "Are you the king of the Jews?" he's got a very significant concern about what was normally meant in those days by people making that claim?
If he was satisfied that was not the case, why do you think he wrote what he wrote?
quote:
I wouldn't think that a 21stC church needs to be just a replica of the NT church. But it does need to be built from a 'rock'foundation of NT principles and not on the 'sands' of trying to keep rags of Constantinianism going.
I don't think it needs to be 'built' by us at all, because Jesus promises he will build it. It's when we attempt to do so that the emphasis goes all wrong. Our job is to seek the Kingdom
quote:
I might wonder about your Bible; in mine it says both that we are called out of the world
Really? Where?
quote:
The word 'ekklesia' actually conveys that meaning of 'called out', doesn't it?
That might be its literal meaning, but I wouldn't read too much into that. It just means a specific group or assembly, I think.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
As a quick response for now;
by Eutychus;
quote:
SL;
I might wonder about your Bible; in mine it says both that we are called out of the world
Eutychus;
Really? Where?
Is II Corinthians 6; 14-17 strong enough for you? Or John 17; 9-19 which taken as a whole conveys exactly the balance I had in mind, of Christians not being 'of the world' but nevertheless sent into it? I'm sure I can find more if I really try....
by Eutychus;
quote:
quote:
SL:
The word 'ekklesia' actually conveys that meaning of 'called out', doesn't it?
Eutychus;
That might be its literal meaning, but I wouldn't read too much into that. It just means a specific group or assembly, I think.
In those days such 'assemblies' were very much 'called out' - see one of the non-church uses of the word, in Acts 19 at Ephesus. Actually three non-church uses in one chapter, according to my concordance, to only one use as 'church' where, as students of the KJV will tell you, Tyndale preferred 'congregation' anyway. The church congregates together precisely as 'called out' of the world.
by Eutychus;
quote:
I don't think it (the Church) needs to be 'built' by us at all, because Jesus promises he will build it.
Agreed; As Anabaptists go I have some decided Calvinistic tendencies. But nevertheless the building is done through us, we are commissioned to preach the word and to do the discipling, and surely the rock and sand parable applies.
If we are to do our job properly we must properly preach the relationship between church and world, and the 'Constantinian' view, in whatever shade or permutation, definitely ain't that proper relationship.
On your other point about the 'INRI' placard, I know pretty much what the answer is; making sure I express it properly will take a bit longer so I'll come back later.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Is II Corinthians 6; 14-17 strong enough for you?
It doesn't mention the "world". Elsewhere in Corinthians Paul specifically says that he does not intend believers to leave the world but rather not to associate with those who call themselves believers but who show no signs at all of sanctification. quote:
Or John 17; 9-19 which taken as a whole conveys exactly the balance I had in mind, of Christians not being 'of the world' but nevertheless sent into it?
That is not at all what you said, you claimed we were called out of the world whereas this very passage has Jesus sending us in to the world. quote:
In those days such 'assemblies' were very much 'called out' - see one of the non-church uses of the word, in Acts 19 at Ephesus. Actually three non-church uses in one chapter, according to my concordance, to only one use as 'church' where, as students of the KJV will tell you, Tyndale preferred 'congregation' anyway. The church congregates together precisely as 'called out' of the world.
As you helpfully point out, the word applies also to non-church assemblies, which cannot be "called out of the world" in the same way as you are claiming the Church is. You cannot have your etymological cake for ekklesia and eat it. "Called out", yes, "Called out of the world", no.
quote:
If we are to do our job properly we must properly preach the relationship between church and world, and the 'Constantinian' view, in whatever shade or permutation, definitely ain't that proper relationship.
So what is the proper relationship in your view?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
It (II Cor 6) doesn't mention the "world".
Given what it does mention, from "Don't be yoked up unequally with unbelievers" onwards, does the text need to use the exact word 'world'? Does "come out from their midst and be separate" actually need to specify what is come out of as that one word?
by Eutychus;
quote:
That is not at all what you said, you claimed we were called out of the world whereas this very passage has Jesus sending us in to the world.
Sending into the world from where, please? From having first been called out of it to join Jesus, surely? They/we are not called out in an 'Exclusive Brethren' kind of sense; they/we are nevertheless clearly stated to be 'not of/from (ek) the world', and to be sent into the world precisely as not themselves/ourselves 'worldly' as the Berkeley translation phrases it.
quote:
You cannot have your etymological cake for ekklesia and eat it. "Called out", yes, "Called out of the world", no.
I'm a bit surprised that you didn't pick up my hasty misread, arising partly because of the way my concordance's index is arranged; there are actually of course 112 uses of ekklesia as 'church'! Ooops! Nevertheless, I think it significant that a word meaning basically 'called out' is used. Other words for 'assembly' are also available - James even uses the word 'synagogue'.
Colossians 1; 12-14 and I Thess 2;12 again carry a similar idea; in Colossians of delivery from the authority of darkness 'into/eis' the kingdom of the Son, and in Thessalonians just of being called into the kingdom of God.
Right now, however, I'm getting a feeling similar to dealing with believers in a certain theory about rapture and tribulation and such, who to maintain their bizarre idea of two comings of Jesus, one for the Church and one actually in judgement, will insist on distinguishing "Oh but here it says 'parousia' which means 'appearing', and here it's this other word meaning 'coming', so these are clearly separate events and not the same...."
The essential of the argument on John 18 is whether the claim "My kingdom/kingship is not of this world..." is relevant to the issues we now call 'church-and-state', whatever terminology the Bible uses or was used generally at the time. I'm saying it is relevant, you're trying to say it isn't on the basis apparently of a distinction between 'kingdom' and 'church'.
My claim it is relevant doesn't rest on the single sentence that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, but on the context as well.
That's a context in which Jesus points out how if his kingdom were of this world, his disciples would be fighting (indeed, if you think about it, he's implying, whether Pilate realised it or not, that if he had that kind of kingdom in mind, he'd have raised a proper army instead of a bunch of muddled fishermen!).
It's a context in which Jesus is on trial for his life and is asked "Are you the king of the Jews?" in a situation where that rather has to be a question about this-worldly kingdoms and possible military intentions.
It's a context in which Jesus affirms his kingship only to go straight into "For this purpose was I born, and for this I entered into the world, that I might testify to the truth. Everyone who loves the truth listens to my voice".
And I would point out that we're having this discussion because I was asked for 'a text', and chose one which seems relevant because it deals with the issue precisely in relation to the worldly kingdom of Rome, and the resolution, of Pilate declaring Jesus innocent, is hardly possible if Jesus were intending any version of 'Christian country' claim as usually put forward by 'Constantinians'.
As I've repeatedly said, my overall position is far more widely based than the single text anyway.
by Eutychus;
quote:
So what is the proper relationship in your view?
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'.
And right now, with an obligation to have a model railway ready for an event on Saturday, I've something else to do before bedtime... back tomorrow.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Hosting
While Kerygmania is the home for discussion of Biblical passages and themes, this thread has strayed well beyond its original lively conversation about John 18-19. At this point, nine separate books of the Bible have been referenced, and that's not counting multiple references per book. Pulling in Biblical verses to shore up a theological or political (or other such) argument does not make a Kerygmania thread.
Hang onto your colored ribbon markers. We're headed to Purgatory.
Mamacita, Kerygmania Host
[ 26. November 2014, 04:14: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'.
But that says nothing of how the Christian ruler should conduct matters of state unless, that is, you are arguing that Christians should have nothing to do with the state and/or that the Christian ruler is not accountable to God for his acts of state.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I would point out that we're having this discussion because I was asked for 'a text', and chose one which seems relevant because it deals with the issue precisely in relation to the worldly kingdom of Rome, and the resolution, of Pilate declaring Jesus innocent, is hardly possible if Jesus were intending any version of 'Christian country' claim as usually put forward by 'Constantinians'.
And I await your explanation of how you can be so sure this resolution means "Pilate was fully satisfied Jesus was not aiming to be an earthly king" when he stuck up a sign designating him as "King of the Jews" over his cross.
I would still also like to have an example of these 'Constantinians' who are putting forward Jesus' intent to establish a 'Christian country' are.
quote:
As I've repeatedly said, my overall position is far more widely based than the single text anyway.
Which begs the question of why you chose to take the discussion to Kerygmania.
quote:
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'.
This sounds alarmingly like a non-listed multinational company to me. If you take this imagery too literally, I think a cult with no regard for secular law is one likely result.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye leo, it's THAT simple.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
This sounds alarmingly like a non-listed multinational company to me. If you take this imagery too literally, I think a cult with no regard for secular law is one likely result.
No, what is likely to result is a church which is bound by its own teachings to be 'subject to' the earthly authorities. As has always been the case, the church will aim to 'obey God rather than men' (Acts 5; 29 ); but when that brings conflict with the state, we follow the example of Jesus - as demonstrated in John 18 inter alia - and instead of violent rebellion face martyrdom.
If you are alarmed by that I think you have a problem with Jesus and the apostles before you have a problem with me.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The word 'ekklesia' actually conveys that meaning of 'called out', doesn't it?
But it was also the standard word for a Green assembly of citizens (who were very much of THIS world).
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I would still also like to have an example of these 'Constantinians' who are putting forward Jesus' intent to establish a 'Christian country' are.
You might look one post before yours to Ad Orientem's comments. Or a bit further back to some of Alan Cresswell's statements/suggestions, which you surely must have noticed.
And given that it is still hanging on to the rags of its former more totalitarian establishment, the Church of England, which can only justify its case in 'Constantinian' rather than biblical terms.
Then there are huge parts of Eastern Orthodoxy, many of Ulster's Protestants, the USA 'Religious Right', and many more - the real question here is how 'out of this world' are you if you need me to supply you such a list....
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
GreeK, leo? I had a double take and thought why have the Greens (or the Green party) suddenly appeared here.
(Not that I fully understand this thread yet. Oh my, what a lot of reading to do)
B62, Purg Host
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by leo;
quote:
But it (ekklesia) was also the standard word for a Green assembly of citizens (who were very much of THIS world).
I'd never noticed the Green party using that word...? That was a bit of a 'throwaway' comment on my part initially anyway, and we did it to death earlier - move on please....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm struggling here to determine whether the problem is the co-option of the Church's authority by the State, the State's authority by the Church, or simply by the Church's involvement with the State's authority - having legislators who are members of the Church.
The first is Constanianism, the second is Theocracy, and the third is democracy. ISTM that in your fervour to attack (1) and (2), you're also condemning (3). If the majority of your nation is Christian, isn't this likely to be reflected in your laws and your customs?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you are alarmed by that I think you have a problem with Jesus and the apostles before you have a problem with me.
I'm alarmed because despite my anabaptist sympathies, experience has taught me that such churches can think of themselves as above the law and answerable to nobody.
What is more, in their quest for spiritual purity and lack of formal relations with the state they have a tendency to withdraw and become cut off from the world they are supposed to be serving.
It also tends to inhibit the existence of a fringe membership, which I think is a healthy thing.
As has often been said, you can take the people out of Egypt, but you can't take Egypt out of the people, and anabaptists, with their assumption that their community is by and large "pure", forget this at their peril.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I would still also like to have an example of these 'Constantinians' who are putting forward Jesus' intent to establish a 'Christian country' are.
You might look one post before yours to Ad Orientem's comments. Or a bit further back to some of Alan Cresswell's statements/suggestions, which you surely must have noticed.
No, I'd like to know what you mean by these terms. As Doc Tor has just pointed out, there seems to be some confusion there.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;
quote:
But it (ekklesia) was also the standard word for a Green assembly of citizens (who were very much of THIS world).
I'd never noticed the Green party using that word...? That was a bit of a 'throwaway' comment on my part initially anyway, and we did it to death earlier - move on please....
As B62 points out, I think leo meant GreeK, and is reiterating my point earler.
Your minimisation and injunction to leo to move on is your classic response when a weakness in your argument is highlighted.
The point is that, as leo correctly points out, you cannot argue that "ekklesia" means "called out from the world" (which you did, and not at all in a throwaway fashion), because the word is applied equally to decidedly worldly gatherings, be they of Greens or Greeks.
[ 26. November 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
As B62 points out, I think leo meant GreeK, and is reiterating my point earlier.
I also realised he meant 'Greek' and saw it for the typo it was - and attempted to have a bit of fun about it to which it seems, you were totally insensitive. We did do 'ekklesia' to death earlier and we should move on. Even better, let's get back to John 18....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I'm alarmed because despite my anabaptist sympathies, experience has taught me that such churches can think of themselves as above the law and answerable to nobody.
And what has that to do with whether my interpretation of the Bible there is correct??
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
What I originally said alarmed me was not your interpretation of the Bible so much as this: quote:
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'
particularly the "international people of God", "operating by the power of God's Spirit" as though no other agency came into things, and the bit about "being separate". I'm suspicious of churches that hype their claims to purity, the Holy Spirit and separateness, because in my experience they tend to be blind to their worldly aspects.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We did do 'ekklesia' to death earlier and we should move on. Even better, let's get back to John 18....
If by "do to death" you mean you are admitting it cannot possibly mean "called out of the world" (as you asserted), on the grounds that the same word is used for worldly gatherings, then yes we can move on.
But before we get back to John 18, perhaps you'd like to enlarge on what, precisely, you mean by 'Constantinians' and 'Christian country' in your words, especially in the light of Doc Tor's post above.
[ 26. November 2014, 21:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
First, catching up for a while with what Alan said earlier; a longish response to part of his comments to bring out something extra about the text, a bit brusque on the later part because I want Alan to think again about several category mistakes he's making here.
by Alan Cresswell
quote:
Pilate is concerned about the possibility of a mob of Galilean yokels storming his palace. His questions, and the answers he gets, confirm that Jesus is not going to lead such a politically disastrous (for Pilate) action. Thus, there is no charge for Him to answer under Roman law.
I think we safely draw from that the conclusion that Jesus would not want us to gain political advantage by violence. We're not to form an army and march on Westminster to impose Christian faith on the nation.
SL Response;
It does sound as if, in your first couple of paras, you broadly agree with me here, though I might want to say it a bit more strongly. I'd also for completeness want to point out a couple of extra points;
1) Pilate finding Jesus innocent has implications for Gentile Romans who might want to join the church. As in, they wouldn't be joining a rebel but a person wrongly executed for other political reasons. And furthermore, the Christians didn't threaten violent response to Rome even when Rome did get round to persecuting.
2) Pilate finding Jesus innocent has implications about Jesus' status as an innocent victim in an atoning sacrifice. On the Jewish blasphemy charge, he had appeared guilty but the truth of his claim to divinity was demonstrated by the resurrection, therefore he was innocent. But if he was actually guilty in Roman terms, that at the very least muddies the waters; not only of his innocence but also about what kind of King/Messiah he was.
Jews might well accept that even if he did plan violent rebellion against Rome, he was innocent in their terms; but at the same time that would make him the standard Messiah which he rejected being. For his message to the Jews, he needed to die in a way that made clear his message as peaceable and as now reconciling Jew and Gentile, as Paul describes at length in Ephesians. And of course to Gentiles, his innocence in Jewish eyes would be irrelevant compared to his death as a rebel; they wouldn't follow him as outlined above.
But what actually happens leaves no doubt of his innocence either way, and makes clear the message that he brings the New Covenant of reconciliation, the fulfilment of the promise that Abraham would be a father of many nations, and so on. It does that precisely by establishing the peaceable nature of his kingdom.
As regards your last paragraph....
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Does that relate to non-violent, gradual processes? If the population, freely, chose to follow Christ would not that faith be part of society? Would it not be part of the decision making process of our Parliaments? Would it not be right to call us a Christian nation? That is an entirely different set of questions that this passage in John doesn't even come close to answering, not even giving us a hint of what the answers might be. And, I can't think of any other Scriptures that would inform discussion of those questions either.
You probably think that's making a case for the 'Christian country' as a 'good idea'; actually it is just showing why and how it is such a terribly plausible temptation, and I fear, also showing how much of the biblical presentation of the church you haven't yet taken on board. Thinking like that is how the Constantinian mess started... The passage in John does contain at least the seeds of the answer.
by Eutychus;
quote:
If by "do to death" you mean you are admitting it cannot possibly mean "called out of the world" (as you asserted), on the grounds that the same word is used for worldly gatherings, then yes we can move on.
'cannot possibly mean...' is far too strong here and I absolutely do not concede it. The word even in its use about worldly gatherings conveys that idea of 'called out' to the gathering place - why can't it include that overtone in its use in relation to the Church?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm struggling here to determine whether the problem is the co-option of the Church's authority by the State, the State's authority by the Church, or simply by the Church's involvement with the State's authority - having legislators who are members of the Church.
The first is Constanianism, the second is Theocracy, and the third is democracy. ISTM that in your fervour to attack (1) and (2), you're also condemning (3). If the majority of your nation is Christian, isn't this likely to be reflected in your laws and your customs?
The notion of the majority Christian nation is problematic, though, because the label tends to hide a whole range of pluralities beneath itself. There may be exceptions, such as piously Orthodox Romania (perhaps), but Christianity in most countries is normally represented in a range of forms and competing understandings. And many democratic countries will contain growing minorities of non-Christians (or of sectarian Christians) against whom they may choose not to discriminate.
The laws of a democratic nation will always be playing catch-up in a postmodern, disjointed society. (Of course, in a non-democratic nation the lawmakers hardly care what the people think.)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Let's get back to John 18....
Eutychus, you are misconceiving the conversation between Jesus and Pilate. You are treating it as if it were a Rabbinic or Christian theological college argument with that kind of meaning of all the terms long established and well-known to the participants. And it ain't like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a conversation between a Galilean artisan who happens to be claiming to be 'king of the Jews' and a Roman governor who is worried about what that might mean in practice for his gubernatorial position - whether, as Alan C pointed out, this 'king' poses the risk of a stereotypical Messianic rising. And they are talking not in precise academic theology terms but doing their best in their common language of 'koine' Greek – a bit like the “English as everybody's second language round here” in which the 'Good News' Bible translation was written. ( have you ever realised that Jesus probably spoke most of his recorded teachings in Aramaic, and this passage is one of the few where it is likely we actually have Jesus' original GREEK words rather than a translation?)
This means you can't bring in extraneous presuppositions from what the words mean in your academic theology. Obviously they have a basic meaning as Greek words – beyond that, the context and the use of the words in the context is what determines their meaning. Pilate and Jesus aren't discussing your developed idea of 'The Kingdom' and the way you've somehow (and a bit oddly in my opinion and as mentioned earlier, Scot McKnight's) excluded the church from the concept – they are just discussing, well, what Jesus means by 'kingdom' and his kingship, and how it is relevant to Pilate.
And I think before I go on to expound further, I'll leave you to digest that.....
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Like others, I'm wondering exactly what a Christian country is that's so bad.
Imagine a group of NT Christians who decide to build houses next to a monastery, in a remote corner of the Roman Empire, so that they can live good Christian lives in a place of prayer. Over time, the village grows, the Empire falls, some of the children and the later immigrants are less devout than the original founders, but the place retains its Christian culture, even as it grows slowly into a city-state.
At what point is it going against the gospel ?
When the elders of the community agree their first bye-law ? When they hold their first election of a governing council ? When they appoint their first paid official ? Their first law enforcement officer ? Raise their first taxes for a worthwhile project like a public well ? Pay their first soldier/guard to defend the place against bandits ? Or when they pass their first law against blasphemy or Sunday trading or bigamy or public immorality ?
What is the essence of the wrongness of a Christian state ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
If by "do to death" you mean you are admitting it cannot possibly mean "called out of the world" (as you asserted), on the grounds that the same word is used for worldly gatherings, then yes we can move on.
'cannot possibly mean...' is far too strong here and I absolutely do not concede it. The word even in its use about worldly gatherings conveys that idea of 'called out' to the gathering place - why can't it include that overtone in its use in relation to the Church?
That's really stretching it. Or contrariwise, it makes "called out" meaningless. If I'm called out to have a beer with my buds, then "called out" doesn't mean anything more than "doing something at a particular time that precludes doing some other things." Which is to say, "doing something."
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'.
But that says nothing of how the Christian ruler should conduct matters of state unless, that is, you are arguing that Christians should have nothing to do with the state and/or that the Christian ruler is not accountable to God for his acts of state.
Care to address this Steve?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'cannot possibly mean...' is far too strong here and I absolutely do not concede it. The word even in its use about worldly gatherings conveys that idea of 'called out' to the gathering place - why can't it include that overtone in its use in relation to the Church?
As mousethief points out, nobody is disputing it means "called out". What I for one am disputing is that it means "called out of this world". That meaning might have become attached to it, but it's not what the actual parts of the Greek word mean, they mean (as I understand it) "called-out thing". They don't say what it's called out of. So you cannot use the word to prove the Church is called out of the world, because the exact same word is used in the NT and elsewhere to refer to worldly called-out groups. It would be like arguing that anyone talking about football must be referring to soccer.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a conversation between a Galilean artisan who happens to be claiming to be 'king of the Jews' and a Roman governor who is worried about what that might mean in practice for his gubernatorial position
It is? That's news to me.
Please point out where in this exchange (or indeed anywhere else) Jesus claims to be "king of the Jews". While you're at it, you could get back to your promised explanation of why Pilate nails up the description "King of the Jews" over the cross.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
First, catching up for a while with what Alan said earlier; a longish response to part of his comments to bring out something extra about the text, a bit brusque on the later part because I want Alan to think again about several category mistakes he's making here.
by Alan Cresswell
quote:
Pilate is concerned about the possibility of a mob of Galilean yokels storming his palace. His questions, and the answers he gets, confirm that Jesus is not going to lead such a politically disastrous (for Pilate) action. Thus, there is no charge for Him to answer under Roman law.
I think we safely draw from that the conclusion that Jesus would not want us to gain political advantage by violence. We're not to form an army and march on Westminster to impose Christian faith on the nation.
SL Response;
It does sound as if, in your first couple of paras, you broadly agree with me here, though I might want to say it a bit more strongly. I'd also for completeness want to point out a couple of extra points;
This morning I wrote an overlong response to an earlier comment about going back to the John passage (so long infact that by the time I finished it I was late for my train to work), only to have it disappear into the aether and not appear here - I suppose that could be judgement on my priorities that had me reading the Ship rather than getting off to work. Anyway, your extra points were included in that lost post.
The Gospel of John is, as far as we can tell, written at a time when the Christian church is beginning to feel the force of official persecution. Much of that persecution is based on claims of them being rebels against Rome. In writing this account John makes two things very clear:
1) Jesus is not a rebel against Rome and poses no threat to Roman rule
2) Jesus' followers are clearly identified as not being rebels, not fighting to prevent His arrest and trial
In the context of persecution in part justified by claims that Christians are disloyal to Rome, that's a strong message to those who would persecute the Church. And, of course, it's a call taken up in other parts of the NT that we should submit to the authorities etc.
If we look at the passage we see several important things.
First, the Sanhedrin want to execute Jesus. They are inhibited because they're officially not allowed too - executions are officially a Roman perogative (though it's clear that the Romans probably didn't care less, as in the case of Stephen). But, more importantly they know the people consider Jesus to be a prophet and therefore if they execute him they face the anger of their own people. Their solution is simple, drum up some charges that would carry a Roman death penalty, present him to Pilate and get the Romans to do their dirty work.
So, we come to the trial before Pilate. The Sanhedrin come in saying "this man claims to be our king and is stirring up a rebellion against Rome". Pilates question is then a simple "is this true?". The conversation actually has little to do with the nature of kingship, it's a simple case of letting the defendant answer the charges against him. To which Jesus effectively says "the charges are nonsense".
Pilate finds Jesus not guilty, hands him back to the Sanhedrin effectively saying "if you want to lynch this man, just get on with it". Of course, the Sanhedrin still want to avoid being lynched themselves by the people who think Jesus is a prophet and manage to manipulate the mob into forcing Pilate to crucify him anyway.
quote:
You probably think that's making a case for the 'Christian country' as a 'good idea'; actually it is just showing why and how it is such a terribly plausible temptation, and I fear, also showing how much of the biblical presentation of the church you haven't yet taken on board. Thinking like that is how the Constantinian mess started... The passage in John does contain at least the seeds of the answer.
I'm not sure I'm making a case for anything. I'm agnostic on the question of the relationship between Church and State, and as fas as I can see the Bible is equally agnostic. That is, I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference. Yes, Establishment with the Church and State being closely tied can be abused, has been abused. But, total dis-establishment is prone to it's own set of abuses.
Ultimately it comes down to recongising good by their fruits. And, both "Constaninian" and "Anabaptist" churches have their fair share of good and bad apples.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'd like Ad Orientem's point addressed too.
If (as has reasonably happened throughout recent history) a majority Christian country has elections, should no Christian stand for election for fear of Erastianism? If (taking it to reductio ad absurdum) sufficient non-Christians of reasonable competence cannot be found to run the country, should they import "Wise Turks" to prevent any of their number falling into sin?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I'm not sure that church and state sit comfortably together considering that there are so many different views of what is the correct dogma, and the strong antagonistic feelings that come out of that.
But having people in government who have some kind of spiritual basis for their ethical system is generally good. That is , as long as it's based on compassion and service rather than a desire to make everyone toe a particular dogmatic line. And interestingly, to have those qualities it is NOT necessary to specifically be religious, though the assumption that's usually made is that they go hand in hand with religion.
I think we used to call this a "sense of public duty". And there are plenty of samples of where strong religious views have not been applied in a compassionate way from public office.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
A quick one before heading to hospital for an X-ray (hopefully nothing serious, but it'll take time).
I've been back to my original post on the meaning of 'ekklesia' and what I find is that I made a long general comment on how Christians are both called out from the world but at the same time sent into it, and the need to keep the balance of the two concepts there. Without detail quoting, that position was based on NT teaching as a whole. I then concluded with the following separate mini-paragraph;
quote:
The word 'ekklesia' actually conveys that meaning of 'called out', doesn't it?
As I've since pointed out, not a mega-assertion of something absolute, but a bit of a throwaway line as indicated by its questioning form. I'm sorry if I slightly misjudged the tone and you took it far too seriously. OK? Get over it.
Alan, thanks for clarification; I'll get back on the points raised.
Russ, I'll try and answer you as well though my first priority when I get back will be to pick up from my post last night and others' responses to it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
The word 'ekklesia' actually conveys that meaning of 'called out', doesn't it?
As I've since pointed out, not a mega-assertion of something absolute, but a bit of a throwaway line as indicated by its questioning form. I'm sorry if I slightly misjudged the tone and you took it far too seriously. OK? Get over it.
How do we know what part of what you say to take seriously now? You throw out something as part of your argument, then when it's refuted you say, "Hahaha! I never really meant that anyway!"
It makes it difficult to take anything you write seriously. When it's refuted you can just pretend to not have meant it, and treat us insultingly while you're at it. ("Get over it" is insulting. If you didn't know that already, read, mark, and inwardly digest.)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
How do we know what part of what you say to take seriously now? You throw out something as part of your argument, then when it's refuted you say, "Hahaha! I never really meant that anyway!"
I meant it; I still stand by it; as I said it, as indeed a bit of a throwaway after a main statement, it is simply the point that 'ekklesia' does basically mean 'called out' which is why it ended up also meaning the assemblies like at Ephesus which people were 'called out' to. That has not been refuted, on the contrary Eutychus agrees on that.
The disagreement is about the being called 'out of the world'; Eutychus is being very fussy about that particular implication of the 'calling out'. As per my paragraph before my reference to the word 'ekklesia' I believe Christians are indeed, in the overall teaching of the NT, 'called out of the world' into Jesus' kingdom but then also called to be the agents of that kingdom very much IN the world. Again, I'm not seeing that case being refuted.
Eutychus is rather splitting hairs. I think his concern, which if I've got that right I do understand, is the particular kind of unhealthy 'out-of-this-world-ness' that one sees in most Amish and groups like the Exclusive Brethren. I am not advocating that nor are the Anabaptists I know.
Following that particular line of Eutychus' argument threatened to confuse, obscure and bog down the bigger issue about the meaning of John 18 and I've tried to get back to that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
"Ekklesia" means, literally, 'called out', and is applied to many and various gatherings, i.e. specific groups of people as distinct from the general population. It says nothing about what the "ekklesia" is called out for or (qualititavely) from.
If you want to say "Christians are called not to be part of this world" you're entitled to do so, but you cannot adduce "ekklesia" as proof of this.
That is all.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
by SL:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a conversation between a Galilean artisan who happens to be claiming to be 'king of the Jews' and a Roman governor who is worried about what that might mean in practice for his gubernatorial position
Eutychus;
It is? That's news to me.
Please point out where in this exchange (or indeed anywhere else) Jesus claims to be "king of the Jews". While you're at it, you could get back to your promised explanation of why Pilate nails up the description "King of the Jews" over the cross.
First, if Jesus is claiming to be the 'Son of David' and the 'Messiah/Christ/Anointed-one' he is ipso facto claiming to be 'king of the Jews'; in what rarefied academia do people somehow manage to ignore something so obvious???
Jesus spends quite a bit of his ministry making what amount to Messianic claims, and after the Resurrection he is preached as 'Messiah' by his disciples – Acts 2; 36, “God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus...” is only the clearest of several references in Peter's Pentecost address, for instance.
Acts 5; 42 tells us how the apostles 'never stopped for a single day to teach and preach Christ Jesus...' Acts 4 first records Peter before the Jewish authorities referring to 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth' and later records the prayer of the church quoting an OT passage about the Lord's 'anointed' (literally 'the Christ of Him') and then applies the verse to 'thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint' (the related verb form 'echrisas'). In 4;33, the apostles 'bore witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ the Lord'. And so proverbially on....
Paul refers in Romans 1 to Jesus 'as to his human nature descended from David', again implying he is heir to David's kingdom, and again constantly refers to Jesus as Christ. Were the apostles not meant to preach Jesus in such terms?
Agreed Jesus' claims through most of his ministry are a bit indirect and oblique; but there are at least two obvious reasons for that. Firstly, that he clearly intended to fulfil his 'Messiahship' in a decidedly non-stereotypical way, not as the standard violent rebel against Rome, and his claims to that position had to be made in such a way as to make people think that difference through. And secondly simply that overly direct claims could have had him arrested and crucified long before the due time.
And BTW, though not a public claim, he clearly accepts Peter's confession in Matt 16, “You are the Christ the Son of the living God!” If he wasn't claiming Messiahship he should surely have really stomped on Peter over that one, rather than declaring him blessed!
He had also, as I pointed out, staged a rather emphatic public claim to the kingship less than a week before his encounter with Pilate by parading into Jerusalem on donkeyback at Passovertide, which as Matthew points out, fulfilled Zech 9; 9. Somebody back upthread tried to dismiss that with the comment that “it's quite possible that the crowds on Palm Sunday thought that...(i.e, that Jesus was thereby claiming Messiahship/kingship, but implying presumably that Jesus wasn't making the claim himself); but are we really meant to think Jesus so stupid that he could do the donkeyback entry totally oblivious to its implications? (Or, after the resurrection, fail to make clear to the apostles that he had had no such intention?)
And the fact remains that Pilate's first question is “Are you the king of the Jews?”, which I think at least strongly suggests the kind of concerns he had about the situation, and Jesus' answer is hardly a denial (and why anyway would Jesus deny one of the basic points of his mission?).
As regards the INRI inscription on the cross, I can think of many reasons for it, one of which is simply that Pilate understood Jesus to be making that claim (though given the verdict of innocence, not quite in the usual understanding; and of course there are a range of options about Pilate's own opinion of the claim). I'm not going to waste time and space here on all the other many options – can we get back to John 18 please?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
If you want to say "Christians are called not to be part of this world" you're entitled to do so, but you cannot adduce "ekklesia" as proof of this.
I adduced 'ekklesia' as a VERY VERY significant suggestion, not as an outright proof. Sorry if I didn't make that quite clear enough first time round. If you now fail to move on from this split hair I shall be worried about you....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I adduced 'ekklesia' as a VERY VERY significant suggestion
And what I'm saying is that you are reading far too much into it. It means "assembly", and indeed that's what we called the gatherings of the local church where I grew up.
quote:
can we get back to John 18 please?
Certainly.
Pilate asks Jesus whether he's the King of the Jews (v33), and Jesus goes on to assert that his kingdom is not of this world (v36).
Your whole argument up until your last post but one consists in saying that Pilate takes Jesus' declaration (that his kingdom is not of this world) as being in stark contrast to any claim to be some political "King of the Jews". It is reason enough, say (or said) you, for Pilate to "find him not guilty" of being intent on setting up a "Christian state" that would be a threat to Rome - this concern being at the origin of Pilate's original question.
I have disputed your reconstruction of Pilate's decision-making process, not least because of him writing the "King of the Jews" notice. This rather blows a hole in your (former) argument that Pilate was convinced Jesus was not such a king. The evidence is that whatever his thought processes, Pilate ends up calling Jesus the King of the Jews, exactly as he first thought.
Now, suddenly, you are trying to say that when Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world" this was not a contrast at all, it was "hardly a denial" - you mean it was actually a tacit acknowledgement? It was really just a sort of enigmatic way of saying "yes I am King of the Jews"? You think that when Pilate put this inscription above the cross, it's pretty much the equivalent of Pilate writing "his kingdom was not of this world"? Yeah, right.
Earlier on, you said that you "knew pretty much what the answer" to this INRI enigma was. Now you have just tied yourself in knots by saying things like quote:
Pilate understood Jesus to be making that claim (though given the verdict of innocence, not quite in the usual understanding
Which seems to me pretty much like it can mean whatever you need it to mean later on when challenged.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
if Jesus is claiming to be the 'Son of David' and the 'Messiah/Christ/Anointed-one' he is ipso facto claiming to be 'king of the Jews'; in what rarefied academia do people somehow manage to ignore something so obvious???
Making one term 'ipso facto' equivalent to one or more other distinct terms (just like "church" and "kingdom") is, I submit, hardly the prevailing trend in rarefied academia, but rather a predilection of those who read the latest Christian paperback first and then try to get their Bibles to fit the theory they just read.
[ 27. November 2014, 19:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Now you (SL) have just tied yourself in knots
No; you are tying yourself in knots and I'm increasingly wondering why.
Jesus is and claims to be 'king of the Jews'. At the same time he claims to be more than that, and he shows Pilate that he is going to practice that kingship in a different way to what Pilate (and of course many Jews of the day) expected. Because he demonstrates that difference Pilate is able to find him innocent of the charge of rebellion against Rome.... No knots there on my side; where are YOU getting them from?
by Eutychus;
quote:
if Jesus is claiming to be the 'Son of David' and the 'Messiah/Christ/Anointed-one' he is ipso facto claiming to be 'king of the Jews';
I really hadn't realised that was controversial; academia must be even more rarefied than I thought!
The title of 'king of the Jews' as "The Lord's Anointed" goes back even before David, when Saul is anointed by Samuel to designate him as king. David, we note, repeatedly refuses to harm Saul who he recognises as that 'anointed' king. David in turn was anointed as were his successors.
An heir of David was expected, in line with OT promises, to eventually both restore and fulfil God's kingdom. Jesus rather clearly is portrayed as that heir in the NT era. That is, he was the person entitled by descent to be 'king of the Jews'. If he did not have that qualification he could not be the fulfilment of the prophecies. So by claiming to fulfil those prophecies about David's successor, he is necessarily claiming to be 'king of the Jews'.
Because of that tradition going back to Samuel/Saul and the very beginning of the Israelite kingship, the expected descendant of David who will fulfil the prophecies and restore the kingdom was referred to by Jews as the 'anointed one' as a synonym of 'king'. The words/titles 'Messiah' and 'Christ' are just the Hebrew and Greek words respectively for that concept 'anointed'.
To say that
quote:
if Jesus is claiming to be the 'Son of David' and the 'Messiah/Christ/Anointed-one' he is ipso facto claiming to be 'king of the Jews'; [/QUOTE
is simply to state the case - The 'king of the Jews' is also virtually by definition the anointed, that is the Messiah or Christ. The usual way of expressing that kind of thing in English is the phrase 'ipso facto' - 'by that very fact'.
by Eutychus;
[QUOTE] Making one term 'ipso facto' equivalent to one or more other distinct terms (just like "church" and "kingdom") is, I submit, hardly the prevailing trend in rarefied academia, but rather a predilection of those who read the latest Christian paperback first and then try to get their Bibles to fit the theory they just read.
Saying that Messiah, 'son/heir of David, and 'king of the Jews' are synonymous is not something from the latest Christian paperback; it is actually the traditional basic Christian understanding right back to the NT itself. I'm not trying to get the Bible to fit the theory I just read - I'm simply expressing a point that goes right back to Jesus' own lifetime.
So which 'latest paperback' did you get your contrary theory from? And on the showing of this argument on your part, why should I or anyone else believe your other strange distinction between 'kingdom' and 'church'? Where, I might point out, I'm not anyway, and never was, making the total identification you're trying to suggest, though certainly saying that the church is an important part of the 'kingdom' concept here.
(sorry, messed up the UBB a bit here and can't work out how to fix it)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Jesus is and claims to be 'king of the Jews'.
How do you think Pilate would have responded if Jesus had answered his question "are you King of the Jews" with a "yes"?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Jesus is and claims to be 'king of the Jews'.
How do you think Pilate would have responded if Jesus had answered his question "are you King of the Jews" with a "yes"?
Pilate has probably already dealt with half a dozen "Messiah" figures by this point, and Jesus lacked the armed-followers-in-the-desert-killing-Romans theme.
I've been told the inscription INRI was there as a massive fuck-off to the Chief Priests. Pilate knew he was being used, and didn't care much for it.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I have a specific question for you who are debating Pilate and Jesus' conversation. Who was listening to it and then reported it to someone who wanted to bother writing it down later? I don't recall that any of the disciples attended the meeting between them, nor that any Romans were informants about it.
Isn't it thus: That it was the people who felt they were inspired enough to envision how the conversation must have gone, invented the details for their own reasons. Many decades later. Thus you are not debating Jesus at all, only the ideas of some random unidentified and unidentifiable people. Who thought they knew but didn't.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Jesus was there.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus was there.
He didn't write up a summary of the discussion did he? Nor do we have record of when he met with anyone and told them the details. Thus: it didn't actually happen. Something happened but we have no way of knowing. Some parts of the story are a novel, "based on a true story", with some of the details scrambled, invented, and otherwise changed for dramatic reasons, personal reasons of the writer and editors, and arcane theological purposes.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've been told the inscription INRI was there as a massive fuck-off to the Chief Priests. Pilate knew he was being used, and didn't care much for it.
That's pretty much my take.
I'm quite happy to discuss what Jesus might have meant by his kingdom not being of this world and his other affirmations, but I'm really not sure that Pilate's questions and actions allow us to draw any firm conclusions about that kingdom (whereas Steve Langton seems to think they offer proof Jesus was not out to build a Christian nation).
Specifically, I don't think Pilate's role in John 18 offers any clear insights into to the rights and wrongs of state churches, 'Christian' nations and so forth.
Furthermore, I take exception to Steve Langton's assertion that 'Constantinian' churches (sic) occupy a space that is not quite the Christian position as such - rather suggesting that his particular church is the one that does.
The superiority of Steve Langton's peculiar anabaptist church (in which one imagines frequent recourse to the "no true anabaptist" argument) with regard to the Kingdom of God, as opposed to these not quite Christian ones, and what it rests on, has yet to be explained.
[ 27. November 2014, 21:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
if Jesus is claiming to be the 'Son of David' and the 'Messiah/Christ/Anointed-one' he is ipso facto claiming to be 'king of the Jews';
I really hadn't realised that was controversial; academia must be even more rarefied than I thought!
The title of 'king of the Jews' as "The Lord's Anointed" goes back even before David, when Saul is anointed by Samuel to designate him as king.
Although, anointing wasn't reserved for making kings. You'll know that the first person anointed in Scripture was Aaron, the priest, and his sons. The Tabernacle and later Temple were also anointed.
To say that "Messiah = Anointed = King" takes only one of those themes. Is it not also reasonable to say "Messiah = Anointed = Priest" or "Messiah - Anointed = Temple"? Or, more likely, all three?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by no prophet's flag is set so ;
quote:
He didn't write up a summary of the discussion did he? Nor do we have record of when he met with anyone and told them the details.
I think the answer to that depends a bit on whether you believe in the resurrection, and therefore that Jesus was available for some forty days to fill the disciples in on such details. There would also be other witnesses; it's extremely unlikely Pilate would have been alone with a potentially (though not actually) dangerous Messianic claimant.
There's also the consideration that Pilate telling the priests he found Jesus 'not guilty' was not a private conversation. That verdict is so unusual in the circumstances that it needs some explaining; and the conversation reported by John is a pretty good explanation.
The other point to make here is that the resolution Jesus offers to what we call 'state and church' issues is a pretty special resolution. The world needs to pay attention...
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by no prophet's flag is set so ;
quote:
He didn't write up a summary of the discussion did he? Nor do we have record of when he met with anyone and told them the details.
I think the answer to that depends a bit on whether you believe in the resurrection, and therefore that Jesus was available for some forty days to fill the disciples in on such details. There would also be other witnesses; it's extremely unlikely Pilate would have been alone with a potentially (though not actually) dangerous Messianic claimant.
There's also the consideration that Pilate telling the priests he found Jesus 'not guilty' was not a private conversation. That verdict is so unusual in the circumstances that it needs some explaining; and the conversation reported by John is a pretty good explanation.
The other point to make here is that the resolution Jesus offers to what we call 'state and church' issues is a pretty special resolution. The world needs to pay attention...
The idea that Jesus filled in the details post resurrection doesn't work, because the four gospels don't report details consistently, and there is no documentation of this occurring. It would represent yet another invention.
There is likewise no info to support your other contention re Pilate. Pious invention yet again.
Jesus said a number of reportable things, in his own words. Things that could have easily been reported first person. The ones that could not have been observed are not likely.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
The superiority of Steve Langton's peculiar anabaptist church (in which one imagines frequent recourse to the "no true anabaptist" argument)
I don't actually belong to a traditional Anabaptist church, for starters. English MOTR Baptist, actually (and Saturday I'll be involved in a model railway show put on by a local Anglican Church where I was quite a regular as a teenager and have even worshipped occasionally in recent years).
'True Anabaptists' like 'true Christians' are human and like real-life Scotsmen do get things wrong, often badly. I'm not dealing with some 'superior' church; I'm dealing with the attempt to sort out what the Bible says about certain issues, so that we (not just my church) can do better at following Jesus' and the Holy Spirit's teaching through the Bible.
As getting those issues wrong can be literally a matter of life and death, and has all too often been a matter of Christians persecuting or even killing, I regard that as a fairly important quest, and I perhaps do get just a bit impatient with people who fudge these issues.
no prophet's flag is set so;
I don't know, of course, exactly where you are coming from here. But if the episode in John 18 is 'pious invention' it is a very good invention and 'way ahead of its time'. Absolute proof in these matters is impossible in many cases, of course. I think the NT message is basically sound and that faith in it is therefore not entirely blind. My concern here is to examine what the NT is teaching us; and if the teaching is good, that to my mind ups the credibility of the source. I'm not forcing you to agree with me - that would be very 'un-Anabaptist'!
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'.
But that says nothing of how the Christian ruler should conduct matters of state unless, that is, you are arguing that Christians should have nothing to do with the state and/or that the Christian ruler is not accountable to God for his acts of state.
Care to address this Steve?
Still waiting.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The idea that Jesus filled in the details post resurrection doesn't work, because the four gospels don't report details consistently, and there is no documentation of this occurring. It would represent yet another invention.
I don't understand this reasoning. Why would the import of this inconsistency be any different for anything else the gospels record? They don't get what he said BEFORE the resurrection exactly verbatim; why should we expect that they will get what he said AFTER the resurrection verbatim? Are you saying that none of what they record inconsistently ever occurred? Because you want to say that no post-resurrection debriefing can have occurred, based on this same inconsistency.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus was there.
He didn't write up a summary of the discussion did he? Nor do we have record of when he met with anyone and told them the details. Thus: it didn't actually happen. Something happened but we have no way of knowing. Some parts of the story are a novel, "based on a true story", with some of the details scrambled, invented, and otherwise changed for dramatic reasons, personal reasons of the writer and editors, and arcane theological purposes.
Jesus could have quite reasonably told the Apostles of it. There is no reason why that passing of information, from Christ to the Apostles, should have been recorded.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There is no reason why that passing of information, from Christ to the Apostles, should have been recorded.
In a sense, it was:
quote:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
True. Well corrected.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
So who was the proverbial fly on the wall during the chat with Pilate. A centurion? Pilate's personal retinue and office staff? Some janitorial staff person? It is a great story, but unlikely factual. The intent of the story, its meaning in the context of collecting pamphlets and letters, editting them and deciding what to put into the NT, and why is the question.
Consider when the gospels were written, they were rather later. Why did people 50 to 150 years after Jesus death think this was important? Perhaps something to do with the destruction of Jerusalem. Perhaps because it was rather obvious that no earthy kingdom was possible after the trauma of the complete destruction of Jerusalem, banning of Jews to even live in Jerusalem , massive killing of the populace etc. And because Jesus is The Guy and God etc they write it up in the pamphlets that become gospels that Jesus knew all about it before hand. Further, they tell the stories that become the gospels so as to accompany the expansion of the faith to everyone. There is no earthy kingdom anymore to consider when the stories are finally written.
[ 28. November 2014, 02:25: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So who was the proverbial fly on the wall during the chat with Pilate. A centurion? Pilate's personal retinue and office staff? Some janitorial staff person?
JESUS. You're not paying attention. We're saying Jesus told his disciples about this.
Now answer my question.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I don't actually have to answer any particular question on the Ship. Kindly be less forceful.
I am not sure exactly what question you mean, though looking upthread, I think it might be about what aspects to trust of the stories in the gospels.
There is a continuum. If observation is possible, more trustworthy. If congruent accounts are available, more trustworthy. If no one is likely to observed, not. Another example, it is unlikely that the discussion between Jesus and the devil occurred when Jesus was tempted. It is very likely Jesus was crucified. I have never seen info showing Jesus discussed details openly or secretly with disciples post-Easter. Have you a source or only a theory?
There are purposes far beyond narrative. I do find myself reacting with some concern about how people read the bible and to the grind-out re specific details.
[ 28. November 2014, 02:38: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't actually have to answer any particular question on the Ship.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We react with concern that someone would avoid the obvious, reasonable inference that in the 40 days - a whole summer holiday - that Jesus spent with the disciples AFTER His resurrection, Jesus didn't tell them with total recall and that a natural reporter like Mark for one didn't jot it down.
'Tell us again Lord!'
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
no prophet's flag is set so...
Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead; we believe there was a period during which he further trained his disciples, helping them to understand more fully what had happened, things that wouldn't be easy to fully understand before the crucifixion and resurrection. This may reasonably include accounts such as that of Jesus' conversation with Pilate.
We register your point; but it's not the point we're discussing here.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
But that says nothing of how the Christian ruler should conduct matters of state
For starters, is this the Christian ruler of a formally 'Christian' country; or a Christian ruler in a country which isn't so?
Or is it a Christian who has been elected into a ruling position in a democracy and needs to know, among other things, whether or not, and how far if at all, God expects him to impose his Christian views on people of other beliefs/philosophies?
The 'Christian country' situation presents -well frankly temptations - which may compromise the realities of the gospel even while superficially it appears that Christianity has 'won'.
I've now got a bit of a busy weekend ahead and may not be able to contribute much for a couple of days.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I'm afraid that doesn't answer any of my questions?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
no prophet's flag is set so...
Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead; we believe there was a period during which he further trained his disciples, helping them to understand more fully what had happened, things that wouldn't be easy to fully understand before the crucifixion and resurrection. This may reasonably include accounts such as that of Jesus' conversation with Pilate.
We register your point; but it's not the point we're discussing here.
We don't escape reason by reiterating creeds. Some Christians question all of it. Including, apparently rising from the dead in a literal physical manner. Was the sermon on the mount actually given on a plain? Who did Jesus meet in what order on Easter morning? Why is there no Roman record of a census to send Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. On this last, it is likely put in later as invention to establish Jesus in the line of David. Notwithstanding parallel efforts to establish him as Moses-like by sending him to Egypt.
The point, more broadly, is that if the NT refers to rulers and kings, it does so for reasons external to Jesus. Put in to make particular points. Deciding factual things about Jesus' advice or directions to rulers or kings based on questionable biblical data is, well, questionable.
MT, it came up recently on another thread that shippies are under no obligation to answer specific questions. I think that understanding assists discussion versus winning at arguments. I felt it was forceful the way your post worded it, and the rapidity of it. If I have misread, I apologise.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
For a bunch of six utterly disparate blokes to bumblingly create eyewitness accounts that work DESPITE and BECAUSE of their flaws, is normal. For it to be a work of fiction is impossible as that requires redaction of invisible genius the like of which has never been seen.
Never.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
How about both fact and fiction?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about both fact and fiction?
In my opinion, yes. And inspired fiction that makes good points which I would accept in some instances. The main thrust of the NT is solid, but it cannot answer questions about specific abstract ideas like kingdoms.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by no prophet's flag is set so...
quote:
We don't escape reason by reiterating creeds.
I know that; it's rather inherent in the Anabaptist idea of religion being voluntary by persuasion rather than compulsory in some kind of religious state (Christian or otherwise).
On another occasion I'd be quite happy to discuss these issues about where the Bible came from, how it got written and how much we can trust it and so forth. On this occasion I started a thread back in - well ultimately and almost accidentally, Hell - to discuss the interpretation of a particular passage of relevance to the kind of body the Bible says the church is to be. Please can we keep this thread somewhere near that point?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
I'm afraid that doesn't answer any of my questions?
I know it doesn't answer your questions - but if you clarify what I asked you, it might make it easier for me to answer....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Please can we keep this thread somewhere near that point?
That probably depends a lot on whether people who speak on this point feel like their questions are being answered and their points being addressed.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
MT, it came up recently on another thread that shippies are under no obligation to answer specific questions. I think that understanding assists discussion versus winning at arguments. I felt it was forceful the way your post worded it, and the rapidity of it. If I have misread, I apologise.
I felt like you were dodging answering my question by bringing up something off-topic. Nevertheless that does not excuse my being abrupt, for which I apologize.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We don't escape reason by reiterating creeds. Some Christians question all of it. Including, apparently rising from the dead in a literal physical manner. Was the sermon on the mount actually given on a plain? Who did Jesus meet in what order on Easter morning? Why is there no Roman record of a census to send Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.
The irony here is that if we're supposed to question everything, we might reasonably begin to question the existence of religious institutions themselves.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On this occasion I started a thread ... to discuss the interpretation of a particular passage of relevance to the kind of body the Bible says the church is to be.
I thought it was discuss the relationship between Church and State, not the slightly different question of what kind of body the Church is.
The passage in John is one that you find very relevant. The problem is that it seems many of us don't see it as that relevant and are not convinced that it provides the support for your position that you claim.
I would agree that the passage supports a claim that Jesus and his followers were not a political threat to the authority of Rome. That is something that was important for the Church in the first few centuries when it faced persecution partly justified by claims that Christians were disloyal to Rome and potential rebels. Paul makes similar points in his epistles about if we suffer persecution to do so for the sake of the gospel rather than for acts against the authority of the state.
But, you want to go much further than that in your interpretation. And, it's at that point that our opinions diverge. What happens when the authority of the state became Christianised? Love him or hate him for it, Constantine was Emporer and Christian and brought Christianity from a persecuted minority to a politically accepted and influential position. That changed the situation for the Church dramatically, for better or worse.
And, today we live in societies which are different again. The nature of the State is very different; most of us live in democracies where in theory at least we each, individually, have influence on government, something that even 200 years ago would have been inconceivable. What does it mean to be loyal to the state, to not be rebels seeking to overturn the authority of the state when in a sense we (collectively) are the state? When the authority of the state rests in the hands of a small number of people elected by the people to represent the people, what should we (individually and collectively) do if we find our representatives aren't representing us? We don't live in a totalitarian kingdom or empire where loyalty to the state is exclusive, we live in a state where multiple loyalties are expected - we can all be loyal citizens of our country while being loyal members of political parties that are not in power and being members of groups advocating particular policies.
And, most of us live in societies which have to a large part been shaped by a Christian tradition strongly influencing our laws and ethics. Churches are therefore in a position of being (if they want to) among those groups campaigning for particular political goals. And, we do so with additional standing because of the past. Even Anabaptists benefit from that.
Which is all a long winded way of saying you are extrapolating from a text that would be relevant to a minority group in a totalitarian society with no room for political loyalty to anyone other than Caesar. First you extrapolate to the point where Caesar himself is a Christian. Then, beyond that to modern society where the very concept of loyalty to the state is changed beyond anything anyone could conceive of in the first few centuries.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Even the idea of loyalty "to a state" is of recent vintage. It used to be loyalty to a person -- the reigning monarch.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Even the idea of loyalty "to a state" is of recent vintage. It used to be loyalty to a person -- the reigning monarch.
That might well be true, in which case Steve's beef is weaker than ever. The Church didn't set up a Christian empire, state or whatever in opposition to pagan Rome. What happenned was that the emperor converted and that changed everything.
As for my own beliefs I certainly think it was for the better (but then I suppose I would as I believe Constantine to be a saint) and I would also point to the likes of Constantine and Theodosius as good Christian rulers, by no means perfect but good. Synergy is possible and when it works desirable.
[ 29. November 2014, 05:18: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, most of us live in societies which have to a large part been shaped by a Christian tradition strongly influencing our laws and ethics. Churches are therefore in a position of being (if they want to) among those groups campaigning for particular political goals. And, we do so with additional standing because of the past. Even Anabaptists benefit from that.
I think this summarizes neatly my growing sympathies for established churches.
Even if you are in some purebred Particular Baptist church in the depths of Norfolk, your forebears were no doubt dissenters; they had something to dissent from. Churches made up of professing (as opposed to confessing) members may pride themselves on purity and being congregations of believers, but in the West, broadly speaking, they are riding on the back of the legacy of the institutions they dissented from.
We can't undo the history that has intervened since New Testament times. Churches that fail to acknowledge this quickly become marginalised or worse.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Even if you are in some purebred Particular Baptist church in the depths of Norfolk ..
No such thing. They are all self-acknowledged mongrels.
quote:
.. your forebears were no doubt dissenters; they had something to dissent from. Churches made up of professing (as opposed to confessing) members may pride themselves on purity and being congregations of believers, but in the West, broadly speaking, they are riding on the back of the legacy of the institutions they dissented from.
Preach it, brother Eutychus. A statement which should be hung over the pulpit of every nonco chapel in the world. But as a result of awakened conscience, not force you understand.
Holier-than-thou-isms can be very dangerous.
[But Whoops! I might have just done a holier-than-thou by being not-holier-than-thou. Tricky, this stuff.]
[ 29. November 2014, 08:22: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We don't escape reason by reiterating creeds. Some Christians question all of it. Including, apparently rising from the dead in a literal physical manner. Was the sermon on the mount actually given on a plain? Who did Jesus meet in what order on Easter morning? Why is there no Roman record of a census to send Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.
The irony here is that if we're supposed to question everything, we might reasonably begin to question the existence of religious institutions themselves.
It's a curiosity of the Canadian prairies, where people generally dispense with any appeals to authority at all. We're well ahead of the curve on this. The idea that no-one or no authority is better than anyone else is rather implanted within us. The institutions already appear to be in serious question.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
We can't undo the history that has intervened since New Testament times. Churches that fail to acknowledge this quickly become marginalised or worse.
No, we can't simply undo the history; but nor should we uncritically accept it, or pretend that the mistakes in that history were not mistakes, just because God's providence has brought more good from those mistakes than we deserved.
As for all the 'holier than thou' stuff, is it possible to be much more 'holier than thou', not to mention monumentally smug and arrogant, than simply to make the claim that the Church should be 'established-or-similar' and have worldly power and influence, rather than be the humble body portrayed in the NT??
Think really hard on that one....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
I thought it was (to) discuss the relationship between Church and State, not the slightly different question of what kind of body the Church is.
Do we really have to make that kind of heavy weather of an essentially simple question? The kind of body the Church is supposed to be has considerable relevance to how it can be related to the State.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We don't escape reason by reiterating creeds. Some Christians question all of it. Including, apparently rising from the dead in a literal physical manner. Was the sermon on the mount actually given on a plain? Who did Jesus meet in what order on Easter morning? Why is there no Roman record of a census to send Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.
The irony here is that if we're supposed to question everything, we might reasonably begin to question the existence of religious institutions themselves.
It's a curiosity of the Canadian prairies, where people generally dispense with any appeals to authority at all. We're well ahead of the curve on this. The idea that no-one or no authority is better than anyone else is rather implanted within us. The institutions already appear to be in serious question.
I see! Well then, this issue is probably of more immediate relevance to someone living in England. People living in a number of other Western countries already have a wide gap between their churches and the state, and their institutional churches can presumably expect fairly little recognition from the authorities, except as a result of mere tradition.
Your last sentence expresses a point that seems highly pertinent to the UK; some denominations are heading into very difficult territory. If the figures continue in the same direction, it's hard to see how some of the historical Christian groups will be able to maintain the same kind of institutional presence and identity into the mid-century. IMO this issue will be overtaken by realities before it gets settled by theology.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As for all the 'holier than thou' stuff, is it possible to be much more 'holier than thou', not to mention monumentally smug and arrogant, than simply to make the claim that the Church should be 'established-or-similar' and have worldly power and influence, rather than be the humble body portrayed in the NT??
"Portrayed" not "prescribed." Was the church meant to stay the humble, not-bothering-the-worldly-kingdoms mouse? That's hardly a church to storm the gates of Hell, as Christ said we would.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Of course from where I'm standing the Church entangled with the state has not so much stormed the gates of Hell, as the gates of Hell have prevailed against that Church because of their disobedience....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Steve - it seems to me that you don't want the Church to convert the nations of the world at all, and want to remain small, theologically pure and socially irrelevent.
I disagree.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
And you convert a 'nation' how exactly?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There's no one way. Just as there's no one way by which individual people come to acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
What's more interesting is to ask what a "converted nation" looks like. A nation where the poor are lifted up and the rich humble, where justice and peace flourish, where the sick are healed and the homeless find shelter. Are we not compelled by the gospel to work for a world that's a bit closer to that?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Various people on this thread are taking a very one-dimensional view of the idea of a 'Christian country'. Here are some thoughts on why it's a bit, nay a lot, more problematic than some of you seem to think.
First, yeah OK, your country becomes 'Christian'. There are quite a few arguments about why, even in the modern world, this isn't such a good idea after all for the country in question. But what about international relations?
So like country A is now 'Christian'; country B next door east is Muslim, country C to the south is say Hindu.... Countries A,B, and C have long-standing enmities which often flare up. So now the religious difference can become an added source of enmity, just for starters. But also, and especially the Christians out there should think of this, what is the position of native Christians in countries B and C? Are they not all too likely to be seen as traitors; as 'Reds under the bed' or similar? Isn't it likely they will end up being persecuted NOT for being Christian, but for being supposed allies of country A? Is that even remotely desirable? Doesn't it harm Christian evangelism in countries B and C in an unacceptable way?
And since the fact of having a 'Christian country' pretty certainly means the abandonment of Christian pacifism – that will have international consequences too, won't it? And history shows us more than a few cases in which such 'Christian countries' end up fighting each other, pitting Christian against Christian. WWI was a pretty good example with Germans doing 'Gott mit uns' and ' I vow to thee my country' as an English anthem. Is that acceptable among Christians who are supposed to love one another? And doesn't the basic need to abandon pacifism for the 'Christian country' to work as a 'kingdom of this world' country suggest a bit of a flaw in the idea of a 'Christian country'?
And finally for now, what about the biblical presentation of the Church itself as a 'nation' in its own right (I Peter 2; 9)? How can that realistically be reconciled with the idea of any worldly nation being, as a worldly nation, 'Christian'?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And since the fact of having a 'Christian country' pretty certainly means the abandonment of Christian pacifism
Care to justify that "pretty certainly"? Or, could we not claim that nations that have in the past claimed the label "Christian" have only partially converted and retained too much of the nature of a kingdom of this world rather than a colony of a greater Kingdom? So far, we haven't had a "Christian country" where the needs and rights of the poor and weak have been more important than the rich and powerful, where people have used religion as a stepping stone to political power rather than use political power as a stepping stone to true religion (which is to love your neighbour as yourself, and love God with all you have). Given that, could we not rightly claim that the idea of a Christian nation hasn't even been tried? All we've had have been worldly nations adopting some symbols from Christian faith and paying lip service to following Christ (which, of course, is something many of us do in our personal life as well so it's not just a problem with nations).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
So what's your cap on the percentage of Christians allowed in a country after which you deem it to have reached this nightmare scenario?
[question to Steve Langton, obviously]
[ 29. November 2014, 22:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So what's your cap on the percentage of Christians allowed in a country after which you deem it to have reached this nightmare scenario?
Oddly, I'm not even thinking in such terms....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Okay, let's try this. We wake up tomorrow and discover that revival has swept the UK, and there's not a man, woman or child who doesn't profess a Trinitarian faith - including every MP, MEP and Councillor.
What do we do next?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
All we've had have been worldly nations adopting some symbols from Christian faith and paying lip service to following Christ
So after nearly 2,000 years the wonderful 'Christian country' hasn't actually happened? Might you consider that this is because it's not meant to happen, and the points I raised a couple of posts back - which I note you haven't exactly answered - might be quite relevant to why it's not meant to happen....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Okay, let's try this. We wake up tomorrow and discover that revival has swept the UK, and there's not a man, woman or child who doesn't profess a Trinitarian faith - including every MP, MEP and Councillor.
What do we do next?
On the one hand, much as I wish.... it's not going to happen like that, is it? And as a personal opinion I rather expect that large scale revival won't be happening till after churches return on a large scale to the Biblical standards on church and state; which again, isn't going to happen quite so overnight....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
So what you're saying is that you can't offer the Christian elected official or public servant any guidance whatsoever on how to conduct themselves in their duties.
Your orthopraxis is about as much use as a chocolate teapot, and the CofE, for all its faults, does vastly better at helping those in secular authority apply their faith to their office.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And you convert a 'nation' how exactly?
By converting the king.
[ 30. November 2014, 00:35: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
So what you're saying is that you can't offer the Christian elected official or public servant any guidance whatsoever on how to conduct themselves in their duties.
Your orthopraxis is about as much use as a chocolate teapot, and the CofE, for all its faults, does vastly better at helping those in secular authority apply their faith to their office.
Because I reject an obviously unlikely scenario doesn't necessarily mean I've nothing to offer in the more realistic world. What's on offer may not necessarily fulfil your wishes or the CofE's, of course.... But if it follows what God has revealed as right conduct for Christians, it's not likely to be a chocolate teapot either!
I've kept things bubbling along over a busy time; hopefully I'll have time free the next few days to work on John 18 more coherently.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
By converting the king.
And I thought I was supposed to be the naive one here!!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
All we've had have been worldly nations adopting some symbols from Christian faith and paying lip service to following Christ
So after nearly 2,000 years the wonderful 'Christian country' hasn't actually happened?
You omitted the previous sentence quote:
could we not rightly claim that the idea of a Christian nation hasn't even been tried?
.
What you quoted is part of a question, not a simple statement of what I think. It happens to relate to what I think; namely that the leaders of every attempt to create a Christian nation, from Constantine onwards, and the vast majority of those who sought to advise the leaders, have been a) human and b) politicians seeking to maintain a position of authority (using "politician" in a broader sense than the modern use of the word). Which means that "Christian nations" have toiled under the burdens of human fallibility and having political gain given too high a priority.
I draw from this an important point:
It is unsafe to use the faults of past attempts at a Christian nation to say therefore that the idea of a Christian nation is itself at fault.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
It really doesn't work for as long as one particular strand of Chritianity becomes the state religion. It's about individuals having a personal morality that also gets carried through into public office.
Thie problem that alway arises is that a group of people are not happy with the status quo or have so little sense of morality that they are a danger to everyone else. The mechanisms that have to be in place to deal with that on a national basis are always in danger of being immoral. And similarly, it is individuals who follow or not an ethical code. It is up to each of us. If each of us takes responsibility as individuals, then the state is less in danger of becoming a tyrant. As you see in America, that also has its flip side as the anti-federal, anti-tax pro gun lobby runs on paranoia.
Show me a mechanism of state, Christian or not, and I'll show you one that can break down if individuals are not capable of remaining ethical - as individuals. And part of that is a willingness to be not only individual but also part of a greater whole. The whole cannot work either if individuals have too great a focus on they individuality.
[ 30. November 2014, 08:47: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Because I reject an obviously unlikely scenario doesn't necessarily mean I've nothing to offer in the more realistic world.
It might not necessarily mean it, but going on the evidence so far, that's what we're getting - nothing.
I find that troubling. You have nothing to offer the Christian policeman, the Christian magistrate, the Christian Trading Standards officer, the Christian Parish Councillor... "Too busy being heavenly to be of any earthly use at all" is a phrase that might be apt here.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Or, even any Christian who does not hold public office but sees injustice in the world in part supported by their own government and who seeks to encourage their government to enact policies that reduce the injustices in the world.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I was trying to keep things simple, but yes. That too.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Basic rule of multicellular biology
It's normal for biological systems to be loosely coupled - they have to have some autonomy to be useful - even in an ant colony it is the ability of soldiers to explore new territory as individual ants that allows the colony to get food. But the ant has to come back to the colony for that separation process to be useful For integration to take place and separation not to become the norm, he whole must recognise its parts and the parts must recognise the whole. This mutuality is vital. Without it, any organised group of organisms will cease to have a cooperative relationship.
The "Christian"-ness of the state is one mechanism whereby there is a common attractor. But really, it's about community - the oultilers in any community have to feel that they are welcome despite their non-mainstream views and the community has to recognise the value in all its members. Otherwise the mutuality breaks down. Most communities are not based on common views (which are open to debate) but by common interest. If it's only a viewpoint, then there are few ways to put it into action, and it turns in on itself. There has to be some active application. Which is why jihad and missionary work creates strong social bonds. We were happy in WW2 because we were in a mutual community. But like the roman empire, there is a limit to the possibilities of expansion/conflict, and in the end, the mutuality has to revert to common shared positive interest that is not based on conflict with "other".
As the state has become more sophisticated in providing basic needs through central mechanisms, the need to have a functional community structure has gradually diminished, because the common interests become less essential and therefore less tangible and more open to disagreement. The same goes for nature/land - if there is no obvious mutuality (such as in hunter-gatherer or substance agriculture) then the land is no longer a conscious part of the community. We cease to be reliant on herbs for medicine and the flowerers remain pretty, but there is less sense of the mutuality of life.
I'm not saying this is an easy thesis to put into action, but I believe that I have identified the dynamics correctly.
If you consider creation, this is also a reasonable pov - the spiritual world must also be engaged as a whole in a creative endeavour, of which which we see only a small fraction. And this must require that non-physical beings also have a sense of mutuality and order in their tasks. The Kingdom is a place where all beings share and participate in a mutual unfolding of divine order into greater and greater diversity and richness. This may take place on Earth, and it may also take place "elsewhere".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Because I reject an obviously unlikely scenario doesn't necessarily mean I've nothing to offer in the more realistic world.
It might not necessarily mean it, but going on the evidence so far, that's what we're getting - nothing.
I find that troubling. You have nothing to offer the Christian policeman, the Christian magistrate, the Christian Trading Standards officer, the Christian Parish Councillor... "Too busy being heavenly to be of any earthly use at all" is a phrase that might be apt here.
I'm not sure what institutional churches automatically offer these people either. The 'advice' from the pulpit tends to be all-purpose, and isn't focused on the working world.
I've heard it said more than once that the church (Methodist, in my case) is good at relating to members who are in the caring professions, but finds it difficult to engage with Christians who are in business, or whatever. Some churches will be more at ease about this, but there may be problems if the church expects a Christian politician, for example, to take a particular stance, and they don't.
A professionally prominent Christian in a largely secular society has to establish boundaries between their personal faith and their duty to the non-religious majority whom they have to serve, even if they also have to pay public lip service to 'Christian values'. The church community of whatever type probably won't be able to help with the specific challenges they'll have to negotiate.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
You omitted the previous sentence
quote:
could we not rightly claim that the idea of a Christian nation hasn't even been tried?
If the idea of a Christian nation "hasn't even been tried" then my basic point about nearly 2000 years and we still haven't had such a nation still stands, surely? I did read that previous sentence, Alan, and saw it as further confirmation of the general point I made.
The biblical idea of a Christian nation was tried for nearly 300 years before it was subverted during the $th Century; and today it is being tried afresh by those groups which reject the Constantinian idea and its offshoots and variations and who go back to the original vision. It did pretty well back at the beginning and seems in the modern world to actually be doing better than the ragged leftovers of the Constantinian subversion.
The biblical version is of course the 'kingdom not of this world' version in which the Church itself is God's holy nation in the world and therefore is separate from the assorted states of the world
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
I find that troubling. You have nothing to offer the Christian policeman, the Christian magistrate, the Christian Trading Standards officer, the Christian Parish Councillor... "Too busy being heavenly to be of any earthly use at all" is a phrase that might be apt here.
That statement appears to be making several presuppositions about Christians in society which might not necessarily hold good from a biblical starting point. The 'Constantinian' position itself has all too often been far from useful even in earthly terms, let alone by biblical standards.
The first thing I have to say, which is far from a 'nothing', is that Christians should aim to do things according to God's teaching. That starts, in this context, by running the church in the world the way God, through Jesus and the Apostles, said it should be, not as the world would like it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
By converting the king.
And I thought I was supposed to be the naive one here!!
Isn't that exactly what happened in the case you are forever bemoaning, Constantine? Constantine was converted (by a miraculous sign, if the stories are true), and the rest followed.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Same in England and Russia.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
By converting the king.
And I thought I was supposed to be the naive one here!!
Isn't that exactly what happened in the case you are forever bemoaning, Constantine? Constantine was converted (by a miraculous sign, if the stories are true), and the rest followed.
I suspect that the issue Steve Langton has with this is not the putative conversion of the king, but with the "rest" that "followed". But I admit to fast approaching my own Aaaaaaaaargh! moment.
[ 30. November 2014, 19:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
Isn't that exactly what happened in the case you are forever bemoaning, Constantine? Constantine was converted (by a miraculous sign, if the stories are true), and the rest followed.
Yes it is just about what happened in the case of Constantine. The naivety is not in believing a king may be converted - the naivety is in believing that the conversion of the king must lead to a meaningful conversion of 'the nation'. Christianity as presented in the NT is simply not that kind of a religion.
Constantine and his successors could legislate all they wanted for their empire to be 'Christian' - but they couldn't guarantee true spiritual rebirth for their subjects, only a spiritually confusing superficial conformity.
That is why converting the nation by converting the king is a naive idea.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
So what should Constantine have done? Not got converted? Not let his faith influence any of his political or administrative decisions?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So what should Constantine have done? Not got converted? Not let his faith influence any of his political or administrative decisions?
He should have let his faith influence hid decisions in a different way; which might well have included abdication.
He should not have thought of Jesus as a god who would help him win his battles and 'lord it over people'.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
And BTW, turning the question to focus on Constantine personally does rather evade the point in my earlier post about the way converting the king doesn't, in fact, convert 'the nation'. It's hardly an unimportant point....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Again, I get the feeling you'd prefer it if Christians were a small, persecuted minority - but theologically pure - just like they were in Acts. There are, fortunately, other ways of being a Christian community, ones that were not explored in the 1st century after Pentecost.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The naivety is not in believing a king may be converted - the naivety is in believing that the conversion of the king must lead to a meaningful conversion of 'the nation'.
Though, for the majority of human history the king and kingdom were inseparable. So, converting the king was converting the nation. That doesn't depend on our understanding of NT theology, it's a recognition of nature of kingship in the majority of cultures until recent times.
The same process worked on a smaller scale with families. How do you interpret something like Acts 16:31 - the jailer asking how to be saved, and Paul and Silas telling him to believe in the Lord Jesus. But then comes the tricky bit - then he and his household will be saved. Paul and Silas suggest that salvation comes to the household with the belief of the head of that household - there's no mention of the belief of the rest of the household until later in the story when they preach to the whole household and baptise all. There's no caveat "you and your household if they each individually believe". And, that's not a unique story where the conversion of the head of the household is taken to indicate the salvation of the whole household.
The king (or Caesar) were simply the head of a much larger household, is it any surprise that the conversion of a king was taken in the same way?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
The king (or Caesar) were simply the head of a much larger household, is it any surprise that the conversion of a king was taken in the same way?
No surprise that people might think that way; but nevertheless in the end a significant contradiction of two of the key Christian ideas, of a spiritual rebirth through personal faith, and of the church itself as God's earthly nation.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
FWIW, this scholar claims that christianisation was proceeding apace without Constantine's innovations. (See 4.35 - 6.35 secs).
The idea that Christianity is best spread in a top-down fashion, i.e. from king to people, is a challenging one. I should think there are many cases in which Christian movements are more effective when they develop in the opposite direction.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Again, I get the feeling you'd prefer it if Christians were a small, persecuted minority - but theologically pure - just like they were in Acts. There are, fortunately, other ways of being a Christian community, ones that were not explored in the 1st century after Pentecost.
Well obviously everybody absolutely loves to be persecuted. Actually the aim is to live peaceably among the pagan neighbours if those neighbours will allow it (see I Peter and Romans 12). And if they see Christians as an actual military threat, they are not likely to allow it, are they? And whether as an actual 'Christian country' or only a 'would-be' version, 'Constantinian' forms of Christianity are such a threat, both to those of other faiths and those seen as 'impure' Christians.
Theological and moral purity are a legitimate aim; and in the particular issue, theological purity about church and state would at least mean Christians wouldn't be fighting wars or persecuting anyone.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So what should Constantine have done? Not got converted? Not let his faith influence any of his political or administrative decisions?
He should have let his faith influence hid decisions in a different way; which might well have included abdication.
He should not have thought of Jesus as a god who would help him win his battles and 'lord it over people'.
Ah, so what you are saying is that it is impossible to wield power and to be righteous?
It's fairly easy to have a go at Constantine but, in political terms, he brought peace and stability to the Empire and he ended the persecutions of the Christians. Which, after the persecution of the Christians under Diocletian, and the civil wars which followed Diocletian's abdication doubtless alleviated a great deal of human misery. Admittedly, he didn't do a lot of stuff that we would expect of a modern social democrat, but in his defence he was actually a 4th Century Roman Empire with all the limitations that entailed. Of course, there was a spiritual and moral cost to the line he did actually take but there was also a spiritual and moral cost to renouncing the world and letting the other lot slug it out until another Diocletian took over and, doubtless, decided that the reason Rome was having all these civil wars was because the Christians were failing to honour the gods...
Of course, you (generic you) can renounce the possibility of holding political power. In a fallen world that means that as well as renouncing tyranny you also renounce the means of resisting tyranny. Or you can assume political power and, in a fallen world, open yourself to a range of quite spectacular spiritual dangers. As always, where politics is concerned, you have a range of options, all of them crappy and you have to choose one and live with it.
Which isn't to say that the particular line you are taking is necessarily the wrong one. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, came out of the period of the Third Reich rather better than the established churches who, by and large, decided that the responsible and grown up thing to do was to interact reasonably and responsibly with the status quo. There's a reason all that stuff about keeping oneself unspotted from the world is in the Bible. But the thing is you (generic you, again) have to stand in some kind of relationship to political power and you will almost certainly have to renounce some goods in order to pursue other goods.
I suspect the reason you are succeeding in winding people up here is because you give the impression that the relationship between Christianity and political power largely consists of a handful of Jesus-like Anabaptists and a horde of complacent worldly wisemen who are prepared to embrace the forces of Constantinism in pursuit of dubious ends. It's not really as simple as that.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan;
quote:
In a fallen world that means that as well as renouncing tyranny you also renounce the means of resisting tyranny.
II Corinthians 10; 3-5??
Also Callan;
quote:
There's a reason all that stuff about keeping oneself unspotted from the world is in the Bible.
Glad someone else has noticed! Thanks!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
The king (or Caesar) were simply the head of a much larger household, is it any surprise that the conversion of a king was taken in the same way?
No surprise that people might think that way; but nevertheless in the end a significant contradiction of two of the key Christian ideas, of a spiritual rebirth through personal faith, and of the church itself as God's earthly nation.
Only a contradiction if you want it to be. Or, maybe just the same contradiction already present in Scripture.
1) "a spiritual rebirth through personal faith". So, how do you deal with the baptism of entire houesholds when the head of the household converts and is baptised (as in the jailer I've already mentioned)? Are you forced to take the unlikely conclusion that each individual member of the household, including the youngest children and the slaves, experienced a spiritual rebirth through personal faith? Or do you conclude that it's possibile for a household to be Christianised even without the explicit, personal conversion of each individual member of the household? Because, if the latter then there is no contradiction with the conversion of the king forming a Christian nation without the explicit, personal conversion of each individual.
2) The Church as "God's earthly nation". The parallel must, surely, be with Israel as God's nation. And, Israel was a political nation state. So, again, I'm not seeing the contradiction.
And, there is (of course) a further parallel with the nation of Israel that relates to the point about households. Israel is the children of Abraham (OK, of Jacob), their identity as the nation of God is due to their ancestry as the family, the household, of Abrahm, Isaac and Jacob. Even in their deepest apostacy they didn't cease being the people of God, because Abraham was faithful. We have a situation where the faith of the father of the nation (Abraham as father of Israel) results in the nation being identified as Gods people despite the personal faith (or lack thereof) of the individual members of that nation. So, when the father of another nation (eg: Constantine as the father of the Roman Empire) converts why should that not also be reflected in the conversion of the nation, depsite the personal faith (or lack thereof) of the individual members of that nation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Callan;
quote:
In a fallen world that means that as well as renouncing tyranny you also renounce the means of resisting tyranny.
II Corinthians 10; 3-5??
Also Callan;
quote:
There's a reason all that stuff about keeping oneself unspotted from the world is in the Bible.
Glad someone else has noticed! Thanks!
What you appear to have failed to notice entirely is that as Callan so eloquently points out, for many of us christian issues in the real world cannot adequately be addressed in good conscience simply be prooftexting.
Besides, assuming 'non-Constantinians' have the monopoly on remaining 'unspotted' is a great way of setting oneself up for being even more spotted than the rest.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Steve, you are guilty, above all, of the first step to tyranny from which Münster follows.
I'll give you a clue.
We are not BECAUSE we are.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Again, I get the feeling you'd prefer it if Christians were a small, persecuted minority - but theologically pure - just like they were in Acts. There are, fortunately, other ways of being a Christian community, ones that were not explored in the 1st century after Pentecost.
Well obviously everybody absolutely loves to be persecuted. Actually the aim is to live peaceably among the pagan neighbours if those neighbours will allow it (see I Peter and Romans 12). And if they see Christians as an actual military threat, they are not likely to allow it, are they? And whether as an actual 'Christian country' or only a 'would-be' version, 'Constantinian' forms of Christianity are such a threat, both to those of other faiths and those seen as 'impure' Christians.
Theological and moral purity are a legitimate aim; and in the particular issue, theological purity about church and state would at least mean Christians wouldn't be fighting wars or persecuting anyone.
The issue is with the 'purer than thou' attitude.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually the aim is to live peaceably among the pagan neighbours if those neighbours will allow it (see I Peter and Romans 12). And if they see Christians as an actual military threat, they are not likely to allow it, are they?
But they were never a military threat. The emperor converted. You just don't get it, do you?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Again, I get the feeling you'd prefer it if Christians were a small, persecuted minority - but theologically pure - just like they were in Acts. There are, fortunately, other ways of being a Christian community, ones that were not explored in the 1st century after Pentecost.
Well obviously everybody absolutely loves to be persecuted. Actually the aim is to live peaceably among the pagan neighbours if those neighbours will allow it (see I Peter and Romans 12).
Actually the aim is to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28). But you don't seem to have a theology for that, because eww, world.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Actually the aim is to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28). But you don't seem to have a theology for that, because eww, world.
Actually Anabaptists have a theology for 'making disciples' where Constantinians only have a theology for producing superficial conformity and nominal Christians. It is fortunate that God has providentially managed to do a lot of real discipling despite the confusion brought about by Constantinian thinking.
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
But they were never a military threat. The emperor converted. You just don't get it, do you?
Pre-Constantinian Christians were not a military threat because they did not aim to set up 'Christian countries' but the different concept of the Church as "God's holy nation" living internationally as 'resident aliens'.
Post-Constantinian Christians by their association to the state became a military threat precisely because states involve militariness, not only to pagans inside and outside the Empire, but even to people they should have seen as fellow Christians. People of Constantinian mind-frame who haven't actually got their desired establishment-or-equivalent are a threat to the state they aim to set up in.
The EMPEROR converted (though historians still seem to be debating how genuinely); the EMPIRE was not necessarily CONVERTED as opposed to merely made to outwardly conform. I 'get it', AO - but I see very real problems about which you seem to have something of a blind spot.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
The Church as "God's earthly nation". The parallel must, surely, be with Israel as God's nation. And, Israel was a political nation state. So, again, I'm not seeing the contradiction.
Which, when I finally get round to completing my exposition, is exactly the point of Jesus' kingdom being 'not of this world'. Christians like 'Diaspora' Jews, live in effect in exile. Plus, like it or not "You must be born again" and the state simply can't do that; as I've repeatedly pointed out, all the state can do is confuse things by producing a superficial conformity depending on the power of the state rather than of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Actually the aim is to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28). But you don't seem to have a theology for that, because eww, world.
Actually Anabaptists have a theology for 'making disciples' where Constantinians only have a theology for producing superficial conformity and nominal Christians.
I have read some arrogant BS on this site, nay this thread, but that tops the lot.
How DARE you suggest that others cannot do this! If my Aunt Teresa, a 'cradle Catholic' was a nominal Christian, few have any hope. She didn't have theology. She had faith, hope and love, and acted them all out.
If all those who are 'real' Christians are Anabaptists, and you are typical of them, Heaven's feast is going to be a pretty dull affair.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
What you appear to have failed to notice entirely is that as Callan so eloquently points out, for many of us christian issues in the real world cannot adequately be addressed in good conscience simply be prooftexting.
Nor, and from Callan's approach I think he may recognise this better than you seem to, will those issues be helped by an approach which pretty much says "We know better than the NT how Christianity is supposed to work - we'll do it our way rather than how Jesus and the apostles taught...."
I suggested the text in II Cor as a line of thought to be considered about one point he had made. I'll be interested to hear his thoughts on it. I am very much an opponent of glib 'prooftexting' and prefer proper contextual interpretation.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Actually the aim is to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28). But you don't seem to have a theology for that, because eww, world.
Actually Anabaptists have a theology for 'making disciples' where Constantinians only have a theology for producing superficial conformity and nominal Christians. It is fortunate that God has providentially managed to do a lot of real discipling despite the confusion brought about by Constantinian thinking.
Actually, I don't think you have any idea of what a majority-Christian nation looks like, let alone what they should do or how they organise. That's where your overarching theological thesis (such as it is...) falls apart completely.
You've been pressed on this repeatedly, and your only answer is "it'll never happen so I don't need to worry about it". When given scenarios and examples and exemplums, you resort to (as above) "they're not really Christians".
If there is any sort of intellectual rigour to your argument, you must consider these things. Merely dismissing them makes you appear disingenuous and theologically shallow. I have to assume you don't want that, but hey, that's what most of us are thinking.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
How DARE you suggest that others cannot do this!
You have misunderstood; and yes, it's somewhat my fault; sorry. I do not suggest that others cannot in fact 'make disciples', nor that only Anabaptists are real Christians. Far from it, fortunately, or rather 'providentially'.
I do suggest that Christianity involves teaching people (who then become 'learners/disciples') to lead them to personal faith or spiritual new birth.
I do suggest that the 'Constantinian' or 'Christian country' approach, with its implication that you can be 'Christian' simply by being born in a 'Christian country', confuses that truth, and puts unnecessary obstacles in the path for those who work in such a context rather than in the style advocated in the NT.
One of the problems of Constantinianism, at least among its leaders, is the BS and arrogance of seeking to impose their 'Christian country' on others rather than accepting the humbler position that you need to convince people and call them out of pagan surroundings. Again, those at the grass roots are generally humbler than their leaders and I am genuinely delighted to call them fellow-Christians.
Even with Constantinian leaders, if you have followed me elsewhere on the Ship you will know that while vehemently disagreeing with Ian Paisley's Constantinianism, which has had terrible effects in Ulster, I regard him as a genuine but misguided Christian rather than the monster or ogre that many considered him to be. I see it as genuinely tragic that the situation in NI did not allow him to develop differently.
My response to Doc Tor was simply a quick reply to the point he had made. I'm sorry that the brevity and narrow focus there gave you a false impression of my wider position.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Actually, I don't think you have any idea of what a majority-Christian nation looks like, let alone what they should do or how they organise.
I don't think anyone really knows what a 'majority-Christian nation' looks like IF it does not follow the Constantininan route. If you join me in killing off the Constantinian notion, perhaps we will one day have a chance to see it.
It should perhaps be pointed out that a 'majority-Christian' state of affairs, because it depends on people being 'born again', cannot be guaranteed to continue over several generations and it is therefore inappropriate and confusing to enshrine that 'majority-Christian' status in a constitution to produce a formally 'Christian' state.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Nor, and from Callan's approach I think he may recognise this better than you seem to, will those issues be helped by an approach which pretty much says "We know better than the NT how Christianity is supposed to work - we'll do it our way rather than how Jesus and the apostles taught...."
Point to where anybody's saying "we know better than the NT".
Plenty of us, however, are saying that the world is a different place to the one in the NT. Many of us are also saying that the NT is not prescriptive ("how Christianity is supposed to work") but descriptive.
quote:
I suggested the text in II Cor as a line of thought to be considered about one point he had made.
You might like to consider the idea that the spiritual strongholds that Paul talks about demolishing can be every bit as present within any church structure, be it anabaptist or other, just as much as in any secular state.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Exactly. You only exist in opposition to Erastianism, with nothing to offer of your own. The Constantinian solution (compromise? arrangement?) can be critiqued because it exists. Your position cannot, because you don't even begin to articulate what it might be. I'm guessing it doesn't exist at all.
That is at the route of our frustration.
(x-posted with Eutychus)
[ 01. December 2014, 11:08: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
What you appear to have failed to notice entirely is that as Callan so eloquently points out, for many of us christian issues in the real world cannot adequately be addressed in good conscience simply be prooftexting.
Nor, and from Callan's approach I think he may recognise this better than you seem to, will those issues be helped by an approach which pretty much says "We know better than the NT how Christianity is supposed to work - we'll do it our way rather than how Jesus and the apostles taught...."
May I suggest that there's a chance that your interpretation of what "Jesus and the apostles taught" could be at fault? Because, unless we can know for certain what they taught we can't make a statement like that. And, I don't believe we can know for certain what they taught - quite deliberately IMO because otherwise we have a faith that is inflexibly carved in stone unable to adapt to changing society.
I would also suggest that all of us looking back from the vantage point of Western 21st century democracies are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures we do have as they'd be correctly interpreted for the needs of Christians in the fourth century.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you join me in killing off the Constantinian notion, perhaps we will one day have a chance to see it.
Interesting choice of vocabulary from a supposed advocate of non-violence.
And once again, you cannot shrug off 1700 years or so of European history just like that. Contrary to the functional belief of many anabaptist types, their churches did not emerge as immediate descendants of the NT with no intervening history. As I said earlier, certainly in the West at least, they have dissented from something. It's part of their legacy.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
The Church as "God's earthly nation". The parallel must, surely, be with Israel as God's nation. And, Israel was a political nation state. So, again, I'm not seeing the contradiction.
Which, when I finally get round to completing my exposition, is exactly the point of Jesus' kingdom being 'not of this world'. Christians like 'Diaspora' Jews, live in effect in exile.
But, unless we take the text John gives us of the conversation with Pilate as a pious fiction written from the other side of the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus was talking within the context of an existing Jewish nation, albeit with an "absent king" they were awaiting. There were Jews in other parts of the Empire, but they still had a homeland and a nation. To start talking now of Diaspora Jews and likening the Kingdom Jesus talks of to Diaspora Jews is an anachronism.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And blind to it.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
A quick one before I go off shopping;
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Exactly. You only exist in opposition to Erastianism, with nothing to offer of your own. The Constantinian solution (compromise? arrangement?) can be critiqued because it exists. Your position cannot, because you don't even begin to articulate what it might be. I'm guessing it doesn't exist at all.
That is at the route (root? SL) of our frustration.
What Anabaptism offers is of course all the riches of NT Christianity - without the distortions and disadvantages and self-inflicted encumbrances of trying to do it 'Constantinian-style', and the theological confusions needed to justify that Constantinianism and its varieties.
Anabaptism does not exist only in contrast to Erastianism; rather Erastianism and similar ideas exist as an unnecessary extra to NT Christianity, which is what Anabaptism seeks to be.
Why does Christianity need a Constantinian 'bolt-on' which the NT teaching rejects? (OK, I know we perhaps haven't quite settled that one, but be serious, if the NT can be shown not to support Constantinianism etc., then Constantinianism would indeed be such an unwanted bolt-on, not the original faith)
Also, as I've repeatedly said, the NT vision very much has a positive aspect of a different kind of relationship between church and surrounding world. That relationship existed in the early teaching before Erastianism etc., were invented.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A quick one before I go off shopping;
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Exactly. You only exist in opposition to Erastianism, with nothing to offer of your own. The Constantinian solution (compromise? arrangement?) can be critiqued because it exists. Your position cannot, because you don't even begin to articulate what it might be. I'm guessing it doesn't exist at all.
That is at the route (root? SL) of our frustration.
What Anabaptism offers is of course all the riches of NT Christianity - without the distortions and disadvantages and self-inflicted encumbrances of trying to do it 'Constantinian-style', and the theological confusions needed to justify that Constantinianism and its varieties.
Anabaptism does not exist only in contrast to Erastianism; rather Erastianism and similar ideas exist as an unnecessary extra to NT Christianity, which is what Anabaptism seeks to be.
Why does Christianity need a Constantinian 'bolt-on' which the NT teaching rejects? (OK, I know we perhaps haven't quite settled that one, but be serious, if the NT can be shown not to support Constantinianism etc., then Constantinianism would indeed be such an unwanted bolt-on, not the original faith)
Also, as I've repeatedly said, the NT vision very much has a positive aspect of a different kind of relationship between church and surrounding world. That relationship existed in the early teaching before Erastianism etc., were invented.
Quite frankly, Steve, that's rubbish. Anabaptism pops up in the sixteenth century. It has no continuity with the early NT Church whatsoever. Neither does the NT, when read in context, have much (if anything) to say about the things you have a beef with. It's just a bunch of rebaptisers who who have a vision of the early Church in their own image.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What Anabaptism offers is of course all the riches of NT Christianity - without the distortions and disadvantages and self-inflicted encumbrances of trying to do it 'Constantinian-style', and the theological confusions needed to justify that Constantinianism and its varieties.
Again, nothing. How do Christians who hold a wide variety of public offices and duties, from the blokes who empty my bins, through to Queen Elizabeth II (and I double-dare you to say she's not a Christian...), conduct themselves in relation to the authority of the State that they are both subject to, and responsible for?
If your answer is "they shouldn't. They should not be employed by the State, undertake duties for the State, have any position within the State", then for pity's sake, say so. At least then we'd have something concrete to argue against. If your position is more nuanced, then what is it? (Bonus points if you manage it clearly and succinctly).
I'll keep saying that your position is nothing but wind until you show me otherwise.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Anabaptism pops up in the sixteenth century. It has no continuity with the early NT Church whatsoever.
Well, there is a continuity with the early church. Anabaptism, even in reaction against, is a continuation of the 16th century church, itself in continuity with the early NT church. It may be a convoluted continuity with various steps that the Anabaptists might prefer weren't there, and one where the Anabaptists themselves may choose to present as including a discontinuity or two, but continuity nonetheless.
But the first point is quite important. Anabaptist theology, including the relationship of Church and State, arise in a particular cultural and theological context - 16th Century Western Europe. A context in which the nature of the nation state is in flux, and where the nature of the Church is also in transition. It's a context where Reformers and Catholics alike seek political support from the new rulers of new small states in Europe formed from the fragments of the Holy Roman Empire, and where those same monarchs seek theological support from any who would claim to give them the backing of God against their rivals. There was a lot going on that was frankly disastrous. Somewhere along the line Anabaptists found there was a baby in the dirty bathwater they threw out.
The whole cultural and political landscape of 16th Century Western Europe was, obviously, radically different to that of Constantine, which again was different to the time of the NT Church. It is much easier to read the Scriptures as though they were written in a cultural and political context you would recognise, but it's an approach to Scripture that is liable to lead you down a dangerous path. I think those 16th Century Anabaptists fell into that error, and I think Steve is following in their company.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Quite frankly, Steve, that's rubbish. Anabaptism pops up in the sixteenth century
That's not quite fair. Other, earlier groups had similar practices, although they have acquired a reputation as heretics - which, it has been argued, was the established church's way of trashing them. Cathars and Bogomils, for instance.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A quick one before I go off shopping;
You appear to assume that the rest of us have nothing better to do than stay poised over our computers waiting to hear your latest pearls of wisdom.
Instead of telling us about your shopping, perhaps you'd like to let us know how you have advanced the cause of the gospel in the real world lately. Alternatively, please spare us the details.
quote:
What Anabaptism offers is of course all the riches of NT Christianity - without the distortions and disadvantages and self-inflicted encumbrances of trying to do it 'Constantinian-style', and the theological confusions needed to justify that Constantinianism and its varieties.
The NT does not give as clear-cut a vision as you would have us believe, and even if it did, we cannot have NT Christianity because 2,000 years of history, massively influenced by state churches, have elapsed in the mean time. We cannot get back to NT Christianity any more than we can get back to a pre-Constantinian world.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
May I suggest that there's a chance that your interpretation of what "Jesus and the apostles taught" could be at fault? Because, unless we can know for certain what they taught we can't make a statement like that. And, I don't believe we can know for certain what they taught - quite deliberately IMO because otherwise we have a faith that is inflexibly carved in stone unable to adapt to changing society.
Of course there's a chance my interpretation is at fault - in which case, get on with proving that please, if I'm wrong I want to be corrrected.
"...I don't believe we can know for certain what they taught" is more than a bit of a cop-out. And in my experience, modern Anabaptists have no great difficulties adapting to the even more changed society of our times; indeed the NT/Anabaptist ideas are often a great deal more useful to the present situation than the Constantinian ones.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course there's a chance my interpretation is at fault - in which case, get on with proving that please, if I'm wrong I want to be corrrected.
It's a bit hard to do that when your interpretation is not specified much beyond "Anabaptists+1!!+1+1!! NT!+1+1+1!!" and every verse you put up in defence or explanation of your position is, under scrutiny, retrospectively redefined as "only thrown out in passing".
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
indeed the NT/Anabaptist ideas are often a great deal more useful to the present situation than the Constantinian ones.
Then I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, to tell us what they are. Because you keep on saying how good they are without telling us what they are, so we can judge for ourselves.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That must itch.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Actually, I don't think you have any idea of what a majority-Christian nation looks like, let alone what they should do or how they organise.
I don't think anyone really knows what a 'majority-Christian nation' looks like IF it does not follow the Constantininan route. If you join me in killing off the Constantinian notion, perhaps we will one day have a chance to see it.
It should perhaps be pointed out that a 'majority-Christian' state of affairs, because it depends on people being 'born again', cannot be guaranteed to continue over several generations and it is therefore inappropriate and confusing to enshrine that 'majority-Christian' status in a constitution to produce a formally 'Christian' state.
All right. Let us suppose there is an outbreak of Anabaptism among the populace. In the better part of a couple of generations lets say that 75% of the population embrace the Anabaptist bill of goods in its entirety. What would we expect to see?
I would expect to see more Anabaptists in high office and politicians banging on about the importance of Anabaptist values. I would expect to see nominal Anabaptists, not very good Anabaptists and people who turned up to church on occasion because family members were Anabaptists. I would expect to see people becoming Anabaptists because it was a way of getting on in a largely Anabaptist society and, assuming that the intellectual elite had converted at the same rate as ordinary people I would expect to see Anabaptism having a certain amount of intellectual prestige among the better educated young. Parents would expect schools to teach Anabaptist values. Licence fee payers would expect to see the nations Anabaptism reflected in everything from news coverage to the plot lines in Eastenders. The laws and institutions of society would gradually and not-so-subtlely would come to reflect Anabaptist values which would, in turn, be coarsened and dimninished by their adoption, not by a pure remnant, but by the world and his or her spouse.
There would almost certainly, by the way, be a group of Anabaptists who set themselves up in protest against the worldliness of the new Anabaptist society and there would, doubtless, be a Clause 4 moment when a government, professing Anabaptist values, felt the need to accomodate itself to some professing urgent demand of the moment. When the cryonic chamber was opened and the prophet Steve Langton was revived and shown the outworkings of his theories he would, most likely, take one look at the whole set up and cry out "Constantinism!"
The point being, I think, that Anabaptism - the doctrine of a pure remnant uncorrupted by the wider society - can only exist in a context where most people are either 'Constantinists' or non-Christians. Which is a problem, really. You start off with a command to make disciples of all nations but if you make enough of them you start to become compromised. A radical or revolutionary movement either comprises those who are too good for ordinary society or those who are not good enough and has to make few compromises. A popular mainstream movement comprises ordinary society and has to make lots of them.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You might like to consider the idea that the spiritual strongholds that Paul talks about demolishing can be every bit as present within any church structure, be it anabaptist or other, just as much as in any secular state.
Indeed the immediate context is a dispute within the Church; I tend to think that as with Jesus' comment about Gentile princes lording it over people and 'it shall not be so among you', what applies within the church is even more so about how we treat the surrounding world. The things we face in the world can also be met by our spiritual weapons; indeed Paul implies that what we face is ultimately spiritual in nature, itself 'not of this world'.
by Eutychus;
quote:
Point to where anybody's saying "we know better than the NT".
Um, let me see,... Oh yes, Canterbury for one...
by Eutychus;
quote:
Plenty of us, however, are saying that the world is a different place to the one in the NT. Many of us are also saying that the NT is not prescriptive ("how Christianity is supposed to work") but descriptive.
The NT is a bigger difference to the OT than the surrounding world was to our surrounding world. Were the major changes in the New Covenant really meant to be set aside only a few hundred years later, not because the world had changed but to accommodate a worldly empire?
Even as descriptive, the NT describes something very un-Constantinian. Can you really claim such a change in the 4th Century that it required a new description of the church? If the church is as described in the NT, the post 4th Century version is seriously contradictory of it; such a change requires serious justification, not just glib talk about a different society (which wasn't back then so different anyway) or about whether the NT is prescriptive or descriptive.
Indeed making that distinction could I suspect be paraphrased as "We think we know better than the NT"....
by Eutychus;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you join me in killing off the Constantinian notion, perhaps we will one day have a chance to see it.
Eutychus comment;
Interesting choice of vocabulary from a supposed advocate of non-violence.
You perhaps need to take that up with Paul who also uses imagery of war to express a clearly peaceable vision. I'm only proposing pesticide of a bad idea; unlike Constantinians I'm not suggesting the people should also be killed.
by Eutychus;
quote:
And once again, you cannot shrug off 1700 years or so of European history just like that. Contrary to the functional belief of many anabaptist types, their churches did not emerge as immediate descendants of the NT with no intervening history. As I said earlier, certainly in the West at least, they have dissented from something. It's part of their legacy.
Not shrugging it off, indeed quite widely read in it. But also I'm not a 'cradle Anabaptist' and had to work a lot of the stuff out for myself; and despite certain people's attempts to make out otherwise, I'm far from starry-eyed and rose-tinted spectacles about the traditional Anabaptists - many of whom in any case are having somewhat of a sort-out of their traditions.
But oddly, as I say, the pre-Constantine version of things seems very relevant for today. It feels like finally getting back on the highway after a dodgy satnav has sent you off through the Slough of Despond ('Come friendly bombs...)
by Eutychus;
quote:
You appear to assume that the rest of us have nothing better to do than stay poised over our computers waiting to hear your latest pearls of wisdom.
It might be an idea to stop always putting the worst construction on anything I say. I was just being a bit friendly and also explaining both a rather abrupt post and that I wouldn't be back for a bit.
by Eutychus;
quote:
The NT does not give as clear-cut a vision as you would have us believe, and even if it did, we cannot have NT Christianity because 2,000 years of history, massively influenced by state churches, have elapsed in the mean time. We cannot get back to NT Christianity any more than we can get back to a pre-Constantinian world.
I wouldn't pretend we can simplistically have NT Christianity; but we can certainly have Christianity on NT principles, especially on as big an issue as church and state. At least in a post-Constantinian world we know that Constantinianism is a failure and we can get on with trying to do better.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The things we face in the world can also be met by our spiritual weapons; indeed Paul implies that what we face is ultimately spiritual in nature, itself 'not of this world'.
You have completely missed my point, which is that bad spiritual strongholds can be rooted in church structures, be they anabaptist or not.
quote:
quote:
Point to where anybody's saying "we know better than the NT".
Um, let me see,... Oh yes, Canterbury for one...
I'm talking about on this thread
quote:
The NT is a bigger difference to the OT than the surrounding world was to our surrounding world.
In some ways yes and in some ways no. quote:
Were the major changes in the New Covenant really meant to be set aside only a few hundred years later, not because the world had changed but to accommodate a worldly empire?
It depends which changes. How things are applied will change over time, as Callan has ably argued above. quote:
You perhaps need to take that up with Paul who also uses imagery of war to express a clearly peaceable vision.
Against others claiming to be Christians? I look forward to your supporting Scriptures. quote:
I'm only proposing pesticide of a bad idea
Again, I find your vocabulary revealing. It's nasty enough to put me off anabaptists altogether.
quote:
I'm far from starry-eyed and rose-tinted spectacles about the traditional Anabaptists - many of whom in any case are having somewhat of a sort-out of their traditions.
And as many of us keep pointing out, you have failed to outline your position with any clarity whatsoever. quote:
Slough of Despond ('Come friendly bombs...)
Yes I get the reference, but I note your use once again of a metaphor of mass destruction in defence of your ideals. quote:
I wouldn't pretend we can simplistically have NT Christianity; but we can certainly have Christianity on NT principles, especially on as big an issue as church and state.
Then kindly address some of the thought experiments outlined above, for instance by Doc Tor, about those currently in political power or indeed your reigning monarch.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The point being, I think, that Anabaptism - the doctrine of a pure remnant uncorrupted by the wider society - can only exist in a context where most people are either 'Constantinists' or non-Christians. Which is a problem, really. You start off with a command to make disciples of all nations but if you make enough of them you start to become compromised. A radical or revolutionary movement either comprises those who are too good for ordinary society or those who are not good enough and has to make few compromises. A popular mainstream movement comprises ordinary society and has to make lots of them.
For what it's worth, I offer the take of Roger Forster, to whom I am indebted for much of what I know of "radical church history" and who, I hasten to add, exudes an irenic attitude that is in stark contrast to that being displayed by Steve Langton here.
Roger, in his inimitable, idiosyncratic and impassioned way, likens the perennial faithful remnant to the two "good" churches of Revelation, the radical wing of the church that overcomes on behalf of the wider church and brings everyone (i.e. the other five not-so-radical churches) into the full-orbed eschatalogical Kingdom of God in the end.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Even as descriptive, the NT describes something very un-Constantinian. Can you really claim such a change in the 4th Century that it required a new description of the church? If the church is as described in the NT, the post 4th Century version is seriously contradictory of it...
You'd have to demonstrate that, of course. I, for one, am not convinced that you have. As has been pointed out so many times before, and you haven't properly addressed this, the NT was written within the context of a pagan empire. When the emperor converted that obviously changed, the context within the Church had to engage with the world changed. And if you're going to say that the Church shouldn't engage with the world (not conform to it but to engage, an important distinction) then there's no way the Church can carry out its commission.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
the NT was written within the context of a pagan empire. When the emperor converted that obviously changed, the context within (which? SL) the Church had to engage with the world changed.
And we now know where that ended up; a very failed experiment. If you ever meet Hypatia, explain it to her....
Eutychus
quote:
"I'm talking about on this thread"
See above, mate....
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
the NT was written within the context of a pagan empire. When the emperor converted that obviously changed, the context within (which? SL) the Church had to engage with the world changed.
And we now know where that ended up; a very failed experiment. If you ever meet Hypatia, explain it to her....
Eutychus
quote:
"I'm talking about on this thread"
See above, mate....
Gordon Bennett! Again, you've failed to actually engage with any of my points. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Ad Orientem's comment that you quote, Steve Langton, doesn't say anything about us knowing better than the NT. It means we are trying, from our various perspectives and through a glass darkly, to know as well as the first Christians, for our own times.
[x-post]
[ 01. December 2014, 18:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And we now know where that ended up; a very failed experiment.
You know before I embarked on this thread I felt strongly that pointing to Munster as a failed experiment was an unfair criticism of Anabaptists, but the more I read here, the more I'm beginning to think it's an inevitable outcome for people unprepared to listen to, or seriously engage with, those who they differ with, and who recognise no authority other than their self-appointed ones.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You have completely missed my point, which is that bad spiritual strongholds can be rooted in church structures, be they anabaptist or not.
And as I just pointed out, yes, the original context here was a fault in the church rather than the world. And in view of that, yes, Paul does use warlike imagery when he is speaking "Against others claiming to be Christians" even though the ultimate intent is peace - right there in II Cor.
by Eutychus;
quote:
quote:
SL:
I'm only proposing pesticide of a bad idea
E;
Again, I find your vocabulary revealing. It's nasty enough to put me off anabaptists altogether.
You're going to have to be put off a lot of the NT then, surely? Why is it wrong to wish a bad idea to be eradicated? Especially a bad idea as destructive as the one in question? As I said, I'm not proposing to eradicate the people, but to call them to needful repentance.
by Eutychus;
quote:
And as many of us keep pointing out, you have failed to outline your position with any clarity whatsoever.
READ THE NEW TESTAMENT: AND DO IT!!!! Is that clear enough?
by Eutychus;
quote:
I note your use once again of a metaphor of mass destruction in defence of your ideals.
See earlier - and large chunks of the NT, for that matter.... It's a metaphor!
by Eutychus;
quote:
Then kindly address some of the thought experiments outlined above, for instance by Doc Tor, about those currently in political power or indeed your reigning monarch.
I am addressing them; by first laying the foundations from texts like John 18 which I must now get back to. Addressing them without laying the foundations is unlikely to get very far.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You know before I embarked on this thread I felt strongly that pointing to Munster as a failed experiment was an unfair criticism of Anabaptists,
Munster failed precisely because it was essentially Constantinian. As modern Anabaptism rejects that way of doing things, naturally Munster is hardly a fair criticism. What I struggle with is why Constantinians don't realise that criticising Munster is criticising themselves rather than modern Anabaptism.
At least the Anabaptists learned the lesson of those tragic events.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And in view of that, yes, Paul does use warlike imagery when he is speaking "Against others claiming to be Christians"
Paul does not talk in terms of killing, eradicating, or bombing. As far as I'm concerned, talk of "eradicating ideas" is totalitarianism. The language of the New Testament is one of reasoning, pleading, and persuading - in short, presenting a case.
quote:
quote:
And as many of us keep pointing out, you have failed to outline your position with any clarity whatsoever.
READ THE NEW TESTAMENT: AND DO IT!!!! Is that clear enough?
No. What is clear from this comment is that you are persuaded your position aligns perfectly with the New Testament, you are right, everyone else is wrong, no further explanation is required, and all you need to do is shout loud enough to be assured of being right.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
As a result of this thread, I have actually pulled Verduin's The Reformers and their Stepchildren off my shelves.
Verduin summarises the Anabaptist position thus (p14): quote:
the Church of Christ must consist of believing people and of them exclusively
He pits this view against the Constantinian (aha!) or "sacralist" view that the church is (p17) quote:
a fellowship embracing all in a given territory
These are the only two options presented.
The trouble is that life is not so neat and tidy. Even if one is in favour of churches established on the basis of believers joining together, how is one to tell, really tell, that a local congregation consists only of believers? And when the next generation starts being born and grows up, what then?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Agreed about the tidiness of life. Verduin was stating the case some years ago now when things were perhaps a bit neater there. In some ways the present untidiness represents a spread of the Anabaptist ideas even outside the Church.
by Eutychus;
quote:
how is one to tell, really tell, that a local congregation consists only of believers
And the answer is, of course, that you can't absolutely tell, and most Anabaptists know that. However, you get a considerable start in that direction when you are not in a 'Constantinian' situation, where lots of people get defined as 'Christian'simply by their place/nation of birth. If the Church is a distinct thing within the state which is joined voluntarily, the likelihood that joiners will be 'believers' rather than superficial conformists is a great deal higher.
by Eutychus;
quote:
And when the next generation starts being born and grows up, what then?
Yes, it's a problem; but a very different level problem to Constantinianism where generation after generation can grow up just assumed to be 'Christian' by virtue of birth in a 'Christian country'. 'Believer-based Churches' will at least preach the need of 'new birth' to their children. I recall in my youth often seeing Anglican evangelical clergymen rightly insisting that the new birth was necessary, and that you couldn't assume yourself 'Christian' by the birth in the 'Christian country'; yet these clergy seemed completely oblivious to the thought that in England such assumptions existed mostly because of their own church's 'establishment'.
The situation is human so imperfect; but the 'credobaptist' position is considerably clearer than the Constantinian and closer - much closer - to the NT presentation.
Of course if you have read Verduin you'll know that he deals with further differences as well, for example the questions of pacifism.
One of the big problems of Constantinianism is that it divides Christian from Christian by creating a 'worldly' church, which in the end serious Christians may find it difficult to belong to, instead of the simpler situation of there being Christians and non-Christians. That confusion is a major handicap for the Church.
Ad Orientem;
I've now repeatedly responded to your case by making the simple point that converting a king/emperor, and converting his kingdom/empire, are different categories of event - the one nowhere near secures the other. I'm not sure there's much use following that argument with you alongside the rather different discussion I'm having with others.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
No, it's completely pointless continuing this discussion with you, Steve, I agree.
[ 01. December 2014, 20:59: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
One of the big problems of Constantinianism is that it divides Christian from Christian by creating a 'worldly' church, which in the end serious Christians may find it difficult to belong to, instead of the simpler situation of there being Christians and non-Christians. That confusion is a major handicap for the Church.
I think you are wrong to blame this on Constantinianism. I sympathise with Verduin, but he over-states his case. I think the two paths taken by Constantinian and Anabaptist (if you must) churches represent two imperfect responses to real-life situations. The more I read and the older I get the less sure I am about the purity of the motives - on either side.
I think the adversary has a lot of fun setting one group against the other. I know which form of church I prefer, but I have learned first-hand both of the evil that can reside within my preferred form and the godliness that can reside within the other.
And remember that there is no trace, even of the two "good" churches in Revelation, today. That to me is strong evidence that our emphasis should not be on the local church or the form it takes.
And that is why I prefer now to seek the Kingdom and let Jesus worry about building his Church, whatever its temporary and local expression.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I think you are wrong to blame this on Constantinianism. I sympathise with Verduin, but he over-states his case. I think the two paths taken by Constantinian and Anabaptist (if you must) churches represent two imperfect responses to real-life situations. The more I read and the older I get the less sure I am about the purity of the motives - on either side.
I think we'll have to carry on saying 'Anabaptist' because I don't think you're quite ready for the suggestion of it simply being the NT way! These days it can get really complex at times - that David Silvester in the UK and many of the USA 'Southern Baptists' are obviously practitioners of "Believer's Baptism" but come with decidedly Constantinian attitudes!
The trouble with the Constantinian position is in that confusion of church and world, of the kingdom of God with the very different animal of the worldly kingdom with all its worldly concerns. It's a Frankenstein creation of a really bad kind.
If I'm able to make my point of the 'not of this world' nature of Jesus' kingdom, then that hybrid would I believe be just onviously inappropriate. Yes God can bring a great deal of good from situations of, basically disobedience like Constantinianism - but that doesn't mean it's good to carry on the disobedience.
by Eutychus;
quote:
I think the adversary has a lot of fun setting one group against the other.
I'm sure he does. As indeed in setting any churches against one another. But there is a major problem when one of the two opposing churches carries state power and the worldly motives of totalitarianism to impose itself on those who disagree.
This is undesirable even if that church is right on whichever issues; if the church with the state power is wrong that creates a major difficulty. Both churches being Constantinian can mean horrendous civil war - I understand that proportionately to its times the English Civil War was the worst ever in the UK in 'percentage killed and maimed' terms.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You KNOW don't you Steve!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
And as many of us keep pointing out, you have failed to outline your position with any clarity whatsoever.
READ THE NEW TESTAMENT: AND DO IT!!!! Is that clear enough?
What seems to be clear is that you don't seem to think the rest of us on this thread have read the NT. I've news for you. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but many of us have read the NT multiple times. And, guess what? We just don't see the NT showing any concern for the issues you see so clearly portrayed there. Which means that to get from the text of the NT passages to application to situations that would have been irrelevant to the original authors and their audience requires us to interpret the texts. And, we disagree on the interpretations.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You must be SO grateful not to be as this publican.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I do suggest that the 'Constantinian' or 'Christian country' approach, with its implication that you can be 'Christian' simply by being born in a 'Christian country'...
.
You're right to recognise the wrongness of the idea that belonging to a Christian society is enough. But that's nothing to do with church-state relationship.
Christians are called to individual faith lived out in a worshipping community. We humans (as with so many things) can get that wrong two ways. Either over-emphasising the individual belief, or over-emphasising the community to which we belong. The idea that belonging to our tribe is enough is one of the things that can happen when you over-emphasise the community, and it's just as wrong when done by non-established Catholics, Anabaptists, or Jews as when it's done by established Anglicans (re-arrange or substitute as needed to suit the situation in other countries).
If you actually got down to the pros and cons of different levels of Christian engagement with the State instead of airing your prejudices this thread might get somewhere...
You probably have a good point somewhere but you're not getting to it.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
By Alan Cresswell;
quote:
What seems to be clear is that you don't seem to think the rest of us on this thread have read the NT. I've news for you. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but many of us have read the NT multiple times.
Of course you have. I haven't said otherwise; why this urge to put the worst possible spin on anything I say?
by AC;
quote:
We just don't see the NT showing any concern for the issues you see so clearly portrayed there.
Can you not even see these issues in I Peter, in Romans 13, in Acts 5;29...?
by AC;
quote:
Which means that to get from the text of the NT passages to application to situations that would have been irrelevant to the original authors and their audience
'irrelevant to the original authors and their audience' - How can what we call 'church and state' issues possibly be irrelevant to a church situated as it was in the 1st Century?? or for that matter in the following centuries of persecution? How much use would the NT be if it didn't cover those issues?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No! You DON'T know!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'irrelevant to the original authors and their audience' - How can what we call 'church and state' issues possibly be irrelevant to a church situated as it was in the 1st Century?? or for that matter in the following centuries of persecution? How much use would the NT be if it didn't cover those issues?
Of course, what we could call "church and state" issues would be irrelevant. We pose the questions in relation to modern nation states, which would have no meaning to people in the first century Roman Empire (or, anywhere else at that time). The nature of the state has changed radically since then.
Even during those first few centuries the questions were constantly changing:
Small group of Jews convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, risen from the dead, almost all living in Judea. For them the "state" most relevant was the Jewish religious leadership, the Romans were there but largely didn't care about what they'd have seen as sectarianism within Judaism. Well, until Jewish uprisings, of course, by which time it seems the Romans differentiated between Christians and Jews, as the Jews were banned from Jerusalem without such restrictions on Christians. It's likely that some of the earliest parts of the Gospels (especially Matthew) were written by/for Christians living in Judea still under largely Jewish religious authority (though after AD70 with significantly more Roman presence).
Small numbers of Jews and Gentiles associated with Judaism in Greek cities of Asia Minor. Again, for them the Roman Empire is an abstract concept, they need to deal with the local government - both the synagogue leadership and the city elders. A large proportion of the Epistles and probably at least the early Gospels are written to Christian communities in this situation.
Increasing numbers of Christians throughout the Roman Empire. Their numbers catching the attention of the local government with local persecution. Again, for most people the Roman Empire is an abstract notion that doesn't really impact their lives as long as their local government doesn't do anything too radical. Christians in Rome get the attention of Caesar, and at various times the local persecutions get more official encouragement from the Romans. It is to this situation that the later parts of the NT - Revelation, John - are addressed.
In the few centuries following the last texts of the NT the church changed - it became progressively less Jewish and more Greek and Roman. It also began to spread into other parts of the world beyond the Mediterranean. It is in this period that we start to see the emergence of documents like the Didache that try to provide a structure to Christian discipleship as the church becomes more culturally diverse. The Church also faced a "state" that was no longer the Jewish religious leadership or Greek city council, but a "state" that was the kingships of Gaul or Brittania, albeit often Romanised. In addition, Rome itself was changing, the balance of power between Caesar and Senate changed, there were civil wars and rival emperors, there were external threats from "barbarians" with the legions no longer apparently invincible.
Finally, of course, in the 4th century the church becomes accepted by the Roman Empire, as the emperor himself converts. Which gives the church the freedom to build chapels and permanent places of worship, and establish monasteries and places to study the faith, and in the process finds the need to clarify what is true faith and what is error.
And, for all that period we only have documents in the NT that address the issues of living in the earliest stages of the evolution of the church and local/imperial governments. The authors of the epistles and Gospels would not have had any idea how to handle issues relating to maintaining a permanent place of worship (though those with Jewish roots would probably have simply done what the Jews did with synagogues - and, indeed, a lot of early church buildings do seem to be modelled on synagogues). Probably some of those early communities would have had members who held positions of authority in their local communities, but we have little practical advice for them beyond general exhortation to live lives worthy of the gospel - be honest, trustworthy, just etc.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Well done, Steve Langton.
A real “Athanasius contra mundum “ performance.
Our lives have been considerably disrupted over the last couple of months, so I have only found time to glance intermittently at the Ship, or I might have posted to support you.
You are quite correct to maintain that not only does the NT have nothing explicit to say in support of a future state/established church, but that the very idea is incompatible with NT theology.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually Anabaptists have a theology for 'making disciples' where Constantinians only have a theology for producing superficial conformity and nominal Christians.
If that's the distinction, then there are no Constantinians, at least in the 21st century in the West. What a relief. We can close the thread and all go get a beer.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
However, you get a considerable start in that direction when you are not in a 'Constantinian' situation, where lots of people get defined as 'Christian'simply by their place/nation of birth. If the Church is a distinct thing within the state which is joined voluntarily, the likelihood that joiners will be 'believers' rather than superficial conformists is a great deal higher.
Again, there is no situation in the West where people are defined as Christian other than by themselves. Nobody tells an atheist Brit, "You are a Christian because you are a subject of a nation with an established church." It would be folly, and everybody knows it. Therefore on your definition, there are no Constantinians left in the West.
I want to hear you address the picture painted above of what would happen if 75% of a nation were to become Anabaptist. How would it be anything other than what you deride as Constantinianism? Do you have a vision of what to do to prevent this scenario from playing out if you managed to convert the vast majority of a country to Anabaptism? Please address this point.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think we'll have to carry on saying 'Anabaptist' because I don't think you're quite ready for the suggestion of it simply being the NT way! These days it can get really complex at times - that David Silvester in the UK and many of the USA 'Southern Baptists' are obviously practitioners of "Believer's Baptism" but come with decidedly Constantinian attitudes!
I think this goes a long way to explaining why we are not getting very far.
It seems that when it suits you, non-state credobaptist churches such as the Southern Baptists can be accused of Constantinianism, and what you mean by 'Anabaptist' is "my personal interpretation of NT Christianity" (since you dismiss other anabaptists as defective).
I agree with Russ: quote:
If you actually got down to the pros and cons of different levels of Christian engagement with the State instead of airing your prejudices this thread might get somewhere...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
By Alan Cresswell;
quote:
What seems to be clear is that you don't seem to think the rest of us on this thread have read the NT. I've news for you. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but many of us have read the NT multiple times.
Of course you have. I haven't said otherwise; why this urge to put the worst possible spin on anything I say?
The unequivocal implication of quote:
READ THE NEW TESTAMENT: AND DO IT!!!! Is that clear enough?
in response to a request for a clarification of your personal view is that your questioner has not read the NT properly, or if they have, they have failed to put it into practice, and the implication of that is that, unlike the rest of us, you have.
Your apparent inability to admit or recognise this is not doing your cause any good whatsoever. Your attitude belies your claim to be upholding New Testament values.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Please shame US with YOUR New Testament credentials Steve.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
It seems that when it suits you, non-state credobaptist churches such as the Southern Baptists can be accused of Constantinianism, and what you mean by 'Anabaptist' is "my personal interpretation of NT Christianity" (since you dismiss other anabaptists as defective).
No, there is a real life ambiguity here that I'm trying to take account of. 'Anabaptist' these days means primarily one particular tradition, today represented by groups like the Mennonites/Amish/Hutterites. That tradition is distinctive in being unusually clear on separation of Church and State as well as their baptismal practice which gives the name 'Anabaptist'. I regard myself these days as belonging within that tradition. I do not 'dismiss' them as defective but, as they mostly do themselves, I recognise that they aren't perfect either.
Outside that tradition and the distinctive way it is currently developing in the UK via the 'Anabaptist Network', there are a wide variety of 'credobaptists' both 'denominations' and independent. Some of these share the key Anabaptist views, some don't.
David Silvester's views of the UK as a 'Christian country' were the views of a Baptist, but hardly 'Anabaptist'. The USA, as I've discussed before in various threads Shipboard, has developed a trend which US Anabaptists call 'Neo-Constantinian' whereby, as per their Constitution, they don't have the establishment of a particular denomination but do try to have the USA as a 'Christian' State. Though you might think otherwise from their baptismal practice, the Southern Baptists are generally quite patriotic and non-pacifist and mostly seem to belong in that 'Neo-Constantinian' category.
In short, there's a great deal of confusion over the issue. In my experience, in the UK most churchgoing Christians don't really have a coherent theology of 'Church and State' or indeed 'Church and surrounding world'. Many believe in religious freedom but their views are not biblically based but borrowed, in effect, from the surrounding pluralist culture. Often this belief in religious freedom is nevertheless combined with a vague idea of the UK being a 'Christian country' that tolerates other ideas.
Anabaptism does include a much more coherent basic theology of 'Church and State/World' which is grounded in the Bible and in the teaching of the Church as holy nation living among non-Christians worldwide. Right now there is quite a bit of discussion in Anabaptist circles of how far Christians can/should be involved in democracies - do the same objections to engaging with the world still apply, or are democracies so different to older states that there can be much more engagement? The answers are slightly in flux, which is one reason I'm not being too emphatic in some areas others have been asking questions about. But the foundation NT truths remain as the basis for resolving those issues.
It is that biblical foundation that concerns me here. Without it Christians are vulnerable either to being pushed around by secularists and compromising their faith with the world, or they are vulnerable to the call of those who would reinstate the 'Christian country' idea in a more totalitarian form.
It isn't just my personal take, though I'm told that the period when I was developing my views independently has meant I've got some distinctive ideas within the overall Anabaptist view.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
How much bastinado have you endured for us? How many widows and orphans have you visited in their affliction, sick and imprisoned?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As a result of this thread, I have actually pulled Verduin's The Reformers and their Stepchildren off my shelves.
Verduin summarises the Anabaptist position thus (p14): quote:
the Church of Christ must consist of believing people and of them exclusively
He pits this view against the Constantinian (aha!) or "sacralist" view that the church is (p17) quote:
a fellowship embracing all in a given territory
These are the only two options presented.
The trouble is that life is not so neat and tidy. Even if one is in favour of churches established on the basis of believers joining together, how is one to tell, really tell, that a local congregation consists only of believers? And when the next generation starts being born and grows up, what then?
I'm not sure, in that case that 'Constantinism' is a thing, as the young people say. If I had popped into the offices of the Spanish Inquisition or alerted one of Archbishop Laud's staff to my suspicions that my next door neighbour doubted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or had spoken slightingly about the use of the surplice in public worship I very much doubt that I would have got the reply: "Impossible! they live on the territory which is under the rule of the King of Spain/ England. Therefore they are dutiful members of the Church thereof".
Actually Existing 'Constantinsim' was more likely to hold that some people would be disciples of Jesus and some people would not, whatever their profession, but that it was a legitimate part of Christian formation to impose penalties, of varying degrees of severity, to those who departed from orthodoxy and orthopraxis. 'Constantinists' would, probably, also have held that social order depended upon religious uniformity and that to tolerate heretics would lead to social unrest. (This wasn't, by the way, the view of the historical Constantine, so I'm not sure why y'all are blaming him for developments that took place after his death. There's a reason that the Edict of Theodosius is called the Edict of Theodosius.)
Now this view would have been fairly unexceptional in the sixteenth century and was finally abandoned as an official religious dogma in 1965. Which was a jolly good thing.
But no-one has ever held that the official religion of the Kingdom of Ruritania is the Church of Ruritania therefore all Ruritanians are adherents thereof. You simply don't have Test Acts, Inquisitions, civil penalties for heresy and the like if everybody in a given territory is deemed to be a member of the official church, without further enquiry. You have them if you are concerned that the Church of Ruritania is menaced by heretics and subversives who will tempt the innocent loyalty of the peasantry away from their simple faith and loyalty to the King.
This was a real evil in the sixteenth century and we owe a real debt to the Anabaptist protest against it. But it has pretty much been gathered up; along with a geocentric universe, the economic possibilities of the philosophers stone and the need to stop witches casting murrains against cattle up into the rubbish tip of history. The protest against 'constantinsism' is either a protest against the past or against something that never really existed.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan;
quote:
(This wasn't, by the way, the view of the historical Constantine, so I'm not sure why y'all are blaming him for developments that took place after his death. There's a reason that the Edict of Theodosius is called the Edict of Theodosius.)
I think most of us are aware that it's not just about Constantine personally and that there was a process which went on over some 70-80 years culminating in Theodosius' Edict (and at one point was interrupted by that Julian the Apostate). 'Constantinian' tends in this kind of discussion to be used as a 'shorthand' for the whole trend or shift. Having said that, what happened in Constantine's lifetime included quite a lot of unsatisfactory things.
In describing this business I quite like Verduin's word 'sacralism' which is not limited to the Christian version of the problem; unfortunately it's a bit of an academic technical term which can be confusing rather than helpful to many people, whereas describing it as the trend Constantine started and using Constantinianism as a general term is easier for many people.
As I pointed out in my previous post, there are still lots of issues around this Church-and-State/World business to be discussed, including many relevant to the current issues with Islam as a clearly 'sacralist' religion. The distinctive Anabaptist view is considerably better than many of the vaguer and more secular-based views to be found in our culture today.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Which? How?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Martin 60;
quote:
Which? How?
I hope I've translated right that you mean "Which other views is the Anabaptist view an improvement on, and How and in what ways an improvement?"
Well just for a few examples....
For Christians it is a great deal better than secularist assumptions about separation of religion and state precisely because it is a biblical Christian view for which we do not have to compromise our faith. That seems pretty good to me.
Without such a biblical view Christians will always be at some risk of the siren call of supposedly doing God's will by trying to establish our faith in some privileged position in the world or in our state. It is better because we can live in a plural society, or in a state of some other religion, confident that we are doing the will of God by peaceable means rather than by war/persecution/coercion as all too many will.
It is much better than the Islamic view of religion and state as exemplified by IS in the Middle East at present, and even by moderate Islam which still believes similar ideas to non-Anabaptist Christianity about just war and similar. Unlike our Christian predecessors we can set towards Islam a different and better example of how to be God's people and spread our faith in the world.
I could go on for a long time with stuff like this.....
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Callan;
quote:
(This wasn't, by the way, the view of the historical Constantine, so I'm not sure why y'all are blaming him for developments that took place after his death. There's a reason that the Edict of Theodosius is called the Edict of Theodosius.)
I think most of us are aware that it's not just about Constantine personally and that there was a process which went on over some 70-80 years culminating in Theodosius' Edict (and at one point was interrupted by that Julian the Apostate). 'Constantinian' tends in this kind of discussion to be used as a 'shorthand' for the whole trend or shift. Having said that, what happened in Constantine's lifetime included quite a lot of unsatisfactory things.
In describing this business I quite like Verduin's word 'sacralism' which is not limited to the Christian version of the problem; unfortunately it's a bit of an academic technical term which can be confusing rather than helpful to many people, whereas describing it as the trend Constantine started and using Constantinianism as a general term is easier for many people.
As I pointed out in my previous post, there are still lots of issues around this Church-and-State/World business to be discussed, including many relevant to the current issues with Islam as a clearly 'sacralist' religion. The distinctive Anabaptist view is considerably better than many of the vaguer and more secular-based views to be found in our culture today.
Well, yeah, thanks for the acknowledgement but the reason it was in parentheses was because I thought it was symptomatic of a confusion around the use of the term rather than the cause of the confusion. There's no point running round calling things 'sacralist' instead until you clear that up. There's not a lot of point complaining, as you do in your previous post, that people are confused about church-state relationships until you start using terms like church and state with precision and distinguishing between the various forms of 'constantinism' on the market.
Years ago I had cause to opine, not entirely facetiously, that the definition of theological liberalism that seemed to be on the market these days was "anything a given conservative happens to disapprove of". That seems positively nice and technical compared to the use of the term 'constantinism' on this thread, which appears to be mean "anything and anyone not an Anabaptist". A term of reference which covers a range of terms between the Crusades and Dr. Paisley and between The Duke of Alva's campaigns in the Low Countries and +Welby's speeches against payday lenders in the House of Lords with the Prophet Mohammed and ISIL thrown in for good measure isn't going to be terribly helpful. Calling it 'sacralism' isn't really going to improve matters tremendously.
It's rather as if I started denouncing 'politics' meaning everything from King Cheops to Mr Ed Miliband excepting only the Commonwealth Party, the Michael Meadowcroft Liberals and Mr Russell Brand. It might be the case that the latter are distinguished by their purity of spirit and nobility of aim but I don't think I'd get away with the kind of "Aha! You want to conscript the people into building pyramids for the Miliband family... well, yes I concede that Ed Miliband wouldn't probably make us all go to work on his pyramid, but..." shtick that is passing as rhetoric here.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Callan
Thanks for being more positive than some; I do actually quote:
distinguish... between the various forms of 'constantinism' on the market.
and can split hairs with the best on that.
BUT; from where I'm standing ALL the forms of 'constantinism' on the market are well, not just identical, it's not that simple by a long way, but they ARE all on the same side of 'the line'. The view I'm attempting to put forward is not just a different grade of the same thing, it really is a different thing, it is very much on the 'other side of the line'.
It's not that I don't recognise there being 'grey areas' - I do, very much. But the 'grey areas' are a bit different-looking depending on which side you approach from, and which side of the line people start from affects how far they may be willing to go.
I'm sorry but the intended exposition on John 18 has been held up by some unexpected interpretations chucked at me in the early stages and which need to be dealt with; I'm still working on it but hopefully not too long now. I'm trying to make it 'water-tight', but do it properly.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What's distinctively Anabaptist about that?
What's secular about IS? Or Augustinean Just War theory?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Steve Langton
Which, in your view, was the higher point of OT history, the time of the kings or the time of the judges?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Surely, the people wandering around the desert with no territory that was theirs, exiles from all worldly kingdoms. Whether that's the Patriarchs or the Exodus children of Israel (I almost put "nation" in there, but corrected it at the last minute).
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry Martin; The Anabaptist view is better than, and distinct from, where many Christians are, which is that they have a view of separating church and state which is really secular and Enlightenment in origin rather than a positively Christian view.
The Anabaptist view also presents a better alternative to other religious views of religion and state relationships such as the ideas of the 'Islamic State'organisation. Some Christians who hold ideas like the Augustinian 'Just War' theory cannot make the same critique of IS which Anabaptists would make, because the Augustinian ideas have too much in common with the ideas of IS.
I hope I've been clearer this time.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Which, in your view, was the higher point of OT history, the time of the kings or the time of the judges?
I'm not sure either could be regarded as 'higher' ultimately. But the events at the start of the kingship period, with Samuel, suggest that ideally it would have been better for the Israelites to remain without a human king, reliant on God through the different kind of leadership provided by judges/champions and prophets. The preference for a king to be like the other nations is clearly represented as a kind of 'minor Fall', because it implied a rejection of God as king, but one which God was prepared to allow and then overrule for good.
Having allowed the kingship God began the overruling by securing David's kingship and then promising an eternal kingdom to his 'house'. This prophecy/promise was then fulfilled through David's descendant/heir Jesus; because Jesus was also the incarnate Son of God this had the effect of reuniting the human and divine kingships and so bringing about another ancient promise, of the 'New Covenant' including the extension of the kingdom to Gentiles.
It is the fulfilment of that promise which requires Jesus' kingship to be BOTH the Davidic 'king(ship) of the Jews' and ALSO the 'kingdom/kingship not of this world' which in John 18-19 changes the game in what we now think of as 'church-and-state' issues.
It is not so much that 'church-and-state' is an anachronism; it's simply that from the time of Jesus such issues are 'on the table' in something like the modern form or understanding.
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Whether that's the Patriarchs or the Exodus children of Israel (I almost put "nation" in there, but corrected it at the last minute).
Unless you're thinking something very different to me, I don't see why you would need to correct the word 'nation'. Israel may at that point have only had a 'promised' land rather than an actual land, but they were certainly a 'nation', a term which tends to imply an ethnic rather than geographical relationship. Gentile Christians in the NT are portrayed as 'joint heirs' with the Jews of the promises to Abraham by adoption into the nation - but an adoption which also brings in the 'New Covenant' after the long period of preparation under the 'Old Covenant'.
Though I think the above is basically correct I am very conscious that a full explanation would be book-length...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So the secular is wrong and right.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Israel may at that point have only had a 'promised' land rather than an actual land, but they were certainly a 'nation', a term which tends to imply an ethnic rather than geographical relationship.
It's mainly a point of changing meaning.
Certainly "nationality" has been by implication "ethnicity" in a different word. The nation of Israel were a nation by descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Roman citizenship was something someone (like Paul) had by being born of Roman parents - or paying a lot of money for it - and was not automatically granted to anyone born in Rome (much less anyone born anywhere in the Empire).
Modern nationality is different. I'm British because I was born in Britain (OK, I would also qualify by being born of British parents). If the recent vote had gone differently, I could be Scottish because I live in Scotland (for half the year). Modern nationality is linked to the territory you were born in rather than the ethnicity of your parents.
Also, modern nations also (mostly) accept concepts such as "dual nationality" that would have been totally alien to people even a few centuries ago. My children are British, born in Scotland, but with an American mother could, if they want, also have US nationality.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
But, Alan, I'm not sure that discussion of 'modern nationality' helps all that much in discussing the 1st Century. The discussion between Jesus and Pilate is as things were then, not as they have since become partly as a result of what happened then.
In the kind of terms you mention, another way of framing the point about the Christian 'holy nation' would be that the Gentiles among them had not been part of the Jewish ethnic nation as Paul's family had apparently not been Roman citizens - but now Gentiles could be adopted intoi Abraham's family as Paul's family had been adopted into Rome. The analogy isn't perfect - you have to include such concepts as a 'son in the faith' rather than a physical son, for example, but some such idea is involved....
Jesus is 'king of the Jews'; he is also king of those Gentile co-heirs who have become, through their faith, adopted sons of Abraham, while some Jews sadly have disowned their king and in a sense separated themselves from the covenant.
This new internationalism requires a new kind of kingdom/kingship, whence the conversation between Pilate and Jesus and its game-changing result. (And if I follow this lot much further I may render my compilation on John 18 unnecessary after all!)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry Martin; The Anabaptist view is better than, and distinct from, where many Christians are, which is that they have a view of separating church and state which is really secular and Enlightenment in origin rather than a positively Christian view.
The Anabaptist view also presents a better alternative to other religious views of religion and state relationships such as the ideas of the 'Islamic State'organisation. Some Christians who hold ideas like the Augustinian 'Just War' theory cannot make the same critique of IS which Anabaptists would make, because the Augustinian ideas have too much in common with the ideas of IS.
I hope I've been clearer this time.
Seriously?
We're on page 5, and I've still absolutely no idea what the Anabaptist view actually is, because you resolutely refuse to tell us.
What is the Anabaptist view of the relationship between a Christian citizen and the nation state?
[ 02. December 2014, 23:34: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
ideally it would have been better for the Israelites to remain without a human king, reliant on God through the different kind of leadership provided by judges/champions and prophets. The preference for a king to be like the other nations is clearly represented as a kind of 'minor Fall', because it implied a rejection of God as king, but one which God was prepared to allow and then overrule for good.
Talk of a 'minor Fall' is very reminiscent of Verduin's language. It's how he talks about the Constantinians - he refers to their option as a "second Fall".
I also have a Mennonite book on my shelves by Alan Kreider called Journey towards holiness which attempts to cast the time of the judges as the nearest to Nirvana the Israelites got (somehow skipping lightly over the prevailing insecurity, the idolatry (including by the judges themselves), the concubines being cut to pieces, the food shortages, and so on).
While God is portrayed as reluctant to allow Israel a king "like all the other nations", it takes a special kind of bias to read those books of the OT and find all the virtue in Judges and none at all in Samuel and Kings. Neither system appears to have been notably better in ridding the nation of idol-worshippers. Judges appears to be every bit as much a "failed experiment" as the monarchy if not more so.
Your assumption that - for reasons as yet unexplained - your particular brand of anabaptism is a better contemporary approximation to a presumed ideal NT christianity than anyone else's - and that any other stance is described in the same terms ("Fall") as original sin - is what makes your posts such a compelling case for exploring, well, just about any avenue other than the one you're trying to defend.
[ 03. December 2014, 05:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But, Alan, I'm not sure that discussion of 'modern nationality' helps all that much in discussing the 1st Century. The discussion between Jesus and Pilate is as things were then, not as they have since become partly as a result of what happened then.
Well, I'm not all that interested in how the Church lived out it's calling in the first century. Of much more interest is how I/we should live out our faith today. Yes, we should understand the basic principles of Christian life - love God with all we have and love our neighbours as ourselves. And, we can learn from how the church in other circumstances has interpreted that for their time and place. But, we live in different times and it's not likely that the way the church did things at some point in the past will be right for us today.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry Martin; The Anabaptist view is better than, and distinct from, where many Christians are, which is that they have a view of separating church and state which is really secular and Enlightenment in origin rather than a positively Christian view.
The Anabaptist view also presents a better alternative to other religious views of religion and state relationships such as the ideas of the 'Islamic State'organisation. Some Christians who hold ideas like the Augustinian 'Just War' theory cannot make the same critique of IS which Anabaptists would make, because the Augustinian ideas have too much in common with the ideas of IS.
I hope I've been clearer this time.
Seriously?
We're on page 5, and I've still absolutely no idea what the Anabaptist view actually is, because you resolutely refuse to tell us.
What is the Anabaptist view of the relationship between a Christian citizen and the nation state?
Bugger all, it would seem.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I thought you were Japanese now?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
No, an adopted Scot in exile.
Which probably works as a great analogy for what Steve would consider a Christian. By adoption a subject of the Kingdom of Heaven, in exile on earth.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
What is the Anabaptist view of the relationship between a Christian citizen and the nation state?
As I've repeatedly said, the relationship is akin to that of a 'resident alien'. You then apply the NT teaching bearing that in mind.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
So, no voting then?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Of much more interest is how I/we should live out our faith today. Yes, we should understand the basic principles of Christian life - love God with all we have and love our neighbours as ourselves.
Yes, and included in the 'basic principles' is the way Jesus and the NT say we should relate to the surrounding world. That is not an 'optional extra' about which we can decide to do our own thing.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, and included in the 'basic principles' is the way Jesus and the NT say we should relate to the surrounding world.
Isn't that covered by "love your neighbour as yourself"? And, if your neighbour suffers under an oppressive political system, we love them by ... well, by shrugging our shoulders and saying "none of my business, guv" before returning to our holy huddle, at least as far as I can see from your position.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So, no voting then?
Up till now, for me, yes voting while bearing in mind not to 'put my trust in princes/'chief men' of any party, and actually finding myself increasingly doubtful about the way our democracy has developed. This is an issue currently being discussed in Anabaptist circles where traditionally the answer was indeed 'No'.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You don't understand Alan. The Anabaptists do it better, BEST in fact, in ways that cannot be transferred except to those that have eyes to hear.
Gnosticism is dead and well.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
And, if your neighbour suffers under an oppressive political system, we love them by ... well, by shrugging our shoulders and saying "none of my business, guv" before returning to our holy huddle,
A great deal more than that; but you might consider the implications of Christian martyrdom rather than Christian rebellion. Warfare is not necessarily the best solution (understatement!).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Who said anything about warfare?
There are lots of options available that don't involve warfare. Most do, however, involve politics. Of course, many (indeed, probably the vast majority of) Christian martyrs are only martyrs because that's what they did - you won't face the threat of persecution if you don't do something to upset the powers that be.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So, no voting then?
Up till now, for me, yes voting
Not a resident alien, then - you benefit from rights not available to resident aliens for most elections.
[ 03. December 2014, 10:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is an issue currently being discussed in Anabaptist circles where traditionally the answer was indeed 'No'.
Because it's not only Pilate who's got form for ceremonial handwashing...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So, no voting then?
Up till now, for me, yes voting
Not a resident alien, then - you benefit from rights not available to resident aliens for most elections.
Actually, citizens of the Irish Republic have been allowed to vote in UK elections for pretty much time immemorial. And lots of 'resident aliens' involve themselves - quite rightly - in their host communities: Arminka Helic being only one in a long line of furrins who make a contribution.
But that's an aside. The chief criticism of this 'resident alien' position is that it's a sin of omission. You do not do the good you could. You deliberately set yourselves apart from your communities (that includes decisions about how they're run), you deliberately don't get involved in the messy business of policing, overseeing, governing, judging, protecting, because you might somehow taint yourselves.
That's not 'resident alien'. It's closer to 'parasite'.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
UKIP should have something to say about that.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
UKIP should have something to say about that.
I think forcibly deporting Anabaptists is going a bit far...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
France is full thank you very much.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Don't worry, Eutychus; they'll be deporting us to our actual kingdom. That's how 'extermination' acquired its modern meaning....
Any hope we might now get back to serious stuff?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
By all means. Doc Tor's post before last above offers you a good place to start.
[ 03. December 2014, 21:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
You deliberately set yourselves apart from your communities (that includes decisions about how they're run), you deliberately don't get involved in the messy business of policing, overseeing, governing, judging, protecting, because you might somehow taint yourselves.
It's not about whether we 'taint ourselves'; it's about not 'lording it over' others. It's about having our effect in the world in different ways. Indeed in its origin, though it sometimes went the other way later, Anabaptist separatism was not so much about withdrawal from 'the world' as about being driven out of the world by the persecution of 'Constantinian' 'Christians' - whose domineering ways we would not want to copy....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It's not about whether we 'taint ourselves'; it's about not 'lording it over' others.
Does that mean you think any non-Christian - or non-Anabaptist, even - in a position of authority and/or political power necessarily "lords it over" others? And that no Christian can exercise any such position without "lording it over" others? Can they safely hold any position of authority outside the local congregation? That Constantine (as you hinted earlier) should have abdicated on conversion? That the Queen should have abdicated on accession, on religious grounds?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Don't worry, Eutychus; they'll be deporting us to our actual kingdom. That's how 'extermination' acquired its modern meaning....
Any hope we might now get back to serious stuff?
Yes, do let's! Start by explaining what your world would look like if the Anabaptists managed to convert 75% of Britain to Anabaptism. As you have been asked to do 3 times now. I start to think you simply don't have an answer.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Gnosticism is dead and well.
Quotes file.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
This is beginning to sound like Dominionism, and Christian Reconstructionism.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Everyone will not eat meat for 3 days a week under punishment of death; has to attend church every sunday under punishment of death; cannot eat the king's deer, under punishment of death. Somehow that has a familiar ring to it. I think we had that in the 13th century. OK - maybe scrub the third one, it's medieval.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Or strictly-interpreted and -enforced sharia law.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Pretty liberal by IS standards.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yes, well, a bunch (100??) of Muslim clerics have come out against ISIS*. I heard one on the radio, very emphatically saying the "caliph" is going straight to hell.
*I prefer to continue using that acronym, because it's hilarious that they're using the name of a Pagan goddess.
[ 04. December 2014, 10:33: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
I start to think you simply don't have an answer.
The more I think about this, the more I conclude that I don't need to have an answer - apart from that a 75% Anabaptist population would decidedly make Britain a better place for just about everybody.
Christianity isn't about this kind of 'consequentialism'; Christianity is about having faith in God and so doing things the way God has revealed. God has not revealed that Christians are supposed to set up 'Christian countries', but a different way, since Jesus, to run his Kingdom on earth. Those who confess Jesus as Lord will follow that teaching.
At the time, around the Reformation, when Anabaptism started, modern democracy essentially did not exist. After centuries of being, as I said, somewhat driven out of mainstream society by persecution, Anabaptists are now seriously considering whether such democracy allows a different approach compared to the past and a different level of engagement with 'the world'. This is still a work in progress. I've got provisional answers for me and I've got things under constant review.
by Eutychus;
quote:
That Constantine (as you hinted earlier) should have abdicated on conversion? That the Queen should have abdicated on accession, on religious grounds?
On Constantine, probably yes; if I've remembered right, that would have been long before he was full emperor, and had he truly followed Christian principles he would not have been able to engage in the wars that made him emperor.
On our current Queen in the UK; that maybe depends a bit on whether you think there is a valid role for a 'figurehead of state'. What should happen, and of course should have happened long ago, is that the CofE should be disestablished and Christianity formally put on a constitutional level with other beliefs and philosophies in the state. Removing the CofE establishment would take away much of the current rationale of the monarchy.
Also the Queen's current position is as supposedly an anointed monarch similar to Davidic kings in the OT. The implications of Jesus as Messiah and eternal King actually make such a position untenable, and a monarch claiming such a position is technically an 'antiChrist' (though not necessarily the eschatological capital-A Antichrist!). A Christian who realises that point would presumably not want the position....
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Damnation! We infidel will have to share it with him then!
[ 04. December 2014, 10:55: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Itsarumdo;
quote:
Everyone will not eat meat for 3 days a week under punishment of death; has to attend church every sunday under punishment of death; cannot eat the king's deer, under punishment of death.
Just for clarification, are you suggesting that as a result of an Anabaptist majority? If so, apart from anything else, Anabaptists do not have the death penalty within Anabaptism and on principle would not impose it on people of other beliefs either. The worst that can happen in Anabaptism is a form of excommunication, and unlike in old-style 'Constantinianism', there would be no further punishment in secular law.
As you say, the king's deer would not be religiously relevant anyway....
Golden Key, I found your link on Dominionism very interesting; but it is pretty much the exact opposite of what I'm proposing. Could you please explain further how you think it's relevant to the discussion.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, well, a bunch (100??) of Muslim clerics have come out against ISIS*. I heard one on the radio, very emphatically saying the "caliph" is going straight to hell.
*I prefer to continue using that acronym, because it's hilarious that they're using the name of a Pagan goddess.
Not to mention the choice of crescent moon symbology and reverence for the mother line (well, by Mohammed, apparently, if not for moslems as a whole)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye mousethief, a helplessly innocent troll cum black hole.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Itsarumdo;
quote:
Everyone will not eat meat for 3 days a week under punishment of death; has to attend church every sunday under punishment of death; cannot eat the king's deer, under punishment of death.
Just for clarification, are you suggesting that as a result of an Anabaptist majority? If so, apart from anything else, Anabaptists do not have the death penalty within Anabaptism and on principle would not impose it on people of other beliefs either. The worst that can happen in Anabaptism is a form of excommunication, and unlike in old-style 'Constantinianism', there would be no further punishment in secular law.
As you say, the king's deer would not be religiously relevant anyway....
Golden Key, I found your link on Dominionism very interesting; but it is pretty much the exact opposite of what I'm proposing. Could you please explain further how you think it's relevant to the discussion.
Hi Steve - no I was suggesting that wrt a stronger church-led state. I have a lot of time for the Anabaptist position, and agree wholeheartedly that a 75% practicing population in the UK would make it a pretty good place to live. I think I'd keep the monarchy - the principle of "as above, so below" - figureheads, role models, whatever, are a mundane symbolic version of a higher order, and however the spiritual world is organised, it is not a flat management structure.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, well, a bunch (100??) of Muslim clerics have come out against ISIS*. I heard one on the radio, very emphatically saying the "caliph" is going straight to hell.
*I prefer to continue using that acronym, because it's hilarious that they're using the name of a Pagan goddess.
Not to mention the choice of crescent moon symbology and reverence for the mother line (well, by Mohammed, apparently, if not for moslems as a whole)
And the "Satanic verses" in the Koran, approving prayer to the local Triple Goddess.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There are none.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Martin--
I don't want to sidetrack the convo further, so I'll just refer you to Wikipedia and Google. I looked them up the other day. IIRC, they were there, then taken out. Most people didn't fuss about them too much, until Rushdie's book came out.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
When?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The more I think about this, the more I conclude that I don't need to have an answer - apart from that a 75% Anabaptist population would decidedly make Britain a better place for just about everybody.
Just as long as they in no way intersect with those in charge of running the country, eh?
This reinforces my view that your brand of Anabaptism conflates the Kingdom and the Church and removes both from the day-to-day world. While this may look like the polar opposite of Reconstructionism/Dominionism, it opens the way for very similar authoritarian structures within the local church membership.
I note also that you've answered the question upthread: you believe that by assuming she takes her duties seriously (and I think there is every reason to assume that she does), the Queen is antiChrist.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A 75% Anabaptist population would decidedly make Britain a better place for just about everybody.
I doubt it. Any group which holds such a majority position inevitably gets tainted by the power it can wield - however noble its ideals. 'Tis human nature, I'm afraid.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Martin,
Quit it with the personal attacks. They are not acceptable, and they do not impress anyone.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Sorry Gwai.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I note also that you've answered the question upthread: you believe that by assuming she takes her duties seriously (and I think there is every reason to assume that she does), the Queen is antiChrist.
That is NOT what I said. What I said is that, in one of the anomalies that arises from doing the 'Christian country' thing, quite a few European monarchs including our Queen are portrayed as being anointed kings like David. Unfortunately for that view, the job of anointed king over Christians is not available; that kingship is already held, eternally, by Jesus himself - a modern king cannot hold that position, and claiming to be so would make them a 'rival Messiah' - for which the Greek word is, like it or not, 'antichrist'. I did specifically point out NOT the eschatological figure, a point which you've slurred over in your presentation of my view.
I have in fact a great deal of personal respect for the Queen and what she does in general; but the aspect which involves the established church, the 'divine right of kings' and similar ideas, and the quasi-Messianic anointed kingship stuff are not really acceptable in Christian terms. She sincerely does a good job in terms of the 'Christian country' idea; but that idea is itself misguided and deeply flawed. As I said, I believe a Christian who appreciates and understands those flaws would not want the job on the present terms.
by Baptist Trainfan;
quote:
I doubt it. Any group which holds such a majority position inevitably gets tainted by the power it can wield - however noble its ideals. 'Tis human nature, I'm afraid
I think a 75% Anabaptist country would be better so long as the principles were maintained - but I also don't think it would last, and it could not, indeed must not, become enshrined in the constitution to make a new 'establishment'. 'Human nature' is of course also the problem in 'Constantinianism'.
But as I specifically said back up there, I'm not really concerned with that kind of hypothetical situation anyway; the immediate concern is for Christians to obey what Jesus has told us, and the Apostles by his authority, which is not the 'Christian country' stuff but a different kind of kingdom.
by Eutychus;
quote:
This reinforces my view that your brand of Anabaptism conflates the Kingdom and the Church and removes both from the day-to-day world. While this may look like the polar opposite of Reconstructionism/Dominionism, it opens the way for very similar authoritarian structures within the local church membership.
We started discussing your first point there earlier and we seemed to be at cross-purposes which I'm still trying to analyse. I reject the idea that an NT church would be 'removed from the day-to-day world'; but it probably wouldn't be interacting with the world in some ways you think desirable, but about which I'm rather more doubtful.
As for 'within the church membership' yes, human nature makes that likely; but Anabaptist principles counter that in ways that others decidedly don't, and also at least that authoritarianism should not be imposing itself outside the church as happens in 'Constantinianism'. Escape will generally be an option.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
A 75% Anabaptist majority would make for a fairly hideously oppressive place to live - aside from the monotony of living in a monoculture, Anabaptism from what I've seen is largely white, male and straight. Certainly not very LGBT-friendly. It's also pretty insular.
Plus, think how dull churches would be....
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
A 75% Anabaptist majority would make for a fairly hideously oppressive place to live - aside from the monotony of living in a monoculture, Anabaptism from what I've seen is largely white, male and straight. Certainly not very LGBT-friendly. It's also pretty insular.
Plus, think how dull churches would be....
There are some plus sides.
Firstly, you get to make all the rules. They can't oppress you because none of them will vote, let alone stand for office. The Unfaithful Remnant are all of the police, social workers, traffic wardens, magistrates, judges, planning officers, MPs, school governors, health authority managers, Quango heads and the Board of Governors at the BBC.
Secondly, you get them to pay for all the arts programs: theatre, sculpture, films, exhibitions, festivals, parades, everything - will all come from public taxes. It'll be fabulous, darling.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I note also that you've answered the question upthread: you believe that by assuming she takes her duties seriously (and I think there is every reason to assume that she does), the Queen is antiChrist.
That is NOT what I said.
You did not say (and neither did I allege that you did) that the Queen was the ultimate Antichrist with a capital A. You did however say:
quote:
the Queen's current position is as supposedly an anointed monarch similar to Davidic kings in the OT (...) a monarch claiming such a position is technically an 'antiChrist' (...) A Christian who realises that point would presumably not want the position....
You stated what the Queen's current position is. You said that anyone holding this position is technically an 'antiChrist'. You cannot get away from that.
Besides, you added that no Christian realising this would want the position. So either you think the Queen is stupid, or is not a Christian (or, more plausibly, that she has had a good think about it and rejected your viewpoint). quote:
'Human nature' is of course also the problem in 'Constantinianism'.
Human nature is the problem full stop. Your mistake is to think that in rejecting Constantinianism, you are automatically rejecting the worst in human nature. quote:
I reject the idea that an NT church would be 'removed from the day-to-day world'; but it probably wouldn't be interacting with the world in some ways you think desirable, but about which I'm rather more doubtful.
As far as I can tell you think the exercise of, as a minimum, political responsibility at any level is the wrong sort of interaction. Which I think is a cop-out.
quote:
As for 'within the church membership' yes, human nature makes that likely; but Anabaptist principles counter that in ways that others decidedly don't
Exactly how? quote:
authoritarianism should not be imposing itself outside the church as happens in 'Constantinianism'. Escape will generally be an option.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that if you are committeed within a church culture which really does reject all forms of external authority, you will find it extremely difficult to escape. Authoritarianism imposed from within is in my view worse and as much imbued with the spirit of antichrist as anything else you care to name.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You stated what the Queen's current position is. You said that anyone holding this position is technically an 'antiChrist'. You cannot get away from that.
I neither want nor need to get away from that, since that is the biblical implication, as I restated in my later post. Your version was that I said " the Queen is antiChrist." Not quite the same thing as what I said.
by Eutychus;
quote:
Besides, you added that no Christian realising this would want the position. So either you think the Queen is stupid, or is not a Christian (or, more plausibly, that she has had a good think about it and rejected your viewpoint).
OR - I happen to think that being brought up in a 'Constantinian' situation, the Queen is in a place that tends to make that realisation (or even "having a good think about it") very difficult.
by Eutychus;
quote:
Human nature is the problem full stop. Your mistake is to think that in rejecting Constantinianism, you are automatically rejecting the worst in human nature.
You're telling me what I think again, and from where I'm sitting your record on getting that right is pretty awful.
The position is rather that it is helpful in overcoming the sinfulness of human nature if you start from a sound biblical position; while starting from an unbiblical position is all too likely to allow sinful human nature to go astray. Constantinianism is unbiblical, it is contrary to NT teaching, it is not likely to help especially as it contains features which positively favour persecution and warfare and the like.
by Eutychus;
quote:
a church culture which really does reject all forms of external authority,
Do you count the Bible as an external or internal authority?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
'Human nature' is of course also the problem in 'Constantinianism'.
But not in Anabaptism? 'Cause Anabaptists are not human? Or are they superhuman? What powers is one granted? Beyond the ability to resist the lure of power, of course. I wouldn't be facetious and suggest flight, but are there other sins one finds oneself proof against?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You stated what the Queen's current position is. You said that anyone holding this position is technically an 'antiChrist'. You cannot get away from that.
I neither want nor need to get away from that, since that is the biblical implication, as I restated in my later post. Your version was that I said " the Queen is antiChrist." Not quite the same thing as what I said.
I can't see any meaningful difference.
quote:
The position is rather that it is helpful in overcoming the sinfulness of human nature if you start from a sound biblical position
I know plenty of people proclaim that this is precisely where they have started, whose human nature has been only too evident to everyone except themselves. How do you know your position is "sound" and "Biblical"?
quote:
quote:
a church culture which really does reject all forms of external authority,
Do you count the Bible as an external or internal authority?
As far as I can see, the position you are describing interprets the Bible in such a way as to say that there is no valid authority outside the not-of-this-world kingdom.
Similarly, if somebody interprets the Bible in a way that runs counter to received wisdom within the local assembly of believers, the assembly will perceive them as being wrong/deceived/worldly/antichrist etc. and if they persist, shun them.
So the authority is in fact the interpretation of Scripture of whoever is functionally dominant in the church.
The explanation given to those remaining about anyone who does leave is likely, I predict, to feature 1 John 2:19 or similar: quote:
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
And what's that talking about? Oh look (v18) antichrists. Goodness there are a lot of them about these days.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I can't see any meaningful difference.
So to you "The Queen is antichrist" is the same thing as "(such a monarch) is 'technically an antiChrist'". No wonder we end up at cross purposes.
by Eutychus;
quote:
As far as I can see, the position you are describing interprets the Bible in such a way as to say that there is no valid authority outside the not-of-this-world kingdom.
You're telling me what I think again, and you're still not getting it right.
by Steve Langton;
quote:
Do you count the Bible as an external or internal authority?
err - answer the question...?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
To say that Her Majesty is antichrist is antichrist.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
SL:
'Human nature' is of course also the problem in 'Constantinianism'.
lilBuddha;
But not in Anabaptism?
Obviously also in Anabaptism; which is why I put the word 'also' in there. Come on guys, pay a bit of attention....
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
So to you "The Queen is antichrist" is the same thing as "(such a monarch) is 'technically an antiChrist'". No wonder we end up at cross purposes.
If you say "Such a monarch is technically an antichrist" and "The queen is such a monarch" then the logical consequence is that "the queen is technically an antichrist".
You're not saying "The queen is technically an antichrist" but it's directly a consequence of the statements you did say.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Do you count the Bible as an external or internal authority?
What I think doesn't matter at this juncture. The relevant question here is what you (or like-minded anabaptists) count the Bible as.
I think that for you, functionally, it is not an external authority, for the reasons I explained in my previous post.
(As further evidence of this I could add that on this thread you have constantly represented your "anabaptist" position as 'biblical' and dismissed everyone else's interpretations of the same Bible out of hand as substandard, unsound and unbiblical).
In that respect, I have not "told you what you think", but what I understand you to think.
If I'm mistaken, intelligent debate requires you to explain why I'm wrong.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
So to you "The Queen is antichrist" is the same thing as "(such a monarch) is 'technically an antiChrist'". No wonder we end up at cross purposes.
If you say "Such a monarch is technically an antichrist" and "The queen is such a monarch" then the logical consequence is that "the queen is technically an antichrist".
You're not saying "The queen is technically an antichrist" but it's directly a consequence of the statements you did say.
Well, yeah, it's a bit like saying "Supporters of the Posts and Telecommunications Bill are cads and liars" and "The Labour Party support the Posts and Telecommunications Bill" whilst getting very hot under the collar when someone points out you've just called the Labour Party cads and liars.
What the devil does it mean to say that someone is 'technically' an antichrist, anyway? Being an antichrist isn't like making a fault during a game of lawn tennis.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Palimpsest; there is a crucial difference between what I said and how Eutychus put it. The difference is that little word 'an' in front of the word 'antiChrist'; it does make quite an important difference to the interpretation....
Eutychus;
In this case I need to know your answer to that question in order to make an intelligent response. You have now supplied a supplementary question which is "What do you think my authority is?"
A person who avoids the implications of the NT by effectively 'dismissing' it, as you did, as 'descriptive not prescriptive' is rather raising questions about the soundness of their interpretation and should expect to be challenged.
I've produced quite a few solid points earlier which have been simply ignored while you slag me off over ideas you only 'think' I hold. Let's repeat one of them...
One of the problems in the secular 'religion and state' theory is that for any religion worth believing in the first place, the bottom line will be "We must obey God rather than men", and that will overrule any (by definition lesser) human authority that tries to tell the religion what to do.
Where the religion in question actually includes the idea of setting up a religious state, "We must obey God rather than men" is bound to end up in whatever it takes to set up the religious state and of course discriminate against everybody else.
You will realise that the quote about obeying God rather than men is in fact from a Christian, in the New Testament. What stops (or perhaps we might say 'should stop') Christians from applying that principle in the same way that 'Islamic State' applies the equivalent Islamic principle?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
When a man says we must obey God rather than men, we must not obey him.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Callan; just found your post when I returned from composing my own previous.
As previously explained, the kind of 'anointed' Christian kingship practiced in much of 'Christendom' has the effect of regarding the monarch concerned as a kind of 'second David'. This was made explicit in the coronations of Holy Roman Emperors, and in the UK is pointed up indeed by the UK coronation anthem 'Zadok the Priest'.
But in Christian terms, that kind of earthly kingship is no longer appropriate. Jesus is himself the 'second David' and is eternally so; therefore in earthly terms, that job is filled and anyone else who, as a Christian in a supposedly Christian country, seeks that kind of position is a 'rival anointed king' - which does indeed translate in Greek as an (not 'the') 'antichrist'.
This kind of thing is just one of the distortions of Christianity which arises when 'Constantinianism' is accepted, and therefore one of the many, many reasons why that idea should be rejected by Christians.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But in Christian terms, that kind of earthly kingship is no longer appropriate. Jesus is himself the 'second David' and is eternally so; therefore in earthly terms, that job is filled and anyone else who, as a Christian in a supposedly Christian country, seeks that kind of position is a 'rival anointed king' - which does indeed translate in Greek as an (not 'the') 'antichrist'.
Is your position that Her Majesty has accepted a position and title which (in your view) no Christian ought to accept because the implications of that position (when fully considered) are inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible (when properly understood), but that you are not making any judgment as to her personal moral character or culpability?
If so, what the fuck good did it do, in ennunciating that positon, to throw in the heavily loaded and inflammatory word "antichrist"?
If not, and you are in fact counting Queen Elizabeth as one of Satan's earthly minions working to destroy the gospel, then defend that position, because it would be worth arguing (and worth arguing against).
[ 05. December 2014, 12:11: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Callan; just found your post when I returned from composing my own previous.
As previously explained, the kind of 'anointed' Christian kingship practiced in much of 'Christendom' has the effect of regarding the monarch concerned as a kind of 'second David'. This was made explicit in the coronations of Holy Roman Emperors, and in the UK is pointed up indeed by the UK coronation anthem 'Zadok the Priest'.
But in Christian terms, that kind of earthly kingship is no longer appropriate. Jesus is himself the 'second David' and is eternally so; therefore in earthly terms, that job is filled and anyone else who, as a Christian in a supposedly Christian country, seeks that kind of position is a 'rival anointed king' - which does indeed translate in Greek as an (not 'the') 'antichrist'.
This kind of thing is just one of the distortions of Christianity which arises when 'Constantinianism' is accepted, and therefore one of the many, many reasons why that idea should be rejected by Christians.
Well, yes, I take your point. If Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Fidei Defensor is usurping the prerogatives of the Almighty by allowing the choir of Westminster Abbey to sing 'Zadok the Priest' at her Coronation then it is not unreasonable to describe her as an antichrist. However, I can't see anything terribly 'technical' about it. Either it is the case or it isn't. If it is the case you ought to have the stones to own your position.
(The counter argument is that typology is not identity. In some traditions Baptismal candidates are anointed with oil with the explicit understanding that the Greek word for 'anointed one' is Christ. But I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that a catechumen, of whatever age, died for the sins of the assembled congregation. The invocation of Davidic imagery at the Coronation is based on a pious aspiration that, like King David, the new monarch will be a Godly sort who does right and upholds the cause of the widow and orphan rather than an implicit claim that we can all ditch that tedious Jesus business because we've got Liz II on the case.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A person who avoids the implications of the NT by effectively 'dismissing' it, as you did, as 'descriptive not prescriptive' is rather raising questions about the soundness of their interpretation and should expect to be challenged.
I'm trying to figure out who is dismissing the implications of the NT, especially not when they simply state a very common starting point for Biblical interpretation used by scholars attempting to understand the teaching of the NT.
The passage in John that we've been skirting around is descriptive. It's an account of a conversation between Jesus and Pilate. That is beyond dispute. The implications of that conversation for our faith are a question of interpretation. You have interpreted the saying of Jesus that His Kingdom is "not of this world" to mean that Jesus does not rule an earthly kingdom. Further that His followers will not use the methods of earthly kingdoms (eg: violent rebellion).
That is a valid interpretation, but it's still descriptive. For a prescriptive interpretation you need to change the tense of the conversation. "My Kingdom is not, and never will be, of this world". "My followers will never use political means to further the Kingdom". That requires a further interpretive leap, from a description of what is to a prescription of what should be.
Now, you clearly consider your interpretation to be correct, and other interpretations to be wrong. But, it seems folly to so easily dismiss alternative interpretations to yours.
We each state our interpretations, and accept that in doing so we open up the questions of their soundness and expect them to be challenged. You don't get a pass on having your interpretation challenged and questioned about it's soundness.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
What everyone else said.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So what is the source of the distortion of your Christianity?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan;
quote:
Well, yes, I take your point. If Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Fidei Defensor is usurping the prerogatives of the Almighty by allowing the choir of Westminster Abbey to sing 'Zadok the Priest' at her Coronation then it is not unreasonable to describe her as an antichrist. However, I can't see anything terribly 'technical' about it. Either it is the case or it isn't. If it is the case you ought to have the stones to own your position.
(The counter argument is that typology is not identity. In some traditions Baptismal candidates are anointed with oil with the explicit understanding that the Greek word for 'anointed one' is Christ. But I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that a catechumen, of whatever age, died for the sins of the assembled congregation. The invocation of Davidic imagery at the Coronation is based on a pious aspiration that, like King David, the new monarch will be a Godly sort who does right and upholds the cause of the widow and orphan rather than an implicit claim that we can all ditch that tedious Jesus business because we've got Liz II on the case.)
As things currently stand I think the usurpation is rather milder than it used to be - but consideration of how the idea was used by Henry VIII, and Charles I with his 'divine right of kings' idea shows that there is potential there for quite major problems.
I take your point about 'typology'; but applying such typology to an absolute monarch, as was originally done, was pretty dubious. And it only holds good for a monarch if you accept a whole string of dodgy ideas which spring from the initial assumption that there can be a 'Christian country' in the first place. In baptism the candidate is conceived, I think, as being incorporated into Christ, a somewhat different matter to the implications of being a 'Christian king of a Christian country'
I've 'owned' the position I actually expressed - that an earthly king claiming that kind of 'second David' position is usurping a position that belongs only to Christ and which an earthly king can't rightly claim, only wrongly claim in a confusion of Jesus' kingdom with the earthly king's realm. I used the word 'technically' as a quick way of expressing that I meant a limited, though valid, use of the word rather than meaning the popular or Hollywood idea of 'the Antichrist'. The way Eutychus had expressed the point suggested I was making the popular/Hollywood/eschatological kind of comparison - that I don't 'own', so disclaimed it.
Eliab; yes, using the word 'antiChrist' is potentially inflammatory - but looking at the havoc caused over the centuries by these 'rival anointed' types supposedly in the name of Jesus, the reality of that kind of kingship has itself been - well, 'inflammatory' is almost an understatement... I don't feel apologetic about pointing out the implications of what is essentially a false claim by those involved.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As things currently stand I think the usurpation is rather milder than it used to be - but consideration of how the idea was used by Henry VIII
Considering the Divine Right of Kings was first articulated by Frenchman Jean Bodin in 1576, and Henry VIII died in 1547, I'm reasonably certain he didn't use the idea as you suggest...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
That is a valid interpretation, but it's still descriptive. For a prescriptive interpretation you need to change the tense of the conversation. "My Kingdom is not, and never will be, of this world". "My followers will never use political means to further the Kingdom". That requires a further interpretive leap, from a description of what is to a prescription of what should be.
Why is a change of tense needed? The Son of God says how his kingdom IS, he means it. And if his kingdom IS that way, then the form may be 'descriptive', but the practical effect is still 'prescriptive' for the people of the kingdom like ourselves.
There's also the point that unless Pilate takes that 'IS' as a pretty prescriptive statement about the kingdom, he has no reason to declare Jesus innocent. If Jesus only means "My kingdom is this way until (eg) Constantine turns up and fights a war with his fellow co-emperor to set up a kingdom-very-much-of-this-world for me", then he is misleading Pilate or in simple language, lying. That rather messes up Christianity as a whole....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Considering the Divine Right of Kings was first articulated by Frenchman Jean Bodin in 1576, and Henry VIII died in 1547, I'm reasonably certain he didn't use the idea as you suggest...
Sorry, I realise I missed out a comma, between 'idea' and 'shows', and possibly a couple of other phrases/words would have helped as per the brackets; it should have read
quote:
...how the idea (of Davidic kingship) was used by Henry VIII, and (also by) Charles I with his 'divine right of kings' idea, shows...
That is, Charles I was the guy with the 'divine right of kings' idea. Though what I know of Henry makes this a bit of a case of a distinction that isn't much of a difference. Jean Bodin may have come up with the actual term, but Henry was pretty much ahead of him with the substance of the idea.
(Mind you I'd have thought my meaning was pretty clear even without that comma, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to omit it. You're going to get really bored if you just keep on and on forcing me to spell everything out unnecessarily for you)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
As things currently stand I think the usurpation is rather milder than it used to be - but consideration of how the idea was used by Henry VIII, and Charles I with his 'divine right of kings' idea shows that there is potential there for quite major problems.
Come off it! There are all sorts of objections that can be levelled against the monarchy in general and the coronation service in particular but, as it happens, the choir of Westminster Abbey have been knocking out Zadok the King since 1688 with no obvious ill-effects in terms of the powers of parliament, the extension of the franchise and the development of the welfare state. As I've said, I have some sympathy with the Anabaptist critique of the religious-political situation they found themselves in circa 1520 but, really, it's time to move on.
quote:
I take your point about 'typology'; but applying such typology to an absolute monarch, as was originally done, was pretty dubious. And it only holds good for a monarch if you accept a whole string of dodgy ideas which spring from the initial assumption that there can be a 'Christian country' in the first place. In baptism the candidate is conceived, I think, as being incorporated into Christ, a somewhat different matter to the implications of being a 'Christian king of a Christian country'
The theory of the Davidic monarch is an early medieval development, at a time when anarchy was a greater threat than despotism. In this country, for example, the whole business of the Davidic monarch evolves during the period when the Kings of Wessex were establishing an English monarchy in the aftermath of the various Viking invasions. By your reckoning it is still extant today inasmuch as we still have an 'anointed monarch'. If we take the growth of absolutism to begin during the reign of Henry VIII (who didn't formally govern as an absolutist but tended to act like one and develop through Charles I who, to cite Douglas Carswell, would have died for those sorts of powers and actually did, terminating (roughly) with the abdication of James II you have a period of one hundred and fifty years or so out of a much longer period in which the relationship of governors and government varied inordinately. The notion of an anointed monarch cannot be said to be contingent on the concept of the monarch as a theocratic absolutist if a significant number of said monarchs have not been theocratic absolutists.
quote:
I've 'owned' the position I actually expressed - that an earthly king claiming that kind of 'second David' position is usurping a position that belongs only to Christ and which an earthly king can't rightly claim, only wrongly claim in a confusion of Jesus' kingdom with the earthly king's realm. I used the word 'technically' as a quick way of expressing that I meant a limited, though valid, use of the word rather than meaning the popular or Hollywood idea of 'the Antichrist'. The way Eutychus had expressed the point suggested I was making the popular/Hollywood/eschatological kind of comparison - that I don't 'own', so disclaimed it.
So, for the record, you are comfortable with asserting that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is an antichrist and, presumably, her ministers are ministers of an antichrist. I accept without reservation that you are not claiming that she is Nicolae Carpathia or Damian Thorn in petticoats and a tiara.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Callan;
Welcome to the weird world of the 'established' church!
But you're right, we've spent too long on this tangent.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So, for the record, you are comfortable with asserting that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is an antichrist.
Which, for the record, is exactly what I claimed SL said, too.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
One of the problems in the secular 'religion and state' theory is that for any religion worth believing in the first place, the bottom line will be "We must obey God rather than men", and that will overrule any (by definition lesser) human authority that tries to tell the religion what to do.
Where the religion in question actually includes the idea of setting up a religious state, "We must obey God rather than men" is bound to end up in whatever it takes to set up the religious state and of course discriminate against everybody else.
You will realise that the quote about obeying God rather than men is in fact from a Christian, in the New Testament. What stops (or perhaps we might say 'should stop') Christians from applying that principle in the same way that 'Islamic State' applies the equivalent Islamic principle?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
When there's a conflict between loving and not, love wins.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Various people on this thread have been taking a very superficial and one-dimensional view of the idea of a 'Christian country'. Here are some thoughts on why it's a bit, nay a lot, more problematic than some of you seem to think.
First, yeah OK, your country becomes 'Christian'. There are quite a few arguments about why, even in the modern world, this isn't such a good idea after all for the country in question. But what about international relations?
So like country A is now 'Christian'; country B next door east is Muslim, country C to the south is say Hindu.... Countries A,B, and C have long-standing enmities which often flare up. So now the religious difference can become an added source of enmity, just for starters. But also, and especially the Christians out there should think of this, what is the position of native Christians in countries B and C? Are they not all too likely to be seen as traitors; as 'Reds under the bed' or similar? Isn't it likely they will end up being persecuted NOT for being Christian, but for being supposed allies of country A? Is that even remotely desirable? Doesn't it harm Christian evangelism in countries B and C in an unacceptable way?
And since the fact of having a 'Christian country' pretty certainly means the abandonment of Christian pacifism – that will have international consequences too, won't it? And history shows us more than a few cases in which such 'Christian countries' end up fighting each other, pitting Christian against Christian. WWI was a pretty good example with Germans doing 'Gott mit uns' and ' I vow to thee my country' as an English anthem. Is that acceptable among Christians who are supposed to love one another? And doesn't the basic need to abandon pacifism for the 'Christian country' to work as a 'kingdom of this world' country suggest a bit of a flaw in the idea of a 'Christian country'?
And finally for now, what about the biblical presentation of the Church itself as a 'nation' in its own right (I Peter 2; 9)? How can that realistically be reconciled with the idea of any worldly nation being, as a worldly nation, 'Christian'?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
A Christian country. What a wonderful idea! How do we go about being one?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm with Martin on this one, and it's not us with a one-dimensional or superficial view of what a majority-Christian country looks like.
It could - with the emphasis on could - be brilliant. It's certainly unlikely that it would mean the end of adversarial politics, since Christians of good conscience exist in all mainstream parties. We could certainly decide that our version of a Christian country is one which doesn't go to war, doesn't possess weapons of mass destruction, and doesn't spend more on 'defence' than it does on overseas aid.
How our country is viewed is dependent entirely on how our country acts. Currently and historically, that has been thoroughly problematic, but plenty of countries behave badly without subscribing to any form of Erastianism. I'd go further to suggest that Erastianism has only been a small part in the justification for behaving badly.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Various people on this thread have been taking a very superficial and one-dimensional view of the idea of a 'Christian country'.
The post this quote is taken from is a virtually identical repeat of this one on November 29.
During the interval, there have been some 180 posts on this thread by over fifteen different contributors interacting with each other and (attemptedly) with you.
Apparently, in response to that, all you can do is regurgitate the same stuff all over again.
One has to wonder just who here has the one-dimensional view.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Steve Langton
Crusading is not allowed here. And one of the signs of a crusader is ignoring other posts and asserting the crusading viewpoint repetitively. I appreciate you have convictions. But engaging with other Shipmates in serious discussions is hardly helped by parroting yourself.
Don't do that again. Hosts refer signs of crusading to Admin for consideration of disciplinary action. You have been warned.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 07. December 2014, 08:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
To respond to Steve's point (as I missed it last time round) I don't live in hypothetical country A, B or C. I live in the United Kingdom, with all that entails. There are perfectly good arguments against establishment, bishops in the Lords and whatnot but diplomatic rivalry with Hindu France and Muslim Ireland are not high among them.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
The post this quote is taken from is a virtually identical repeat of this one on November 29.
Indeed, and intentionally so because nobody seriously attempted to interact with it first time round; the points raised are relevant to the thread topic and I actually want to hear Shipmates' opinions on them. Same applies to another nearby virtually-identical-to-a-previous post.
Repeating the apparently previously overlooked post simply seemed an efficient way of returning to the issues raised therein.
By Barnabas 62;
quote:
Crusading is not allowed here. And one of the signs of a crusader is ignoring other posts and asserting the crusading viewpoint repetitively. I appreciate you have convictions. But engaging with other Shipmates in serious discussions is hardly helped by parroting yourself.
Partly answered above. This thread has a somewhat convoluted history which in a sense started in Hell where I was asked to provide 'a text' in support of my position and partly because of the then context chose John 18; 36 where Jesus says his kingdom is 'not of this world'.
Discussion of that then moved to Kerygmania and finally back to Purg. But given the thread topic it happens that my convictions are what it is basically about; if expressing those convictions in that context is to be dismissed as 'crusading' I don't really see how I can conduct sensible interaction....
At last count the thread had reached a bit of an impasse when one contributor managed a fairly comprehensive misreading of one of my posts and a resulting post of his own which it seemed could be fairly read as "Look how stupid and ignorant you are to have said that" though in fact when I checked back I clearly hadn't said what he implied at all. I reasonably, I think, decided to stop replying to that and similar posts - as I understand I'm entitled to - and after a longish wait in which nobody seemed to show further interest in the existing state of affairs, thought it reasonable to revive the original line of discussion by reminding anyone who might still be interested of these points that had been bypassed when I offered them for discussion earlier.
I am hopeful that this might bring the argument back on track after some decided 'tangents'. Callan's comment in the next post suggests I'm right in thinking the original posting of these points got rather lost in earlier heat and noise above.
Shall we see where it now goes...?
by Callan;
quote:
To respond to Steve's point (as I missed it last time round) I don't live in hypothetical country A, B or C. I live in the United Kingdom, with all that entails. There are perfectly good arguments against establishment, bishops in the Lords and whatnot but diplomatic rivalry with Hindu France and Muslim Ireland are not high among them.
I do see what you mean - honestly. But my concern is not just with the specific Anglican establishment and its details; my concern is with the whole wider issue of attempts to set up a 'Christian country' in ANY earthly nation or nations, ALL the issues that might be covered by what comes from John 18, and my hypotheticals here are intended to bring out the wider issues.
Countries A,B and C are perhaps currently 'hypothetical' in any particular part of the world right now; my memory says that there have been times in the past when such and/or similar situations have existed, and because of the kind of issue I'm looking at have not ended well.
The situation of the hypothetical countries should also be considered in relation to my other 'repeat post' a couple of posts earlier.
Meanwhile I'm going to minimise my responses a bit and try and complete my comments on John 18 which are taking longer than expected precisely because I am very much trying to take account of and interact with earlier posts on this thread.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
(Just to be clear, as is customary I have recused myself from any hostly intervention on this thread through being involved in it as a poster).
I don't think anybody here is disputing that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, or setting out to establish (or even uphold) an earthly representation of that kingdom in the form of a geopolitical power.
What is being disputed is how we live life a) in the overlap between this age and the fullness of the Kingdom in the age to come b) given the circumstances we variously find ourselves in due to history since Jesus' words.
Your refusal to admit that there might be anything other than one definitive view on this (yours) is not conducive, in my view, to discussion.
The anabaptist church model is one attempt to address that. Like all models it is imperfect (and what is more, in its modern form is, like it or not, a schism from a previous, 'Constantinian' model - not descended in unbroken line from the NT. To disown the anabaptists' step-parents and the historical continuity they provided in a flick of the fingers strikes me as damagingly naďve).
One of the ways anabaptism is imperfect is that it appears to thrive only when it represents a small minority of a given population. You have repeatedly avoided addressing the question of what happens if your ideal form of churches were to attain a critical mass meaning that they cannot avoid having geopolitical influence, and you have not provided any convincing explanation of why this could not happen.
The church I help lead is pretty much anabaptist in form, government and ethos and we like it that way, but we make a point of recognising we are only a part of the Church, that our attempt at following NT principles is one choice among many, and that wherever the Gospel is preached, we rejoice.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Another thought.
A recent presentation of evangelicalism I attended depicted historic, 'confessing' churches and evangelical 'professing' churches as two strands of a DNA-like double helix running through history.
Much as large chunks of the presentation had me tearing my hair out due to the multiple inaccuracies and shortcuts, this strikes me as a good illustration.
At least since the Reformation, there has been constant crossing-over between these two strands (indeed, Steve, you attest to it yourself in your own testimony). Professing churches inject reform, new life and dynamism which often ends up feeding back into established, historic, confessing churches; for their part, confessing churches provide continuity, a sense of history and experience, and (dare I say) it constructive contacts with the authorities, including for their nonconformist evangelical brethren.
This could be seen as a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship - all the more so if each strand recognises the other.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
[ADMIN ]
Steve, if you have a question about a host instruction, take it to the Styx. You know that.
Feel free to make your case there.
[ / Kelly Alves, ADMIN ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Kelly Alves, thank you. I have managed this a bit clumsily. I perhaps at the very least should have stated earlier my intent to kind of 'reboot' the thread rather than just re-posting those items without comment. My apologies on that. I will consider formulating a question in Styx about these matters; it may be a bit of a complex question under the circumstances.
In the meantime I will try to engage with Eutychus' points above in I hope a constructive manner. And as I said, to continue my work on the initial issue of interpretation of John 18 which hopefully will clarify things in the longer run.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Are you a betting man?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Martin60;
quote:
Are you a betting man?
Perhaps a bit of a risk-taker at times - but you have just made me smile;
thanks,
SL
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Steve -
One thing that puzzles me is why the conversation is being framed as 'Constantinian churches v Anabaptism' rather than 'Constantinian churches v non-Constantinian churches'. I don't get why Anabaptism is apparently the only pure form of Christianity. I agree with you re the concept of a Christian country! I may not feel like putting up with a state church is sinful (or however you'd put it) but I do agree with your main point about being a Christian country. However, I don't see why that necessarily has to lead to an Anabaptist view of church. The NT church looked like it did because of its time and place, it doesn't mean we have to make our churches exactly the same as it. I fail to see how RC anarcho-socialist/liberation theology proponents like Dorothy Day (for instance) are somehow Doing It Wrong even going by your own stance.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
I start to think you simply don't have an answer.
The more I think about this, the more I conclude that I don't need to have an answer - apart from that a 75% Anabaptist population would decidedly make Britain a better place for just about everybody.
Christianity isn't about this kind of 'consequentialism';
Nor was my comment about "consequentialism." It was asking what the world would look like under certain circumstances, and how that would differ from the Constantinianism you so despise.
And you admit you have no answer. Why in the Hell would anybody want to follow your way, if an important part of your way is anti-Constantinianism, and you have no way of saying whether or not following your way would lead to Constantinianism? It's just another example of "The current system is corrupt. Replace it with us," and then the us goes on to become just as corrupt as the original system. Because people.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How do you know your position is "sound" and "Biblical"?
Aye, there's the rub.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
So to you "The Queen is antichrist" is the same thing as "(such a monarch) is 'technically an antiChrist'". No wonder we end up at cross purposes.
What's the difference between being an antichrist and being technically an antichrist? Is it possible to be non-technically an antichrist? What exactly would that look like?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Pomona;
quote:
One thing that puzzles me is why the conversation is being framed as 'Constantinian churches v Anabaptism' rather than 'Constantinian churches v non-Constantinian churches'.
I'm a bit puzzled by this myself; I guess it's mainly because I'm a rather vocal Anabaptist! I've been trying to conduct this one in terms of "Constantinian churches v how the NT says the church should be". Which leads on to your comment;
quote:
The NT church looked like it did because of its time and place, it doesn't mean we have to make our churches exactly the same as it.
I agree, and indeed I'm not saying the NT is 'exhaustive' about anything. I am trying to say that nevertheless the NT does state some basic ideas which rule out certain ways of doing things (eg Constantinianism) and positively expect other things - a different way of relating church to surrounding world. We are, I think, supposed to follow those principles, and indeed be quite creative and imaginative about it. But we are not supposed to contradict the NT principles.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
We can further muddy the water by considering two neighbouring countries with a majority church denomination that is Erastian in their own country, and a minority in the other. For example, the UK and Ireland.
I was musing on the whole scenario last night, and reducio ad absurdum, we could have a majority Anabaptist society who refused to vote and refused to take public office, living under laws drawn up by the minority - Sharia, perhaps. Is there a point at which even a strict Anabaptist who is wary of entanglement and compromise with the State, will engage with the State for the good of all?
If there is - all we're arguing about is the degree. If there isn't - I find that argument untenable.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
And you admit you have no answer
My answer is essentially that Christians are supposed to do what God says via the NT, and leave/trust consequences to God. What we are NOT supposed to do is put ourselves in a position of using/depending-on worldly power/authority to do the work of God's kingdom. So I guess in the '75% Anabaptist' situation the temptation, as in Constantinian/Theodosian times, is to kind of 'take over' the world and use its power; and the response, especially after 1600 years experience of where that leads, is that we should carry on saying "We aren't playing that particular game".
If we are living as the NT says we should we will certainly not be ignoring the world and its needs. Many modern Mennonites last century honed their theology and practice in relief work in post-WWII Europe, and more recently Mennonites were among the earliest responders in relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina in the southern USA. People of broadly Anabaptist views are heavily involved in actions like food banks and credit unions to support those in poverty.
But hopefully we now know better than try to entangle church with world by enshrining Christianity or specifically Christian morality in a constitution. Modern democracy is not the kind of '50%+1vote decides everything' that caused Greek philosophers to deride it as anarchic mob rule; instead it recognises significant minority rights. Even so, Christians with a massive majority have to be very careful - at the very least it is a case of 'if in doubt, nothing that looks like Christian coercion to Christian ends'. There is good reason why many Anabaptists won't vote.
But I come back to the basic that Christians do it NT-style and trust God rather than worldly power for what then happens.
MT quoting Eutychus;
quote:
How do you know your position is "sound" and "Biblical"?
Essentially by keeping the idea of an 'open Bible' which nobody is ultimately above - and especially not some kind of 'Christian country' worldly authority which can use state power to coerce its view. Human failings will certainly mean it doesn't work ideally all the time, but if that basic principle is followed things are generally ultimately self-correcting.
The discussion here ought to be putting that into practice; I'm not above the Bible, if I want you to accept my position I've got to show it's at least a reasonable interpretation.
[it is perhaps worth saying that for Mennonites, Menno Simons, though obviously greatly respected, has nothing like a 'papal' position. I've got an edition of his complete works on my bookshelf and one substantial essay carries a foreword from the (Mennonite) publishers which basically says "Menno got this one wrong"]
The last issue you raised was pretty exhaustively covered earlier and since, at least for now, Hosts/Admin seem to have allowed a kind of 'reboot' of the thread I don't feel I need to distract from the main theme of the thread by revisiting that tangent.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've been trying to conduct this one in terms of "Constantinian churches v how the NT says the church should be".
The difficulty is that you aren't making it clear what you think the NT says about how the church should be.
We get that you don't think a Christian should be a crowned head of state under a system that uses religious imagery, but that's about the only statement of clear practical application you've made. I have no idea whether you think a Christian can sometimes/rarely/never be:
A voter;
A local councillor;
A lawyer;
A judge;
A litigant;
A member of a political party;
A politician;
A member of a political pressure group;
A supporter of a political campaign or protest movement;
A police officer;
A diplomat;
Head of state of country with a secular constitution (eg. the USA).
If you have a clear set of purportedly Biblical principles that give you answers to those, we can talk about those. At the moment, your approach seems to be to set out the worst abuses and risks of the idea of a "Christian country" (with little on no feeling for how these might apply differently in different historical and political contexts), seek to persuade us that this is a bad idea, and from that assert that the Anabaptist approach is somehow "better".
In particular, you haven't engaged with the question of how Christians should involve themselves in democratic societies - which seems to me to be a not unimportant question for Christians living in democracies. I'm far from convinced that even the clearest NT injunctions concerning the proper attitude to take to Imperial Rome can automatically and unthinkingly be applied without modification to the modern democratic state.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
We can further muddy the water by considering two neighbouring countries with a majority church denomination that is Erastian in their own country, and a minority in the other. For example, the UK and Ireland.
That doesn't 'muddy the waters' as far as I can see; it constitutes a straightforward practical rather than biblical argument for why state churches are wrong, and indeed other forms of state religion have obvious disadvantages. That I think in turn supports the biblical case I've been propounding.
As a bit of pedantry, I think 'Erastian' strictly applies only to the CofE which has long been disestablished in all of Ireland. Unfortunately on both sides of the border other dubious versions of the 'Christian country' idea have also been prevalent. I must admit I'm not sure of the exact position of the RCC in Eire right now, but NI Protestants still seem to regard the RCC as being in the 'Catholic country' business.
Your second para requires a bit more thought for a detailed response, but on the face of it the way the church should engage with the state there would be as in the Roman Empire pre-Constantine; try to live peaceably, and if 'obeying God rather than man' results in conflict with the state, the Christians do not rebel but face martyrdom - a strategy which has, it should be said, its own power of a different kind to that which 'grows out of the barrel of a gun'.
Both your questions seem to be related to the posts I used for the above-mentioned 'reboot' of the thread. May I invite you to consider those posts?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Your second para requires a bit more thought for a detailed response, but on the face of it the way the church should engage with the state there would be as in the Roman Empire pre-Constantine; try to live peaceably, and if 'obeying God rather than man' results in conflict with the state, the Christians do not rebel but face martyrdom - a strategy which has, it should be said, its own power of a different kind to that which 'grows out of the barrel of a gun'.
And precisely how does voting in a liberal democracy equate with rebelling?
This is the heart of my difficulty - that there are a great many ways of engaging with and taking responsibility for, our communities and our country, without believing that folk in Country B are all filthy heathens and deserve to die.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Eliab;
Pretty much all the questions you ask are currently somewhat muddied by the existence of a divided church coming at these issues from a variety of standpoints. Most of those standpoints can be approximately grouped into two basic ideas - variants of the 'Constantinian/Christian-country' view, and variants ('Anabaptist or similar') of the view that the only 'Christian nation' the world has or needs is the Church itself.
These views cannot both be right!!
Right now I'm concerned to try and sort out which of those views is the right one. From that starting-point, the questions you ask can then be answered by a united church. As can the question of how we might benefit the world in God's name by perhaps expressing his love in other ways than your questions suggest.
"How does the Bible say the church and surrounding world are to be related?" is the basic question, and as I've pointed out the practical implication/application includes international as well as narrowly national aspects. Trusting the God who made such costly reconciliation through Jesus is the basic idea here, not just what consequences we might like.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Paradox rules in Christianity.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Eliab;
Pretty much all the questions you ask are currently somewhat muddied by the existence of a divided church coming at these issues from a variety of standpoints. Most of those standpoints can be approximately grouped into two basic ideas - variants of the 'Constantinian/Christian-country' view, and variants ('Anabaptist or similar') of the view that the only 'Christian nation' the world has or needs is the Church itself.
These views cannot both be right!!
Right now I'm concerned to try and sort out which of those views is the right one. From that starting-point, the questions you ask can then be answered by a united church. As can the question of how we might benefit the world in God's name by perhaps expressing his love in other ways than your questions suggest.
"How does the Bible say the church and surrounding world are to be related?" is the basic question, and as I've pointed out the practical implication/application includes international as well as narrowly national aspects. Trusting the God who made such costly reconciliation through Jesus is the basic idea here, not just what consequences we might like.
I don't think that both those things are wrong, even if both are not right as such. I don't think a clear-cut answer is frankly doable in the world today. While I personally feel that a 'Christian country' isn't in line with what the NT says, I also don't think it's my place to tell those who sincerely want a 'Christian country' that they're wrong and that my position is the purest and untainted NT position.
I realise that you sincerely think that the NT is obvious and unambiguous on this issue - but others disagree and it's not because they're dismissing what the NT says or because their denomination is somehow tainted.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Eliab;
Most of those standpoints can be approximately grouped into two basic ideas - variants of the 'Constantinian/Christian-country' view, and variants ('Anabaptist or similar') of the view that the only 'Christian nation' the world has or needs is the Church itself.
I think the two kingdoms view is sufficiently different to both.
I'm interested in what you say about 'specifically Christian morality' - what specifically are you thinking of?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Eliab;
Pretty much all the questions you ask are currently somewhat muddied by the existence of a divided church coming at these issues from a variety of standpoints.
Yes, but I'm asking you.
quote:
Most of those standpoints can be approximately grouped into two basic ideas - variants of the 'Constantinian/Christian-country' view, and variants ('Anabaptist or similar') of the view that the only 'Christian nation' the world has or needs is the Church itself.
Well, no. Indeed, that's plainly and obviously wrong. Has anyone arguing with you accepted the 'Constantinian/Christian-country' label as a fair description of their position? If they have, I missed it.
I'm a Christian who believes in liberal democracy and a functionally secular state (I say 'functionally' secular because I'm not at all worried about being a member of a traditionally established church provided that my country has freedom of religion in actual practice). I'm neither a Constantinian nor an Anabaptist. I'd guess that most people on this thread come from a position closer to mine than to yours or the one you attribute to Constantine.
quote:
Right now I'm concerned to try and sort out which of those views is the right one. From that starting-point, the questions you ask can then be answered by a united church.
Good luck with that.
quote:
"How does the Bible say the church and surrounding world are to be related?" is the basic question, and as I've pointed out the practical implication/application includes international as well as narrowly national aspects. Trusting the God who made such costly reconciliation through Jesus is the basic idea here, not just what consequences we might like.
Nice. So anyone who disagrees with you about the Bible doesn't trust God, with extra helpings of implicit ingratitude and self-interest on the side?
No - the question is what does God want you and I to do in the political systems that we find ourselves part of. Answer the questions that really matter from your Biblical principles about the relationship between church and state if you like - that's what we're asking you to do in part to find out what your Biblical principles actually are - but if your broad philospohical approach in fact leaves you unable to answer very elementary practical questions, you can't blame the rest of us if it looks so insubstantial as to not be worth bothering with.
[ 08. December 2014, 13:11: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Right now I'm concerned to try and sort out which of those views is the right one. From that starting-point, the questions you ask can then be answered by a united church. As can the question of how we might benefit the world in God's name by perhaps expressing his love in other ways than your questions suggest.
The thing is, Steve, that we can't all put real life on hold until there is a) a consensus on how Christians should relate to the state and b) a united Church able to set forth that consensus authoritatively. In six months time, for example, there is going to be a general election. So we are probably going to have to take the view as to whether it is legitimate for Christians to exercise the franchise or whether voting legitimates a false consensus which perpetuates the hegemony of a constantinian corporate, political and media elite* before the establishment of a united church. It's not difficult to think of other issues which may demand the attention of Christians before this united church is established.
*PARKLIFE!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
chris stiles;
quote:
I'm interested in what you say about 'specifically Christian morality' - what specifically are you thinking of?
Perhaps surprisingly, I wasn't particularly thinking of the proverbial Dead Horses issues (and can we keep this thread out of there please!); just generally things where Christians may disagree with others whose foundation beliefs are different; some perhaps important moral differences, others things like demanding Sunday as a day of rest.
Peter uses a word often translated as 'meddlers' or some such, 'allotriepiskopoi' which literally means a 'bishop' or overseer/manager of other people's business. I think of it as we're not meant to run the lives of non-Christians, not to be 'bossy-boots' towards them in Mary Whitehouse style.
Yes we uphold our morality and advocate it for others to freely follow, no we don't impose it by law or state coercion.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
And precisely how does voting in a liberal democracy equate with rebelling?
I've already mentioned upthread that voting is something on which Anabaptists are a bit ambivalent at the moment; recognising that a liberal democracy may be different enough to earlier governments that they can engage at a different level, but still wary. Some like myself who are not cradle Anabaptists are rethinking from the other end in terms of increasing disenchantment with democracy but at least no intention to replace it with a religious state.
One of things that makes us wary is that in many ways we're playing a longer and wider game here (that's a metaphor, I know it's more serious than that!). For example, you mentioned Sharia above. Sharia is effectively 'Constantinianism' as practiced by another religion. And indeed some would argue that Islam is that way because Muhammad saw only the Roman Constantinianism and wasn't properly, maybe not at all, aware of the earlier non-conforming tradition of the Church. It is - or should be - part of the witness of Christianity to Islam that we demonstrate a different way of being God's people. A short-term compromise may actually end up bolstering, setting a bad example or provoking bad ideas like Sharia rather than combatting them properly. It certainly seems the case that much of the background to Islamist extremism is reaction to the Crusades and the general idea of 'Christian states' even if we are aware ourselves of how secular our states are rapidly becoming.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I think he's saying that in a nationwide referendum on whether all churches should be burnt down, he'd argue that they shouldn't, but won't vote that they shouldn't - because Constantine.
(eta - reply to Martin)
[ 08. December 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
chris stiles;
quote:
I'm interested in what you say about 'specifically Christian morality' - what specifically are you thinking of?
Perhaps surprisingly, I wasn't particularly thinking of the proverbial Dead Horses issues (and can we keep this thread out of there please!); just generally things where Christians may disagree with others whose foundation beliefs are different; some perhaps important moral differences, others things like demanding Sunday as a day of rest.
Peter uses a word often translated as 'meddlers' or some such, 'allotriepiskopoi' which literally means a 'bishop' or overseer/manager of other people's business. I think of it as we're not meant to run the lives of non-Christians, not to be 'bossy-boots' towards them in Mary Whitehouse style.
Yes we uphold our morality and advocate it for others to freely follow, no we don't impose it by law or state coercion.
But the problem is the 'our morality'. What happens when Christians disagree on those things? Why is it OK to have a Mary Whitehouse attitude towards other Christians?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan;
quote:
The thing is, Steve, that we can't all put real life on hold until there is a) a consensus on how Christians should relate to the state and b) a united Church able to set forth that consensus authoritatively. I
I'm not suggesting real life be put on hold till there is a consensus. I'm suggesting that Christians need to address the issues and decide which side they are on without waiting for the consensus.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm suggesting that Christians need to address the issues and decide which side they are on without waiting for the consensus.
And different christians will decide different ways. Are you going to judge them for doing that?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Pomona;
quote:
But the problem is the 'our morality'. What happens when Christians disagree on those things? Why is it OK to have a Mary Whitehouse attitude towards other Christians?
I don't think it's OK to have a Mary Whitehouse attitude full stop. That was essentially an attitude of imposing on people outside the church and, for example, bringing blasphemy charges against non-Christians.
In the church there will sometimes be disagreements; churches expect their adherents to keep the rules in the same way that the FA expects players in the Football League to keep to the rules of Football. The disagreements should normally be sorted out on the basis of biblical teaching.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Callan;
quote:
The thing is, Steve, that we can't all put real life on hold until there is a) a consensus on how Christians should relate to the state and b) a united Church able to set forth that consensus authoritatively. I
I'm not suggesting real life be put on hold till there is a consensus. I'm suggesting that Christians need to address the issues and decide which side they are on without waiting for the consensus.
Steve,
I don't think we are all suddenly going to decide that the Anabaptist view is correct. As that is what you want, this debate appears likely to continue in this fashion until those who hold views in any way different from yours have all got fed up, and returned to the Real Life which Callan mentions.
Then the field will be yours alone.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Which?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The disagreements should normally be sorted out on the basis of biblical teaching.
And reason. And tradition.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Chris Stiles;
I've just done a quick refresher course on 'two kingdoms theory' via Wikipedia and well, interesting. As far as I can see had Luther been consistent to his original version of the theory he would in fact have ended up in the Anabaptist camp. But in the end he accepted state churches with 'two kingdoms theory' supposedly making it acceptable - whereas in fact it just rather confused things.
Americans turned Luther's theory into their 'separation of church and state', which is arguably about secular practicality rather than a biblical foundation for churches. Back in Germany it seems to have remained essentially a variety of Constantinianism which left the church inadequate first in its response to WWI and then, with a few great exceptions like Bonhoeffer, in its response to the Nazis.
I'm not sure it is a distinct theory as you suggest.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
And reason. And tradition.
Having been initially brung up among Anglicans, I know what you mean. Reason - as opposed to 'rationalism' - is of course essential, and God is clearly a reasonable God.
'tradition'; there's a whole separate threadful of arguments there. small-t tradition under Scriptural review, yes, Capital-T Tradition which can overrule the Bible, NO.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Unfortunately (or, fortunately) you don't get to tell other denominations what counts as their tradition, or reason for that matter.
If it was all that simple, we'd never had the Reformation, nor the Great Schism. But we did. So we have to be pragmatic, and deal with the world as it is, just like we have to deal with the Church as it is - divided and dirty. It's inevitable that we're going to get stained if we get involved. The only alternative is not to get involved.
And, through the example of Jesus, I'm choosing to get filthy dirty and trust God will make me clean.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Callan;
quote:
The thing is, Steve, that we can't all put real life on hold until there is a) a consensus on how Christians should relate to the state and b) a united Church able to set forth that consensus authoritatively. I
I'm not suggesting real life be put on hold till there is a consensus. I'm suggesting that Christians need to address the issues and decide which side they are on without waiting for the consensus.
Fair do's. Should I vote in the next General Election? Should my parishoner who works for the police stay in his job? Should the small girl of my acquaintance, who wants to be a fighter pilot when she grows up, continue to aspire towards that or look for something else?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
And reason. And tradition.
Having been initially brung up among Anglicans, I know what you mean. Reason - as opposed to 'rationalism' - is of course essential, and God is clearly a reasonable God.
'tradition'; there's a whole separate threadful of arguments there. small-t tradition under Scriptural review, yes, Capital-T Tradition which can overrule the Bible, NO.
You obviously don't know what tradition is.
[ 08. December 2014, 19:19: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
And reason. And tradition.
Having been initially brung up among Anglicans, I know what you mean. Reason - as opposed to 'rationalism' - is of course essential, and God is clearly a reasonable God.
'tradition'; there's a whole separate threadful of arguments there. small-t tradition under Scriptural review, yes, Capital-T Tradition which can overrule the Bible, NO.
It is not for you to tell other Christians how to interpret their faith.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Unfortunately (or, fortunately) you don't get to tell other denominations what counts as their tradition, or reason for that matter.
If it was all that simple, we'd never had the Reformation, nor the Great Schism. But we did. So we have to be pragmatic, and deal with the world as it is, just like we have to deal with the Church as it is - divided and dirty. It's inevitable that we're going to get stained if we get involved. The only alternative is not to get involved.
And, through the example of Jesus, I'm choosing to get filthy dirty and trust God will make me clean.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I can't help but feel that Anabaptism would consider Jesus too tainted by the World and too politically involved.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Chris Stiles;
I've just done a quick refresher course on 'two kingdoms theory' via Wikipedia and well, interesting.
Well, Luther isn't the endpoint of 2K theology. The difference is that 2K still sees us Christians as living in both kingdoms this side of the eschaton.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan;
quote:
Fair do's. Should I vote in the next General Election? Should my parishoner who works for the police stay in his job? Should the small girl of my acquaintance, who wants to be a fighter pilot when she grows up, continue to aspire towards that or look for something else?
Taking those questions one at a time, brief answers;
General Election - currently not sure.
Police; in this country probably yes, just about; but there are other places where I'd have more worries. Anabaptists nowadays often accept a valid police function in society.
Fighter Pilot;
Not realistically. Plus has she a realistic idea of war or something more glamorous and perhaps misleading?
But that's not an order from outside - people need to understand such choices for themselves.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What do we do until you are?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, I'm back and whilst there have been loads of posts on this since I've been away, I can't say it looks as if there's been much movement ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
A few (short) observations:
1. Kaplan applauds SL for being 'contra mundum' - as if the rest of us are somehow promoting some kind of Erastian church-state/Constantinian monster. None of us are.
I don't see any 'Constantinians' here in the way that the term has been framed. Sure, some posters, such as Ad Orientem, may be inclined to be more Erastian than others - but overall I don't see any consensus here for the kind of 'Constantinian' model that is being tilted at.
2. I come back (again) to Richard Baxter's observations in the 17th century - that there is something implicitly judgemental about those Big C Churches (the RCs and 'the Greeks' in his day) who believe their Church to be the pukka and True one.
Equally, there's something just as judgemental about the more 'sectarian' or 'gathered' model espoused by the Anabaptists and other independents ...
I think on this thread we can certaintly see examples of judgementalism and setting oneself up - or one's interpretation of scripture up - as the final arbiter whose values and procedures should apply to everyone else.
That doesn't mean that the individuals who hold such views are any more judgmental than anyone else - simply that judgementalism is implicit in these positions.
3. However we cut it, I think we are all headed into 'intentional' and 'gathered' territory - and that applies just as much to the older, more traditional 'confessional' churches as it does to the heirs of the radical reformation.
That's fine by me, providing it doesn't descend into a withdrawal from the world and lack of engagement in areas where Christians should be involved.
I'm essentially with Eutychus on all this.
I sometimes get the impression from SL's posts that whilst it's ok for Christians to get involved with their local model railway club, it's not acceptable for them to stand for their local council or join a political party or become involved in civil government.
I'm wondering what SL would say to me once he finds out I'm standing for my local and borough council.
Is that wrong? Does that sully or compromise me in any way?
In all of this I'm reminded of Mike Leigh's marvellous 1977 TV-play, 'Nuts in May'. Keith Pratt, the wonderfully realised central character, is highly principled but a pain in the backside.
Those who've seen it (and it was shown on BBC 4 the other day) will know how he bangs on and on about refined food, pollution, additives etc etc etc until an exasperated Ray - the long-suffering Welsh fellow camper - grunts, 'I see running a car doesn't seem to bother you much ...'
To me, that serves as an analogy for the Anabaptist position - it's principled, it's admirable in many ways - but essentially it's unrealistic. Nice try, but no cigar ...
Where it ends up is in a kind of judgemental finger-pointing at fellow Christians ... 'The Queen wouldn't be doing what she was doing if only she realised X ...' 'Luther wouldn't have done Y if only he'd realised X ...' 'If it hadn't been for Constantine then ... X ...'
Anabaptism isn't the only tradition where this happens, of course - but it can be one of its less attractive features.
I've been involved with restorationist 'new church', Baptist and Anglican churches and - on the ground - I can say that there isn't a great deal of difference in the extent to which people do or don't get involved with what's going on around them.
Prior to that, I had exposure to the Plymouth Brethren and whilst they were forever railing about this, that or the other sins and misdemeanours in wider society they weren't really that different to anyone else.
That holds true across the board.
There are certainly some interesting things coming out of the modern Anabaptist movement - and yes, they can act as a challenge and a gad-fly.
But the whole thing only 'works' if it functions as a somewhat withdrawn or marginalised sect.
Once it does achieve some kind of critical mass - as we have seen among certain Hutterite and Amish communities - the results aren't always benign.
There's a balance somewhere. We need the Keith Pratts of this world to remind us what's important. But equally, the Keith Pratt's need to realise that things aren't always as simple as they'd like them to be.
Finally, over on Hell I made a reference to squeaky-clean Anabaptist anal passages and faecal functions. This evoked some debate. These comments were, of course, satirical and were simply a way of highlighting what I take to be a weakness in the Anabaptist position - it's propensity to point the finger at everyone else whilst being unaware of its own failings. The Anabaptists aren't the only ones prone to that.
We all are.
Anabaptists are just as fallible as anyone else - and in fairness, I don't see anyone arguing that they aren't - and their 'system' is equally as prone to go wrong as anyone else's is.
It may be 'true' to the NT in some aspects, but will be well wide of the mark in others. Same as anyone else's.
That's the world we live in. Get used to it.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Callan;
quote:
Fair do's. Should I vote in the next General Election? Should my parishoner who works for the police stay in his job? Should the small girl of my acquaintance, who wants to be a fighter pilot when she grows up, continue to aspire towards that or look for something else?
Taking those questions one at a time, brief answers;
General Election - currently not sure.
Police; in this country probably yes, just about; but there are other places where I'd have more worries. Anabaptists nowadays often accept a valid police function in society.
Fighter Pilot;
Not realistically. Plus has she a realistic idea of war or something more glamorous and perhaps misleading?
But that's not an order from outside - people need to understand such choices for themselves.
What if God is calling someone to be an MP or a police officer or a fighter pilot? Denying that God could call someone into any walk of life seems awfully close to putting doctrine/Tradition over Scripture, tbh.
And welcome back Gamaliel! Your input has been missed.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Adding to what Gamaliel said - there are some interesting modern Anabaptist movements. I'm thinking especially of the Mennonite Worker Movement, based on the Catholic Worker Movement (gasp!!! Constantinians!!!). I've met quite a few Anabaptists through SCM/FOR*'s peace activities (mostly Bruderhof people) and they are very nice, but I would kind of put them in the category of a lot of modern Quakers - very nice and in many ways I agree with them, but I just see a reluctance to get one's hands dirty and personally I see that as fairly crucial in being 'hands and feet'.
The biggest group I've noticed getting really stuck in and doing stuff is Catholics (esp Pax Christi and Catholic Worker Movement people).
*SCM - Student Christian Movement, FOR - Fellowship Of Reconciliation, SCM's peace activism sister movement.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks Pomona.
As SL has reminded us, modern Anabaptism is changing and adapting - just as all Christian traditions are.
Like you, I have a lot of time for the Bruderhof emphasis and for certain Quaker emphases too ... although most Quakers I've come across have certainly been 'getting their hands dirty' in some way or other.
The downside of all of this is that it can tend towards a kind of pernicketiness that can verge on the Pharisaical - but goodness knows, it's not as if any of the other traditions and confessions are immune from that either ...
I well remember being impressed by the Quaker silence at a Meeting I attended, only to be brought back down to earth with a bump as the Friends had a rather sour discussion over tea and coffee afterwards about the appropriateness of bringing chocolate biscuits to the Meeting ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Anabaptists seem to me to share similar tendencies ... and this isn't necessarily a match-loser - but it can grate to some extent.
Meanwhile, all the peace, justice and anti-war type initiatives I'm aware of around here tend to be the preserve of the so-called 'Constantinian' churches that we've heard so much railing about ...
Interestingly, Mrs Gamaliel observed to me the other day that she still hankers after being a Baptist ... on the grounds that she feels there's less heirarchy there.
She's had bad experiences of authoritarian 'new church' leadership (as have I) and a few mild run-ins with Anglican clergy over the years (who hasn't?) so she thinks the Baptists - despite faults and imperfections (we all have them) are the better bet.
My own view is that the Baptist thing - in the more mainstream sense than the more 'radical' Anabaptist sense - works well when it doesn't take itself quite so seriously.
I have a soft-spot for the Baptists and the Baptist way of doing things - although my 'spirituality' tends to be 'higher' these days ... but it can - and does - go wrong - as the Baptist ministers and others here will only too readily acknowledge.
Despite my railings here at times, I also have time for the Anabaptist Network and for some of the material coming from that stable.
I think SL and I have agreed in the past that some of this material can be rather 'boring' and uninspiring at times (I won't name names) - but that would be true of the output of any Christian tradition.
On a more serious note, though, I sometimes think that 'radical' groups like the Anabaptists can tend to define themselves more by what they are 'against' rather than what they are 'for' ...
Consequently, I don't always find that they are very good at articulating any clear vision of how things 'should be' other than to assert vague and aspirational rallying-cries about 'NT principles' and so on.
Nor does it appear to occur to them - although they must be aware of the implications - how things would be were they ever to achieve some kind of critical mass. Nor what the implications can be of 'non-involvement' in the nasty old world that surrounds us ... it strikes me that they are only too happy to accept the benefits that others have won or maintained for them without necessarily getting stuck in themselves ...
That might be unfair and a somewhat sour judgement. But it's no more unfair than some of the accusations they make about so-called 'Constantinians' and so on.
Which brings us back to Richard Baxter and his trenchant assessment of the besetting sins and tendencies of all the Christian confessions of his own day - tendencies which are only too readily apparent in our own.
We all 'see through a glass darkly' and we are all inconsistent. All of us are doing the best with the cards we've been dealt.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's a balance somewhere. We need the Keith Pratts of this world to remind us what's important. But equally, the Keith Pratt's need to realise that things aren't always as simple as they'd like them to be.
I think that in a sense it would be better if the separatist tendencies were not 'needed'. The reason they are is that we tend (in general) not to think through the consequences of accepting societal change and therefore do so indiscriminately.
Blanket withdrawal can also serve as an easy answer. For instance, the Plymouth Brethern used to advocate not using computers at all - otoh the rest of us have - for the most part - uncritically accepted modern technology without considering what it might do to change how we view things like our humanity or the sacraments.
At the end of the day, achieving any kind of mix of Niebuhr's categories is always going to be harder than a blanket acceptance of a single one of them.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Pomona;
quote:
What if God is calling someone to be an MP or a police officer or a fighter pilot? Denying that God could call someone into any walk of life seems awfully close to putting doctrine/Tradition over Scripture, tbh.
I think it's rather the position of Anabaptists or similar that if the Scripture implies you can't be a fighter pilot, then if you are aware of that Scriptural position you can't logically claim that you nevertheless have a call from God into that career. It would be like looking at "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and nevertheless claiming God is 'calling' you to cheat on your wife - which at the very least would require some rather tortured justifications!
It is also true in a non-ideal sinful world, where people may not at a particular time in their life have fully grasped the implications of Scripture, that God may providentially sort of call/lead a person into the army or a similar position through which he will then lead them to a better understanding. That is a rather different kind of call.
As I understand it current Mennonite practice - or at least, practice of some Mennonites - is that those who are already Mennonites are advised - on the basis of Scripture - not to become soldiers; but with Mennonites and similar groups now coming out from the exclusion which was forced on them by others persecuting them, soldiers who become connected with Mennonite congregations are given 'breathing space' to work through their position, and are not necessarily required to just immediately leave the army.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm wondering what SL would say to me once he finds out I'm standing for my local and borough council.
Is that wrong? Does that sully or compromise me in any way?
I'd say that's rather a long way down the list of concerns here. Also it would depend a lot on your motives, approach, etc. You probably aren't going to cause to the Christian faith in general the kind of embarrassment caused a bit ago by one David Silvester.
The immediate concern for me, which I've repeatedly tried to get Shipmates to engage with, but nobody much has tried, is the aspect of the 'religious state idea' ( not just Christian 'Constantinianism') which in various parts of the world is quite regularly getting people killed, maimed, dispossessed, persecuted etc and even still has too much effect in various ways in the UK (did anybody see the recent documentary on NI "Who won the war?").
For me the first thing is to clear up that basic idea about how the church relates to the world, and then work from there - with reasonable caution - on what kinds of involvement with the world are appropriate. That will probably be more involvement than much past Mennonite/Amish practice, but probably less (or perhaps in a very different way) than many coming at it from a 'Constantinian' stance might like.
You need to bear in mind that something that looks quite good to you here may give an impression elsewhere that may for example provoke Islamic extremists rather than set them a clear example of a better Christian way to be God's people in the world. Christianity has a lot of very evil stuff to live down before glibly pushing back into worldly places; and also I think a need for Spirit-led 'thinking outside the box' to find ways to benefit the surrounding world without compromising the basic Christian teaching of that 'kingdom not of this world'.
Might I draw Shipmates' attention to one aspect of Christian witness in which Anabaptists are heavily involved, 'Christian Peacemaker Teams' in various conflicts. They do really good work - and take considerable risks too - and their acceptability depends heavily on their neutrality in the conflicts based on their 'kingdom not of this world' position. I wish I could join such efforts but I'm realistic about how much tact that nice Mr Asperger has left me with!
Oh yes; nice to see you back - I'll try not to be quite so annoying to you in future; I have been looking back at some of our clashes and trying to work out how to do better.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Pomona;
quote:
What if God is calling someone to be an MP or a police officer or a fighter pilot? Denying that God could call someone into any walk of life seems awfully close to putting doctrine/Tradition over Scripture, tbh.
I think it's rather the position of Anabaptists or similar that if the Scripture implies you can't be a fighter pilot, then if you are aware of that Scriptural position you can't logically claim that you nevertheless have a call from God into that career. It would be like looking at "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and nevertheless claiming God is 'calling' you to cheat on your wife - which at the very least would require some rather tortured justifications!
It is also true in a non-ideal sinful world, where people may not at a particular time in their life have fully grasped the implications of Scripture, that God may providentially sort of call/lead a person into the army or a similar position through which he will then lead them to a better understanding. That is a rather different kind of call.
As I understand it current Mennonite practice - or at least, practice of some Mennonites - is that those who are already Mennonites are advised - on the basis of Scripture - not to become soldiers; but with Mennonites and similar groups now coming out from the exclusion which was forced on them by others persecuting them, soldiers who become connected with Mennonite congregations are given 'breathing space' to work through their position, and are not necessarily required to just immediately leave the army.
Steve, we both know that adultery is not equivalent to a vocation. Do me the consideration of not suggesting that I could think that.
Actually, although I have some issues surrounding pacifism, I pretty much am one and am discussing it with a (Episcopalian) friend as we speak. But I do not feel able to assume that my interpretation of Scripture is universal and to deny what someone else feels is their vocation - and many if not most military personnel DO view their career as a vocation. As a woman who has dealt with a particular Dead Horse in that area, denying someone else's call comes with an awful lot of baggage and hurt, and I would gently suggest that assuming that your interpretation of Scripture is universal does more harm than good.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The immediate concern for me, which I've repeatedly tried to get Shipmates to engage with, but nobody much has tried, is the aspect of the 'religious state idea' ( not just Christian 'Constantinianism') which in various parts of the world is quite regularly getting people killed, maimed, dispossessed, persecuted etc and even still has too much effect in various ways in the UK (did anybody see the recent documentary on NI "Who won the war?").
Secular states, and determinedly Atheist states, have all behaved, and still behave, extraordinarily badly.
Should I side with Communist China against the religious Tibetan state? Or side with the secular Assad regime against ISIS? Do I suggest that the Revolutionary Terror in France or the Cultural Revolution in China or Year Zero in Cambodia are somehow lessened because they weren't religiously inspired pogroms?
I like the idea of thinking outside the box. However, you've got the wrong box. For example, the reason we haven't had a major European war in the last seventy years isn't because of the lack of states, or the lack of religion: it's because of a transnational union that provides conciliation for diplomatic and economic disputes, and fosters cross-border understanding. And it happened at the political level - something the Anabaptists can take no credit for whatsoever.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Pomona;
quote:
Steve, we both know that adultery is not equivalent to a vocation. Do me the consideration of not suggesting that I could think that.
Yes, I do know that adultery is not exactly like a vocation. But I wanted an example from another area of morality of how the interaction between personal feeling of calling and testing that against what scripture prescribes works out. And I wanted the example to be fairly clear in itself to avoid a massive tangential argument.
Further by Pomona;
quote:
But I do not feel able to assume that my interpretation of Scripture is universal and to deny what someone else feels is their vocation
I'm not finding this easy to sum up quickly but
If someone asks for my advice I will of course give them the best I can based on Scripture; as I commented above, the Anabaptist principle here (even if we don't always manage to live up to it, sadly) is that of an 'open Bible' which I am not above and therefore my interpretation can be challenged and disagreed with. We also try as much as possible to seek guidance from the wider Church we are involved in, though Anabaptism doesn't have the rather inflexible 'top-down' authority principle of some denominations.
What would worry me would be if someone said "I agree with you about Scripture but I still think I'm 'called' to...." That would seem to me to be a bit of a contradiction in terms, and involving not so much my tradition over Scripture as that person putting their wishes ahead of what even they agree is the Word of God. Likewise if it seemed they were saying they don't care what Scripture says, their feeling of 'calling' somehow trumps Scripture.
As I say, that's rather brief version; on this thread I'm trying to discuss the text we started from, and now the thread is in Purg rather than Keryg, some related Scriptural ideas, rather than the issue of church authority/biblical authority etc. in itself.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Doc Tor
I think I see where you are coming from above but it's going to take me a while to phrase it reasonably succinctly - back later....
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Steve
My issue, I think, is that it all seems quite controlling. I realise that my kind of Anglicanism probably seems dangerously lax to you! I would go by the Wesleyan principle of adding Experience to Scripture, Tradition and Reason. So while I wouldn't say that my experience of a calling would trump Scripture exactly, it would be a reason to re-examine Scripture.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think it's rather the position of Anabaptists or similar that if the Scripture implies you can't be a fighter pilot, then if you are aware of that Scriptural position you can't logically claim that you nevertheless have a call from God into that career.
It sounds to me as though you believe in the "normative position", i.e. you think that Scripture provides definitive guidance on any and every situation we are likely to encounter, if only we look in it properly. I disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The immediate concern for me, which I've repeatedly tried to get Shipmates to engage with, but nobody much has tried, is the aspect of the 'religious state idea'
As far as I can see, nobody (on this thread) is a proponent of this, which might explain why nobody is engaging with you on that issue (and besides, your vague descriptions of what a "religious state idea" might consist in are constantly shifting).
There is a crucial difference between christianity and radical Islam. This is that Islam is, at the end of the day, profoundly intertwined with a distinctive culture. The Koran should be read in Arabic (translations are considered far inferior); Shariah law should apply, and so on.
Christianity has always been about coexisting with, and transforming, the ambient culture, not replacing it.
Ever since Jesus said "render unto Caesar..." there has been room for a distinction between the spiritual and temporal realm in Christianity - and for coexisting in both. We might disagree about how they overlap, but clearly we can be engaged in both to varying degrees.
Scripture doesn't so much set down rules about this (can I be a fighter pilot or not?) but rather records, for our instruction, several decades' worth of argument about how this should be worked out. Seeking a definitive resolution (and putting everything on hold while trying) is a mistake in my view.
[ 09. December 2014, 21:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Er, why would God - you know the Christian one known in Jesus - call anyone to be a fighter pilot?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Apologies in advance for the length of this....
by Eutychus;
quote:
It sounds to me as though you believe in the "normative position", i.e. you think that Scripture provides definitive guidance on any and every situation we are likely to encounter, if only we look in it properly. I disagree.
I don't know about some technical 'normative position' – but some solid principles we're not meant to contradict, definitely. I don't believe Scripture is 'exhaustive', but I believe that when we go beyond it we nevertheless have to keep our interpretations and resulting practice under review by those principles. Otherwise we end up just doing what suits us rather than anything truly related to the original teachings of Jesus and his commissioned-ambassadors/apostles.
On the next bit I'm tempted to get really exasperated but, look, it might have been an idea to finish the quote;
SL;
quote:
The immediate concern for me, which I've repeatedly tried to get Shipmates to engage with, but nobody much has tried, is the aspect of the 'religious state idea' ( not just Christian 'Constantinianism') which in various parts of the world is quite regularly getting people killed, maimed, dispossessed, persecuted etc and even still has too much effect in various ways in the UK (did anybody see the recent documentary on NI "Who won the war?").
That is, it's about the aspect of the 'religious state idea' which had and still has those bad effects, both in Christianity and in other religions. I'm not so much suggesting that loads of others are actually fully supporting that (though there are a few who do seem to be supporting some version of it), rather that this is not something of the past that can be ignored; both its Christian and nonChristian forms need to be countered in the here and now, by a better Christian view, at least as far as those of us who are Christians are concerned. I'm not seeing much adequate or coherent view that can do that; I'm proposing that the 'Anabaptist' or 'kingdom not of this world' idea does provide a coherent counter to that. I'm also proposing that it is the best view with which to witness to those holding other religious views, and to the non-religious who mostly don't want a Christianity that's trying to be like Islamic Sharia. A consciously non-domineering form of Christianity is not only needed for the good of the faith, it's also the original form of the faith anyway.
Also as mentioned somewhere back above, right now there is an element of needing to set distance between Christianity and its Constantinian manifestations, and live down the latter from a humbler position.
by Eutychus;
quote:
By Eutychus;
(and besides, your vague descriptions of what a "religious state idea" might consist in are constantly shifting).
Not my problem, that; it is rather that people who want a religious state keep shifting their own ground. RC, Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, Cromwell's Independency, the USA 'Religious Right' – all trying to have a 'Christian country' but in various ways, all shifting to save the underlying idea under different surface manifestations. And to some extent, it might be pointed out, arguably they're shifty like that because they're trying to 'get round' in various ways a coherent NT teaching which would deny them any of that kind of influence.
by Eutychus;
quote:
There is a crucial difference between Christianity and radical Islam. This is that Islam is, at the end of the day, profoundly intertwined with a distinctive culture.
This is certainly part of the truth. But note, for instance, that it is one of the problems of 'Constantinianism' that it tends to end up with Christianity 'intertwined with a distinctive culture' and often to the detriment of Christianity. And also note (I'm trying to finish this for a slightly postponed bedtime so I'm not checking back, but I think I pointed this out earlier) that one reason Islam is a religious state with a religious law, may be through following the example of the Roman imperial state church.
by Eutychus;
quote:
Christianity has always been about coexisting with, and transforming, the ambient culture, not replacing it.
Yes and no, sort of. “Co-existing with and transforming”, Yes; getting entangled with and/or imposing itself, No
by Eutychus;
quote:
Ever since Jesus said "render unto Caesar..." there has been room for a distinction between the spiritual and temporal realm in Christianity - and for coexisting in both. We might disagree about how they overlap, but clearly we can be engaged in both to varying degrees.
There is, as I see it, a good and a decidedly dodgy way to interpret that idea. Living in the world, yes, seeking worldly power in it, much more questionable. I'll try and come back later to a passage in Jeremiah about a positive way for OT Jews to live in exile, which has been a considerable influence in Anabaptist circles. If the church – the international church – is the current manifestation of 'God's holy nation' on earth, confusing it with other nations surely can't be a good idea.
by Eutychus;
quote:
Scripture doesn't so much set down rules about this (can I be a fighter pilot or not?) but rather records, for our instruction, several decades' worth of argument about how this should be worked out. Seeking a definitive resolution (and putting everything on hold while trying) is a mistake in my view.
I think Martin60's point in the next post after yours, about how credible is it that the God of the self-sacrificing Jesus could actually call someone to be a fighter pilot, is a pretty good response there! Yes, there's decades of argument in there; but there's also, I submit, pretty much of a resolution too, and it's far indeed from a Constantinian resolution! I also note, by the way, that when I read 'Constantinian' writings (of all shades thereof), or ask Constantinians for texts in support of their position, the texts are both thin on the ground and not very convincing anyway....
No need to 'put things on hold' – if you come to (something pretty close to) the Anabaptist position you can just get on with living it out where you are.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think Martin60's point in the next post after yours, about how credible is it that the God of the self-sacrificing Jesus could actually call someone to be a fighter pilot, is a pretty good response there!
Steve -
Who is permitted to wield the sword that Romans 13 talks about?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Steve
You (general you) could easily argue against Anabaptist type civil disobedience/distrust of the state by going by Paul's statement that governments are established by God. Enough military personnel feel that what they do is a calling from God for me to feel unable to say that they are definitely wrong - while I do feel a bit uncomfortable with what they feel their calling is, I don't feel able to turn around and tell someone their calling is invalid on that basis. Yours and Martin's interpretation of Scripture is not the only valid interpretation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
people who want a religious state keep shifting their own ground. RC, Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, Cromwell's Independency, the USA 'Religious Right' – all trying to have a 'Christian country' but in various ways
When I see Orthodox and the US Religious Right in the same category, I think this merely demonstrates that your idea of a 'christian country' is simply too broad to mean anything except "not your particular brand of anabaptism".
I think a far more useful dividing line, at least historically, is credobaptists vs paedobaptists.
quote:
But note, for instance, that it is one of the problems of 'Constantinianism' that it tends to end up with Christianity 'intertwined with a distinctive culture' and often to the detriment of Christianity.
That will also happen, on a much smaller scale, if you withdraw from the surrounding culture too much. The church will develop a very strong subculture (for instance, rather than reading the Koran in Arabic, they will want to read the Scriptures in the KJV, although why they should want a state-sponsored version of the Bible is anyone's guess...) quote:
Living in the world, yes, seeking worldly power in it, much more questionable. I'll try and come back later to a passage in Jeremiah about a positive way for OT Jews to live in exile, which has been a considerable influence in Anabaptist circles.
We've been here before - it's like saying the time of the Judges was the apogee of Israel's existence.
While there is no doubt plenty to draw from the experience of the Exile, unless you want to interpret Scripture very selectively, it is only a part of Israel's existence and hardly cast as the ideal in any fashion.
quote:
I think Martin60's point in the next post after yours, about how credible is it that the God of the self-sacrificing Jesus could actually call someone to be a fighter pilot, is a pretty good response there!
I agree with Pomona and note chris stiles' objection. It might not be to my personal taste, but fortunately it's not up to me to judge others' vocations and my gospel is broad enough to encompass divergent views on issues like this. quote:
No need to 'put things on hold' – if you come to (something pretty close to) the Anabaptist position you can just get on with living it out where you are.
Except, it seems, if you are an elected official, fighter pilot, police officer, prison officer, tax inspector...or any other profession you think might be "dodgy"?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think a far more useful dividing line, at least historically, is credobaptists vs paedobaptists.
Which leads me to a question. Steve, would you mind telling us whether you were baptised as an infant and if so, whether your current church (or yourself) considers that baptism as valid today?
[ 10. December 2014, 05:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I also note, by the way, that when I read 'Constantinian' writings (of all shades thereof), or ask Constantinians for texts in support of their position, the texts are both thin on the ground and not very convincing anyway....
So far, I would say the same about your arguments on this thread - texts in support of your position are thin on the ground and not very convincing anyway ...
Which, ISTM, simply illustrates the fact that the Bible has very little to say on the relationship between Church and State.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
NOBODY is called by God in Christ to be a fighter pilot.
Any fighter pilot can be called by God of course.
And hide behind the words of Paul.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Who are you to judge another man's servant? (I'll get on to the evo-church-attending prostitutes later...)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What a strange response.
I would point, welcome and bring every fighter pilot, prostitute and their john to church with open arms.
That they be encouraged out of their sin, no matter that it takes a lifetime of attendance.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The point is, that yes everyone is welcome in church and should find that the Christian faith encourages them out of their sin. And, that's as true for me and you as for the prostitute fighter pilot. The question is, is being a fighter pilot or prostitute a sin in itself? Undoubtedly the fighter pilot sins, but getting in the cockpit of her plane and carrying out her duty may not be among them. Who are you to say that it is?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What and the active prostitute (by whose charms I will not fail to be ravaged) in church doesn't in her activity?
Who are you to say she doesn't?
And the courageous fighter pilot is not innocently sinful in killing her enemies?
Because that's what God in Christ called her to do?
Well done Steve! At LAST!!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think Martin was making a subtle distinction there - God doesn't 'call' people to be fighter pilots, but he does 'call' fighter pilots ...
At the risk of a tangent, I'm increasingly sceptical of many claims of 'callings' - be they in religious or secular contexts. It's not that I have an issue with the idea of a vocation ... far from it ... but I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the kind of pietistic language that often surrounds this whole area ...
But that's another issue.
Meanwhile, I completely agree with Eutychus in that few people are engaging with Steve Langton over the 'religious state' or 'Christian country' issue because nobody here actually seems to be advocating such a thing - at least not in the way that Steve seems to assume them to be doing.
Speaking for myself, because I happen to attend an Anglican parish church Steve seems to have me down as some kind of 'Constantinian' - or some kind of advocate of positions that give a bad example to Muslims.
This is what I've been objecting to all along and why I'm become annoyed at times. It's my fault for arguing the toss in a rather aggressive way.
But in the cool and still light of day, I do find myself faced with assertions about the Anglican or other so-called 'Constantinian' positions which I just don't recognise as the reality on the ground.
That's not because I'm innured or immune to the issues SL has raised or - as he suggests about the Queen - not in a position to 'do' anything about them or 'think them through properly' - no - it's more a case that SL seems to be applying an anachronistic view of these things that no longer applies ... or even where it does apply, is applied in a far milder and less trenchant form than in the past.
The reason SL is finding the cap he's trying to fit on the rest of our heads so difficult to fit is because it doesn't.
He's trying to place the wrong cap on the wrong heads.
I'm not trying to carry a torch for the Anglicans or any other group over and against Baptists, Methodists, RCs, Orthodox or whoever else ... far from it.
I'm more than happy to hear Anabaptists out and engage with the issues they raise.
I still chuckle to myself at the observation an Orthodox priest once made to me in 'real life' (rather than on-line) ... 'Anabaptists are well-meaning, but they're really just monastics who haven't quite realised that yet ...'
All Christian traditions have those who 'withdraw' to some extent or other - whether it be St Simeon Stylites sat on his column, a convent of nuns or a group of Hutterites holed up in some Alpine or Pennsylvanian valley ...
Monks aren't supposed to bear arms ... and there's a long tradition of Christian pacifism even in the most 'Constantinian' of churches.
That's an issue for individual conscience, of course.
I s'pose one of the reasons I'm wary of some of the rhetoric around this area is that the restorationist churches I was once involved with tended to deploy similar rhetoric - albeit in a more triumphalist way.
We thought we were making a real and massive difference - when most people were unaware that we actually existed.
I well remember one very ra-ra-ra men's meeting when the visiting speaker observed that he'd passed a sign on the way in which declared that the city council was 'making things happen.'
He roundly declared that, 'it's not the city council that makes things happen, it's we, the people of God - we are the ones who make things happen!'
Great applause and 'Amens!' and so on.
I remember thinking at the time how this could possibly be the case. Were any of us involved with the council, with key positions in education, in the transport systems, in the way the city and region were run?
It was simply pietistic rhetoric.
Sure, Christians are involved in these sort of things, but alongside everyone else - and that's how it should be.
I remember reading an article in the Baptist newspaper/magazine by a minister who was involved with some kind of social initiative through his contacts in Churches Together. One day, a very left-wing member of the project turned to him and said, 'It's great that you are here and that you are involved, but what about your congregation? Where are they?'
He was abashed not to have an answer for that question.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The point is, that yes everyone is welcome in church and should find that the Christian faith encourages them out of their sin. And, that's as true for me and you as for the prostitute fighter pilot. The question is, is being a fighter pilot or prostitute a sin in itself? Undoubtedly the fighter pilot sins, but getting in the cockpit of her plane and carrying out her duty may not be among them. Who are you to say that it is?
You might be on to something here. The way Steve's version of anabaptism looks down on such is the same way the Pharisees looked down on the tax collectors.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is certainly part of the truth. But note, for instance, that it is one of the problems of 'Constantinianism' that it tends to end up with Christianity 'intertwined with a distinctive culture' and often to the detriment of Christianity.
LOL! like American anabaptism isn't intertwined with German culture?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What and the active prostitute (by whose charms I will not fail to be ravaged) in church doesn't in her activity?
Who are you to say she doesn't?
I'm not going to say she does or doesn't. That's a matter between her and her God.
Yes, the gospel call on all of us is "go, and sin no more". I've got more than enough on my hands to try, with the help of God, to do that myself without taking on the burden of telling someone else what their sins are.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Gamaliel - welcome back and monism rules.
There is only ONE thing. One narrative. One calling. In the Kingdom there is no calling to prostitution or being Caesar's wingman.
My calling today is to be kind to a pathologically lonely, unemployable, suicidal, smellily self-neglecting, desperate, inappropriately behaved, 54 year old neighbour who does pray - to die, for the miracle of cancer apart from the cancer of the inevitable village gossip he experiences for hanging around near schools. And I will be found wanting in being the Kingdom to him. There's no risk the nation will be.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
(Instead of a fighter pilot, I would have used the example of a drone operator.)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Well Sensei, you're telling me what mine are.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And I'd (me, me, me, me, me) already made that comparison way anadromously Ad Orientem.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My calling today is to be kind to a pathologically lonely, unemployable, suicidal, smellily self-neglecting, desperate, inappropriately behaved, 54 year old neighbour who does pray - to die, for the miracle of cancer apart from the cancer of the inevitable village gossip he experiences for hanging around near schools. And I will be found wanting in being the Kingdom to him. There's no risk the nation will be.
I would question whether all of that is a calling (notably suicide!).
Assuming for now that it is, I'm sure you'll be first in line in the Kingdom if Jesus' words are anything to go by (no irony intended).
But the fact is not everyone has that calling. And it's not up to you to judge others' place. That's up to their Master to do.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Meanwhile, I completely agree with Eutychus in that few people are engaging with Steve Langton over the 'religious state' or 'Christian country' issue because nobody here actually seems to be advocating such a thing - at least not in the way that Steve seems to assume them to be doing.
I'd again query 'nobody here' - there do in fact appear to be a few. And anyone (and there are more than a few Shipboard!) who belongs to a major national establishment like the Anglican Church must surely face the fact that they are in at least an ambivalent position on the matter.
As I said above, outside the Ship both Christian and other versions of the 'religious state', and people trying to set up varying degrees of such, are still a very current fact and indeed major international problem, and that fact needs a coherent Christian response for the benefit of Christianity and its relationship to the world.
Shouldn't we be willing to discuss that?
The debate about the fighter pilot is very interesting; but to my mind that particular decision is a long way 'downstream' from the fundamental questions I'm asking about the nature of the Church and its relationship to the world.
Ad Orientem;
Of course American Anabaptism shows many superficial signs of the German culture in which it originated - but it also has clear and non-superficial differences from that culture, precisely in this area of the relationship between church and world. They are currently a great deal more internationally minded than, say, the patriotic American 'Religious Right'.
Eutychus, I'll come back to the 'credo-baptism/paedobaptism' point. Unless I get too massively distracted by anything else that turns up here before I return to the Ship....
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Eutychus ... er, I'm not "Eugene".
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'd again query 'nobody here' - there do in fact appear to be a few. And anyone (and there are more than a few Shipboard!) who belongs to a major national establishment like the Anglican Church must surely face the fact that they are in at least an ambivalent position on the matter.
Yes, many of us are ambivalent - because being a member of the Anglican church confers far more responsibilities than it does rights. Disestablishment would rid of those responsibilities - for example, trying to maintain a presence in every community in the country, whether or not there's the money, people and resources to do so. A few seats in the House of Lords and the Queen as head of the church is pretty meaningless in that context.
As to who's a fervent supporter of your vision of what a Constantinian church is - name and shame. I don't think there's a single one.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus ... er, I'm not "Eugene".
My mistake.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Doc Tor - if I understand Steven Langton's world-view correctly, the very fact that someone is even involved or participates in the Church of England is sufficient to sully them with the taint of 'Constantinianism'.
For him it's insufficient for Anglicans (or other so-called 'Constantinian' Christians) to be involved with peace and justice initiatives, with service to the poor and needy and even the preaching of the Gospel as SL understands it - because the platform or position they are doing it from is irredeemably compromised as far as he's concerned.
It's similar to the 'come ye out from among them and be ye seperate' thing that used to be touted by - among others - the Plymouth Brethren, the Pentecostals and ... in a more 'contemporary' form by the restorationist 'new churches' of the 1970s and '80s.
Back in my restorationist days, I'd certainly have considered the CofE and other 'established' churches are seriously compromised.
I'd certainly agree that there are issues to be addressed around Disestablishment - but unlike SL, I'd see it as way down the list of priorities.
In all seriousness, it's not really that much of an issue - certainly not the big be all and end all issue which it has been portrayed as being here.
Does anyone seriously think that the commanders of ISIS wake up each morning thinking to themselves, 'Right, here we go, let's set out to enforce an Islamic Caliphate and we have a precedent for doing so because of the way Christendom behaved in the Middle Ages ...'?
If the CofE were Disestablished tomorrow, if the Queen ceased to be 'Supreme Governor' of the Church of England and 'Defender of the Faith' - or 'Defender of Faiths' as Prince Charles wants it to be - then does anyone seriously expect that to have a knock-on effect on people of other religions and how they regard and conduct their state/religion relationships?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If radical Islam is ever going to reform then it will do so via forces already at work within Islam itself.
Sure - there can be influences from outside - and that's been the case with Christianity too. Let's not forget - and Ad Orientem will like this - that the motivation for Iconoclasm in the Eastern Churches came from the observation that the Muslims were winning all the battles - and they didn't have images. Therefore, God must be opposed to the use of images - consequently if the Byzantines were to divest themselves of iconography then the Lord might once again favour their cause ...
Ok, that's a simplistic account and the reality was more nuanced - but essentially that's what it boiled down to.
I can certainly see Muslims being impressed if Christians pursued peace and the good of all rather than proselytising or become too embroiled/allied with Western interests and policy towards Israel and so on.
But I don't see how it would make that much difference to them if we all became Anabaptists.
I'm not knocking Anabaptism at all - I think it's got a lot to say.
As ever, it comes down to the way these things are lived out and expressed - and I keep coming back to Baxter's observation - that there are equal and opposite dangers of having - on the one hand - a concept of a whopping big One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from which others are excluded - and on the other a self-selecting, separatist and potentially exclusive 'gathered' community which sees itself as somehow purer than everybody else.
I've got to be honest - I've not seen anything in SL's arguments so far that has convinced me that it's possible to adopt an Anabaptist-ish approach without veering into some kind of subjective judgementalism.
To say, 'well, we've got an open Bible' doesn't solve the problem either. Whenever you have a Bible you have an interpretation. As soon as you have two people agreeing on an interpretation you have a tradition. As soon as a third person hives off from that interpretation you have a schism.
We can't simply open the Bible, proffer it and say, 'Look, look, there it is ... it says it in black and white.'
It's nowhere near as simple as that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Does anyone seriously think that the commanders of ISIS wake up each morning thinking to themselves, 'Right, here we go, let's set out to enforce an Islamic Caliphate and we have a precedent for doing so because of the way Christendom behaved in the Middle Ages ...'?
It may be a small point, but my understanding was that some Islamic terrorists do see the medieval Crusades as a critical time in their ongoing relationship with the West. That's why George Bush's offhand references to a 'crusade' against terrorism seemed ill-advised to some.
quote:
If the CofE were Disestablished tomorrow, if the Queen ceased to be 'Supreme Governor' of the Church of England and 'Defender of the Faith' - or 'Defender of Faiths' as Prince Charles wants it to be - then does anyone seriously expect that to have a knock-on effect on people of other religions and how they regard and conduct their state/religion relationships?
Yes, I do think it would at least create something of a stir among British people of various religions. I find it hard to imagine that thoughtful Muslims wouldn't stop to ponder what it meant for them and for the progress of Islam. However, I don't think it would encourage the most fundamentalist of them to drop the idea of a Caliphate.
Indeed, the main problem with formally abandoning Constantinianism in the West at the moment is that it would no doubt send a message to people of other religions that Christianity is on its knees. Islam is the main religious rival to Christianity in the world - and in some parts of the UK - and I'm sure that many British Muslims would see such a change as an opportunity for them. However, the functional collapse of British Christianity is going to create a form of Islamic dominance anyway. In a real if not an official sense we're already post-Constantinian.
[ 10. December 2014, 12:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course we are post-Constantinian, SvitlanaV2 ... we are in a post-Christendom era - even a post-Christian one ...
Yes, I am well aware of how many Muslims regard the crusades and how ill-considered Bush's comments were in that regard.
I'm not saying that there aren't parallels between medieval Christendom and the way that Caliphate-oriented Muslims think and behave.
I'm less convinced about the effects of Disestablishment though - and I speak as one who isn't particularly in favour of Establishment.
I think the Disestablishment of the CofE would cause far more ripples than the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland and the Church of Wales did.
The effects of such an eventuality on adherents of other faiths would be pretty mixed, I'd suggest. Some would welcome it, others would consider it something of a shame ... and I doubt whether there would be one, single, over-arching Muslim reaction any more than there'd be one, single, over-arching Hindu reaction or a Jewish one or whatever else.
I'm sure some Muslims would see it as an opportunity, whereas I'm sure others would be indifferent and still others might actually see it as something of a threat - potentially removing religion from the public sphere and so on.
Whatever the case, in post-Christendom we are all entering the realm of the 'gathered', 'intentional' community - that applies just as much to Anglicans, RCs and Orthodox as it does to Protestant non-conformists.
I don't have an issue with that - besides, it's the reality on the ground and I don't see any way to reverse the trend, if it were desirable in some way to do so.
I'm all for 'intentional' communities - provided they don't become inward-looking, sectarian and narrow in focus.
There's got to be some wiggle-room and nuance between the kind of authoritarian 'Constantinian' systems which SL rails against (and which haven't actually existed here in the UK for several hundred years but there we go ...) and the kind of po-faced, pietistic Puritanism and Pharisaisism that characterises some of the more full-on expressions of 'radical reform' ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Well, I feel it's a bit harder to be intentional if you've also got to worry about maintenance, structures, hierarchies, pensions, government grants, and what politicians might do about tax breaks and marriage, etc.!
As for po-faced sectarian Puritans, I suppose I don't know enough of them to get worried about what they do or don't do. But many of us wouldn't want too many people like that in public service anyway, so if they'd rather not get involved in running the country perhaps that's for the best.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But the whole thing only 'works' if it functions as a somewhat withdrawn or marginalised sect.
Once it does achieve some kind of critical mass - as we have seen among certain Hutterite and Amish communities - the results aren't always benign.
This is exactly my point, and SL has brushed it off repeatedly with "We can't tell until it happens, but everybody should kumbaya."
Which is a non-answer.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm wondering what SL would say to me once he finds out I'm standing for my local and borough council.
Is that wrong? Does that sully or compromise me in any way?
I'd say that's rather a long way down the list of concerns here.
List of your concerns, maybe. I'd say it concerns Gamaliel pretty immediately and directly. And it's just the sort of thing you are holding forth on, so saying "it's far down the list" is more than a little bit of a cop-out.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It sounds to me as though you believe in the "normative position", i.e. you think that Scripture provides definitive guidance on any and every situation we are likely to encounter, if only we look in it properly. I disagree.
Ditto. The Bible is not a manual for how to do Church, or how to do the Christian life. It's a record of the experiences of God's people, out of which we must glean ideas and concepts that will help us (=the Church) create more full-fledged ideas of how to do Church and how to do the Christian life.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Er, why would God - you know the Christian one known in Jesus - call anyone to be a fighter pilot?
Because they have lightning-fast reflexes and the ability to withstand huge g-forces, and they might find it enjoyable?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not so much suggesting that loads of others are actually fully supporting that (though there are a few who do seem to be supporting some version of it), rather that this is not something of the past that can be ignored; both its Christian and nonChristian forms need to be countered in the here and now, by a better Christian view, at least as far as those of us who are Christians are concerned.
Who on this thread has denied this? Give us links to posts.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Got me there mousethief.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Does anyone seriously think that the commanders of ISIS wake up each morning thinking to themselves, 'Right, here we go, let's set out to enforce an Islamic Caliphate and we have a precedent for doing so because of the way Christendom behaved in the Middle Ages ...'?
It may be a small point, but my understanding was that some Islamic terrorists do see the medieval Crusades as a critical time in their ongoing relationship with the West. That's why George Bush's offhand references to a 'crusade' against terrorism seemed ill-advised to some.
Yeah, but you are jumbling causality here. It may well be that some Islamic terrorists do the current war on terror as a continuum that starts with the Crusades (as a tangent I think they undoubtedly do - think of a very small thing like the symbolism of their staged executions having the victims invariably dressed in orange jump suits).
The specific claim though was that that Christendom provided an example to early muslims as to *how* the relationship between religion and state should be constructed. Which is a fairly hard claim to prove - and to which there is plenty of counter evidence.
[The model of; convert king, all of his followers convert or are put to the sword, dates back further than christendom].
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@SvitlanaV2 ... Ha ha .. nice one.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, I feel it's a bit harder to be intentional if you've also got to worry about maintenance, structures, hierarchies, pensions, government grants, and what politicians might do about tax breaks and marriage, etc.!
As for po-faced sectarian Puritans, I suppose I don't know enough of them to get worried about what they do or don't do. But many of us wouldn't want too many people like that in public service anyway, so if they'd rather not get involved in running the country perhaps that's for the best.
On the first point, as you'll well know from your own involvement with all the admin and so on that goes on with keeping Methodist churches on the road ... or not ... there's a whole load of tax and pension issues whether your church is Established or Dis-Established.
Sure, there're extra implications of course for 'this Church of England by law established' ... but unless we all embrace South Coast Kevin's vision of all meeting in Starbuck's with our mates ... then any form of 'organised' church is going to have to deal with all those issues.
Where is South Coast Kevin by the way? I'm missing him ...
As for the non-involvement of po-faced, pietistic, Pharisaical Puritans in running things ... well, yes, that's a point well made.
However, could it equally be the case that if po-faced, pietistic, Pharisaical Puritanical separatists did actually get involved in the way things are done and the way societies are run - rather than hiving off into holy huddles in the Hutterite sense - they might actually realise how complicated these things are and that flinging proof-texts at issues isn't the way to get them resolved ...
I hasten to add, that I don't think that Anabaptists are necessarily po-faced, pietistic or Puritanical ... but those tendencies are factors they have to be aware of.
Given their emphasis on peace, social justice and so on, I'd want to see more Anabaptists involved in these issues - not less.
At the risk of sounding curmugeonly, I'm suggesting that they are actually doing themselves - and the rest of us - a disservice by not getting involved with these things.
I'm with Eutychus on this one, we need more Christians 'out there' and involved with things - be it politics, social issues, the arts, culture etc etc.
Sitting in the sidelines and chelping (Yorkshire expression) about the evils of 'Constantinianism' isn't doing anyone any good - it's not helping anyone, least of all the Anabaptists themselves.
All that said, given the choice between an Anabaptist and an unreconstructed right-wing US Republican style Christian fundamentalist (and unfortunately there are RC and Orthodox versions of those as well as evangelical ones) then I know which I'd prefer.
Bring the Anabaptists on. We need them. What we don't need, though, is them carping and complaining from the sidelines.
We need them to get stuck in and get their hands dirty.
If they're already doing that, then great.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye, where is he?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I was wondering about SCK too. Maybe he's wisely focusing on finishing off his Master's.
As for how much we 'need' Christians in politics, I'm not so sure. Politicians are such compromised people that they never really satisfy anyone. We end up with 'politicians who happen to be Christians' rather than 'Christian politicans', because it's almost impossible to be distinctively Christian if you have to serve the public in a secular and pluralistic society. The main reason for having Christian politicians is simply so that the political world can be represent the real world, of which Christians are a part. We equally need Muslim politicians, atheist politicians, working class politicians, etc. But Christians in other walks of life are more interesting.
Going back to Disestablishment, my feeling is that change wouldn't necessarily arise as a result of masses of people all responding in the same way. Sometimes a small group of people can have a large historical impact. If only 5% of British Muslims decided to take deliberate advantage of Disestablishment in some organised way that could be of significant importance - particularly in cities and areas where Muslims are a large and fast growing part of the population.
I must say, though, the methodical (Methodist?) side of me can't see the logic in having a 'post-Christian' country yet retaining a state church. It's not an urgent matter, but at some point it'll be too embarrassing to delay any longer. And the people dealing with it won't be Anabaptists (or Methodists).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not singling politics out over and against any other form of engagement with civil society ...
I'd list it alongside other aspects - the arts, community work, sport ... all sorts of things.
There's nothing 'magic' about having Christians involved in any of these things - but these are the spheres where we should - I believe - attempt to live out our Christian principles and faith.
Otherwise we are invisible in our holy huddles.
I'm more interested in other aspects of life than 'politics' but that's where the decisions are made and an arena where we can surely make some kind of difference - or at least attempt to do so.
I don't quite see how your putative 5% of Muslims could somehow 'take advantage' of Anglican Disestablishment.
In what way could they do that?
By replacing the CofE as the Established Church with Islam as the 'official' religion?
As for the 'embarrassment' of having a state church in a post-Christian country ...
In what way is that 'embarrassing'? And why is Disestablishment such an issue to someone who isn't even Anglican?
It's not as if the CofE in any way disenfranchises or militates against Methodists, Anabaptists or anyone else for that matter.
I've been involved in restorationist churches, Baptist churches and Anglican churches and I can't see how Establishment makes any day-to-day difference to way these churches conduct themselves - either from the outside or the inside.
The whole thing is a complete red herring.
There are certainly issues with Establishment - but I don't see how it any way affects how Methodists or Baptists conduct themselves - unless it's by way of pointing at the evils of Establishment to differentiate themselves in some way.
I'm quite prepared to accept the testimony of those Baptist ministers here - and others - who've been treated arse-ily by Anglican clergy from time to time. I'm quite sure that can and does happen.
The Orthodox were pretty pissed off recently when the CofE didn't consult them when issuing a statement about something or other - on the grounds that they were an 'ethnic' church. They didn't consult the Pentecostals either - which was equally remiss of them.
But having been involved with both Free Churches and the 'state' church I don't see a great deal of substantive difference when it comes to how any of these churches interact with the world around them ... save that Anglican churches tend to have more of a fringe and a hinterland, that Methodist and Baptist churches tend to have less of that but do have a fringe and hinterland and that the more 'radical' house-churches (and probably Anabaptist churches too) have hardly any fringe or hinterland whatsoever.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gamaliel
If we're living in a post-Christian country then we're already more or less 'invisible in our holy huddles', regardless of how much fuss we make. No one else really cares what we do. But I do agree with you that we should all do what we feel called to do in caring for others.
No, I wasn't thinking of Islam officially replacing the CofE. I was thinking more of a propaganda win for those Muslims who would see Disestablishment as a sign of Christian retreat. In areas where Muslims predominate and where interfaith relationships are shaky I do imagine some Muslims would play on that. This is a more realistic and interesting possibility in my area than yours, though.
quote:
As for the 'embarrassment' of having a state church in a post-Christian country ...
In what way is that 'embarrassing'? And why is Disestablishment such an issue to someone who isn't even Anglican?
Establishment may become embarrassing as a result of ongoing demographic changes and projections. IMO our political system should reflect the society it represents.
As for your second comment, I find it baffling. As you know, I now mostly attend a CofE church. You mostly don't, so you've told me. But in any case, are you saying that the CofE should be of no relevance to anyone who has a stake in any other church? I don't get it. If the CofE wants to be ignored by 'outsiders' then Disestablishment would be the perfect way to achieve that...!
I can see that Disestablishment may be a 'red herring' in the sense that it would distract the nation's practising Christians from their current frantic churchy busyness. However, I expect that when the time comes it'll be planned and pushed through by political agents who are mostly not Christians, along with a few CofE reps. This is what I meant when I said that Anabaptists and Methodists wouldn't be involved. Biblical arguments and the sensitivities of smaller Christian groups are likely to have nothing to do with it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Politicians are such compromised people that they never really satisfy anyone. We end up with 'politicians who happen to be Christians' rather than 'Christian politicans', because it's almost impossible to be distinctively Christian if you have to serve the public in a secular and pluralistic society.
In a democracy, politicians elected to represent their constituency are always going to be in a difficult position when they're rarely elected by more than 50% of votes cast (and, that can still be a minority of the electorate with low turn outs). They should represent everyone, including those who voted for another candidate. It's a very difficult job to do well, and far too many people get elected into office who fail too do so.
In the UK, at least, I'm not sure anyone has ever successfully stood on a "I'm a Christian, and Christians should vote for me because we share the same faith" platform. On the one occasion I was living in a constituency with a (sitting) MP seeking election who appealed directly to Christians he did so on the basis of his support for a policy he considered to be "Christian" (about which there isn't actually a Christian consensus anyway) rather than a specific "I'm a Christian, vote for me".
Although our faith should inform our politics, there's no way in which "love your neighbour" can't result in views on politics, people stand for election based on their political rather than religious views. And, the same faith can result in people adopting quite different political positions.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
In the UK, at least, I'm not sure anyone has ever successfully stood on a "I'm a Christian, and Christians should vote for me because we share the same faith" platform. On the one occasion I was living in a constituency with a (sitting) MP seeking election who appealed directly to Christians he did so on the basis of his support for a policy he considered to be "Christian" (about which there isn't actually a Christian consensus anyway) rather than a specific "I'm a Christian, vote for me".
In 1997 the Conservative PPC for Exeter, Dr. Adrian Rogers, ran on a Christian Conservative platform, specifically objecting to the sexual orientation of the Labour Candidate, Ben Bradshaw whom he referred to in campaign literature as, among other things 'bent Ben'. The seat was notionally a marginal but had been held for the Tories by the much respected Sir John Hannam since Adam was in short trousers. Mr Bradshaw won the seat (and has held it ever since) by a thumping majority. Admittedly, this was 1997 when Cecil Parkinson joked, upon the election of a second Tory MP, that he was relieved that there would be a contested leadership election, but the swing to Labour nationally was 8.8% whilst the swing to Mr Bradshaw was 11.3%. Apart from my birth, and introducing association football to Brazil it was the finest moment in Exeter's history!
On the other hand much was made by Nicola Blackwood (Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate in 2010 and worshipper at St. Aldate's), among others, of Dr Evan Harris' secularism and support for abortion and euthanasia when she won the seat of Oxford West and Abingdon in 2010. Miss Blackwood got a 6.9% swing against the Liberal Democrats, whereas nationally there was a 1% swing in favour of the Liberal Democrats. Boundary changes would have indicated that Dr. Harris' majority should have been reduced but ordinarily he would have been expected to hang on comfortably.
[irony] Clearly, if Dr. Harris wishes to return to the Commons he should take his chances with the metropolitian sophisticates of the West Country and avoid provincial towns full of superstitious country bumpkins. Arrr! [/irony]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What Alan Cresswell said.
Our local MP is a Christian and sometimes plays the 'Christian card' but by and large most Christians - of all parties - involved in politics don't use it as the over-riding 'badge' for what they stand for ... it's part of who they are and what informs their values.
As for the possibility of some Muslims crowing about the apparent demise of Christianity if the CofE were Disestablished then I don't doubt that would happen.
So what if it does?
There are bigger things to worry about than that.
And yes, of course there'd be more likelihood of some kind of Muslim reaction where you are than where I live. Again, so what? Is the Pope a Catholic? I don't live in an inner city multi-ethnic area now but I have in the past so it's not as if I've never been exposed to life in inner city areas.
I'm not some kind of country squire or lord of the manor or whatever it is you appear to take me for.
The Disestablishment of the CofE may well happen in the fullness of time - no-one is saying that the current arrangement is set in tablets of stone.
As far as my church affiliation goes, I'm involved with my local Anglican parish church but don't attend that often - maybe twice a month, sometimes three times. I 'do the prayers' at the 9am service about once a month/every six weeks and my wife plays the organ there once a month or so and also sings on high days and holidays with the choir in a rural parish to the north of here.
I've been going along more often recently as my mum-in-law is doddery and has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's so needs some to take her and to find the hymns and readings for her.
I don't pretend to understand all the inner workings and ins and outs of the CofE - I don't know anyone who does - but I'm been involved sufficiently to draw comparisons with the way things are done in other churches - such as the Baptists and the various 'new church' streams.
I've also had plenty of exposure to Methodists, Pentecostals, Orthodox and others.
Coming back to the Muslim thing ... a lot of Muslims see Christianity as being in retreat anyway, CofE Disestablishment would only reinforce that view for them.
That doesn't mean that we should 'cling on' to Establishment simply in an attempt to convince them otherwise, of course.
But again - I've gone from a position of being stridently anti-Establishment (ie. in church/state terms) and even stridently anti the 'traditional churches' - in a similar vein to Steve Langton - to a position where I'm pretty agnostic on the issue.
Why's that? Because I've sold out? Or is it because I've been around the block a few times and seen almost every kind of church and Christian expression there is and no longer hold that there is any kind of 'magic bullet' solution - be it Anabaptist, Quaker, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic or anything else.
On the issue of 'church busyness' - yes, there's a lot of that but from what I can see that applies equally - if not more so - to non-conformist set-ups than it does to Anglican ones.
I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to drum up support for arty and community initiatives around here only to be told by evangelicals and Pentecostals that they are unable to attend or support whatever-it-is because it clashes with their house-group night or whatever else it is.
I'm not saying that they're wrong to do those things - but some of these people don't seem to have any 'life' outside their own congregations.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Svitlana2;
quote:
However, I expect that when the time comes it (disestablishment)'ll be planned and pushed through by political agents who are mostly not Christians, along with a few CofE reps. This is what I meant when I said that Anabaptists and Methodists wouldn't be involved. Biblical arguments and the sensitivities of smaller Christian groups are likely to have nothing to do with it.
Isn't it rather a sad comment on the CofE that Biblical arguments ... are likely to have nothing to do with such a major decision?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Svitlana2;
quote:
However, I expect that when the time comes it (disestablishment)'ll be planned and pushed through by political agents who are mostly not Christians, along with a few CofE reps. This is what I meant when I said that Anabaptists and Methodists wouldn't be involved. Biblical arguments and the sensitivities of smaller Christian groups are likely to have nothing to do with it.
Isn't it rather a sad comment on the CofE that Biblical arguments ... are likely to have nothing to do with such a major decision?
It was clear that Svitlana thinks that the decision about disestablishment will come from Parliament not the Church, and be the result of political decisions made by mostly non-Christian politicians and pressure groups. Why should Biblical arguments be part of their considerations?
Of course, if the pressure for dis-establishment was coming from the Church then Biblical arguments would form a strong part of that re-assessment of the relationship between Church and State.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It could be argued, of course, that it's a sad comment on the CofE that it's allowed itself to become embroiled with the State to the extent to which decisions of this kind are likely to be made by politicians and Parliamentarians with no particular 'stake' in the life of the church ...
But it's a very broad-brush accusation - and one I come across from fundamentalists of all stripes - that the CofE and other historical churches are somehow less 'biblical' than separatist or 'non-conformist' churches.
There's a kind of 'all churches are biblical but some are more biblical than others' assumption going on.
Where to 'be biblical' is shorthand for 'agreeing with my particular interpretation of scripture.'
This is the aspect that is so often left out of the equation. Many of those who shout loudest about the necessity of 'being biblical' often appear unaware that their 'take' on scripture is as much of an interpretation as anyone else's.
As if all they have to do is open the pages and the Bible 'speaks for itself' without any qualification or context.
Of course biblical arguments come into it - but it's not as if the CofE (or anyone else) is ignoring the Bible or deferring to 'traditions of men' and so on whereas these nice, lovely, squeaky-clean 'gathered' churches are going completely and utterly 'by the book' ...
The Disestablishment of the CofE may well happen one day. Until that time we have to work with what we've got. The are both difficulties and opportunities.
I often use the expression, 'Work with the difficulty'. I got it from an interview I saw on the telly with the actor Michael Caine.
He described how, during his years in rep' - he'd been impressed by an old-hand actor who had accidentally tripped over a chair on-stage. The old-hand improvised some dialogue around it and the audience were none the wiser that the incident hadn't been scripted as part of the play.
When Caine complimented the actor on his dexterity afterwards, the old guy said to him, 'You see, you have to work with the difficulty ...'
There are difficulties with Establishment, certainly. There are also some benefits and opportunities.
Whilst it's there then the CofE should work 'with the difficulties' and barriers it puts up and also with the opportunities it affords.
As and when Disestablishment comes then they'll have to learn to work with that.
It's the same with everything else. There are difficulties and opportunities with the Anabaptist position too ... and it's up to Anabaptists to work within the constraints and opportunities of their own particular system.
There are swings and roundabouts, pros and cons.
It's the same with everything in life. If you take up one job you lose the opportunity of another, different job. If you marry one partner you lose any opportunity - for better or worse - that you have with an alternative partner ...
Life's full of compromises and opportunities. That's what makes it so rich and varied.
I didn't want to be made redundant in 2010 but that's what happened. I've learned to work with both the difficulties and opportunities of that ...
If I go to this, that or the other church, I lose whatever opportunities there might be somewhere else. If I become a Roman Catholic I gain whatever the RCs have to offer but lose what the Anglicans, Baptists or other Protestants have to offer instead.
If I become an Anabaptist I gain whatever is good in Anabaptist circles and lose whatever it is I might not like elsewhere - but also I take on the difficulties that are inherent or particular within Anabaptism.
Same if I became an Anglican from a non-Anglican background or whatever else.
That might sound like a somewhat relativistic and subjective position - but so is one that says, 'Look, this is how I interpret scripture and you've all got to agree with me because here it is in black and white ...'
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Yes, disestablishment is going to come from Parliament, SL. That means mostly from non-Christians. Biblical arguments are not going to be part of it, and indeed, why should it? The reason disestablishment probably won't happen is that it just takes a shitload of time and money MPs don't really want to spend on something nobody cares about and isn't a vote-winner.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I would like to return to my question about baptism, Steve, specifically yours.
Would you mind telling us whether you were baptised as an infant and if so, whether your current church (or yourself) considers that baptism as valid today?
I think this question cuts to the chase as far as how you, personally, situate yourself with regard to 'state churches', and how your current church situates itself.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Also worth pointing out that plenty of 'Constantinian' churches have adult baptism. I was baptised as an adult in the Anglican church (and weirdly enough in the kind of churches I attend now where infant baptism is the norm, they don't consider that to be a lesser kind of baptism). There's an RC church in my parish with a baptismal pool.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Svitlana2;
quote:
However, I expect that when the time comes it (disestablishment)'ll be planned and pushed through by political agents who are mostly not Christians, along with a few CofE reps. This is what I meant when I said that Anabaptists and Methodists wouldn't be involved. Biblical arguments and the sensitivities of smaller Christian groups are likely to have nothing to do with it.
Isn't it rather a sad comment on the CofE that Biblical arguments ... are likely to have nothing to do with such a major decision?
The crisis, when it comes, will either be when a popular monarch or aspirant monarch feels that they can no longer hold the office of Supreme Governor or when the number of people who have some affinity with the C of E drops below a critical threshold and the number who are actively hostile rises above a critical threshold. At which point, as Alan so wisely points out, it's unlikely that appeal to the authority of scripture has much purchase.
I think it is this, which is actually the issue at stake at this thread. You have consistently put up a conflict between Anabaptism and what you call Constantinism but which, I think, was best set out by the young Gladstone, before he saw the light and became the People's William, and which was comprehensively demolished in a review by Macaulay, which you ought to read should you be able to lay hands on a copy. Now given a choice between the young Gladstone and your position most of us would probably agree with you. Given a choice between the rising hope of the stern and unbending Tories and the stern and unbending Steve Langton, I'll go with the stern and unbending Steve. But those aren't the only options on the table. Partly because we disagree in whole or in part with the pragmatic working out of Anabaptist theory (agnosticism about voting but not paying taxes is a fairly masochistic state of affairs). But mostly because pretty much everyone else on this thread thinks that there aren't some Platonic principles of the relationship of Church and State, set forth with exactitude in the New Testament, that we must first establish and from whence all else will flow.
What we think, if I may temporarily promote myself to the position of Pope of Neo-Constantinian Orthodoxy, is that these things are largely prudential and pragmatic choices and that scripture will inform these choices but does not set out an unending and eternal model for the relationship between Church and state. Personally, I think the C of E does more good then harm but am not greatly invested in estalishment much, one way or the other. For my daughters generation fidelity to the Kingdom of God might involve disestablishing the Church forthwith or dying in a ditch to prevent its disestablishment. Who can predict that sort of thing? Better leave it to them to work that out than claim to have established a set of principles which will act as a key to their decision making.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Also worth pointing out that plenty of 'Constantinian' churches have adult baptism. I was baptised as an adult in the Anglican church (and weirdly enough in the kind of churches I attend now where infant baptism is the norm, they don't consider that to be a lesser kind of baptism). There's an RC church in my parish with a baptismal pool.
The fact that 'Constantinian' churches may baptise adults is tangential to my point, which comes at the issue from the other end, so to speak.
My point is that diehard Anabaptists (i.e. "rebaptisers", a term originally ascribed to them by their opponents) will not recognise infant baptism, representing as it does the position of a multitudinist church of "confessing" rather than "professing" members.
Since Steve Langton claims to come from an Anglican background and is currently championing the "membership of the committed" Anabaptist model, I'm curious as to his baptismal status and what his new-found Anabaptist friends make of it.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My point is that diehard Anabaptists (i.e. "rebaptisers", a term originally ascribed to them by their opponents) will not recognise infant baptism
.. but then so would most Pentecostals, a significant amount of whom would also buy into varying types of involvement/interference by the church in the state (as I'm sure you are aware given your church background).
So the categories overlap with divisions.
[ 11. December 2014, 11:57: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
What Callan said. There are hundreds of things I want the CoE to sort out before it even has a conversation on establishment. To view disestablishment as some kind of panacea is just odd. How would disestablishment make the CoE view those who differ on Dead Horse issues as human beings, for a start?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Overlapping categories aside, my assumption is that Steve Langton and his particular anabaptist tribe of choice would conceive of multitudinist churches as a subset of his 'Constantinian' churches.
Which is why I'm interested in his personal baptismal history and how he and his anabaptist friends view it now.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Steve Langton can speak for himself and I'm too bone idle to go searching for links, but I think he has made it clear on these boards at one time or other that he is opposed to infant baptism and considers it invalid.
My guess would be that he was christened (or baptised) in the CofE as an infant then rebaptised (or baptised) later on when he became involved in Baptist or Anabaptist circles.
That was my particular route - I was baptised as an infant in the Church in Wales (Anglican) and then baptised by full immersion as a believer in an independent charismatic evangelical setting ... in the Thames at Richmond as it happens, during a visit to a friend's charismatic church that used to exist in that part of London.
I suspect that would be the position for most former Anglicans who have moved to a 'baptistic' or Anabaptist position.
It was certainly the case for people from paedobaptist backgrounds - whether Anglican, Methodist or Congregationalist etc who found themselves involved in the restorationist ambit in the 1980s ...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
He's just one more of 'them' - like our Roman and Greek sibren - that 'we' have to include as they exclude 'us'.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Callan
quote:
(agnosticism about voting but not paying taxes is a fairly masochistic state of affairs)
I'm not clear from your wording whether you're thinking Anabaptists pay taxes or not. The general Anabaptist position has been to pay taxes because Romans 13 requires it, which rather precludes agnosticism on the point. Of course in the past most Anabaptists wouldn't be paying a lot of tax anyway....
Agnosticism about voting is something still under discussion for many Anabaptists because obviously for a long time they were marginalised anyway, not entirely of choice, and only comparatively recently have been reconsidering whether modern plural democracies are different enough to older styles of state that such greater engagement might be acceptable. This general change has also brought in people like myself and we're looking at the issue rather from the other end.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
My point was that in a democracy you hand over money to the government but if you don't vote you have no say as to whether it is spent on schoolsn'hospitals or weapons of mass destruction.
Which, if your tradition commits you to a definite preference is, as I said, somewhat masochistic.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course in the past most Anabaptists wouldn't be paying a lot of tax anyway....
Agnosticism about voting is something still under discussion for many Anabaptists because obviously for a long time they were marginalised anyway
This kind of goes to show how your particular take on anabaptism only really works when you are marginalised and have no decision to take. Anabaptists have been free to vote in most of Europe for a good 100 years or so. (A bit less history of voting rights for female anabaptists). And not really a marginalised community in any real sense in the UK for quite a while either.
Yet you talk as if you're part of a bitterly persecuted community, denied welfare and work and unsure what to make of the recent offer to vote.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Pomona;
quote:
Yes, disestablishment is going to come from Parliament, SL. That means mostly from non-Christians. Biblical arguments are not going to be part of it, and indeed, why should it? The reason disestablishment probably won't happen is that it just takes a shitload of time and money MPs don't really want to spend on something nobody cares about and isn't a vote-winner.
And it doesn't occur to you that there is something just a little odd in that situation? Something a long way removed from how the Church is supposed to be according to the NT?
"Biblical arguments are not going to be part of it, and indeed, why should it?" The Church, Pomona, is answerable to God, not to a secular Parliament that tells the Church what to do. You're making my case....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mdijon;
quote:
This kind of goes to show how your particular take on anabaptism only really works when you are marginalised and have no decision to take. Anabaptists have been free to vote in most of Europe for a good 100 years or so. (A bit less history of voting rights for female anabaptists). And not really a marginalised community in any real sense in the UK for quite a while either.
Yet you talk as if you're part of a bitterly persecuted community, denied welfare and work and unsure what to make of the recent offer to vote.
You exaggerate and I'm not impressed. At a time of real lethal persecution some Anabaptists got into and/or were pushed into a bad situation - they're now coming very much out of it and working out the limits. That's all. Others who do not come from those 'cradle Anabaptist' communities are looking again at things we may have taken too much for granted in the past and we may be a little sceptical of things like voting and looking for other ways to 'do God' in the surrounding world besides the merely political.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course there's something 'odd' about the position of the CofE in terms of Establishment.
No-one is saying that it isn't odd and that there aren't anomalies. It's a bit like the old gag about the bloke asking for directions in Ireland only to be told by an old codger, 'Well, I wouldn't start from here, sor ...'
We are where we are through the vicissitudes of history and so on.
If there were a groundswell of opinion within the CofE in favour of Disestablishment then the CofE would go for it ... there isn't, so they aren't.
Whether it's 'odd' or not then it's inevitably going to be something that politicians will decide because of the nature of the relationship between the CofE and the state.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, it'll take some disentangling. Which is probably why there isn't a great deal of appetite for it at the moment.
We are where we are and we have to make the most of that ... whether you like it or not.
There are 'odd' things all ways round ... some Anabaptists are 'odd'.
You seem only too willing to criticise the quirks and oddities of everyone else's tradition but when ever anyone points out an anomaly or vicissitude of history you then blame everyone else for that.
'Anabaptists can be insular' - 'That's because the Constantinians persecuted us and made us so ...'
That might very well be the case, but you don't seem prepared to extend the same level of consideration to anyone else.
If you said, 'Doesn't that sound odd, that politicians are going to have to sort out the issue of Anglican Establishment/Disestablishment' and I replied, 'Yes, it is odd but it's a legacy and vicissitude of history and we have to live with that for the time being ...' you would probably accuse me of making excuses.
I'm happy to accept that there are historical and cultural reasons for the Anabaptists to have been as insular as they have sometimes been in the past - and happy to accept that most modern Anabaptists have emerged from that stage in their development.
You don't appear to offer the same level of consideration to Anglicans or those of other traditions which have been rather more Erastian in the past.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In short ...
quote:
You exaggerate and I'm not impressed.
Two can play at that game.
More seriously, I've been involved with churches on both sides of this debate and there can be exaggerations on both sides.
The 'established' and historic churches can sometimes exaggerate the insularity and exclusivity of the more 'gathered' communities.
Of course they can.
Equally, the more pietistic or 'gathered' communities can exaggerate the apparent worldliness and levels of compromise they perceive their to be among the historic churches.
It's a bit like the second and third generations of Methodists after the split with the Anglicans who tended to exaggerate the parlous state of the CofE in order to justify their schism.
Sure, the CofE was in a parlous state in many places in the 18th century - but it wasn't all bad.
We've all come across people in evangelical settings who have tended to exaggerate the sinfulness and depravity of their pre-conversion state.
That doesn't mean that everyone who claims a conversion experience is exaggerating.
Some here may consider that you are exaggerating the nefarious effects of Anglican Establishment - as it is currently expressed. That doesn't mean that there aren't issues and anomalies that need to be addressed.
[your code is not of this world]
[ 11. December 2014, 17:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You exaggerate and I'm not impressed. At a time of real lethal persecution some Anabaptists got into and/or were pushed into a bad situation - they're now coming very much out of it and working out the limits.
If I exaggerate when do you date the end of Anabaptist persecution?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At a time of real lethal persecution some Anabaptists got into and/or were pushed into a bad situation - they're now coming very much out of it and working out the limits. That's all. Others who do not come from those 'cradle Anabaptist' communities are looking again at things we may have taken too much for granted in the past
Once again your elastic and imprecise definitions are proving to be of value in your assertions.
I would like to know (in addition to your view/experience of the baptism issue) which particular "Anabaptist" communities in the UK you are referring to and championing.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Biblical arguments are not going to be part of it, and indeed, why should it?" The Church, Pomona, is answerable to God, not to a secular Parliament that tells the Church what to do. You're making my case....
In principal, yes Parliament can tell the Church of England what to do (though, there would be a major Constitutional ruckus if that happened - quite likely leading to the CofE dis-establishing itself). It's also, in Principal, possible for the CofE to tell Parliament what to do (with an even bigger Constitutional ruckus - quite likely leading to Parliament breaking the established role). But, it's not going to happen in all but the most remarkable circumstances. It's a bit like the theoretical power Her Majesty has to over-rule Parliament - it's there but will never be used.
The question of dis-establishment is slightly different, because it doesn't relate to what the Church does or what it believes, just how it relates to the State. You can think of marriage as a metaphor, if you like, though in this case it would need to be a marriage where both partners agree not to tell the other what to do. Either partner can walk out of the marriage and seek divorce for whatever reasons they have, the other partner doesn't have to accept those reasons or accept the validity of the basis of those reasons. So, the CofE can seek dis-establishment on the grounds of a revision of it's Biblically based theology without Parliament needing to accept the Bible as a valid authority for the formulation of theology for Church-State relationships. Parliament can seek dis-establishment on the grounds of an entirely secular philosophy without the Church needing to accept that philosophy. But, while both are not too unhappy about what the other chooses to do neither party is going to end the marriage.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Pomona;
quote:
Yes, disestablishment is going to come from Parliament, SL. That means mostly from non-Christians. Biblical arguments are not going to be part of it, and indeed, why should it? The reason disestablishment probably won't happen is that it just takes a shitload of time and money MPs don't really want to spend on something nobody cares about and isn't a vote-winner.
And it doesn't occur to you that there is something just a little odd in that situation? Something a long way removed from how the Church is supposed to be according to the NT?
"Biblical arguments are not going to be part of it, and indeed, why should it?" The Church, Pomona, is answerable to God, not to a secular Parliament that tells the Church what to do. You're making my case....
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
As has been pointed out ad nauseum, this is your own particular view of the NT. Not any kind of universal view.
And you do know how Parliament works, right? The Church is answerable to a secular Parliament and I wouldn't have it any other way. I'd want mosques and synagogues in this country to be answerable to a secular Parliament too. You may think that having a theocracy is a good thing, I don't. That doesn't make me less of a Christian.
And please quit it with the condescension.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
The Church is answerable to a secular Parliament and I wouldn't have it any other way. I'd want mosques and synagogues in this country to be answerable to a secular Parliament too. You may think that having a theocracy is a good thing, I don't.
If I've understood the Anabaptist position correctly, I think SL would agree with you.
Christians live in particular geographically defined nations, we have no choice about that. Those nations have governments (a secular parliament or totalitarian state makes no difference) that enact and enforce laws. Christians living in those nations should obey those laws, pay the taxes set by the government etc.
Where Anabaptists would (if I've understood correctly) diverge from my views is that they would say Christians should have no part in the government - we shouldn't stand for political office, we shouldn't vote, we shouldn't lobby Parliament or write to our MPs, we shouldn't protest against decisions of the government that we disagree with. I would say that, as Christians, our calling to love our neighbour as ourselves compels us to do all of the above.
In addition to that, Anabaptists would consider a theocracy a very bad thing. Which I would agree with.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
One rule for the Anabaptists, another for everyone else.
We are expected to bear with the Anabaptists as they emerge from persecution that ended what ... three hundred years ago? (More recently in other parts of the world)
Yet we are not expected to bear with the Anglicans as they emerge from an Erastianism that reached its height about 300 or 350/400 years ago.
Funny that ...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Pomona;
In a sense, of course, you are right - Paul in Romans 13 tells us that as Christians we must be 'subject to the authorities'; But our bottom line must still be "We must obey God rather than men". I'm dealing with the question how we make BOTH SIDES OF THAT work - and Anglican establishment is clearly NOT the way to do it.
Here's a story; it's from the Bible, Acts ch 4. This is the early Church at prayer - and it's not wanting or expecting an establishment; but it does believe in a theocracy... it believes that God is in charge and at work. Who needs a mere political establishment?
quote:
(They) unitedly raised their voice to God and said; "Sovereign Lord, who hast made the heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them, and who through the Holy Spirit said by the lips of our forefather David thy servant, 'Why do the Gentiles rage and the people devise vain things? The kings of the earth got ready and the rulers mustered themselves against the Lord and His Anointed -' for they have actually gathered in this city against Thy holy Servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint - Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the tribes of Israel, ALL DOING WHAT THY HAND AND THY PURPOSE PREORDAINED TO TAKE PLACE. And now, Lord, notice their threats and endow Thy Servants with fearlessness to speak Thy Word...."
I Peter also says quite a bit about this stuff....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Adding to my list of outstanding questions...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But our bottom line must still be "We must obey God rather than men".
Why do you think this quotation is a commandment?
Do you accept that in some circumstances it might be possible to obey both God and man?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Pomona;
In a sense, of course, you are right - Paul in Romans 13 tells us that as Christians we must be 'subject to the authorities'; But our bottom line must still be "We must obey God rather than men". I'm dealing with the question how we make BOTH SIDES OF THAT work - and Anglican establishment is clearly NOT the way to do it.
Here's a story; it's from the Bible, Acts ch 4. This is the early Church at prayer - and it's not wanting or expecting an establishment; but it does believe in a theocracy... it believes that God is in charge and at work. Who needs a mere political establishment?
quote:
(They) unitedly raised their voice to God and said; "Sovereign Lord, who hast made the heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them, and who through the Holy Spirit said by the lips of our forefather David thy servant, 'Why do the Gentiles rage and the people devise vain things? The kings of the earth got ready and the rulers mustered themselves against the Lord and His Anointed -' for they have actually gathered in this city against Thy holy Servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint - Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the tribes of Israel, ALL DOING WHAT THY HAND AND THY PURPOSE PREORDAINED TO TAKE PLACE. And now, Lord, notice their threats and endow Thy Servants with fearlessness to speak Thy Word...."
I Peter also says quite a bit about this stuff....
But why are you talking to me as if I want an Established church?
Also I honestly don't see what that passage has to do with the CoE, it's not like politicians are using it to attack other churches, or that members of the CoE aren't real Christians. The modern situation is far more complicated than the 1st century AD situation so I don't think it's possible to just go from the NT.
I've said many times that I'd be happier if the CoE was disestablished, but that's not a choice I get to make. It's not even a decision the church gets to make. Yes, obviously that's an odd situation but talking about how wrong the CoE is does not exactly do much to change it! What's done is done, the CoE is Established, so now even if the church votes to disestablish, it would be Parliament's decision ultimately. And unfortunately it would take a lot of time and money so is not all that likely.
What I don't get is how disestablishment would change very much. It would surely just seem like a token gesture? I mean it's not like the actual day-to-day activities of the CoE would change at all. It wouldn't suddenly make it credobaptist or more like the Anabaptists in any way, so I don't understand why you care so much about a church you're not a member of and that has nothing to do with you. It's ultimately not really your business.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Pomona;
In a sense, of course, you are right - Paul in Romans 13 tells us that as Christians we must be 'subject to the authorities'; But our bottom line must still be "We must obey God rather than men". I'm dealing with the question how we make BOTH SIDES OF THAT work - and Anglican establishment is clearly NOT the way to do it.
Steve,
I am only a bystander in this discussion, but I think that I have to question your last statement.
You have, in no way, justified your rather sweeping claim that "Anglican establishment is clearly NOT the way to do it" (ie - obey God rather than men).
You really appear to be working from a concept of establishment that is utterly erroneous. Can you be more specific about how establishment forces the Church of England to "obey men rather than God"?
As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the C of E (as well as being in Baptist and Restorationist churches), I am really struggling to come up with a single significant example of where "man" had to be obeyed in direction opposition to "God".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've gone from a position of being stridently anti-Establishment (ie. in church/state terms) and even stridently anti the 'traditional churches' - in a similar vein to Steve Langton - to a position where I'm pretty agnostic on the issue.
Why's that? Because I've sold out? Or is it because I've been around the block a few times and seen almost every kind of church and Christian expression there is and no longer hold that there is any kind of 'magic bullet' solution - be it Anabaptist, Quaker, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic or anything else.
[...]
I don't live in an inner city multi-ethnic area now but I have in the past so it's not as if I've never been exposed to life in inner city areas.
I'm not some kind of country squire or lord of the manor or whatever it is you appear to take me for.
You've done it all, haven't you? That broad life experience should serve you well in your political career!
But my position is basically that Disestablishment is desirable for the purposes of theoretical religious equality (even if, as you see it, all churches are now equal in practice), and so that our political system represents the country as it is (or as it will be), not as it was in the past. As I've said before, it's not something I think would provide any kind of 'magic bullet' for British Christianity.
Constantinianism in general is a broader issue. I'm pragmatic about it, and I don't think there's much point in arguing (biblically or otherwise) that all churches should be de-institutionalised. Many churches are doing okay by their own standards, and they may as well stay the same. However, it seems obvious to me that in many other cases the maintenance of institutional churches is wasteful.
quote:
I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to drum up support for arty and community initiatives around here only to be told by evangelicals and Pentecostals that they are unable to attend or support whatever-it-is because it clashes with their house-group night or whatever else it is.
Aren't there enough cultured mainstream Christians you can call on for this sort of thing??
Christians obviously have a complicated relationship with the arts. My interest is in fiction, but it seems that the novel is especially problematic for Christians (both writers and readers), and more so for evangelicals. Poetry may be better; John Wesley had a high regard for it. But there's probably no point in trying to 'drum up support' from evangelicals and Pentecostals if you're unable to address their historical suspicions towards the arts. If you can get just one or two people from those churches to turn up count yourself lucky.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One rule for the Anabaptists, another for everyone else.
We are expected to bear with the Anabaptists as they emerge from persecution that ended what ... three hundred years ago? (More recently in other parts of the world)
Yet we are not expected to bear with the Anglicans as they emerge from an Erastianism that reached its height about 300 or 350/400 years ago.
Funny that ...
Do knock it off Gamaliel. For one thing large numbers of German Anabaptists were obliged to get the hell out of Dodge in a hurry in the 1930s, when the newly elected government frowned on their pacifist principles. My maths was never brilliant but I'm pretty sure that the Third Reich happened a bit more recently than 300 years ago.
For another thing it's a bit much to say to a community "well, yeah, like you were persecuted and all that but the C of E, were established and had access to wealth, power and status. So, like, try walking a mile in their Prada shoes before casting aspersions". It's a bit like some chinless wonder from the minor aristocracy telling someone who grew up in what used to be a Yorkshire mining village "Well, yah, I realise that when the pit closed down every adult male in your community lost their jobs but when that utter commie Tony Blair came to power he kicked Uncle Guthrie out of the House of Lords and banned foxhunting, so we're all victims here".
I don't particularly buy into the Steve Langton bill of goods here, generally because they seem a bit abstract and, in the occasional moments when something solid emerges from the fog, I tend to think. Nope, not sold on that. But my Sartredar doesn't really start pinging when nonconformists tell me that they are not keen on established churches. That's one of the reason people become nonconformists.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
For one thing large numbers of German Anabaptists were obliged to get the hell out of Dodge in a hurry in the 1930s, when the newly elected government frowned on their pacifist principles.
Maybe they should have voted for the other guy and saved the world, and six million Jews, the disaster that was the Third Reich.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I bet you wear trousers Steve.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
For one thing large numbers of German Anabaptists were obliged to get the hell out of Dodge in a hurry in the 1930s, when the newly elected government frowned on their pacifist principles.
Maybe they should have voted for the other guy and saved the world, and six million Jews, the disaster that was the Third Reich.
Probably, they should. On the other hand they might just have added another item to the list of traditional religious clothing. Jews have their prayer shawls, Amish have their hats and whatnot, Muslims have the burqua and traditionally minded Catholic ladies wear mantillas. Anabaptists would have T-shirts bearing the legend: "Don't blame us, we voted for Von Hindenburg". It's not as if, had they all turned out en bloc they would have swung the election decisively away from the Nazis.
More seriously, after the refusal of the German Army to take responsibility for their defeat in the Great War, the Versailles Settlement, the Great Depression and the consequent breakdown in law and order, the decision of the army that democracy had to go and a general election marked by widespread violence against the enemies of the Nazis you really think that the blame for the rise of the Third Reich can be put at the feet of the fucking Anabaptists?
Seriously? Were you a lawyer at Nuremburg in a previous life? "Your honour, my client accepts that he did indeed, invade Poland and the Soviet Union and he might have been, as he puts it, "a bit naughty", in his treatment of the ghettos in Krakow and Lodz. But never forget <rhetorical pause, shakes head sadly> if the Anabaptists had turned out and voted for the Social Democrats in the constituency of Munster South, my client would never have been tempted to these desperate straits <clasps lapels, looks into the middle distance> why aren't the Anabaptists here in court today to answer for this terrible failure in civic virtue? <turns head away, takes out onion>
Nope. Advantage to Messrs Langton and Vyshinsky.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Nice hyperbole, but history belongs to those who bother to turn up. The fact remains that Anabaptist engagement with the political process at that critical moment in European history was precisely zero.
Hitler was a cast-iron bastard, but losing both 1933 elections would have thrown his ambitions into disarray. I can't find at first sight how many Anabaptists there were in Germany in 1933, but if we take a figure of 130,000 as having emigrated to the USA alone in the pre-war years, there numbers would have been significant.
I can't quite see how you make the leap that I'm blaming all Hitler's crimes on German Anabaptists and therefore exhonerating Hitler himself - that's a rhetorical flourish too far. But to the question, "What did you do to prevent the rise of National Socialism?", the charge remains.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Pomona;
quote:
But why are you talking to me as if I want an Established church?
I didn't think I was; I've even noticed when you've said in the past you're not in favour of establishment/worldly-theocracy/etc. I thought I was just addressing the issues generally. As in, how do we reconcile Paul in Romans 13, and Peter in I Peter, with Peter in Acts 5; 29 ("We must obey God rather than men"). It's not a simple balancing act to do, and passages like John 18 give us the teaching about how to do it, God's way taught in Scripture rather than our own erratic guesses.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Why do you think this quotation is a commandment?
Do you accept that in some circumstances it might be possible to obey both God and man?
Dealing in reverse order, obviously it can be possible to obey BOTH God and man - indeed Romans 13 and the parallel I Peter passage assume that will normally be the case. But there are also cases where man and God are commanding different things, and in such a case surely a Christian would prefer obeying God 'rather than' obeying men who are wanting us to disobey God??
In form I guess it is technically a statement rather than a commandment. But Peter hardly needs to make a commandment of his own given how many times the Bible/NT tells us to obey God. If Jesus is Lord (and 'homologous' with God/YHWH) the meaning of 'Lord' is the person who has your primary loyalty and whom you obey - ergo you obey Jesus, ipso facto (at least if you're a Trinitarian) you obey God.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Oscar the Grouch;
quote:
You have, in no way, justified your rather sweeping claim that "Anglican establishment is clearly NOT the way to do it" (ie - obey God rather than men).
I've been providing various justifications all over the Ship for quite a long time - I didn't feel like repeating them all at length on this occasion. Immediately I had been making the point of the 'oddity' of a Church so dependent on Parliament to get itself 'disestablished' even if it wanted to.
The basic deal for me is the idea that the NT presents the Church as "God's holy nation" on earth (I PET 2; 9 is one of a few texts that make that point, as is John 18 until someone actually proves I've got it wrong) and therefore as international, not able to be a national establishment.
The modern Anglican establishment is certainly a shadow of its former self; in the past it was very much about national conformity and those who wouldn't conform got persecuted - the earliest known specifically 'Anabaptist' martyrs in the UK were in Henry VIII's time. History supplies lots more examples - stuff like the Act of Uniformity, the Test Acts.... But even the attempt today to hang on to the rags of that former totalitarianism is still quite problematic.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Once again your elastic and imprecise definitions are proving to be of value in your assertions.
I would like to know (in addition to your view/experience of the baptism issue) which particular "Anabaptist" communities in the UK you are referring to and championing.
As I've said before, in this case it is reality that is 'elastic and imprecise' and I'm trying to do my best to cope with it. It still seems possible to see two distinct and incompatible trends within churches which result in them coming at issues from opposed viewpoints. A large number of churches' views seem to be various degrees of what is at root 'Constantinianism'; others are clearly broadly 'Anabaptist; quite a few are just confused or are just ducking the issue.
The kind of view I'm putting forward is broadly held by many UK churches, some but far from all of which are connected with the UK 'Anabaptist Network'. As per one of the basic ideas of Anabaptism, what I'm trying to do here is not put forward an 'Anabaptist view' based on some supposed Anabaptist version of the RC 'Magisterium' or other churches' "Capital-T Tradition" - no such exists, really - but to discuss what the Bible says.
As regards my own experience of baptism, as Gamaliel had I think worked out from previous posts I was 'done' as an infant and 'baptised' in my early 20s.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
obviously it can be possible to obey BOTH God and man - indeed Romans 13 and the parallel I Peter passage assume that will normally be the case. But there are also cases where man and God are commanding different things, and in such a case surely a Christian would prefer obeying God 'rather than' obeying men who are wanting us to disobey God??
But in some cases, if you take an absolutist view, it's not possible to obey either God or man, at least not perfectly.
One example above is that of the vote. If you vote you are potentially involving yourself in the "kingdoms of this world" by your lights as far as I can see, and I doubt whether any party you vote for is going to be "obeying God" in all respects as you see it.
But if you don't vote, and do pay taxes (which is perhaps one of the clearest and most enduring practical injunctions in the Bible from Judges through to the epistles!), as has been pointed out upthread you are relinquishing money to be used for purposes you see as contrary to God's will.
As far as I can see, there is no way of fully resolving this kind of paradox. Being in and not of the world involves a constant working out of the least bad option. At an individual level, I'm less and less convinced that there is any one-size-fits-all "right" solution in terms of churchmanship.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nice hyperbole, but history belongs to those who bother to turn up. The fact remains that Anabaptist engagement with the political process at that critical moment in European history was precisely zero.
Decisions are made by those who turn up. History belongs to the winners. And however the sums stack up in history regarding the anabaptist vote, the fact remains that current advice to not vote is abdicating the ability to influence the world we live in for the better. It seems to me the Constantinian-avoidance-position is saying "Power corrupts therefore I will avoid all power".
The problem is we all live in kingdoms of this world whether we like it or not, and we ought to live in these kingdoms in such a way as to make them better places. Failing to engage at all for fear of the taint of power will make them a worse place, whatever proportion of the population is involved.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
In modern democracies, I think a good case can be made for saying that an active decision not to vote is a form of voting in it's own right. It's a way to vote that enables the candidates with views most dissimilar to yours to gain a larger share of the vote.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
And there's a difference between saying "None of you have earned my vote, try harder" and saying "I will never vote". The former might wield some influence (if an identifiable demographic emerges that might tempt a politician), the latter precludes any influence.
Russell Brand anabaptists might have more scope for influence.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Callan, I'll 'knock it off' as you say once you've actually read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.
You obviously overlooked the caveat to my comments - 'More recently in other parts of the world.'
What I was saying that outright persecution of Anabaptists ceased in this country several hundred years ago - yet continued in other parts of the world for much longer.
If I remember rightly, the last Anabaptist to be executed as a heretic in this country was executed in 1614.
Although I have an idea that there may have been one later example, a Baptist executed early in the reign of James II which, among other things, acted as a catalyst for Parliament getting jumpy and appealing to William of Orange ...
I'd need to look into that more fully.
My point, of course, was that if Steven Langton expects us to show patience and respect for the Anabaptists as they emerge from a persecuted past - and I'm certainly willing to extend them those courtesies - then he should equally 'bear with' the CofE and other 'Constantinian' churches as they emerge from the Erastianism that has often been a woeful feature of their past history.
Nobody here is saying that the Test Acts and so on were wonderful pieces of legislation and worthy of emulation.
Steve Langton sometimes sounds as if he thinks all the Anglican bishops are meeting in secret conclaves wringing their hands and saying, 'Curses! Drat, drat and double-drat! Wouldn't we just love to get our hands on the reigns of power again ... if it wasn't the emergence of modern liberal democracy and the sterling example of those hated Anabaptists then we'd have gotten away with it ... we have been thwarted in our nefarious plan to establish a theocracy and take over the world!'
Then, one among them, his eyes blazing, raises his crozier and declares, 'Brothers, do not despair! Provided we still have an Established Church with the Monarch as its Governor, there is still the chance that we can reassert our authority. Our day will come! Our day will return!'
Whereupon they all dash out and enter the nearest Anabaptist conventicle, hauling men, women and children off to prison and drowning their pastor in the Thames ...
So, sorry Callan, I don't accept you've got a case.
I'm certainly mindful and aware of the way Anabaptists have been treated here in the past, I'm also aware of how they were treated on continental Europe, Tsarist Russia and other places more recently.
I also have a lot of time for the kind of issues and concerns the Anabaptists raise.
But, like Oscar the Grouch - with whom I share a similar faith background and journey - I'm at a loss to see how contemporary Anglicanism any more or any less than any other Christian confession is 'obeying man rather than God'.
Meanwhile, @SvitlanaV2. Yes, I have been round the block a few times and been exposed to all manner of churches and traditions. I'm not boasting about that - it's got nothing to do with any merit on my part - it's simply the result of life experiences.
We can all of us only speak as we find. You speak as you find. I speak as I find.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Just as a side issue on the points SvitlanaV2 raised when I aired my frustrations and not getting evos and penties along to some of the arty or community initiatives I'm involved with ...
Yes, I agree with the points you've raised, SvitlanaV2 and take a pragmatic view. I'm delighted if I see any evos and penties at these events - just as I am if liberal Anglicans (or anyone at all) turns up ...
I'm not precious about my own events and intiatives - and they're not generally 'mine' anyway ... nor are they 'high culture' necessarily ...
I agree that if I get one or two of them along, I'm doing well.
And I'm happy with that.
The wider and more general point I'm making is that, by and large, people from these sort of traditions are less visible in terms of their involvement with civic or social events of various kinds - unless they're at the town carnival or the Christmas Light Switch-On to hand out tracts and so on ...
I know I argue the toss with you at times, but I do have sympathy with your views on Establishment - but I'm pragmatic when it comes to the likelihood of Disestablishment anytime soon.
I don't see it as a deal-breaker or practical influence on the way CofE parishes conduct themselves day to day, week to week.
Institutionalism is another issue, but unless we all met in Starbucks South Coast Kevin fashion - which is itself problematic for other reasons - then I don't see how a degree of institutionalism can be avoided.
Even the arty/community groups I'm involved in have a constitution, a treasurer, minutes of meetings and so on.
On Callan's point about it not setting any bells ringing or pinging when non-conformists state that they're anti-Establishment ... well, sure.
I've been involved with non-conformist churches so it doesn't bother me either.
What bothers me isn't the non-conformism itself - far from it - but the often judgemental and Pharisaical attitudes that can accompany this position.
There are equal and opposite problems with the alternatives too, of course.
As I keep saying, I think we're all ultimately heading into 'intentional' and 'gathered' community territory - because Christendom is receding and that's what'll be left in its wake.
That's fine. Provided it doesn't lead to the kind of pietistic withdrawal from the world that appears to be the emphasis - real or imagined - of some self-selecting groups.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
The exception to evangelicals not joining in with civic events etc is when they dominate the religious life of a place, like in the town I used to live in E Sussex - but that makes it a very unhealthy and unpleasant atmosphere for others who are not part of that particular theological grouping.
I think evangelicalism (charismatic and conservative) tends to provide one with a ready-made lifestyle (books, music, kids' films, festivals/events, what have you) which definitely leads to you living in a 'bubble'. Aside from work and school it's very easy to not encounter any non-Christians in that lifestyle. I would say that's a little more troubling than the CoE being established...?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think evangelicalism (charismatic and conservative) tends to provide one with a ready-made lifestyle (books, music, kids' films, festivals/events, what have you) which definitely leads to you living in a 'bubble'. Aside from work and school it's very easy to not encounter any non-Christians in that lifestyle. I would say that's a little more troubling than the CoE being established...?
Yet evangelicals are still a minority. If they live in a bubble they're not in any one else's face, are they? Wouldn't it be worse if it was like the USA and they expected the community and the political classes to dance to their tune? (Maybe Sussex IS like that, though.)
In some British cities people complain about racial and religious segregation, but it seems that most of us apparently want to live among folk who are, on the whole, significantly like ourselves. It applies to majorities as much as to minorities.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think evangelicalism (charismatic and conservative) tends to provide one with a ready-made lifestyle (books, music, kids' films, festivals/events, what have you) which definitely leads to you living in a 'bubble'. Aside from work and school it's very easy to not encounter any non-Christians in that lifestyle. I would say that's a little more troubling than the CoE being established...?
Yet evangelicals are still a minority. If they live in a bubble they're not in any one else's face, are they? Wouldn't it be worse if it was like the USA and they expected the community and the political classes to dance to their tune? (Maybe Sussex IS like that, though.)
In some British cities people complain about racial and religious segregation, but it seems that most of us apparently want to live among folk who are, on the whole, significantly like ourselves. It applies to majorities as much as to minorities.
I'm thinking about it in Church terms - if evangelicals are living in a bubble then they're not really living out the Gospel.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think those are fair points too, SvitlanaV2.
Most churches and voluntary groups of all kinds that I'm aware of tend to attract 'people like us'.
Birds of a feather and all that.
So it's not simply an evo thing.
I do think, though, that there is more of a 'developed' sub-culture among some groups, though ... they come with their own 'scene' and artefacts - books, tapes, magazines etc.
I'm involved in poetry circles and everyone knows everyone else, they use the same Facebook groups, read the same magazines, go to one another's 'gigs' and so on ...
I don't think any of this is particularly unhealthy in and of itself.
I'm not aware of anywhere in the UK where evos have attained the kind of critical-mass required to impinge on anyone else in an inappropriate way ... I'm be interested in more detail on Pomona's East Sussex example.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I've posted some more about it in the Headship Bishops thread in Dead Horses, Gamaliel, but I don't see any reason to not give a bit more background here.
East Sussex (not including Brighton & Hove which tends to do its own thing) is strongly evangelical Protestant for historical reasons (eg the Lewes Martyrs). Unusually (IME) though, the CoE is also markedly evangelical there - usually the CoE tends to be the opposite churchmanship to the rest of the churches in a particular area. There are a few FiF churches in E Sussex but it's overwhelmingly conservative and evangelical - certainly in my town, if you were a liberal Christian you got the choice of the Quakers and that was about it (there was a hippy liberal streak there and especially in Hastings, but this tended to be more Pagan). The local con-evo Anglican churches were very involved in civic things, and most of the other evangelical churches were too, excepting groups like the Strict Baptists. It's not that it negatively impinged on anyone else as such, it just made things quite uncomfortable for other churchmanships/denominations. I've found that evangelicals only really like getting involved with other evangelicals or where they can dominate things - ecumenism seems to be viewed suspiciously, although maybe that's a conservative evangelical thing and doesn't apply to charismatic evangelicals?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
In the northern corner of East Sussex is East Grinstead and when one looks at the mixture of faiths and beliefs in that area all bets are off! In addition to every flavour of Christianity there are Rosicrucians (who may or may not be Christians, depending on your view)assorted Eastern cults and Scientologists.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
If evangelicals are living in a bubble then they're not really living out the Gospel.
If that's the case, then perhaps the other Christians should be only too happy to leave them alone. Another possibility would be to treat communications with them as interfaith rather than ecumenical engagements.
Regarding Establishment, if it means anything then perhaps its main purpose is to give English Anglicans the public voice to speak out on behalf of social issues that they deem to be important. However, I suggest that not all Christian groups have a calling to do exactly the same work. The hand is not the eye, but all have a part to play in the body of Christ, etc.
Evangelical groups are mostly small, marginal and less visible on the national stage, so it's unsurprising that for some of them, evangelism and securing the spiritual and emotional investment of their members are more urgent matters than trying to be the Christian conscience of a post-Christian nation, or deliberately contributing to its mainstream cultural life, for example.
History shows that many people can't balance a host of competing spiritual and social commitments very well (even if a few individuals can). The larger denominations have enclosed or contemplative religious orders to ensure that due priority is given to spiritual demands by at least some members, but elsewhere smaller denominations may be given over entirely to a focus on such things. Yet others are more public about social justice, for example, than spiritual matters. There's a certain equilibrium in this, I think.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I'm honestly not seeing how UK evangelicals (particularly CoE ones) are a small and marginal group.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ... I've only been to Brighton so I can't comment on the wider Sussex area ... but I am aware that there are Protestant 'hot-spots' down there such as Lewes ... and that this can all be colourful and quirky at times.
I do think it is a fair observation that evangelicals tend to have the 'whip-hand' as it were whenever they get involved in ecumenical dialogue of Churches Together type activities ... I've certainly seen that.
But they aren't alone in that.
Some of them walk something of a tight-rope when it comes to hosting things to do with elections/local politics and so on ... there have been a number of prayer events around here organised at election times which have largely been Pentecostal or charismatic evangelical led affairs.
I keep hearing the criticism from more liberal types that they haven't been as 'up front' about this as they should have been - and that consequently more conservative or liberal Christians have been a bit put off when they've suddenly realised what they've signed up for ...
Not because they've been laying hands on everything or doing anything outrageously charismatic ... but they still tend to ratchet things up beyond most people's comfort zones.
I think SvitlanaV2's point about smaller and more 'sectarian' groups (in the sociological sense) having to work hard to maintain and secure the spiritual investment of their members.
That's why I think that such groups can be just as exhausting and high-maintenance as anything that can be found in the more 'institutional' churches.
As SvitlanaV2 says, most of the older and historic churches have 'base-communities', monastic centres and so on where people can repair if they wish to deepen their spiritual lives.
With the smaller denominations and groups, the whole thing is effectively some kind of spiritual hot-house - as it were - hence the amount of energy, effort and resource required to maintain them ... and why so many people involved with these sort of groups have so little time to get involved with anything else.
When I was involved with a charismatic evangelical restorationist church then virtually all my non-working waking hours revolved around it. There was hardly any time to get involved with anything else.
I think there is a need for equilibrium and there is a balance somewhere between nominalism on the one hand and a kind of unhealthy over-immersion in sectarian religion on the other.
Sure, there are RCs, Orthodox and Anglicans who treat their parish church as a kind of filling-station ... they bob along every now and then to top themselves up on the Mass/Eucharist ...
But when you look more closely, you often find that many of these people are involved with some good and wholesome stuff in their communities too ... and not simply stowed away in a holy huddle.
The same is true at the more 'gathered' end of things - a lot of people in these groups are doing good stuff around and about.
However, there can be a tendency for these groups to become claustrophobic, cut off from wider society and very insular.
There's some kind of balance and wiggle-room between these two extremes.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nice hyperbole, but history belongs to those who bother to turn up. The fact remains that Anabaptist engagement with the political process at that critical moment in European history was precisely zero.
Hitler was a cast-iron bastard, but losing both 1933 elections would have thrown his ambitions into disarray. I can't find at first sight how many Anabaptists there were in Germany in 1933, but if we take a figure of 130,000 as having emigrated to the USA alone in the pre-war years, there numbers would have been significant.
I can't quite see how you make the leap that I'm blaming all Hitler's crimes on German Anabaptists and therefore exhonerating Hitler himself - that's a rhetorical flourish too far. But to the question, "What did you do to prevent the rise of National Socialism?", the charge remains.
Yeah, just think they could have turned up like all those Catholics who voted for the Zentrum, only to find out that Cardinal Pacelli (whatever happened to him, by the way?) had negotiated a deal with the Nazis involving Zentrum support for an Enabling Act in exchange for the Nazis leaving Catholic Schools alone. Or like pretty everyone else who voted for anyone who wasn't the SPD and then found that they had actually voted parties who supported the Enabling Act after all. Pacifist groups who refused to vote but also refused to give any support to Hitler came out of the Third Reich with vastly more credit than groups who initialy opposed the Nazis and then made their peace with the regime. Incidentally, 17m people voted for the Nazis, 7m people voted for the Social Democrats. If there had been something in the region of 10m spare Anabaptists then their not voting might have made a salient difference. As it was, it falls strictly under the rubric of BACAI. Don't be surprised if it gets reflected back at you.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Doc. I love ya. But you're digging a hole deeper. Being courageous didn't make the JW's sacrifice a tide turner. I doubt Anabaptist mass martyrdom would have done either. The NAZIs were evil geniuses at social control. There seems to be no potential parallel with the Christian subversion of Rome.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Martin - being courageous is what it's all about. Sticking you neck out, plunging your hands in, walking the dark road. I fail at that all the fucking time and so often take the path of least resistance. And yet even I, coward that I am, can drag myself to a polling booth once every five years and threaten my immortal soul with damnation by putting an X in a box.
If they're going to round me up and put me in camp for that act of defiance, I'll go singing.
Q: Why did the Pharisee cross the road?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Callen - so the situation is hopeless. Hitler's rise to power is irresistable. You have a choice: you can be the guy who doesn't vote at all, or you can be the guy who doesn't vote for Hitler. This is going to be your last chance to vote for over a decade, if not ever again.
Choose wisely.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Interesting discussion of 'evangelicals' above; not sure it's of direct relevance to the biblical issues of church and world as in say, John 18. Thing is, “Anabaptists-and similar” are evangelicals; they aim to base their position on Scripture and not on some magical 'Magisterium' or 'Tradition' or the various excuses liberal theologians use to evade Scripture. But “Evangelicals” are not necessarily “Anabaptists-or-similar”; an awful lot of them, especially among Anglicans, are thoroughly “Constantinian/sacralist/whatever-your-favourite-word-for-that-strand-is”. Discussing evangelicalism generally is not the same as discussing the 'Anabaptist' strand.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Steve Langton sometimes sounds as if he thinks all the Anglican bishops are meeting in secret conclaves wringing their hands and saying, 'Curses! Drat, drat and double-drat! Wouldn't we just love to get our hands on the reigns of power again ... if it wasn't the emergence of modern liberal democracy and the sterling example of those hated Anabaptists then we'd have gotten away with it ... we have been thwarted in our nefarious plan to establish a theocracy and take over the world!'
Then, one among them, his eyes blazing, raises his crozier and declares, 'Brothers, do not despair! Provided we still have an Established Church with the Monarch as its Governor, there is still the chance that we can reassert our authority. Our day will come! Our day will return!'
Whereupon they all dash out and enter the nearest Anabaptist conventicle, hauling men, women and children off to prison and drowning their pastor in the Thames ...
Gamaliel, I love it!! Not sure if "reigns of power" is a typo or a brilliant pun... But I won't love it if you keep on doing this kind of thing. You KNOW I don't really think like that, and a little research on AS would tell you I'm just not that stupid, even if a bit eccentric at times. So please drop it.
Having said that....
As I understand it, in the early twentieth century a lot of Islam was very much like modern soggy harmless Anglicanism, and 'Islamist' extremists pretty rare and ineffective except in backwaters like Afghanistan. By the mid-1900s that was changing; Islamist scholars had got fed up of seeing Islam and Islamic countries being second-rate colonial puppets of the West and started a revival of Fundamentalist Islam which given how Muhammad set the religion up meant a 'Constantinianism' of a different religion with all the faults like holy war. Meanwhile, oil discoveries in Muslim lands changed the economic balance and the politics around the founding of Israel produced a whole new set of aggravations in the situation; and those and other things led to Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS/IS and so forth.
I'm afraid it is seriously not beyond imagination that there could be a similar revival of 'Constantinian-style' Christianity under some of the current pressures on the West. I know of more than a few people who'd like to give it a try (not all Anglicans). And I feel that the best preventive for that would be to have a better biblical theology of church and world.... Help me explore it???
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Dismissing Catholics and Orthodox as 'liberal' is seriously weird. Use of Tradition =/= liberal, seriously.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Steve doesn't know what tradition is. If he did he wouldn't have come out with such a stupid comment.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Dismissing Catholics and Orthodox as 'liberal' is seriously weird.
I've heard it before. I think it derives from the view that conservative is a particular literal view of the scriptures, and anyone who doesn't take that conservative literal view of the scripture is liberal.
Of course we all use liberal in a relative way so confusion often reigns regarding the term.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I think what Steve is arguing is that scripture interprets scripture, which is nonsense of course. The scriptures are properly understood through the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church and it is this which we call tradition. This tradition manifests itself in the prayer of the Church (the liturgy), the holy councils, the holy fathers and the lives of the saints, to mention a few examples.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
it falls strictly under the rubric of BACAI.
Explanation, please?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thing is, “Anabaptists-and similar” are evangelicals; they aim to base their position on Scripture and not on some magical 'Magisterium' or 'Tradition' or the various excuses liberal theologians use to evade Scripture. But “Evangelicals” are not necessarily “Anabaptists-or-similar”; an awful lot of them, especially among Anglicans, are thoroughly “Constantinian/sacralist/whatever-your-favourite-word-for-that-strand-is”.
If "someone who aims to base their position on Scripture" is an Anabaptist, what is the approach of these "Constantinian" evangelicals to Scripture?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
As it was, it falls strictly under the rubric of BACAI. Don't be surprised if it gets reflected back at you.
BACAI = "Be a cunt about it".
Callan, that doesn't look much like an attack on Doc Tor's argument to me. It looks a lot more like a personal slam at Doc Tor, and a nasty one.
You know only too well you don't get to do that here, even by relatively obscure abbreviation.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Of course, "Tradition" is primarily an interpretation of Scripture (or, several interpretations). OK, not in the form of a book with a title like "A commentary on ..." that evangelicals may be most familiar with. But, interpretation of Scripture nonetheless. So, an appeal the Tradition is a means to appeal to an interpretation of Scripture, and hardly qualifies as "evading Scripture". And, of course, anabaptists appeal to their own interpretations of Scripture, their own traditions.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Doc.
As ever.
You are of course right. And I was going to post what you said prior to my last offering. Their courage was found wanting where JWs isn't acknowledged at all. Not really.
If the Anabaptists had been as courageous as the JWs it would have been part of what it's all about, yes.
I think that we'd do better, you and I, as you latterly did, our cowardice FIRST.
The Anabaptists who declined martyrdom were US.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Pomona;
quote:
Dismissing Catholics and Orthodox as 'liberal' is seriously weird. Use of Tradition =/= liberal, seriously.
Except I didn't - I mentioned three alternatives to evangelicalism, which are also (mostly) alternatives to each other; the RC 'Magisterium' concept, the Orthodox concept of 'Tradition', and the various things liberal theologians get up to.
by Eutychus;
quote:
If "someone who aims to base their position on Scripture" is an Anabaptist, what is the approach of these "Constantinian" evangelicals to Scripture?
You're putting that wrong way round; 'Anabaptists' do indeed aim to "base their position on Scripture" as do other evangelicals. "Constantinian" evangelicals are inconsistent; in my experience they don't in fact produce much Scripture in support of their position, and what they do produce is almost entirely OT and essentially ignores the difference the 'New Covenant' makes. Reformation Churches which remained state-attached seem to have tended to just assume the status quo in this area, whereas Anabaptists followed Scripture more thoroughly.
My point is that as between Anabaptists-and-similar and those other evangelicals, the issue needs to be decided on the basis of Scripture; and I'm not yet hearing convincing biblical argument for the assorted Constantinian and neo-Constantinian positions.
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Of course, "Tradition" is primarily an interpretation of Scripture (or, several interpretations). OK, not in the form of a book with a title like "A commentary on ..." that evangelicals may be most familiar with. But, interpretation of Scripture nonetheless. So, an appeal to Tradition is a means to appeal to an interpretation of Scripture, and hardly qualifies as "evading Scripture". And, of course, anabaptists appeal to their own interpretations of Scripture, their own traditions.
The problem here, which was the key issue of the Reformation, is that 'Tradition' can take on somewhat of a life of its own, and end up contradicting the real intention of Scripture, as in the case of the scribal and Pharisaic traditions which Jesus criticised so severely. Such a situation should be firmly distinguished from what Shipboard we've recently been calling 'small-t tradition' which means that the Church's later developments do not acquire an authority of their own but are always subject to Scriptural review.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
[offering] our cowardice first [inclusively]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Anabaptists' do indeed aim to "base their position on Scripture" as do other evangelicals. "Constantinian" evangelicals are inconsistent
What I find hard to put up with here is your apparent assumption that the only difference between you and others seeking to base their position on Scripture is their ongoing inability or refusal to interpret the Scriptures properly or consistently (by which you mean in the same way you do), thus casting aspersions on the quality of their faith.
Besides, your (debatable) claim to interpret Scripture consistently doesn't seem to have ended up with any very practical suggestions about application in today's world: you have answered most questions about that on this thread with variations on "well there's a lot of discussion in Anabaptist circles about that right now...".
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
SL - except that Jesus was essentially a very liberal Pharisee, and had no issue with the existence of Rabbinic commentary. Jesus was scathing of those who were hypocritical with their Pharasaism (is that the correct term?), not the existence of Pharisees generally. Tradition in the same way doesn't inherently take on a life of its own - Methodism and Lutheranism would affirm Tradition, but not in the binding way that say the Orthodox would, for example.
The issue is that you are insisting on seeing things in a very absolute, black and white way - but that's not how things are. You can't just split all Christians into Bad Constantinians and Good Anabaptists.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Pomona;
quote:
Tradition in the same way doesn't inherently take on a life of its own - Methodism and Lutheranism would affirm Tradition, but not in the binding way that say the Orthodox would, for example.
I'm not sure I can distinguish between my position and what you're saying here. I'm not denying that churches/denominations have traditions; I'm simply saying that ultimately those traditions need to be subject to the original teaching, that is, Scripture, and that aligning with Scripture is an essential test of the validity of a 'tradition'.
One of the risks of 'Tradition' is that it can easily become 'controlling' without any check or balance, if it comes to be believed that "The Church" or some group within it, has a quasi-magical ability to interpret definitively, and there is no appeal beyond that. That's how the RCC ended up thinking it was OK to run Crusades and persecutory Inquisitions.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
What I find hard to put up with here is your apparent assumption that the only difference between you and others seeking to base their position on Scripture is their ongoing inability or refusal to interpret the Scriptures properly or consistently (by which you mean in the same way you do), thus casting aspersions on the quality of their faith.
Instead of just blethering about it, prove my interpretation wrong. Simples! I don't consider my interpretation specially authoritative because it's mine.
Again by Eutychus;
quote:
Besides, your (debatable) claim to interpret Scripture consistently doesn't seem to have ended up with any very practical suggestions about application in today's world:
In reality it ends up with lots of practical suggestions about application. Starting, of course, with disestablish the existing established churches and stop trying to set up/perpetuate such churches. It is in the limited area of some political options that I am saying either that I'm uncertain or that I'm aware the broader Anabaptist movement is currently uncertain. That uncertainty doesn't affect the foundational points about the basic relationship of church and world, nor does it leave us with nothing to do in the world while the uncertainties are resolved - there's plenty of Christian love and care to be exercised in other areas.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I have done some checking on Mennonites in the Nazi era, and found this which I didn't expect and I suspect Doc Tor wouldn't either
Ephrata Ministries
No comment for now....
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Instead of just blethering about it, prove my interpretation wrong. Simples! I don't consider my interpretation specially authoritative because it's mine.
So answer some of the questions raised in this thread that have been specifically concerning scriptural passages - (For instance in Romans 14, who gets to wield the sword?)
It seems like you don't really want to understand anyone else's position, and why they may feel that there is equal (and possibly greater) biblical warrant for their thinking.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You are right, Steve Langton, I don't think you are stupid.
You might be a little eccentric at times, but then so am I and so are most posters on these boards.
I know you'll blame your Asperger's or your going out to the shops at the height of Ship debates, but you don't always seem to grasp satire and hyperbole ... which is what I was engaging in back there.
And yes, this isn't a good medium for that. Not that there's anything wrong with the Ship any more than any other form of online dialogue ... but satirical intent can sometimes be lost in this medium.
I was deliberately caricaturing your point of view in order to make a point, of course.
And that point is that I think you are exaggerating the influence and 'threat' of Constantinianism as it currently stands in the CofE.
I'd certainly accept that there are worrying indications of a renewed Erastianism in many Orthodox countries - notably Putin's Russia - but I certainly don't see any re-emergence of hyper-Erastian tendencies in Anglican circles.
If there were, then I'd be railing about it on here as well as anywhere and everywhere else.
I'd also suggest - rather humbly - that things don't fall as neatly into the rather hermetically-sealed and packaged categories that some of your posts might suggest.
For instance, there's more to the issue than your caricature of Big T Tradition as 'a magic magisterium', just as there's more to the liberal position than efforts to elide or evade scripture.
One might just as easily say that your position relies on a Gnostic and 'magic' gift of interpretation ... because you seem to suggest that you (and fellow Anabaptists) apparently have some kind of incontrovertibly 'correct' take on scripture.
As if yours, and yours alone, are the only possible conclusions that anyone can reach from an earnest, honest and open engagement with scripture.
Whatever one's views of Big T Tradition (and Ad Orientem suggests that you don't really understand it) and liberal approaches - those who hold these views have come to them from a position of conviction and out of real engagement and struggle with the scriptures and with the world around them.
We may, or may not, agree with their conclusions but we have to concede that they are sincerely held and arrived at through rigorous thought, debate and study.
As far as a 'better biblical theology' goes, then we are all trying to help you to explore it.
A 'better biblical theology' doesn't necessarily mean that we all agree with you - any more than a 'better biblical theology' means that people should agree with Eutychus, Mousethief, Martin, myself or anyone else here on these boards.
That's the point I'm trying to make - and I've used satire in an attempt to make it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've just read that article about those particular Mennonites at the time of the rise of Hitler.
I can see the point it's making but I'm afraid I found the whole tone rather simplistic - as if voting at all is some kind of sinful participation in the world around us.
It also implies that the Gospel hadn't arrived in Europe at all until those lovely 16th century Anabaptists introduced (or reintroduced) it.
This is precisely the issue I'm raising here ... the kind of simplistic, reductionist approach that seems to characterise aspects of Anabaptist polity and spirituality.
I'm not anti-Anabaptist ... far from it.
But the more I read of their literature and the more I hear from their representatives here, the more I get the impression that Richard Baxter was right ... that there's an intrinsic judgementalism and casting aspersions at everyone else that is inherent within their mindset and worldview.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Interesting discussion of 'evangelicals' above; not sure it's of direct relevance to the biblical issues of church and world as in say, John 18. Thing is, “Anabaptists-and similar” are evangelicals; they aim to base their position on Scripture and not on some magical 'Magisterium' or 'Tradition' or the various excuses liberal theologians use to evade Scripture. But “Evangelicals” are not necessarily “Anabaptists-or-similar”; an awful lot of them, especially among Anglicans, are thoroughly “Constantinian/sacralist/whatever-your-favourite-word-for-that-strand-is”. Discussing evangelicalism generally is not the same as discussing the 'Anabaptist' strand.
However, it seems that one reason for rejecting an Anabaptist-type independence on a wider scale is the fear that it would mostly benefit a free-for-all, intemperate, self-obsessed evangelicalism rather than promoting Christianity of a more moderate, considered and socially engaged kind.
Gamaliel often states that the organic (i.e. non-instiutional) church networks - all evangelical - that he knew as a youth were ineffective in the long run because they were too intense, time-consuming and exhausting. Consequently they either fell apart or gradually took on a more manageable institutional form. How would that be prevented in your scenario?
Clearly, the Anabaptists have developed a form of organic church that's managed to last for centures, and they've avoided a reputation for craziness and burn-out, AFAIK. But they remain a very small group and most Christians don't know anything about them. Maybe they're missing a trick by not highlighting the postmodern timeliness of their form of church. Making common cause with the emergent/organic/house/cell church movements, etc. might be more pragmatic than trying to convince institutional mainstream Christians about the Bible, although I can understand the temptation to look for sympathisers in the most influential institutions. The institutional fans of Fresh Expressions could be interested, though, since FE straddles both camps.
quote:
I'm afraid it is seriously not beyond imagination that there could be a similar revival of 'Constantinian-style' Christianity under some of the current pressures on the West. I know of more than a few people who'd like to give it a try (not all Anglicans). And I feel that the best preventive for that would be to have a better biblical theology of church and world.... Help me explore it???
How might Constantinian Christianity be revived in the West? Do you just mean that people will start going to church again? You're unlikely to convince many people here that this is a bad thing - unless it occurs in the context of right wing reactionary extremism. But one doensn't have to be consciously non-Constantinian to be anti-fascist, or whatever. It may be true that smaller denominations are less ideologically committed to the state, but they still tend to be institutional in their own way.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Indeed. I completely agree with all of that, SvitlanaV2 ... and not simply because you've cited my position on things ...
It strikes me that there are some obvious points of connection between the Anabaptists and particular trends/tendencies/movements within other churches.
These are:
- Monastic and neo-monastic movements.
- Those existing groups/movements within the historic Churches (capital C) which are interested in issues of peace, justice and reconciliation ... even those who come at this from a more 'liberal' theological perspective.
- The so-called Emergent or more 'Fresh Expressions' type models of 'doing church'.
As I've observed several times on these boards, I believe we are all headed into 'voluntarist' and 'intentional' territory ... whether we come at it from a non-conformist, independent or 'institutional' and 'historic' Church model.
That, it seems to me, makes for considerable overlap of intention and approach between non-Anabaptists and Anabaptists.
Steve Langton has mentioned the potential role of Anabaptism in ecumenical dialogue and I believe that he has good grounds in drawing attention to that.
I repeat a point I've made several times, that the Anabaptist voice is one worth listening to and one that deserves to be heard.
However ... the caveat I always raise is the one that SvitlanaV2 alludes to ... the one about the dangers of burn-out and insularity on the part of more 'sectarian' or 'gathered' models of church.
Anabaptism has survived despite persecutions and suspicions - and it has probably done so to a large extent because of those factors. It has had to weld itself into a strong, communal network.
That's all fine, but it can lead to claustrophobia.
I'm glad that Anabaptist speakers and writers are out and about and stamping the boards of conferences and so on. That's a good thing.
However ... I've got to be honest - there are elements there that remind me of the kind of admirably - but ultimately overly - close-knit fellowships I knew from my more evangelical youth.
I'm not hearing anything so far that reassures me that Anabaptists have a solution to that. I might be wrong.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
but you don't always seem to grasp satire and hyperbole ...
Maybe not always - but I had spotted it this time and, as I said, I loved it! But could you ease up a bit in future please....
And again;
quote:
And that point is that I think you are exaggerating the influence and 'threat' of Constantinianism as it currently stands in the CofE.
I don't think I'm exaggerating the worldwide problems all that much, if at all; especially bearing in mind the issues raised by ISIS etc. Nor, I think, am I exaggerating the problems raised for others by the simple fact of CofE establishment even in its current weak form.
And my point back there was that in a very unpredictable world I don't think you can be so sure there will be no 'Constantinian Christian' revival such as ISIS, possibly here in the UK. The CofE may currently look a bit soggy - however if it did indeed recover confidence but with a Constantinian vision, that would be something to worry about. The Islamist resurgence shows such things are all too possible.
by chris stiles;
quote:
(For instance in Romans 14, who gets to wield the sword?)
Romans 13 - the 'powers that be' get to wield the sword; but as per the early church's prayer in Acts 4 that I quoted earlier, only under God. The point is in many ways that it is under God whether or not Christians are 'in power' - so we don't need to be in power. We need to do the job God has given his people, of establishing that 'kingdom not of this world' which can call people to a different and better way.
chris stiles again;
quote:
It seems like you don't really want to understand anyone else's position, and why they may feel that there is equal (and possibly greater) biblical warrant for their thinking.
After 1600 years of Constantinianism I'm still waiting to see a decent biblical presentation/justification of it anywhere near as coherent as what the NT gives of the 'kingdom not of this world' alternative. Where is the 'greater biblical warrant'?
Remember I'm not a 'cradle Anabaptist' (which is a bit of a contradiction in terms anyway). I was brung up among people pretty much of the various other views, and I gave up on that precisely because when I started asking the questions, they didn't have the kind of biblical answers they themselves had taught me to seek and respect, nor could I find such answers in an awful lot of reading around the subject either - and of course the Bible did have 'biblical answers'.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
My kingdom is not of this world. Hmm! It's a long leap to conclude from that that the Church shouldn't engage with the state, especially when the ruler and its subjects are Christians. There is nothing in the scriptures to my knowledge that forbids the Church expecting such to act according to the dictates of their faith in their acts if state and if not, that the Church has the right to impose an ecclesial sanction. Rather than putting man first that is precisely putting God first.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't think you can be so sure there will be no 'Constantinian Christian' revival such as ISIS, possibly here in the UK. The CofE may currently look a bit soggy - however if it did indeed recover confidence but with a Constantinian vision, that would be something to worry about.
A crafty (and cynical?) Disestablishmentarian might secretly hope that this does happen, because it would finally generate some political anxiety about Establishment, which in turn might force a sluggish nation to sever the official connection between state and church for good....
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Pomona;
quote:
Tradition in the same way doesn't inherently take on a life of its own - Methodism and Lutheranism would affirm Tradition, but not in the binding way that say the Orthodox would, for example.
I'm not sure I can distinguish between my position and what you're saying here. I'm not denying that churches/denominations have traditions; I'm simply saying that ultimately those traditions need to be subject to the original teaching, that is, Scripture, and that aligning with Scripture is an essential test of the validity of a 'tradition'.
One of the risks of 'Tradition' is that it can easily become 'controlling' without any check or balance, if it comes to be believed that "The Church" or some group within it, has a quasi-magical ability to interpret definitively, and there is no appeal beyond that. That's how the RCC ended up thinking it was OK to run Crusades and persecutory Inquisitions.
Well no, actually, the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were political and not religious in nature. The Inquisition in particular was a government institution mostly concerned with racial purity, and RC bishops died because they protested it.
Edited to add that you keep forgetting to distinguish between traditions and Tradition. They are not the same at all. Evangelicals have traditions, for example, but would not recognise Tradition.
[ 13. December 2014, 19:57: Message edited by: Pomona ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
After 1600 years of Constantinianism I'm still waiting to see a decent biblical presentation/justification of it anywhere near as coherent as what the NT gives of the 'kingdom not of this world' alternative. Where is the 'greater biblical warrant'?
As I said above, I don't think you have really studied Two Kingdoms theology - which I think is far more in line with the 'already-but-not-yet' tension of NT.
Anabaptism is one way of immanetizing the eschaton. As I said in my previous post - who do you think has a warrant for wielding the sword mentioned in Romans 14?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Anglicans are as concerned about ISIS as anyone else is.
Any connection between Anglican Establishment in the CofE and ISIS is purely coincidental - and I'd argue that you are not comparing like with like at all.
I've got no axe to grind with Anabaptists nor have I any candle to bear for the Establishment of the CofE but to compare the CofE Establishment as it currently stands to what ISIS are doing in Syria and Iraq is grossly offensive in the extreme.
If I said that Jonestown Guyana were some kind of direct result/corollary of the rise of Anabaptism in 16th century Europe you'd tell me off for exaggerating.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing by comparing the CofE with ISIS.
I'm surprised you can't see that.
So, no, I won't back off and tone down my comments at all. Why not?
Because a satirical response appears to me to be the only one available in the light of your completely over-the-top comments about the CofE and other so-called 'Constantinian' churches.
I'm happy to accept that there are anomalies in the current relationship between the CofE and the State. Of course there are.
I'm happy to accept SvitlanaV2's point that the current arrangements don't adequately reflect the reality of Christian profession/affiliation on the ground here in the UK - where there are a plethora of churches and denominations and not a single 'state church'.
But the idea that a 'soggy' CofE could one day be revitalised into a glowering Constantinian monster is completely preposterous.
It's not the CofE that poses the greatest risk to life and limb ... it's fundamentalist fanaticism.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I have done some checking on Mennonites in the Nazi era, and found this which I didn't expect and I suspect Doc Tor wouldn't either
Ephrata Ministries
No comment for now....
Well, that's just sad.
But it's still a leap too far to take that as a exemplum for not voting. Not voting for fascists, certainly, but I've voted many, many times and I've never been tempted to vote for the far-right. Or the far-left, for that matter. Neither do I look to the parties I have voted for to build Jerusalem in these green and pleasant lands - though I try and work out which of them are at least aiming vaguely in the right direction.
The best I hope for is that they don't fuck up. The worst is that they don't fuck up too badly.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Besides, your (debatable) claim to interpret Scripture consistently doesn't seem to have ended up with any very practical suggestions about application in today's world:
In reality it ends up with lots of practical suggestions about application. Starting, of course, with disestablish the existing established churches
You might not like it, but the first practical suggestion you can come up with is profoundly political in nature, because here we are in 2014 AD and not c.33 AD, and in the UK there is an established church, and there is a political aspect to getting rid of it.
You want to go about disestablishing the church as a "practical application" but you can't even make your mind up as to whether you should vote or not? I think some priorities need adjustment there.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've cooled down a bit now.
I'm more than happy to discuss the ins and outs of Establishment and for my money, SvitlanaV2 here is bringing the best argument against it.
Of course, anything's possible, but I think it's highly, highly unlikely that any future UKIP or BNP flavoured organisation could ever court favour with a struggling CofE which might hang onto their coat tails in a desperate bid to regain former power and influence ...
I'm more interested in discussing plausible scenarios rather than far-fetched ones.
Indeed, upthread Steve, you said that you wanted to learn from previous run-ins that we've had in order to avoid them happening again ... just as I've resolved not to lose my rag and fall out with you.
I would suggest that concocting these kind of 2+2=48 equations is one way not only to irritate me but also to lose any semblance of sensible debate.
It's this kind of apparently knee-jerk and overly simplistic approach that militates against serious discussion to some extent.
'Don't vote because you might end up voting for Hitler ...'
It's a bit like saying, 'Don't drive as you might end up running somebody over ...'
Both scenarios might be true, but there are checks and balances in each case.
Of course, things can and do go badly wrong ... but that's the world we live in. We have to deal with it.
It strikes me that ghouls and monsters can arise in each and every religious or political system we can conceive of ... and yes, we have to be on our guard.
We have to be on our guard against the Henry VIII's and the Ivan the Terribles - just as much as the Jim Jones-es and the Kool-Aid.
It doesn't do, to my mind, to compare the CofE - even as it's most Erastian, with IS. The two are distinct. Certainly the CofE did execute so-called 'heretics' and persecute dissenters at one time - and that is lamentable - but to my knowledge it never went in for the kind of indiscriminate massacres, the abduction and sex-slavery or women and children and other appalling crimes against humanity that IS is carrying out as we speak.
I've seen photos of some of the abuses carried out by IS online - by accident. Some of those images are seared into my consciousness and I never want to see their like ever again. They were deeply, deeply upsetting.
That doesn't let the CofE off the hook for the way it behaved towards dissenters back in the 17th century - but then, it's not as if all these dissenters were squeaky clean either ... executing the Kind and the Archbishop of Canterbury is pretty extreme behaviour by anyone's standards - however we cut it and wherever our sympathies would have lain back in those days.
All these things were deplorable.
I can certainly see what you're driving at Steve, but I would prefer to debate these issues within the bounds of sensible possibility.
You've asked me to draw back on the satire. I will set forward a similar polite request - that you ease back on hyperbole and what I'm afraid I'm increasingly coming to see as an overly simplistic, black-and-white view of the world.
I'm happy to hear you out and consider 'better biblical theology' as you put it - but would invite you to first provide some yourself to get us started.
There are plenty of posters here who can engage sensibly and coherently with the scriptures - some of them will agree with you, others won't.
Assuming that yours is the only possible 'take' and that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow morally compromised isn't the way to conduct a sensible debate.
If that's a caricature of your position, then I apologise.
But the onus is on you - as far as I'm concerned - to convince me otherwise.
Believe me, you are pushing at an open door on some of the issues you raise - peace, justice and social concern etc etc.
It's only when I feel that you overstate your case that you'll begin to see the door beginning to close.
I've not slammed it, mind. It is still ajar.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Pamona, I don't think it's feasible to argue that the Crusades and Inquisition weren't religious but political in nature.
They were a mixture of both.
For a kick-off, there were popular, 'grass-roots' Crusades - such as the so-called 'Children's Crusade' which were essentially armed pilgrimages ... which tended to come to sticky ends.
Of course, one of the motivations behind the Crusades was political - to distract warring barons in Western Europe from knocking seven-bells out of one another by diverting them against 'the Saracen' ... but they did tap into a well of popular piety.
The Inquisition was quite complicated too, as you suggest - in some ways they weren't quite as brutal as they've been portrayed - they would generally give their victims plenty of advance notice in order to give them opportunity to recant or flee the country. That was nice of them ...
But, as goes without saying, woe betide anyone who fell into their clutches.
Again - all that was then, this is now.
I don't see any prospect of a renewed Inquisition any more than I see the prospect of the resurgence of 17th century style Anglican Erastianism.
I do remain concerned about a revived Orthodox Erastianism in Russia and the Balkans, though - but would argue that the West is partly to blame for that ... which doesn't exonerate it of course.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Orthodox Erastianism? Never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. When and where have the Orthodox ever believed that the State is superior to the Church in ecclesiastical matters?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Pomona;
quote:
Edited to add that you keep forgetting to distinguish between traditions and Tradition. They are not the same at all. Evangelicals have traditions, for example, but would not recognise Tradition.
I have spent so much time on the Ship making precisely that distinction, including to Alan Cresswell only recently.
Evangelicals (including Anabaptists) aim to have a situation where yes, the church develops, but the developments are not allowed to 'make void the Word of God', as Jesus characterised it, but are always subject to review/correction by that Word. So no, we don't recognise the kind of Tradition that ends up contradicting the Word
Also by Pomona;
quote:
Well no, actually, the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were political and not religious in nature. The Inquisition in particular was a government institution mostly concerned with racial purity, and RC bishops died because they protested it.
The Inquisition was wider than just the notorious Spanish version, and that wider Inquisition was decidedly religious in nature. I'd agree that the Spanish Inquisition, born out of the mistrusts left behind after the 'Reconquista' of Spain, was indeed too much about issues like racial purity - but one of the problems there was the close alliance of religion and race; Spanish Christians, non-European Muslims, and, well, Jewish Jews.
The 'sacralist' style of thinking (to use a religiously neutral description of the 'religious state' idea) creates that kind of linkage between race and belief and the inevitable aggravation of that kind of problem.
Same basic point applies to the Crusades; the unholy mix of state and church blurs the lines between the religious and the political to the disadvantage of both.
On the 'Tradition' issue there; the concept of 'Tradition' is regularly 'sold' as making the church in question specially trustworthy and reliable. Yet for the RCC Tradition was at the very least unable to prevent the tragedies of crusades and inquisition, which in turn had a large component of the state link. The Church with perhaps the strongest form of claim to 'Tradition' made a mess difficult to correct precisely because the Traditional authority was involved (or if it wasn't, why not, given the death and mayhem which resulted?)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You might not like it, but the first practical suggestion you can come up with is profoundly political in nature, because here we are in 2014 AD and not c.33 AD, and in the UK there is an established church, and there is a political aspect to getting rid of it.
No dispute really. But I'm not after a mere forced political disestablishment; one key thing is that ideally it should be a voluntary disestablishment by a church which understands that the establishment was wrong, and wants to be freed of its state entanglement for religious, biblical reasons. That shouldn't need my vote, just negotiation between CofE and government.
The alternative of an involuntary disestablishment is precisely where the risk comes in that the discontented will seek to reverse things violently; there will of course be a slight risk of that anyway, but the nearer to voluntary the separation, the harder it will be for anyone to make that kind of issue of it.
Beyond that the point is that a non-established church can find other ways to 'be church' without the need of involvement in the state. Positive Christian caring of all kinds without the superfluous bolt-on of being a state church.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It's not the CofE that poses the greatest risk to life and limb ... it's fundamentalist fanaticism.
But, of course, fundamentalist fanaticism poses that risk when it is allied to the 'religious state' kind of thing - whether in the form of a church which is established-or-similar, or as in NI a religious group which feels its privilege threatened, or a group which wants to become established-or-similar because it sees that as integral to its religion.
I agree that it doesn't look likely at the moment that an English 'Constantinian Christian' revolution would be anywhere near as bad as IS. But history also says that once that line of seeking or defending a religious state is crossed, things can go to extremes frighteningly quickly. "God wants us to make this country Christian" by worldly power methods rather than the hard work of evangelism is a great temptation; and doubly so where a lot of those involved are politicians and other 'once-born' people with worldly motives.
I don't want to exaggerate; honest. But what I know of history is not giving me your confidence about the possibilities.
But OK, let's discuss other aspects for a bit....
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As in 'No, the C/E is not going to morph in to IS'. Little old English ladies are not going to start beheading infidel captives.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do remain concerned about a revived Orthodox Erastianism in Russia and the Balkans, though - but would argue that the West is partly to blame for that ... which doesn't exonerate it of course.
It appears to be proceeding apace, and it scares the bejeebers out of me, and pisses me off no end. Freaking Kyril the asskisser needs to break from that smeghead Putin, but who wants to kick their sugar daddy out of bed?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It's not the CofE that poses the greatest risk to life and limb ... it's fundamentalist fanaticism.
But, of course, fundamentalist fanaticism poses that risk when it is allied to the 'religious state' kind of
Fundamentalist fanaticism poses that risk period. You don't have to be part of the government to kill people. This is something you are having a hard time understanding. You seem to see problems in Erastianism. Fine. They are there. But they're not necessarily the worst problems in the world right now in the non-Muslim world. And many of the most deadly groups in the Muslim world aren't governments. Some of them would like to become governments, but even the ones that are de facto governments didn't start that way. It was because they were murderous thugs that they became Erastian, not the other way around.
[ 14. December 2014, 01:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Looks like I'm now posting (or fighting - hopefully not) on two fronts ...
@Ad Orientem. Of course the notion of Orthodox Erastianism isn't ridiculous. It's been all too prevalent in the history of Orthodoxy. Many of the Orthodox themselves admit as much - Mousethief certainly appears to ...
There was the Caesaropapism of the Byzantine Empire for a kick-off ... as well as various shenanigans under the Russian Tsars when the Church - at times - was almost reduced to a tool of the state.
Sure, things were never quite as clear cut as that but I think one would have to have one's head buried deeply in the sand not to acknowledge that there haven't been issues with Erastianism within Orthodoxy - not to mention issues of Phyletism, anti-semitism and many other evils.
We don't have to be a dyed-in-the-wool Anabaptist type like Steve Langton to acknowledge that.
Like Mousethief, I'm disturbed by the close relations between Patriach Kyrill and President Putin. It doesn't augur well - and I've seen many Orthodox online make the same observation.
Funnily enough, I visited our nearest Orthodox parish today - to catch up with a trainee iconographer I've asked to paint me a small icon of a South Walian Saint ...
I had a lift down there from an Orthodox family who live locally. On the way back, the husband observed how Anglican Establishment doesn't do the CofE any favours - he believed it blunted its witness ...
Interesting observation ...
And one coming from a 'sacralist' and apparently 'Constantinian' direction in Steve Langton's terms.
So, no, one doesn't have to be an Anabaptist to be wary of close church/state relations.
I've never argued that the current situation with the CofE is ideal ... but nor - unlike Steve Langton - do I see voluntary or involuntary Disestablishment of the CofE as some kind of catalyst for religiously motivated violence.
Is Steve seriously suggesting that the local Mother's Union would take to the streets with petrol bombs and Kalashnikov's if Parliament ever disestablished the CofE?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
His imagined CofE backlash against Disestablishment is just that - a figment of his imagination.
As Mousethief says, you don't have to have any involvement with government to be violent.
Neither Jonestown nor Waco had government-backing - although in the latter case the government clampdown arguably served to provoke the violence and immolation.
IS aren't a legitimate government by anyone's standards - although they are trying to become one.
This is where I think Steve's view of history - and the danger of it repeating itself in the contemporary CofE - is rather unnuanced, black-and-white and exaggerated.
Nobody's saying that the Test Acts and Act of Uniformity and so on were wonderful pieces of legislation - but I notice Steve hasn't mentioned the violence of the 5th Monarchy Men and other whacko fundies who partially provoked these kind of clampdowns from the Anglican authorities.
Meanwhile - on this 'once born' and 'twice born' business ... whilst I can see what Steve is getting at we're straying into subjective territory to some extent ... who is Steve (or me) or anyone else to set themselves up as arbiter and judge as to who is 'once born' and who is 'twice born'?
Plenty of people who have claimed to be 'born again' - including many who have been baptised as believers - have demonstrated behaviour inconsistent with such a profession.
I'm very wary these days of considering myself - or anyone else for that matter - as having 'a window into men's souls'.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Also there are lots of people from non-Christian backgrounds who became Christians and were baptised in more evangelical/low-church settings as adults, but then have gone more high-church/sacramentalist in later years. I'm an example of that happening in quite a short space of time. Would Steve consider that an example of being backslidden?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...Is Steve seriously suggesting that the local Mother's Union would take to the streets with petrol bombs and Kalashnikov's if Parliament ever disestablished the CofE?
...
They wouldn't need to do anything so crude: as all Anglicans know, the MU have far more subtle and effective ways of expressing their displeasure...
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Of course, it's nonsense, Gamaliel. I've never heard anything so stupid in all my life unless you can show where and when the Orthodox Church has ever believed that the state trumps the Church in ecclesiastical matters (that being the definition of Erastianism). Being under the heal of an oppressive state doesn't prove it either, and certainly not the synergy (an entirely different thing) which existed in the Eastern Roman Empire.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Steve can answer for himself, Pomona but part of me thinks, 'Need you ask?'
He's already made it clear that he believes non-Anabaptist evangelicals to be severely compromised - so one wouldn't be surprised to find that he has an even more judgmental attitude towards people who either aren't evangelicals in the first place (Anabaptist or otherwise) or who have gone through an evangelical phase and into a more sacramental or other Christian tradition.
Until recently I was under the impression that the modern Anabaptist scene ... characterised by the Anabaptist Network, wasn't at all fundamentalist but shared common ground with the more 'emergent' side of things to some extent.
I am beginning to revise this opinion in the light of Steve's comments on this and related threads.
Of course, he's entitled to his views, however fundamentalist they might be ...
But fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does ...
Nothing short of a full-on form of fundamentalist Anabaptism seems sufficient for Steve.
He's not alone in having an entrenched position, of course, there are RC, Orthodox and even Anglican posters here who have entrenched positions.
Entrenched positions aren't necessarily wrong - if they are deployed in the right way and are defending things worth defending.
There's a tricky balance somewhere.
I'm happy to engage with Steve on the 'other issues' he's raised and the whole thing about a 'better biblical theology' but I'm under no illusions that there is only one final arbiter and authority that Steve recognises ... his own.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So, Ad Orientem, are you saying that Church/State relations were entirely healthy under Ivan The Terrible?
Or some of the whackier of the Eastern Christian Emperors?
I'm by no means suggesting that the Church completely lost any 'say' ... but it's been noted by several commentators that the Russian Church was so used to being deferential to governmental authorities that it collaborated - to a certain extent - in its own persecution under the Bolsheviks.
Of course, there is a long and impressive 'prophetic' tradition in Orthodoxy ... bold monastics and clerics standing up to the powers that be.
No doubt about that.
But also there's been a long history of unhealthy collaboration with sometimes oppressive regimes not to mention phyletism, anti-semitism and so on.
I find it astonishing that you seem to believe otherwise.
Many Orthodox writers readily acknowledge these things to have been the case.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
As I said, there is a difference between being under the heal of an oppressive state and believing that the state has the final say in ecclesiastical matters. The latter is quite obviously bollocks.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - I think we are talking at cross-purposes to some extent ...
Although I think we'd both have to acknowledge that both the CofE at various times and some Orthodox jurisdictions at others have both allowed the State to become overly intrusive in ecclesiastical matters.
Would you not agree with that?
Or would you say that State interference with certain Orthodox jurisdictions or problematic Orthodox collusion with the State at times has been exaggerated?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Not necssarily, no. The accusation of Erastianism is, however, inaccurate at best.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - so what term would you use in its place?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I don't know, but it ain't Erastianism.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair enough ... it's not Erastianism in the sense of the definition you've given but it seems as near as 'damn it' is to swearing ...
At least, it seems so to me ...
But I'll accept that there is some wriggle room.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
OK, Gamaliel, I'll leave you discussing Orthodox 'Erastianism' (or not) with Ad Orientem for now. But
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I've never argued that the current situation with the CofE is ideal ... but nor - unlike Steve Langton - do I see voluntary or involuntary Disestablishment of the CofE as some kind of catalyst for religiously motivated violence.
Is Steve seriously suggesting that the local Mother's Union would take to the streets with petrol bombs and Kalashnikov's if Parliament ever disestablished the CofE?
[Eek!]
His imagined CofE backlash against Disestablishment is just that - a figment of his imagination.
No, I'm not envisaging anything quite so extreme overall; and BTW I'm perhaps more worried about how people outside the CofE might take it. I do know of quite a few people who would be to say the least seriously discontented by a disestablishment, and there would likely be more such if the disestablishment was involuntary. Many of these discontented types would be persons of the far-right anti-Islamic persuasion who aren't averse to violent demonstrations if they thought our own government was threatening the UK's 'Christian culture'. The violence in NI kicked off in somewhat similar circumstances, when 'Protestants' felt threatened by concessions to Catholics/Republicans.
Martin60's comment about little old Anglican ladies for some reason brought to mind the other little old ladies who you'd see in the front rows at 'the wrestling' who probably scared the wrestlers more than their opponents did! (and yes, I'm smiling about it and I do know that some though not all were actually relatives of the wrestlers/promoters putting it on as part of the show!)
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Nothing short of a full-on form of fundamentalist Anabaptism seems sufficient for Steve.
A lot of people who know me would disagree with that....
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Meanwhile - on this 'once born' and 'twice born' business ... whilst I can see what Steve is getting at we're straying into subjective territory to some extent ... who is Steve (or me) or anyone else to set themselves up as arbiter and judge as to who is 'once born' and who is 'twice born'?
Plenty of people who have claimed to be 'born again' - including many who have been baptised as believers - have demonstrated behaviour inconsistent with such a profession.
I'm not claiming to be able to judge individual cases. I'm just pointing out what I'd have thought was obvious - that a 'Constantinian' mindset combined with it being assumed in a nominally 'Christian' country that people are Christian in a 'once-born' way, and it being generally socially acceptable/advantageous to be 'Christian', and other similar factors, tends to produce a situation in which a lot of people in churches will be 'once born' and thoroughly 'worldly' in practice.
A situation in which it is clear to all that Christianity is voluntary and on a 'born again' basis, and not particularly socially advantageous because not part of "The Establishment" or privileged by the government, will not totally prevent hypocrisy and dubious profession of faith - but should surely reduce it considerably; the really worldly people won't want to be in that kind of church.
Disestablishment of the CofE is perhaps the one single act that would clarify that. Though I'd remind you that my concerns are about a wider "Christian country" concept and also about the similar aspects of other religions, rather than ONLY the CofE and its position. Even with the CofE a significant part of my worry is not about the CofE people themselves but about the message the ongoing establishment gives to others.
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Also there are lots of people from non-Christian backgrounds who became Christians and were baptised in more evangelical/low-church settings as adults, but then have gone more high-church/sacramentalist in later years. I'm an example of that happening in quite a short space of time. Would Steve consider that an example of being backslidden?
Don't know - depends on the individual. CS Lewis who I greatly admire was quite high-church and 'sacramentalist', and Tolkien who I also admire was a pretty conservative RC. And the Anabaptist Network is connected with various groups which might be seen that way - 'Celtic' and what might be called 'New Monastic' groups.
I think I recognise - and I suspect you might agree with me on this if you reflect on it - that some 'high-church/sacramentalist' stuff represents a very real spirituality, but others seem to be rather superstitious and legalistic and formal.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm under no illusions that there is only one final arbiter and authority that Steve recognises ... his own.
I can see how it could look that way; but it is I think actually something slightly different to do with the aspergic mindset as represented (though also caricatured, as Gene Roddenberry had, inevitably at that time, a misunderstood idea of aspergics) in the well known Star Trek quote "Illogical, Captain"! What makes aspergics such good mathematical/scientific 'absent-minded professors' is a kind of obsession with sorting out truth, and a deep discontent with fudge; and I pretty much share that, though it works a little differently for the hyperlexic types like me dealing with non-mathematical ideas.
Another aspect of it is that I'm not one of these post-modern types who in the end doesn't really believe in 'truth' or really care about sorting it out.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Just noticed this from Ad Orientem;
quote:
under the heal of an oppressive state
I'm not sure it's a Freudian slip, but it's an amusing typo....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think one would have to have one's head buried deeply in the sand not to acknowledge that there haven't been issues with Erastianism within Orthodoxy - not to mention issues of Phyletism, anti-semitism and many other evils.
Indeed, Phyletism could be said to be our besetting sin.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Nothing short of a full-on form of fundamentalist Anabaptism seems sufficient for Steve.
A lot of people who know me would disagree with that....
But we're not talking to people who know you, we're talking to you. And all we have to go on are things you've posted on the ship.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A situation in which it is clear to all that Christianity is voluntary and on a 'born again' basis, and not particularly socially advantageous because not part of "The Establishment" or privileged by the government, will not totally prevent hypocrisy and dubious profession of faith - but should surely reduce it considerably; the really worldly people won't want to be in that kind of church.
Disestablishment of the CofE is perhaps the one single act that would clarify that.
This is crap, because there are plenty of people in the United States who consider themselves Christians because we are (they believe) a "Christian" country, and they have vaguely Christian beliefs, sort of. But we don't have an established church, so disestablishment is not an option to disabuse them of that notion. It would require something else. So there's no reason to think it would work in Britain any better.
quote:
quote:
I'm under no illusions that there is only one final arbiter and authority that Steve recognises ... his own.
I can see how it could look that way; but it is I think actually something slightly different to do with the aspergic mindset as represented (though also caricatured, as Gene Roddenberry had, inevitably at that time, a misunderstood idea of aspergics) in the well known Star Trek quote "Illogical, Captain"! What makes aspergics such good mathematical/scientific 'absent-minded professors' is a kind of obsession with sorting out truth, and a deep discontent with fudge; and I pretty much share that, though it works a little differently for the hyperlexic types like me dealing with non-mathematical ideas.
Then wouldn't it behoove you to go out of your way to say things that indicate this is not how you feel? Repeatedly, and with vigor?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are plenty of people in the United States who consider themselves Christians because we are (they believe) a "Christian" country, and they have vaguely Christian beliefs, sort of. But we don't have an established church, so disestablishment is not an option to disabuse them of that notion. It would require something else. So there's no reason to think it would work in Britain any better.
I don't think the two countries are comparable in this case, though.
In England, Disestablishment would work partly to reinforce the idea that this is a secular country. IMO this is because the idea is already very advanced in the culture (despite the ambiguous 'Christian nation' rhetoric), and also because the decline of the other mainstream denominations means that attention is now almost wholly focused on what happens in the CofE - and it would obviously look as though the CofE were in retreat.
FWIW, there are a few sociologists who suggest that disestablishment in general allows smaller denominations to 'breathe' as they do in the USA. It's a highly contested idea here, especially since the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales hasn't had any galvanising effect on the other Welsh churches. The reality is that each nation has a different religious culture and history of establishment and disestablishment, so it's unwise to make sweeping predictions about exactly what would happen.
My own view is that because state and church are so tightly entwined in England (having bishops in the House of Lords is the most obvious example) Disestablishment would have a significant psychological impact. For a start, something about the long political process would feel very 'un-English'; it's not the English way to focus too much and too publicly on religious matters, regardless of one's actual religious beliefs. But I doubt that the outcome for English religion would be clear (or at least not for about a century).
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
This is crap, because there are plenty of people in the United States who consider themselves Christians because we are (they believe) a "Christian" country, and they have vaguely Christian beliefs, sort of. But we don't have an established church, so disestablishment is not an option to disabuse them of that notion. It would require something else. So there's no reason to think it would work in Britain any better.
Like Svitlana2 above, I don't think the situations of the two countries are really comparable.
As I read it, the USA (Native Americans apart) was a matter of lots of Christians from different countries settling there, often in flight from the predominant 'established-or-similar' Christianity of their home nation, and making a pragmatic decision not to 'establish' any one form of the faith over the others. Precisely because of the European establishments, in common speech back then 'religion' would be assumed by most to basically mean 'Christianity', and though there were clearly many exceptions holding a more pluralist view, most probably did think of European-Americans as broadly 'Christian'.
In the UK, like other European countries, there has long been a privileged position for Christianity, not only for the CofE but for Christianity in general - as that David Silvester showed recently, even many Baptists who should know better think in 'Christian country' terms (which is one reason why there is a distinct 'Anabaptist' movement here).
Ideally, a disestablishment voluntarily sought by a CofE that finally recognised the establishment as a mistake would carry considerable weight on the UK scene, and would challenge the other varieties of 'Christian country' thinking which also exist, eg in NI.
I guess Muslims would initially see this as a defeat/decline for Christianity; in my experience even in the UK Muslims may have some difficulty in understanding a religion which doesn't try to run the state as they teach for themselves. Whether it is a defeat would depend on Christian (not just CofE) reactions.
An involuntary disestablishment now looks to me to be inevitable eventually, probably during Charles' reign (and he clearly isn't going to live forever). If that left a CofE which had been displaced but still saw 'establishment-or-similar' as an ideal, that could be quite problematic long-term.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In the UK, like other European countries, there has long been a privileged position for Christianity, not only for the CofE but for Christianity in general...
Of course. Why would it be any other way? Europe as we know it is founded on Christian ideals. Anabaptists form their communities on presumably the same priciples. The only difference is one of scale.
[ 15. December 2014, 12:03: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In the UK, like other European countries, there has long been a privileged position for Christianity, not only for the CofE but for Christianity in general - as that David Silvester showed recently, even many Baptists who should know better think in 'Christian country' terms (which is one reason why there is a distinct 'Anabaptist' movement here).
Hi Steve, I'm very much with you on the issue of disestablishment, but could you explain for me exactly what you mean by thinking "in 'Christian country' terms"?
For example - what does such a person want their country to be like; what laws do they want passed; what role do they see for the church they are part of (whether that's the already-established church, or another, such as a Baptist church)?
I've been following this thread on and off for a while and I get the feeling there's some talking at cross purposes going on...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think there are certainly differences between the US and the UK in religious (and many other) terms ... but I still don't think that Disestablishment of the CofE - voluntary or otherwise - would have the kind of immediate effects that you imagine.
As SvitlanaV2 observes, the Church in Wales has been disestablished since 1920 - almost a century now - and it hasn't made a blind bit of difference as far as I can see either to the non-conformist churches there nor to anyone else.
I think there's a far more complicated dynamic going on than we've touched on so far ... and there are a whole load of other issues to factor in not simply Establishment/Disestablishment nor the Constantinian/Non-Constantinian issues that you raise.
Of course, all those things are factors - but there are lots of other issues besides.
Meanwhile - please don't think I have you down as some kind of Alan Turing/Mr Spock figure because of Asperger's.
I don't have you down as some kind of stereotypical 'aspie' - whatever that might be - and I only use the term because you've used it yourself.
Neither do I think that these issues fall neatly into modernist/post-modernist or liberal/conservative categories ... the whole thing is a lot more nuanced than that.
I'm certainly not a post-modernist relativist and I don't think Mousethief is either.
Besides, it's not as if there's only one way to cut through fudge and seek for the truth ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd agree on the cross-purposes thing, South Coast Kevin and it's good to see you back.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd agree on the cross-purposes thing, South Coast Kevin and it's good to see you back.
Meanwhile, though, I do think that Ad Orientem has made a good point about all of this being a question of scale.
Around here, Methodism tended to exert more influence than the CofE and you can still trace the residual influence of that ... it's fed into what I call a 'vicarious religion' - people like to see religion 'going on' as it were - religion 'being done' - just so long as they aren't expected to necessarily participate themselves.
That holds true just as much for The Potteries as it does for rural Cheshire and Staffordshire.
It's been as much a question of scale and critical mass as anything else.
Same in South Wales with the influence - and rapid demise - of non-conformity.
In the instance of Wales in general, I wouldn't want to exaggerate this point - but I do think there's been a reaction to the kind of busy-body Puritanical streak that is inherent within some forms of Calvinism ... and that's had an off-putting effect in Scotland too, I would suggest.
The Northern Irish issue is rather different. I think that's a unique situation within the UK and has to be considered differently to the rest of the country.
I've only been to Ulster once but my over-riding impression of the religious scene there was that the Protestant scene was much more like US Protestantism than it is anywhere else in these islands.
Of course, there are historical reasons for that which we'd all be aware of ... but it certainly didn't 'feel' in any way like the rest of the UK - on all sorts of levels.
As for whether there'd be some kind of violent backlash against Disestablishment - voluntary or otherwise - then I'd have thought such a thing would have been more likely in the 1960s and '70s than it is now.
A kind of Enoch Powell Ulster Unionist style backlash.
Other than a few individuals - and the dreadful prospect of there being a few nutty Breivik style loonies around - I really don't see a groundswell of support for 'a Christian nation' contra the Muslims or anyone else ... although there are certainly elements of that among adherents of the English Defence League and so on.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't threats from that direction - but I don't see these are being as pronounced as Steve suggests ... although I'd agree with him that there's no room for complacency. There are some nutters around.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Apologies for the repetition ... I don't know what happened there.
And apologies for the double-post ...
I think South Coast Kevin has raised an important issue here and one which would apply irrespective of whether there was an Established Church or not.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Lovely to see you back, SCK.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by South Coast Kevin (and I'm also glad to see you back);
quote:
For example - what does such a person want their country to be like; what laws do they want passed; what role do they see for the church they are part of (whether that's the already-established church, or another, such as a Baptist church)?
In some ways, this is a case of "I wish I knew"! What I'm aware of is a lot of rather woolly thinking, much of which I think is based on nostalgia for remembered certainties before the explosion of uncertainties in the mid 1960s, or for the younger, often a fear of Islam (which I think is quite a bit justified) expressed in terms of wanting to reassert that "We are a Christian country". The afore-mentioned David Silvester seemed to be really particularly woolly, wittering on about the Queen's Coronation oath and such.
I can think of quite a string of questions where those who go on about England being a Christian country would quickly respond "Oh no, we don't mean that" - but don't seem to get it that if you're not going to actually impose anything on anybody, then the State connection is not a lot of use anyway. And again, there are the even more worrying types who would say Yes, they did mean that....
And there's the other side where Muslims in particular are taking the 'Christian country' status of the UK a great deal more seriously than many Anglicans, and see it as being a great deal more definite than it really is these days. And that view is both getting people killed and if not preventing us, certainly making it quite hard to get across to Muslims a different idea of how to be God's people in the world.
I don't see it as any simple neat thing; but pretty much any way it works out, it looks to me to be a problem, and a problem which arises from going against the NT vision of the church in the world.
And nobody here seems to be engaging with the point that there's a serious incompatibility between international Church and by-definition-national worldly nations. Ideas, for example, like that if a church is very involved in one state, it may compromise or even endanger the Church elsewhere....
I'm with you about the cross-purposes....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
The only difference is one of scale.
And the rather big point that states come with armies, nuclear weapons, and institutions like the Gestapo, Stasi, etc....
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And nobody here seems to be engaging with the point that there's a serious incompatibility between international Church and by-definition-national worldly nations. Ideas, for example, like that if a church is very involved in one state, it may compromise or even endanger the Church elsewhere....
You can't be in the world and not engage with it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So you don't actually have an answer to South Coast Kevin's question - you don't know what you are 'for' - only what you are 'against'?
I think we're going to have to start to call you James Dean, rather than Steve Langton.
'What are you against?'
'What have you got?'
This Rebel Without A Cause thing will only get us so far.
I'd agree with your that the Muslims generally have a more 'realised' idea of what a 'Christian country' should look like - rather more so than the so-called Constantinian and neo-Constantinian outfits/movements you are forever railing against.
Presumably, they may tend to see it being expressed as some kind of Christian 'Caliphate' - which is understandable - as we all use our own frames of reference - and that's theirs ... to a greater or lesser extent - although I would posit that the Islamic view of these matters has many shades and nuances of opinion - not all Muslims regard these issues in the way we might think.
But this wasn't South Coast Kevin's question, was it?
South Coast Kevin was asking a different question - what kind of country would we like to see? What would we like to see the basis for its laws, jurisprudence and values etc etc?
You are raising plenty of red-herrings here, it seems to me.
I can't think of any of the so-called 'Constantinian' churches - even at their most hardline Constantinianness - ever thought of Christianity in purely nationalised terms. They'd all have had some kind of concept of Christianity being trans-national and international ...
Erastianism and phyletism have certainly caused problems - and continue to do so - nobody here is arguing otherwise.
But this is a different question that South Coast Kevin is raising.
And it appears you can't answer it.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
The only difference is one of scale.
And the rather big point that states come with armies, nuclear weapons, and institutions like the Gestapo, Stasi, etc....
Or it can have the opposite affect. For instance when prince Vladimir of Kiev was baptized into the Orthodox Church among his first acts as a Christian ruler were to tithe his wealth to the Church and the poor and to outlaw capital punishment and torture.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Not all states have nuclear weapons, not all states have had institutions like the Gestapo and Stasi.
But everywhere in the world has some kind of 'state' system.
How can we avoid it unless we go and live on a desert island somewhere?
To live in the world is to engage with the world. Hopefully with a different set of values.
We'll all of us mess it up to some extent or other but non-engagement is not an option.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What I'm aware of is a lot of rather woolly thinking, much of which I think is based on nostalgia for remembered certainties before the explosion of uncertainties in the mid 1960s
For a moment there, I seriously thought you were referring to your own thinking. Because...
quote:
pretty much any way it works out, it looks to me to be a problem, and a problem which arises from going against the NT vision of the church in the world.
We.are.not.in.New.Testament.times. Attempts to restore the church to something that looks like what we think the NT was like are not pretty.
Like it or not, the church in various forms has engaged with the Establishment. You can seek to undo that, but it cannot be undone without political action.
You do not get a bare canvas starting where Revelation left off with no intervening history - that is unrealistic nostalgia.
And you are loth to admit it, but even your Anabaptists are only there because they dissented from historic, 'Constantinian' Christianity before them. You'd prefer to gloss over that inconvenient truth and pretend the Anabaptists are a direct descendant of (your idea of) the NT church. You refuse to acknowledge any part of that 'Constantinian' heritage even as you quote the KJV which was one product of it. That is woolly thinking.
Resolving the problem you perceive with established churches will require more than hand-wringing and preaching about worldliness in the Church of England. It will require engagement in the world.
[ 15. December 2014, 16:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Steve,
Do Anabaptists recite the Creed?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Some might ... in an ecumenical context.
Generally, though, they'd say something like, 'No creed but the Bible ...' and so on.
Anabaptists aren't 'creedal' in any formal sense, but many of them would certainly concur with the contents of the historic creeds.
But SL can answer for himself ...
I don't know how much you know about the 'free churches', Ad Orientem, but generally speaking you wouldn't find the recitation of the creeds as part of public worship - even among those who would consider themselves a continuation of historic, creedal Christianity.
So, it's not something that would generally arise in recitation terms unless there was a particular reason for it ... ie. if a minister or preacher wanted to emphasise continuity/agreement with the historic creeds and asked people to recite a creed along with him as part of the pedagogy.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Steve,
Do Anabaptists recite the Creed?
See here for a definitive non-answer...
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Steve,
Do Anabaptists recite the Creed?
See here for a definitive non-answer...
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some might ... in an ecumenical context.
Generally, though, they'd say something like, 'No creed but the Bible ...' and so on.
Anabaptists aren't 'creedal' in any formal sense, but many of them would certainly concur with the contents of the historic creeds.
But SL can answer for himself ...
I don't know how much you know about the 'free churches', Ad Orientem, but generally speaking you wouldn't find the recitation of the creeds as part of public worship - even among those who would consider themselves a continuation of historic, creedal Christianity.
So, it's not something that would generally arise in recitation terms unless there was a particular reason for it ... ie. if a minister or preacher wanted to emphasise continuity/agreement with the historic creeds and asked people to recite a creed along with him as part of the pedagogy.
Ok. Cheers. I only ask because, well, even if they don't recite it but just believe what it says, it shows that they rely on the faith of the Church the so scorn to some degree. But, of course, they might very well just say, it's obvious from scripture, in which case I'd say, tell that to Arius.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
Steve,
Do Anabaptists recite the Creed?
A quick answer as I'm about to go out to the local Anabaptist Study Group.
I think the position is that Anabaptists don't regard the Creeds as having authority except insofar as they faithfully represent Scripture.
Historically Anabaptists had, I understand, no problem with the Apostles' Creed except that they would generally omit the word 'catholic'. This was not because they objected to the concept of a universal Church, but because as a result of the Constantinian shift, 'catholic' had come to mean something more like 'totalitarian', to which they did object.
Later and more elaborate Creeds are not rejected, but not often used in worship either. Confessions are used in Anabaptism as summaries of belief, copiously cross-referenced to the Scriptures - but always considered subject to Scriptural review.
Eutychus' reference to the Anabaptist Network site sums it up pretty well, I think.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes - as a 'non-answer' - I think you overlooked that comment of Eutychus's ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'Scriptural review' as decided by ... ???
Who exactly?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The Anabaptist Sanhedrin, of course! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It is me, or is this getting slightly surreal?
We have creeds, but they're not your creeds.
We have tradition, but it's not your tradition.
We work for justice and peace, but not like you work for justice and peace.
When we reject Christendom, we reject it differently to the way you reject it.
But what are Anabaptists for? Existing in opposition to the mainstream is a valiant exercise, but only when the mainstream is actively doing something wrong and you're showing it the better way. It seems to me that the mainstream - here the churches that are further down the Erastian spectrum - do a great many of the things that you do, and to be honest, do them better.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the position is that Anabaptists don't regard the Creeds as having authority except insofar as they faithfully represent Scripture.
Every church that has the Creeds believes that they faithfully represent Scripture.
Moo
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Scriptural review' as decided by ... ???
Who exactly?
Strangely enough, by reading the Scripture. And not, for example, by claiming special infallibility or similar for some Anabaptist Church institution or leader.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Yes - as a 'non-answer' - I think you overlooked that comment of Eutychus's ...
I did say I was writing in haste! The site to which Eutychus directed does give a fair summary of the position for Anabaptists. What was being expected by anyone calling it a 'non-answer'? And what alternative would they be proposing?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Moo;
quote:
Every church that has the Creeds believes that they faithfully represent Scripture.
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
even if they don't recite it but just believe what it says, it shows that they rely on the faith of the Church they so scorn to some degree.
What Anabaptists object to is the implication in Ad Orientem's comment that "the Church" has authority over Scripture. Anabaptists do NOT jettison everything the Church has done since apostolic times; but we do understand that those later acts are subject to Scriptural critique. And to be blunt, quite a lot of the acts of "the Church" since apostolic times deserve scorn....
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Like it or not, the church in various forms has engaged with the Establishment. You can seek to undo that, but it cannot be undone without political action.
You live in France, which is known to be quite particular about the division between church and state (although favouring the RCC in certain understated ways, such as paying for the upkeep of ancient church buildings. I understand that some of the fiercest proponents of laďcité (secularism) were Protestants.) Do you think the French have something to teach the Anglophone world about keeping faith and church apart, while expecting individuals of all religions to contribute politically?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What Anabaptists object to is the implication in Ad Orientem's comment that "the Church" has authority over Scripture.
The scriptures belong to the Church. Neither can the scriptures be understood properly apart from the life of the Church.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
This is still the same first step of tyranny the led to Münster.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Strangely enough, by reading the Scripture. And not, for example, by claiming special infallibility or similar for some Anabaptist Church institution or leader.
But herein lies the fallacy, I believe.
We read Scripture through the lens of a culture that has been fashioned, inter alia, by a couple of thousand years of church history. The canon itself is the product of history and disagreed about historically by 'established' churches.
And it's naive to suppose that having no formal leadership or authority there is no de facto leadership or authority. Somebody puts on those Anabaptist conferences, invites the speakers, and decides what does and doesn't go on the "what we believe" page.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you think the French have something to teach the Anglophone world about keeping faith and church apart, while expecting individuals of all religions to contribute politically?
Living in France has made me realise just how much having a state church in the UK works in favour of fringe churches and religious expression. Thought For the Day, Prayer for the Day, school assemblies, hiring school premises for church activities, hiring church halls for one's model railway club... I broadly favour disestablishment but I don't think many christians who do realise how much they would lose as a result.
In France, until very recently I'd say laďcité (which was indeed largely a protestant response to Catholic hegemony, notably in education) has been largely synonymous with aggressive anti-clericalism, but there's been a shift in recent years.
I have just become actively engaged with my city council, in my capacity as representative of an informal protestant pastors' fraternal, in seeking ways in which churches can be involved in civil society, which is unprecedented in the 30 years I've lived here. (It's no secret that this new enthusiasm on their part is a response to the rise of Islamic radicalisation - muslim representatives will be involved in the process too, along with those of other faiths - but I'm quite content to surf the wave!).
Rather unsurprisingly (coming from me), I think the chaplaincy model has a lot to recommend it. French law recognises the role of prison chaplains as providing "moral and spiritual support" and I think both the concept and the status it affords with respect to the authorities could usefully be broadened.
It should be said though that this chaplaincy model has attained credibility with the authorities through many years of practice by "multitudinist" churches, first Catholic, then protestant. The evangelicals tried, stupidly, to set up a completely new chaplaincy independently from the "liberal" protestants a few years ago.
My decade or so's experience of chaplaincy, both on the ground and of the politics, has played a large role in my growing sympathy for historic, established churches, without whose groundwork I could not enjoy the freedoms I do in terms of access and relationships to the state, even if I'm edgier, more 'emergent' and more 'evangelical' in my expression of faith that they are.
Not sure if this answers your question!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
byEutychus;
quote:
And it's naive to suppose that having no formal leadership or authority there is no de facto leadership or authority. Somebody puts on those Anabaptist conferences, invites the speakers, and decides what does and doesn't go on the "what we believe" page.
Don't be silly! Of course Anabaptists have "formal leadership or authority". Lots of it. But that is always ultimately an authority under Scripture and open to challenge by Scripture, not an authority which claims a special quasi-magical status to tell everybody what they have to believe no matter how much they see Scripture saying otherwise. And that is a very important distinction.
And, BTW, most of the church-based model railway groups I know of are in Methodist or other non-conformist churches - the existence of an established church would not make much difference there.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Don't be silly! Of course Anabaptists have "formal leadership or authority". Lots of it. But that is always ultimately an authority under Scripture and open to challenge by Scripture, not an authority which claims a special quasi-magical status to tell everybody what they have to believe no matter how much they see Scripture saying otherwise.
Don't be disingenuous. Scripture as we have it today is at least in part a product of Tradition. It didn't drop down from heaven as Jesus ascended.
What's more, you are being overly (and rudely) dismissive if you think nobody else seeks to be "under Scripture" simply because they reach different conclusions to you about what it says.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Don't be silly! Of course Anabaptists have "formal leadership or authority". Lots of it. But that is always ultimately an authority under Scripture and open to challenge by Scripture, not an authority which claims a special quasi-magical status to tell everybody what they have to believe no matter how much they see Scripture saying otherwise. And that is a very important distinction.
It'd be an important distinction if it was actually true. If I was going to be kinder, I'd say that no one has yet managed it.
I have gone up against the authority of my previous parish, and subsequently left - Eutychus was treated abominably by his denomination, and he was in a position of some authority within it. The 'Restoration' churches' dirty laundry gets aired here with remarkable and depressing frequency, and you yourself posted an article revealing that German Anabaptists voted for Hitler.
You are simply mistaken when you believe your denomination has authority under scripture, open to challenge by scripture and censurable by the ordinary member using scripture. But you'll only find out that's the case when you actually try it.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
The canon itself is the product of history and disagreed about historically by 'established' churches.
Again 'of course'. But a lot depends again on whether you think of the Church as having an authority over Scripture, or rather a 'recognising' authority, recognising God's word but not in itself able to create it.
As I understand it the NT canon was mostly settled long before the establishment, though it can be argued that the 'edition' put out by Constantine served to 'fix' the last few books on which there was still some disagreement. It is probably a 'good job' that it was so; the new Roman establishment was unable to interfere significantly with the NT which ultimately contains the evidence against the 'Christian country' idea and subverts the claims of all 'established-and-similar' churches.
The main canonical disagreement between the already Constantinian churches was the Reformation disagreement about the place of the OT 'Apocrypha'; as I understand it, those writings came into the church through the widespread use of the Septuagint Greek in Gentile churches.
The Reformation crisis caused a reconsideration whereby the Protestants realised that the LXX extras had dubious status as Jewish Scripture and so 'downgraded' them. We probably should pay more attention to them simply as history, but I see no reason to disagree with that basic conclusion.
The idea that having 'recognised' God's word also gives some 'magisterium' or similar an interpretive authority forever is not as logical as it first sounds. A scholar who is able to identify a particular work as 'Shakespeare' does not thereby become an authority on what Shakespeare meant by the work.
One of the issues here is that to Anabaptists the church means 'the church' rather than some authority structure therein which tells everyone else what to do. And also that means the voluntary church called out of the world, not a church whose membership and leadership are distorted by the temptations of the state alliance.
Again, Anabaptists do not necessarily repudiate just everything that has happened since NT times; but they do insist that it be subject to Scriptural review.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Don't be disingenuous. Scripture as we have it today is at least in part a product of Tradition. It didn't drop down from heaven as Jesus ascended.
Again, don't be silly! I'm fairly well aware of the history of the NT.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
it can be argued that the 'edition' put out by Constantine served to 'fix' the last few books on which there was still some disagreement.
It seems to me that you are tacitly acknowledging the role 'Constantinianism' played in establishing the boundaries of what you now deem to be the final authority.
Even though I lean to an "authority of Scripture" position, I agree with Ad Orientem on this: you cannot separate the history of Scripture from that of the Church, as you seek to do. quote:
One of the issues here is that to Anabaptists the church means 'the church' rather than some authority structure therein which tells everyone else what to do.
I can only echo the sentiment of Doc Tor. Where humans gather, within those gatherings there are "authority structures telling everyone else what to do". More or less benign and more or less explicit, but they are there and it is folly to imagine otherwise.
(As Doc Tor also says, often one does not realise this unless or until one runs up against them unexpectedly, an experience I would not wish on anyone). quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Again, don't be silly! I'm fairly well aware of the history of the NT.
So why do you choose to pretend you can interpret it outwith the best part of two intervening millenia of history?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
You are simply mistaken when you believe your denomination has authority under scripture, open to challenge by scripture and censurable by the ordinary member using scripture. But you'll only find out that's the case when you actually try it.
Interestingly, there was a time, decades ago now, when I did try. I personally lost because a 'pastor' was willing to lie to win his case, and I didn't have the evidence to defeat that - but Scripture definitely won and a bullying misuse of Scripture by a small clique of leaders was stopped because they couldn't, in that kind of church, claim authority over the interpretation.
I should perhaps point out that 'my denomination' isn't that much of a consideration. As I've mentioned before, Anabaptists in the UK don't really have a single denomination - you will find people of such beliefs in many different churches.
All churches are human and I don't claim Anabaptists as an exception to that - as I've repeatedly said in response to Shipmates who have tried to make out otherwise. I still believe that the 'open Bible' approach is better than some approach which can 'officially' as it were 'lord it over' the church in matters of interpretation.
Yes, I posted an item about the failings of the German Mennonites. Three points on that;
1) And what were the 'Constantinian' Churches doing?
2) You may have noticed the article also mentions the Hutterite Anabaptists who acted as the Mennonites should have, and were regarded by the Nazi state as a significant threat, eventually being forced to flee. The UK's main Hutterite colony are their descendants.
3) The German Mennonites ended up where they did precisely because they had for years gradually slipped into the kind of 'engagement' with the state you seem to want.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So why do you choose to pretend you can interpret it outwith the best part of two intervening millenia of history?
Because you assess that history against Scripture. Look, churches develop in response to changing situations. Some of those developments are useful. Others are in the category from square one of "You should have known better" and ultimately need to be changed. Other developments outlive their usefulness but unless challenged can remain in place as a clog and hindrance. Or they get pushed too far and end up as Jesus said ' making void the word of God' because the tradition takes on something of a life of its own. And so on....
The thing that is always there to go back to and check against is the NT. And as far as I know even those churches claiming a 'Tradition' say that they're not supposed to contradict Scripture.
For now I've run out of time; back later.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
The only difference is one of scale.
And the rather big point that states come with armies, nuclear weapons, and institutions like the Gestapo, Stasi, etc....
...and street lighting, decent sewage systems, insitutionalised and accessible health care, paved roads, a system of law which while imperfect might limit the extent to which you are at the mercy of people physically stronger than you are, public libraries, regulation of things like trading standards and pollution...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Because you assess that history against Scripture.
To start with, unless you're claiming access to the original manuscripts and a command of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic (without reference to any teacher or teaching materials since the time of writing, and before we even start on any commentaries you may have read, sermons you may have heard, conversations you may have had - including this one - and so on), you are reading Scripture (most probably in a translation...) through the lens of history even as you seek to interpret history in its light.
Failing to acknowledge this is, in my view, folly. quote:
churches develop in response to changing situations. Some of those developments are useful. Others are in the category from square one of "You should have known better" and ultimately need to be changed.
Well, it's nice to see that you can sit in such absolute (dare I say ex cathedra?) judgement on the decisions of your forebears, even if you so far haven't managed to produce a single practical application of "my kingdom is not of this world" beyond haranguing Anglicans to disestablish their church...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The UK's main Hutterite colony are their descendants.
And, I would venture, almost entirely cut off from the world around them.
[ 16. December 2014, 10:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, I posted an item about the failings of the German Mennonites. Three points on that;
1) And what were the 'Constantinian' Churches doing?
2) You may have noticed the article also mentions the Hutterite Anabaptists who acted as the Mennonites should have, and were regarded by the Nazi state as a significant threat, eventually being forced to flee. The UK's main Hutterite colony are their descendants.
3) The German Mennonites ended up where they did precisely because they had for years gradually slipped into the kind of 'engagement' with the state you seem to want.
The 'Constantinian' churches were split. Much like the Anabaptist churches. And again, I, and a very great number of people, engage with the State to a greater or lesser extent on a daily basis without ever voting for a fascist.
If the Anabaptist take-away message from your link is "I'm not going to vote because I might inadvertently vote for Hitler", it's probably for the best that yes, Anabaptists don't vote.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Absolutely, Albertus.
And interesting insights from Eutychus too, from the French perspective.
I'm coming at these things from a similar background and churchmanship as Eutychus ... although I'm probably somewhere a bit 'higher' than he is these days ... but still with a lot of sympathy for the position he upholds.
I s'pose I'm pitched somewhere between Eutychus and Ad Orientem on the scale of things.
Whilst I don't have any particular beef against Anabaptism - I really don't - I do find myself baulking at what I take to be the naivety of it.
Theirs is a highly principled stance - and I admire that - but as articulated by Steve Langton here, it's one that fails to get to grips with the issue of interpretation - as if an 'open Bible' somehow speaks for itself without the need for interpretation ... nor the processes involved with that.
As Eutychus says, someone, somewhere must decide who gets to speak at Anabaptist Network conferences and what goes into their statements of principle and belief on their website.
How is that any less 'magic' a process than what went on/goes on in the forming/agreement of what constitutes Tradition in the Orthodox Church?
It strikes me as a similar process on a smaller scale. A question of degree.
The Orthodox claim that their Tradition takes into account 'that believed everywhere and by all' - at least in pre-Schism or paleo-Orthodox terms (or pre the Monophysite split terms).
Surely, then, the Anabaptist Network position represents 'that believed by all Anabaptists everywhere and by all' - irrespective of where they happen to be in terms of affiliation.
I'm quite happy to accept the Anabaptist Network as some kind of 'ginger group' or interesting focus and forum for Anabaptist ideas. No problem with that.
What I fail to see is how they are any more reliable as a source of biblical interpretation and authority as any other body.
Sure, they don't see themselves as a 'magisterium' in the RC sense - and I'm not treating them as if they do.
But however we cut it, they are representing some kind of self-defining constituency - ie. everyone who signs up to the Anabaptist Network ticket.
Obviously, the Orthodox Church is making bigger claims - seeing itself as the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
But the process it uses to arrive at that is analogous to the one the Anabaptist Network is using to determine its modus operandi and core beliefs.
All of us who read and interpret the scriptures - whether we are Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox - whether we are Calvinists, Methodists, paedo-baptists, credo-baptists or Salvationists ... whatever we are - we are all working within interpretative frameworks that have emerged from the broader Christian tradition.
We are all wearing spectacles. We all interpret the scriptures through lenses formed by all manner of factors and influences - tradition, experience, culture, history ... you name it.
The scriptures aren't a CD or DVD. You don't just plug the machine into the mains and watch or listen.
Even CDs and DVDs aren't 'neutral' - we have to have interpretative tools to make sense of them.
I'm surprised that Steve Langton doesn't appear aware of this very basic point.
His standard reaction to any challenge - it seems to me - is to point out the sins and short-comings of any alternative viewpoint. 'You think we've made mistakes, eh? What about you guys?'
This is why - I'm afraid - I keep coming back to Richard Baxter's analysis back in the 17th century - that principled and admirable though the Anabaptists were (and he seems to have admired them to a great extent) they nevertheless had this intrinsically self-righteous or judgmental attitude towards everyone else.
Sure, he was equally as willing to accept the besetting sins of all other groups that existed in his day - the Romans, the 'Greeks', the Anglicans, Presbyterians and Independents etc.
Life's a mess, get over it. Deal with it.
Yes, governments can yield Hitlers and Stalins - yet we can't do without them. We need infrastructure, we need rules and laws, we need a framework.
There's no way around that. Like it or not.
The same applies to church groups of whatever kind - or voluntary groups for that matter. I'm chair of a tiny voluntary arts group - yet we have a constitution, a treasurer, we have procedures and minutes and so on.
I expect Steve Langton's model railway society has the same ... it'll have rules and structures by which it governs itself.
That's simply a micro example of what happens on a macro level within society as a whole - however we cut it.
Sure, no-one is expecting a model railway society to maim and torture its members - nor anyone else for that matter - nor should we expect governments to do so ... although sadly, this does happen.
But I see no basis for Christians not to get involved with local, regional or national politics any less than they should be involved with model railway societies, local arts groups, sports, the caring professions, business or whatever else.
If the Incarnation means anything then it means involvement.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On this point ... quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The UK's main Hutterite colony are their descendants.
And, I would venture, almost entirely cut off from the world around them.
In fairness, I think the Anabaptist Network and its members have come a long way from withdrawal from the world. They are active and engaged with ecumenical dialogue and seek to air and debate their principles and beliefs across a wider forum - and to take the knocks that this involves.
I seem to remember Nigel Wright, former president of the Baptist Union, alluding to the Hutterite community in the UK - I think his parents may have been involved - and saying how much it had informed his world-view in a positive way.
I don't think we can accuse Wright of unhealthy withdrawal from the public domain.
In a sense, I think there is something in the acerbic comment an Orthodox priest made to me in real life, not here, but he is known here - that the problem with the Anabaptists is that 'they're monastics who haven't realised that yet ...'
Ok, there's something rather ecclesiastically imperialist about that statement - 'they are like us really, except they don't realise it' - but I can see the point he was making.
At their best, I would argue that groups like the Hutterites do play - and have played - a prophetic role. They hold a mirror up to the rest of us - 'here's a form of radical discipleship. What are you going to learn from it?'
But they aren't the only prophetic voices available.
Dorothy Day's is one. Mother Maria of Paris is another. Ordinary Joe's and Jane's who make the best of it in difficult circumstances are still others ...
My Great Aunt Nell crippled on a couch for most of her life, dribbling into a hankie and receiving weekly communion from a priest from a 'Constantinian' church is another.
I really want to hear some positive tips and examples from Steve Langton.
But I'm afraid all I'm hearing so far is a form of judgmentalism directed at everyone who doesn't share his views.
I'd love to be mistaken and I'd like to give him an opportunity to put forward a positive agenda.
As Eutychus says, at times it doesn't seem to consist of a great deal other than bemoaning Anglican Establishment.
[code]
[ 16. December 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by chris stiles;
quote:
(For instance in Romans 14, who gets to wield the sword?)
Romans 13 - the 'powers that be' get to wield the sword; but as per the early church's prayer in Acts 4 that I quoted earlier, only under God. The point is in many ways that it is under God whether or not Christians are 'in power' - so we don't need to be in power. We need to do the job God has given his people, of establishing that 'kingdom not of this world' which can call people to a different and better way.
Sure Steve, and I wouldn't have any particular beef in saying that Christians *as the church* shouldn't seek to be 'in power' - neither should we seek to see the church uphold true religion. To do so would be to blur the lines between society and the kingdom of God.
OTOH, what does that mean for the average Christian. That was the gist of Gamaliel's question after all. If wielding the sword is a lawful office in this age, why is the Christian suddenly precluded from doing so?
On similar lines - and this gets us closer to Munster - "But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage" and yet when it comes to marriage, most Anabaptists will live in with the tension that comes from living between two spheres.
quote:
chris stiles again;
quote:
It seems like you don't really want to understand anyone else's position, and why they may feel that there is equal (and possibly greater) biblical warrant for their thinking.
After 1600 years of Constantinianism I'm still waiting to see a decent biblical presentation/justification of it anywhere near as coherent as what the NT gives of the 'kingdom not of this world' alternative. Where is the 'greater biblical warrant'?
Well, given you are railing against a version of Constantinianism that no one in this thread apparently supports, perhaps you don't understand those other positions.
[ 16. December 2014, 11:20: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Dang! I messed up the code again!
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
But a kindly Host has corrected it.
I am indebted.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you think the French have something to teach the Anglophone world about keeping faith and church apart, while expecting individuals of all religions to contribute politically?
Living in France has made me realise just how much having a state church in the UK works in favour of fringe churches and religious expression. Thought For the Day, Prayer for the Day, school assemblies, hiring school premises for church activities, hiring church halls for one's model railway club... I broadly favour disestablishment but I don't think many christians who do realise how much they would lose as a result.
I'm not sure that this is really about establishment, though. A great many British schools don't have daily assemblies, and when they do they're not necessarily 'Christian in character', as the law requires. And how would disestablishment prevent a church hall being hired out for use by hobbyists?
quote:
In France, until very recently I'd say laďcité (which was indeed largely a protestant response to Catholic hegemony, notably in education) has been largely synonymous with aggressive anti-clericalism, but there's been a shift in recent years.
I have just become actively engaged with my city council, in my capacity as representative of an informal protestant pastors' fraternal, in seeking ways in which churches can be involved in civil society, which is unprecedented in the 30 years I've lived here. (It's no secret that this new enthusiasm on their part is a response to the rise of Islamic radicalisation - muslim representatives will be involved in the process too, along with those of other faiths - but I'm quite content to surf the wave!).
This is interesting to know. Maybe it's a case of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer!
quote:
Rather unsurprisingly (coming from me), I think the chaplaincy model has a lot to recommend it. French law recognises the role of prison chaplains as providing "moral and spiritual support" and I think both the concept and the status it affords with respect to the authorities could usefully be broadened.
I suppose it's a little ironic, though, that the French state approves of religion for prisoners, but not so much for 'ordinary' people. Or is it more the case that religious groups are the most willing and available to provide this 'moral and spiritual support'?
quote:
My decade or so's experience of chaplaincy, both on the ground and of the politics, has played a large role in my growing sympathy for historic, established churches, without whose groundwork I could not enjoy the freedoms I do in terms of access and relationships to the state, even if I'm edgier, more 'emergent' and more 'evangelical' in my expression of faith that they are.
Of course, every church builds on and develops out of the churches that went before. Many of the most self-absorbed Christian groups benefit from converts who were first christianised by other churches (indeed, some of them deliberately target such people rather than going for non-religious folk who are ignorant of Christian matters).
I don't think this is a good reason in itself to discourage a certain degree of de-institutionalisation, though. Sometimes the way to honour the past is to change, not to stay the same.
BTW, why are you 'broadly in favour of disestablishment'?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not sure that this is really about establishment, though. A great many British schools don't have daily assemblies, and when they do they're not necessarily 'Christian in character', as the law requires. And how would disestablishment prevent a church hall being hired out for use by hobbyists?
It's hard to quantify the effect without making a long list. My point is that in the UK church premises are an acceptable part of the scenery and happily used by all sorts of secular bodies. In the long term, I think this (along with things like Prayer for the Day and assemblies, even those of other faiths) lends some credibility (or social reality) to Christianity in the culture as a whole.
In addition, it certainly makes it easier for splinter christian groups to thrive*. How many UK house churches haven't gone through a time of meeting in schools? Not an option in a strictly secular country like France.
quote:
I suppose it's a little ironic, though, that the French state approves of religion for prisoners, but not so much for 'ordinary' people.
There are also army and hospital chaplains. I've learned that there is in fact a recognition of the spiritual side of things by the powers that be (remember Mitterrand had a full Catholic funeral!), but you need to look carefully and act discerningly. It's a question of finding the right way in. As I said, times are changing too. I think the chaplaincy model offers some good pointers as to the right approach.
quote:
Sometimes the way to honour the past is to change, not to stay the same.
Yes, but the protestant/evangelical history of France since the Second World War is a depressingly repetitive cycle of new movements arriving and pretending there was nothing there before them, with each new generation producing a movement stuffed full of self-important and largely incompetent middle managers. I think the best way forward is 'change amid continuity'.
It's taken me those 30 years to reach this position, but I now believe that throwing away the legitimacy painfully acquired over decades by institutional religious movements is just stupid and arrogant.
quote:
BTW, why are you 'broadly in favour of disestablishment'?
It must be my Anabaptist sympathies emerging!
In the UK, I think it would be a more accurate reflection of the true religious makeup of the nation, and I would think that the death of the reigning monarch would be the opportune time to do it. But it would be a rude awakening for many nominal christians nonetheless.
==
*In fact I have a whole theory that dissident groups of all sorts are a luxury only afforded by the type of group they left. Anarchism requires capitalism; so does dumpster-diving. I got this idea from Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed, and I think it has quite a broad application.
[ 16. December 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I read it, the USA (Native Americans apart) was a matter of lots of Christians from different countries settling there, often in flight from the predominant 'established-or-similar' Christianity of their home nation, and making a pragmatic decision not to 'establish' any one form of the faith over the others.
This is simply false. Several of the states had established churches which they later gave up, in part because of the principles in the current U.S. Constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm certainly not a post-modernist relativist and I don't think Mousethief is either.
Um, no.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the position is that Anabaptists don't regard the Creeds as having authority except insofar as they faithfully represent Scripture.
As interpreted by the Anabaptists. As Scripture is interpreted by Arius, they most definitely do NOT faithfully represent Scripture. But surely you know that the whole purpose of the creeds was to faithfully represent scripture. That's what they're there for. Because there are multiple interpretations of scripture, and somebody needed to say, "This is the right one." And we couldn't wait 1200 years for the Anabaptists to come along to give us the definitive gloss.
quote:
Historically Anabaptists had, I understand, no problem with the Apostles' Creed except that they would generally omit the word 'catholic'. This was not because they objected to the concept of a universal Church, but because as a result of the Constantinian shift, 'catholic' had come to mean something more like 'totalitarian', to which they did object.
This is disingenuous. 'Catholic' has never meant anything like 'totalitarian' except maybe to Anabaptists.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Scriptural review' as decided by ... ???
Who exactly?
Strangely enough, by reading the Scripture.
All Christian churches read the scripture, and they often come to different interpretations. What makes the Anabaptist interpretation right? And don't say "because it's what Scripture says" -- that's circular reasoning. You must have some way to show, outwith scripture, that your interpretation of scripture is the RIGHT one. It merely being internally consistent is not enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What Anabaptists object to is the implication in Ad Orientem's comment that "the Church" has authority over Scripture.
The scriptures belong to the Church. Neither can the scriptures be understood properly apart from the life of the Church.
Exactly. The church wrote them (the NT part, anyway). The church existed for many years before any of the NT was written, and it was the church that selected the books it would accept as holy writ. The church DOES have authority over scripture. If it didn't, it couldn't have written it, and it couldn't have selected it. We who realize this believe this power was given to the church by the Holy Spirit, and it was exercised in the Holy Spirit. But that doesn't remove the fact. The scriptures did not drop out of heaven in Corinthian leather with words of Christ in red and a booming voice saying, "This is my book. Read it."
[ 16. December 2014, 14:04: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Eutychus
I think you must come from a British background where church and community are more tightly interwoven than I'm used to, but I'm sure that some parts of England have a better functioning remnant of 'Christianity in the culture as a whole' than others.
Regarding your American missionaries in France and their depressingly repetitive cycle of new movements arriving and pretending there was nothing there before them this could be seen as a culture clash rather than an argument for religious continuity. After all, individualistic religion seems to have flourished well enough in the USA!
It may be true that in France the Protestant groups are just too small to have much individual impact on Christian renewal there, and they simply have to work with the RCC. England seems a bit different, though. Although secular culture now has little awareness of churches other than the CofE it's not clear that the CofE is going to be able to represent Christians in an authentic way in the future. And the 'legitimacy' of the institutional historical churches in general may be harder for them to maintain as they become smaller and more marginal. In some areas institutionalisation may come to be better represented by churches whose 'legitimacy' could be heavily questioned!
quote:
I think the best way forward is 'change amid continuity'.
I think this will apply in some parts of the country, but in others the changes may simply have to be dramatic.
quote:
I have a whole theory that dissident groups of all sorts are a luxury only afforded by the type of group they left. Anarchism requires capitalism; so does dumpster-diving.
If you're talking about a need for balance we seem to be far from that. There are far more institutional than non-institutional churches in England, so for a true balance a huge number of non-institutional churches would have to be planted, or other churches would have to be de-institutionalised. If even 1/3 of churches ended up like this it would represent a huge shock to the system, IMO.
[ 16. December 2014, 14:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
The CofE doesn't- often- claim that it is quote:
able to represent Christians in an authentic way in the future
. What it does claim, with a certain amount of credibility (cf Eutychus' point above) and a certain amount of support from those outside its ranks (e.g. Rabbi Lord Sacks, IIRC), is that Establishment helps maintain a place in the public square for Christianity in its various forms, and indeed for other faiths.
That is, of course, not what most supporters of Establishment over the last 450 years have seen as its purpose. But it is how things have turned out.
[ 16. December 2014, 14:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I do realise that for some people not having the CofE in this almost impossible role would represent a complete PR victory for secularisation. But one almost gets the impression that so long as the idea of Christianity is kept in the public eye it doesn't matter if there aren't any actual Christians....
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Where on earth do you get that impression from?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, indeed Albertus. And yes, indeed Eutychus ... although I agree with SvitlanaV2 that church/community links do vary a fair bit across the UK and depend to a large extent on where you are ... although I didn't read your post as implying that these links were necessarily always close.
On the individualistic religion thing ... well, yes, it's flourished in the US and here in the UK too, to a certain extent - but it's not flourished in a vacuum.
No matter how individualistic it is, it has to derive in some way from what's gone before.
That's why Pentecostalism has flourished in Latin America - it's drawn on a pre-existing RC hegemony.
That's why the JW's have done well in Poland - they are drawing on a residual religious sensibility - and taking it in a different direction.
None of these things happen in a vacuum.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Where on earth do you get that impression from?
Albertus, SvitlanaV2 finds the CofE's apparent failure to act in favour of Disestablishment as an indication that it is more concerned about maintaining its Establishment status than it is about arresting the decline in its numbers.
To that extent, she's just as judgmental about the CofE as Steve Langton is ...
SvitlanaV2 lives in area which has seen a decline in religious observance across the whole spectrum apart from non-Christian faiths.
She's concerned about that - which is entirely understandable - and concerned that nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Albertus
I see secularisation all around me, and most predict that the process will continue. The idea that official Christian representation is important in a secular or pluralistic country implies that such representation becomes more important the fewer Christians there are, whereas for me, the opposite would be the case; the fewer Christians there are, the less one would need such representation!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Mousethief;
quote:
This is disingenuous. 'Catholic' has never meant anything like 'totalitarian' except maybe to Anabaptists.
If deciding not to belong to the 'Catholic' church can get you arrested, imprisoned, tortured, your goods confiscated, and either burned at the stake or drowned (for your dissenting baptismal view), the difference between that and 'totalitarian' doesn't really seem worth arguing about. And 'catholic' in that sense was the issue as far as the heresy-hunters were concerned, not just the Anabaptists. As I say, the Anabaptists didn't have a problem with any other aspect of the Creed, and even there they believed in the universality of the Church in the proper sense.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You do know why the word 'catholic' is in the phrase 'holy catholic church', don't you? And that it has nothing to do with the Catholic church?
Because it seems to me that you do know, but are deliberately conflating the two to bolster your argument.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm glad you clarified that, SvitlanaV2, I took you be implying that Disestablishment would somehow magically boost the number of Christians in the UK ...
Meanwhile, @Steve Langton ... yes, we all know that the RCs - and the Magisterial Reformers - persecuted the Anabaptists.
But the heirs of the Counter-Reformation RCs and the Magisterial Reformer of the 16th century aren't doing so today.
If they were, or if I believed that there was a serious potential for them to do so then I'd agree with you on this point.
As it is, I don't see any serious threat towards the Anabaptists from that quarter. If anything, the so-called 'Constantinian' Churches as they are currently inclined and configured are more likely to try to protect the rights of minority religious groups such as yours.
The only exception to that which I can think of at the moment are potential threats from forms of renewed Orthodox nationalism in Russia and the Balkans ... and the Greek state too, can sometimes take a hard line on what it sees as proselytism from minority religious groups - although religious freedom is technically enshrined in their constitution from what I can gather.
I really think you can sleep soundly in your bed and go to your model railway meetings without fearing arrest by the Inquisition or interference from Lambeth Palace.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Albertus
I see secularisation all around me, and most predict that the process will continue. The idea that official Christian representation is important in a secular or pluralistic country implies that such representation becomes more important the fewer Christians there are, whereas for me, the opposite would be the case; the fewer Christians there are, the less one would need such representation!
So Christianity's claim to representation rests on the extent to which it is something to which a number of people are affiliated- rather like, perhaps, naturism or caravanning- rather than on any claims that it might have to be a moral code, an expression of certain truths, and/or an influence on our development as a nation?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure that some parts of England have a better functioning remnant of 'Christianity in the culture as a whole' than others.
This is not about church fętes or the like but about the doors that having an established church opens both to society at large and splinter groups. Effects include the possibility of public prayer, of any kind, for instance, as well as a readiness by secular groups to use church facilities, including for secular purposes. quote:
Regarding your American missionaries in France and their depressingly repetitive cycle of new movements arriving and pretending there was nothing there before them this could be seen as a culture clash rather than an argument for religious continuity.
It is not just American missionaries, they are but one example of a wider trend. quote:
If you're talking about a need for balance we seem to be far from that.
No, I'm talking about the historic continuity of relations between long-standing, multitudinist churches and the state. It seems stupid to ignore these or reinvent the wheel. Over here, newer groups arrive on the scene, often with the mindset that by talking to the state at all they are engaging with Bablyon; this does little to advance the wider cause of the Church in society.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In fairness to Steve, it would certainly have been the case - and still is to some extent - that the RCC of the 16th century would have regarded the Creed as referring exclusively to itself as The One True Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Likewise for the Orthodox today.
So claims for universality were qualified then as now.
The difference, of course, is that these days those Churches which apply universality to themselves don't tend to do so in a way that involves violence towards anyone else.
Although I'd suggest that the situation is still dicey - or potentially dicey - in certain Orthodox countries.
On the issues that Eutychus raises ... I think he's raising fair points - and I'm certainly not wedded to the idea of Establishment either.
Whatever the rights and wrongs and ins and outs of Christendom, I'd suggest that it was a swings and roundabouts thing - some upsides, some downsides.
Whether hanging on to the vestiges of Christendom in some way delays what seem to be the inevitable descent into secularism, I don't know ... but I can't see how a residual interest/awareness of Christianity does any harm.
It does, at least, keep religion in the public sphere.
I don't think there are any easy answers or necessarily any clear-cut right/wrong positions on this one as far as things go at the moment ... and even if there were wherever we stood on the issue we're all finding ourselves in the same place - that is heading towards a future that is increasingly indifferent or even hostile to religious claims.
We are all camping amongst the ruins of Christendom.
Whether we want to squat in a roofless basilica or go out into the desert under canvas, we all have to deal with that reality.
My own view is that intentional, voluntarist communities are the ideal and are, indeed, increasingly what we're finding. There is still a periphery of 'nominal' Christians in some parts of the UK - or the West in general - but even that can't be relied upon.
So, to that extent, the intentional, voluntarist - and in some ways 'sectarian' - model offered by Anabaptism fits the zeitgeist.
However, I don't want to see that at the expense of the retreat-house, the cathedral (for the moment I think they play a useful role) and the monastic community ... nor the kind of spiritual resources that exist within the older, traditional forms of Christianity.
I'd like to believe that a certain amount of experimentation can co-exist with tradition - whether small t or Big T.
Both Eutychus and I have been involved with 're-invent the wheel' movements and found them wanting.
My brother-in-law reflected only the other day that the big draw-back he now saw to the style of restorationist church we envisaged was that it was a Pol Pot approach to Christianity ... a kind of Year Zero cutting itself off from the wisdom and resources of the past.
I don't think all's lost. I tease South Coast Kevin at times, but I think he's onto something with his interest in the 'classic' spiritual disciplines - and I see no intrinsic problem with incorporating those, to some extent, with the kind of churches he's involved with.
Sure, I know some RCs and Orthodox would prefer them to go the whole hog and 'return to the fold' but at the very least I think these things can build breadth and depth into what might otherwise remain faddish and transitory.
I also believe that the Anabaptists can bring something very valuable to the table - provided they've got an elastic band around their waists which secures them to the broader tradition. I think I can perceive that elastic band around some of their midriffs ...
As we enter an increasingly post-Christian age we need all the help we can get - and from whatever tradition and quarter.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
You do know why the word 'catholic' is in the phrase 'holy catholic church', don't you? And that it has nothing to do with the Catholic church?
Because it seems to me that you do know, but are deliberately conflating the two to bolster your argument.
More a case of complaining that once the church went Constantinian they conflated the two. And no, it's not just about the RCC. The Protestants of the Reformation era also used the word. Theodosius' edict is probably the origin of the usage in terms of the possibility of persecution for rejecting the Imperial Church.
It's a while since I read up about this issue - I'll go googling about it...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So Christianity's claim to representation rests on the extent to which it is something to which a number of people are affiliated- rather like, perhaps, naturism or caravanning- rather than on any claims that it might have to be a moral code, an expression of certain truths, and/or an influence on our development as a nation?
You may see being a Christian as akin to being into naturism or caravanning but I'm not sure that I do!
It's positive for the church to offer moral values, but if it focuses on morality then what's left for it to do once all those values have been absorbed?
Many non-religious people will say they have their own morality and don't need a church to inform them of what's right and wrong. In reality, they're benefiting from a longstanding Christian heritage, but can a national church that's distant from most of the nation do much more than it already has done to make people moral?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, I don't think it can.
But that's not what it's trying to do.
However we cut it, the Christian faith has informed the way this country has developed, the laws it's adopted, the way it organises things etc ...
Christianity is no longer the only kid on the block.
We are a multi-faith and increasingly secularised nation.
To an extent, one could argue that having an Established Church reflects the background and carries on the tradition ... although the way the national church looks and acts now is clearly going to be different to how it looked and acted 450 years ago, 350 years ago or even 50 years ago.
Yes, it's an anachronism - but so is Monarchy and so are a lot of other things.
I can certainly envisage a time when the CofE ceases to be Established. That eventuality would cause a lot more rumblings than the Diestablishment of the Church in Ireland had and the Church in Wales had ... but I don't see it having any of the following effects:
- Improving the lot of non-Anglican churches in the UK.
- Improving our ability to demonstrate the differences between Christianity and Islam to our Muslim friends.
- Clearing the way for wonderful fresh-expressions/organic churches to emerge.
- Creating more of a platform for Anabaptists (or any one else for that matter) than currently exists.
Sure, it'll make some people feel a lot better, and others feel a lot worse ... but that would be about it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It's a while since I read up about this issue - I'll go googling about it...
Really? You do surprise me. From this post (and others like it) I've gained the impression that you read about little else ...
More seriously, I would like to hear more about what Anabaptists are 'for' rather than what they are 'against'.
Much of the Anabaptist literature I've read is all about how we shouldn't have Scouts and Guides using our churches for their parades, how we shouldn't have flags and other national paraphernalia on show, how we shouldn't do this, shouldn't do that, shouldn't do the other ...
But precious little on what we should actually be doing.
I think we've discussed this before, but I've read some of Stuart Murray Williams's Anabaptist Network 'Post-Christendom' material and all I've come away with is an impression of what he doesn't like and what he doesn't advocate ... rather than anything that he actually does ...
I'm inclined to cut the guy some slack. I'm sure there's more to him than that but I couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I read one of his books through twice to ensure I hadn't missed anything - and was none the wiser the second time around.
There really wasn't anything there.
There was no 'there' there - as they say.
I might be doing him a disservice. But I want to see some 'there' not a whole load of ranting and railing about what shouldn't be there.
If all these guys have to offer us are no war memorials inside churches, the Brownies and Guides kicked out and told to meet elsewhere then I'm not sure what they are actually offering us.
They don't seem able to tell us.
[code]
[ 16. December 2014, 20:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure that some parts of England have a better functioning remnant of 'Christianity in the culture as a whole' than others.
This is not about church fętes or the like but about the doors that having an established church opens both to society at large and splinter groups. Effects include the possibility of public prayer, of any kind, for instance, as well as a readiness by secular groups to use church facilities, including for secular purposes.
Church fętes are pretty much the same kettle of fish as hobbyists hiring a church hall, I would have thought. In fact, they might be better, since they allow churchfolk and the wider community to meet, rather than having people who don't know each other using the building at different times of the week.
Yes, it is nice to have the church (hall) full of little Brownies on a Friday evening, or Weight Watchers ladies on a Thursday. It's good PR, keeps the building in use - and most of all, it's a good income for the church. I'd argue that any church with a building should maximise that potential if it can. It's a shame if French churches can't do so, as that must make it harder for them to raise funds.
Nevertheless, I'm a bit cynical as to what all these things do to advance any kind of Christian cause as such. You're left with a thin gloss of faith on activities and relationships that don't seem to generate much in the way of religious reflection. It would be an interesting topic for someone to do some research on, though.
BTW, do French Protestant church groups ever rent worship space in RCC property, or from each other? That would be the obvious thing to do.
quote:
I'm talking about the historic continuity of relations between long-standing, multitudinist churches and the state. It seems stupid to ignore these or reinvent the wheel. Over here, newer groups arrive on the scene, often with the mindset that by talking to the state at all they are engaging with Bablyon; this does little to advance the wider cause of the Church in society.
We have lots of small Christian groups here, but they don't threaten to bring 'the wider cause of the Church in society' juddering to a halt. Are French Protestants really troubled by the prospect of newly-arrived sects showing them up? I'd have thought that most French people just ignore these groups because they're used to turning to the RCC (the unofficial state church...) when it comes to the Christianity.
Actually, there's probably little chance of escaping from culturally dominant religious forces, regardless of how many troublesome smaller groups there are snapping around at their heels. No institution willing gives up power, so talk of conscious de-institutionalisation is a fantasy, and talk of 'reinventing the wheel' is academic.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Really? You do surprise me. From this post (and others like it) I've gained the impression that you read about little else ...
Anabaptism in general I'm reading much - but also other stuff including a great deal that I disagree with, because I know that only reading one side is unhelpful to say the least. What I haven't read recently, because it first came years ago in my study, was the particular reference about omitting 'catholic' in the Creed. As of now I've found no direct reference on the web; I'm possibly not searching right.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Albertus;
quote:
So Christianity's claim to representation rests on the extent to which it is something to which a number of people are affiliated- rather like, perhaps, naturism or caravanning- rather than on any claims that it might have to be a moral code, an expression of certain truths, and/or an influence on our development as a nation?
Basic Truth; The UK is a plural democracy, and while in such a society minorities are protected against an over-mighty majority, they have no automatic right to any privileged representation. We may claim all we want to be a 'moral code' or an expression of 'certain truths', or to have been influential in the nation's history – but it counts for nothing much if we are few, even less if we are unconvincing, and yet less again if we just presume on our past status (which many in the world currently see as a bad thing rather than a benefit) or our own self-opinion for our right to representation.
Any privileged religion in a democracy is an anomaly from square one; and as I've been saying, established Christianity is a double anomaly because that contradicts its own teaching. If we rely on the world for our representation, we'll get what the world has to give... which is either we'll get apparent power but be exploited and corrupted, or we'll get marginalised. Or somewhere in the middle we'll be comfortable but ineffective....
How about relying on God instead? That does of course require faith; and faith in this context would start by believing God about how we're supposed to be his people in the world.... If we don't have that faith, we'll fail and deserve to, whatever rags of 'official representation' we manage to cling to.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Well, I knew that would be your position, Steve, and while I disagree with you fundamentally, I won't argue with you about it. The point was aimed at Svitlana, whose position I wanted to draw out a little further.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My own view is that intentional, voluntarist communities are the ideal and are, indeed, increasingly what we're finding. There is still a periphery of 'nominal' Christians in some parts of the UK - or the West in general - but even that can't be relied upon.
With the exception of children dragged to church by parents, are there any non-intentional non-voluntarist Church-goers? No-one is saying "the CofE is the national church therefore you must go there", I'm not sure anyone has made that claim in centuries.
I agree there are a sizeable number of people who consider themselves Christians who hardly ever enter a church building. I'm not going to claim that they aren't Christian just because they don't attend church. But, I would say that it's not a phenomenon restricted to the CofE - there are people who would be just as likely to consider churches of other denominations as "their church" who only turn up in a blue moon; it's certainly true of the Methodist and URC churches I've been a member of, I would be surprised if it also wasn't true of Baptists, more established independent churches, and even anabaptists. Establishment, or otherwise, isn't going to make any difference on that count.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Albertus;
How about relying on God instead? That does of course require faith; and faith in this context would start by believing God about how we're supposed to be his people in the world
Actually Steve - this paragraph is interesting. It's interesting because so far no one in this thread has actually said that they subscribe to the particular form of Constantism that you describe.
The only exception seems to be .. er you. You seem to keep implying that one day we will be inexorably swept up in that direction. When the reality is that the CofE's relationship to the church is equal parts illusion and sympathetic magic.
As a member in good standing of the CofE, one has little or no influence on the progress of disestablishment. Were it to become an issue in this country, it would be a political one, and you would see suddenly see how odd the more backwoods part of the Conservative and Unionist parties really were ..
As a good two kingdoms person I would prefer that the kingdoms be kept strictly separate, but as a matter of conscience there is no Disestablishment Party. Were one to appear I'd have to measure up my concern over that issue against their other manifesto commitments, consider common good in the light of natural revelation and vote according to my conscience.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by chris stiles;
quote:
Actually Steve - this paragraph is interesting. It's interesting because so far no one in this thread has actually said that they subscribe to the particular form of Constantism that you describe.
I've not really described a 'particular form of Constantinianism' - on the contrary I've portrayed it as a quite varied phenomenon and despite the efforts of Shipmates I keep saying this is not just about the CofE. And I have noticed that there are only a few people Shipboard, even among Anglicans, who are really keen on 'establishment'.
My actual target in the recent post was all this talk about the (worldly?) advantages of the state/church connection even from people who are themselves 'free church'. To me that is just the wrong kind of priority. And I'm also seeing the disadvantages as well as the advantages.
chris again;
quote:
You seem to keep implying that one day we will be inexorably swept up in that direction.
(Assuming you mean a revived establishment or other form of 'Christian country') I've suggested that that is one way things could work out, and perhaps quicker than you might expect, in the present climate; there are historical precedents. I know and have stated other possibilities as well.
and again;
quote:
When the reality is that the CofE's relationship to the church is equal parts illusion and sympathetic magic.
Should that have been 'relationship to the state'? I can see a way of making sense of it as 'church' but it seems a bit over-subtle.
Broadly, I see the most likely scenario as eventual disestablishment no more than 20 years away. And I'd rather it was an active disestablishment called for by a church that finally realised it had it wrong and set out to do better, and not just a fading away of an increasingly worldly church with nothing significant to offer, or a forced disestablishment of a church left discontented and resentful by losing its taken-too-much-for-granted-position.
And yes, even that's a slightly too simple summary of a complex of issues; it's also a very insular view of something I see as having considerable international dimensions.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'm still waiting for a non-circular explanation of how the Anabaptists know that their interpretation of Scripture is the right one. Steve has been deafeningly silent on this score.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
And I'm still waiting for Steve Langton to explain how the following could take place in practical terms and how Anabaptists (or whoever else) are any 'better' at it than so-called 'Constantinians' are.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
How about relying on God instead? That does of course require faith; and faith in this context would start by believing God about how we're supposed to be his people in the world.... If we don't have that faith, we'll fail and deserve to, whatever rags of 'official representation' we manage to cling to.
How does he know that other Christians aren't 'relying on God'? How does the fact that I'm sat on a chair and not levitating miraculously several feet off the ground diminish my reliance on God?
We are real people and we live in real places, real societies and in the real world.
What does this pious talk actually mean in practice?
As I've said, from the apparent example of Stuart Murray Williams's books, I get the impression that Anabaptists are far better at pointing out what's 'wrong' than actually standing 'for' anything.
They seem - to an extent - to define themselves by what they aren't rather than what they are.
Sure, that's part of their history, defining themselves over against a larger and more oppressive 'other' - but surely there has to be more to it than that?
I'm still waiting to hear what that is.
The answer as to why the Anabaptist way is apparently 'better' than the alternatives seems, to me at least, to be the same as the reason that Steve Langton's 'take' on scripture is somehow 'better' or 'more scriptural' than anyone else's - ie. because Steve Langton says so.
Is this an unfair assertion?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
Yes, i meant 'state' rather than 'church'.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Broadly, I see the most likely scenario as eventual disestablishment no more than 20 years away. And I'd rather it was an active disestablishment called for by a church that finally realised it had it wrong and set out to do better, and not just a fading away of an increasingly worldly church with nothing significant to offer, or a forced disestablishment of a church left discontented and resentful by losing its taken-too-much-for-granted-position.
One can also fade away without becoming increasingly worldly and whilst still having lots to offer. That is the alternative - the church disestablished as a bit of constitutional tidying up tacked onto the end of some other bill. Such a move doesn't necessarily have to leave the church either discontented or resentful, and is my preferred solution at this point.
Because AT THIS POINT nothing could actually be more calculated to make the church political than it actively calling for disestablishment. Backwoods conservatives would emerge out of the woodwork, wingnuts would be given full opportunity by the likes of the Mail and the Spectator to rail against a church which threatened "The Union" by going socialist and PC, William Rees-Mogg would climb on a soapbox, and so on.
[ 17. December 2014, 15:35: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
ie. because Steve Langton says so.
And I'm likely to say anything else when you aren't producing even half-way decent alternative interpretations but just making smug, pompous not-addressing-the-issue comments like that one????
by Mousethief;
quote:
I'm still waiting for a non-circular explanation of how the Anabaptists know that their interpretation of Scripture is the right one. Steve has been deafeningly silent on this score.
Steve doesn't really need to say much when you and your fellow Orthodox Ad Orientem are very visibly not singing from the same hymnbook on the Constantinian issue despite your supposedly better ability to interpret....
To just about everybody on the thread;
Could it be, I wonder, that this has turned into an argument about Scripture authority because you can't actually win on the basis of Scripture....??
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
I'm still waiting for a non-circular explanation of how the Anabaptists know that their interpretation of Scripture is the right one. Steve has been deafeningly silent on this score.
Steve doesn't really need to say much when you and your fellow Orthodox Ad Orientem are very visibly not singing from the same hymnbook on the Constantinian issue despite your supposedly better ability to interpret....
Yes, Steve does. Saying "You guys disagree" doesn't justify your interpretation. Start justifying or admit you can't, please.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Could it be, I wonder, that this has turned into an argument about Scripture authority because you can't actually win on the basis of Scripture....??
What this tells me is the following:
(a) you appear convinced that you alone here abide by Scripture authority
(b) your interpretation of Scripture is therefore authoritative
(c) it follows that you must have won the argument, and everyone else must have lost.
This despite a whole string of unanswered questions and objections from many other people, and a complete lack of practical suggestions on your part as to how to implement your views other than haranguing Anglicans to disestablish.
The message that comes across by speculating that nobody else but you can "win" on the basis of Scripture is that you despise other professing christians and are assured of the inherent, exclusive correctness of your view.
If you've "won", it looks very much to be a Pyrrhic victory from where I'm sitting. What kind of victory for the Gospel is that?
The Ship, particularly Purgatory, is about discussion, not preaching. Those who don't approach it that way are missing a lot. I can't count the number of ways discussion on the Ship has influenced my christianity, largely I believe for the better. I'm sorry that doesn't appear to be an option for you. quote:
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Could it be, I wonder, that this has turned into an argument about Scripture authority because you can't actually win on the basis of Scripture....??
No, I think it's struck a rock on the question of the authority of interpretations of Scripture. You don't accept interpretations of Scripture presented in Tradition, or the deliberations and councils of theologians and bishops, as authoritative for you. Most people here do not accept you as an authoritative interpreter of Scripture.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, Steve, I'm not being smug - but I am being satirical. Remember, I've explained a few times that I use satirical means in order to highlight what I see as intrinsic weaknesses in your position or argument.
In this case, I was saying satirically what Eutychus has said directly ie. you appear to believe that your own position is transparently based on scripture and that everyone else's isn't ... at least, not to the same extent as yours.
You appear unable to distinguish 'what scripture says' from 'what I believe scripture to say.'
There's the issue of interpretation and for whatever reason that seems to pass you by.
It's not the rest of us who sound 'smug' here at times, my friend. 'Who can discern his errors?'
I'm sure you'd be shocked if I said that your posts sometimes come across as rather smug, holier-than-thou and judgmental.
I'm sure that's not how you intend them to sound.
I'm afraid you also seem unable to comprehend that people from the same or similar traditions can reach different conclusions. The fact that there differences between Mousethief and Ad Orientem on certain issues - despite them both being Orthodox - isn't a sign of weakness in their interpretive framework. Rather, I'd say that it is a sign of strength and flexibility. They can disagree with one another on certain issues and still remain on the same page when it comes to certain 'dogmatic core' issues ... and the Orthodox Church has historically tended to 'dogmatise' a lot less than Rome has done ...
The reason the scriptural authority thing has come up is because you are apparently claiming to have the moral high-ground on this issue - as you claim to have with almost everything else.
It is pertinent to the discussion not because the rest of us can't punch our way out of a paper bag when it comes to making scriptural arguments - but because all of us here are equally as capable in making scriptural cases for particular positions as you are - you simply appear to think that we're not because you can't conceive of anyone arriving at different conclusions to you from the same scriptural base.
I'm not sure anyone here is trying to 'win' in the way you claim they are - I don't see anyone trying to 'win you over' to a so-called 'Constantinian' position ... mainly because nobody here as far as I can see actually holds to that bug-bear, bugaboo, strawman position in the way that you apparently believe them to do.
What we are all - in our various ways - trying to do, it seems to me, is demonstrate that things are nowhere near as clear-cut and cut-and-dried on these issues as you appear to make out. That there is nuance and flexibility, that there are shades of grey ...
That not everything in this fallen world of ours is wicked, evil and worthy of avoidance, just as not everything is excellent and praiseworthy.
That there are intrinsic problems and difficulties in whatever position we hold and whatever churchmanship we adopt ... and that we have to live and work with those difficulties until the eschaton. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve things or simply accept the status quo ... but neither does it mean adopting an unfeasibly perfectionist position that is danger of straining out gnats and swallowing camels.
I can see what you're getting at and have a great deal of sympathy. There are problems with Establishment, there are problems with Erastianism, there are big issues with the whole 'Constantinian' legacy as you conceive it.
All that is undoubtedly the case.
And yes, the idea of a 'state church' or a 'Christian country' - and I don't think anyone here is claiming that such a thing exists anymore, if it ever did - does bring problems in its wake.
An analogy might be the behaviour of some guys on building sites. They may genuinely love their wives and girlfriends, yet by indulging in cat-calls, wolf-whistles and ribald remarks at passing women they are creating a climate where the sexual harassment and sexual objectification of women is habituated.
One could argue that, by analogy, a 'state church' habituates the idea that Christian profession can be nominal and that worldly compromise is embedded in the way such churches conduct their affairs.
But at the same time, the building foreman who doesn't challenge the behaviour of his fellow builders but who withdraws from the site entirely and works as a one-man freelance brickie somewhere is also perpetuating the problem.
It doesn't solve anything.
I know I keep banging on about Richard Baxter and his 17th century observations about the besetting sins or issues with the churches of his day - but I really don't see a lot of difference between the situations he described and what we see now.
There are intrinsic problems, intrinsic strengths and weaknesses in all positions.
Your position does have its strengths - but it also has its blind-spots - same as anyone else's.
The blind-spots, it seems to me, are:
- The insistence that yours is transparently the only proper way to conduct things.
- A failure to grasp that scripture needs to be interpreted and doesn't simply drop out of the sky.
- An intrinsically perfectionist, other-worldly and ultimately judgmental view of things.
Other than that, it's probably ok ...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't see anyone trying to 'win you over' to a so-called 'Constantinian' position ... mainly because nobody here as far as I can see actually holds to that bug-bear, bugaboo, strawman position in the way that you apparently believe them to do.
Well, I'm not sure about that...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've not really described a 'particular form of Constantinianism' - on the contrary I've portrayed it as a quite varied phenomenon and despite the efforts of Shipmates I keep saying this is not just about the CofE.
and right back on page one, in response to a call for examples of Constantinians:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
there are huge parts of Eastern Orthodoxy, many of Ulster's Protestants, the USA 'Religious Right', and many more
Steve Langton's definition of 'Constantinianism' seems to be just about broad enough to include everyone but himself, so I guess that by his lights, we all hold to it ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, point taken, Eutychus, which reinforces the point I've been trying to make about Anabaptism - taken to its logical conclusion - effectively taking the need for 'purity' to the extent that it ends up as 'the church of one' ... ie. the lone individual against everyone else.
A kind of radical reformation version of St Simeon Stylites on top of his pillar.
There's the old - and probably apocryphal - story of the New England Puritan preacher who kept upping the ante on the level of apparent personal holiness required for membership of his church.
The story goes that it went from a church of several hundred people down to just him and two little old ladies left.
Nobody else was up to the mark.
Of course, I don't see that with Steve Langton - I don't seriously think he's arguing for such a position - I know he's no prude and is under no illusions that Anabaptists are automatically holier or more 'spiritual' than anyone else.
His issue is more with the structural issues and the message that sends - ie. if you have a 'state church' it sends out an unwelcome message ... whereas if you have an independent, 'gathered' community it's easier to avoid the compromises and exigencies that a close church/state relationship affords.
That's not an unreasonable position, of course.
But it is one that brings with it a different set of problems and difficulties.
At the risk of sounding patronising, I'd have very much taken a Steve Langton-esque line at one time - I still do to some extent - but having been around the block a few times and having contacts across the board in almost every conceivable kind of church there is - I'm wary of simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by chris stiles;
quote:
Because AT THIS POINT nothing could actually be more calculated to make the church political than it actively calling for disestablishment. Backwoods conservatives would emerge out of the woodwork, wingnuts would be given full opportunity by the likes of the Mail and the Spectator to rail against a church which threatened "The Union" by going socialist and PC, William Rees-Mogg would climb on a soapbox, and so on.
If that is true, I think it's rather making my point about the mess we're currently in. That's my actual point, mind, not my point as misrepresented by Eutychus, Gamaliel, et al.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
How can everybody get it so wrong?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How can everybody get it so wrong?
I expect they are drawing the 'wrong' conclusions from Steve Langton's lengthy (and repetitive) statements. Chris Stiles states a particular and, IMHO, rather different outcome, which may be that which Steve Langton would prefer.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As a possible outcome, I think Chris Stiles's suggestion has some credibility - and I wouldn't disagree with Steve Langton on the undesirability of that.
I would suggest, though, that the kind of William Rees-Mogg, Daily Mail ranting and railing and the Telegraph carping and sniping reaction - whilst highly likely - would not amount to anything more than wind and bluster.
I certainly wouldn't envisage a 'very British coup' style clampdown by outraged ex-army colonels and Disgusted of Tonbridge Wells.
I think a kind of whacko Ulster Unionist/Enoch Powell type reaction would have been more likely in the 1970s and early '80s had CofE Disetablishment been mooted at that time.
As and when Disestablishment happens I don't see the danger of a violent backlash at all ... simply some farting and posturing from some quarters that the CofE itself largely finds embarrassing.
So I still think that Steve Langton's position is over-stated ... which is why I keep satirising it.
If he was taking a more balanced, moderate and nuanced line and not conforming to the Richard Baxter model of how Anabaptists behave - ie. in a dismissive, know-it-all and holier-than-thou fashion at times - then I wouldn't be satirising his position.
In another 20 years William Rees-Moggery and so on will have diluted to a certain extent ... even the Royal family behaves in a way that's very different to 50, 40 or even 20 years ago.
Anglican Disestablishment may well happen after the reign of the current monarch. Who knows? Let's wait and see. Whether it does or doesn't I can't see what 'mess' it resolves nor how it would make any substantial difference to how ordinary Anglicans work out their faith on the ground - nor how it would affect non-conformists and others - other than to give some of them more a smug, self-satisfied 'I told you so' smile than they are wearing at the moment ...
All that said, I do think that Eutychus has raised some pertinent points. Those who wish for the Disestablishment of the CofE had better be careful what they wish for ... because what might replace it mightn't be any better (or worse) than what we have now.
In fact, I don't believe it will be any better or worse - just different. We're all headed into a minority future in an increasingly secularised and post-Christian (as well as post-Christendom) culture.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Chris Stiles states a particular and, IMHO, rather different outcome, which may be that which Steve Langton would prefer.
Just to be clear, I think what will *actually* happen will be a gradual fading away of links between the state and church. With a final move of a Church of England to Church IN England, being seen in a decade or so as a bit of constitutional tidying up.
However, I disagree with Steve that this would actually mean that the church had become more 'worldly' or that this would lead to the church feeling 'resentful'.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.... William Rees-Mogg would climb on a soapbox, and so on....
As if turning in his grave weren't bad enough (d.2012)! I think you might mean his charming but equally reactionary and batty son, Jacob.
[ 19. December 2014, 09:37: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I know of at least one conservative evangelical who predicts a constitutional crisis on the accession of Charles III (on account of his adultery), and foresees the Disestablishment precipitated by evangelicals unwilling to sit under the oppressive yoke of a heretical monarchy.
( )
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Just to be clear, I think what will *actually* happen will be a gradual fading away of links between the state and church. With a final move of a Church of England to Church IN England, being seen in a decade or so as a bit of constitutional tidying up.
However, I disagree with Steve that this would actually mean that the church had become more 'worldly' or that this would lead to the church feeling 'resentful'.
Totally agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I know of at least one conservative evangelical who predicts a constitutional crisis on the accession of Charles III (on account of his adultery), and foresees the Disestablishment precipitated by evangelicals unwilling to sit under the oppressive yoke of a heretical monarchy.
( )
That's funny when one considers that the Church of England itself came into being because of the decisions made by an adulterous and 'heretical' monarch. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Speaking as a happily low-church evangelical Anglican. I'm in no great hurry for disestablishment at all, neither am I overly bothered by the prospect of it happening. (Is the state stronger than God's kingdom? Nope.) It's not a hill to die on and I think there are far more pressing things to be concerned about (the rising levels of poverty, UKIP ...)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by chris stiles;
quote:
However, I disagree with Steve that this would actually mean that the church had become more 'worldly' or that this would lead to the church feeling 'resentful'.
I'm discussing alternatives here - several different possibilities, which may also depend on external pressures like growing concern about Islam.
One of the effects of establishment is that the church gets gradually conformed to the world which it has got entangled with; and by losing its distinctiveness also loses relevance because it isn't offering anything the world can't do for itself. One scenario is a church which has become like that and gets disestablished because it has become irrelevant. I think it better that the church retain its distinctiveness - but that is best done outside establishment.
On the resentment thing, the CofE is privileged and tends to assume its entitled to be. A forced disestablishment, of a church which hasn't realised how wrong establishment is, might well generate resentment and a desire to re-establish the privilege. That, added to other pressures in society such as those who want to oppose a "Christian England" to 'Islamicisation', could generate real problems in varying degrees. A violent reaction is a possibility - currently remote but that could plausibly change.
My preferred option would still be a CofE disestablished at its own request because it has reassessed its position and understands it has been wrong. That is the most positive outcome not only for the church and the UK, but also in terms of example/witness to the world at large, both to 'Christendom' and to the non-Christian world.
For the CofE to merely 'fade away' and be 'tidied up' would be better than some options, but I think not beneficial to Christian mission generally - it would look very much a defeat of a powerless body.
And I repeat, not because I really want to, because I'm getting fed up of having to say it, but because people keep ignoring me saying it, this is NOT JUST ABOUT THE CofE; it is a very much wider issue.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Steve Langton's definition of 'Constantinianism' seems to be just about broad enough to include everyone but himself, so I guess that by his lights, we all hold to it [Disappointed]
Actually my 'definition' is quite 'narrow'; I'm looking at Scripture, looking at how it says the church should be, and I'm seeing a line we're supposed not to cross. At the moment rather a lot of Christianity and/or what purports to be so is simply on the wrong side of that line, and a lot of others could perhaps be described as being mostly on the right side of the line in practice, but without a coherent Scriptural view to support their position.
Christianity 'on the right side of the line' is far wider than just the traditional Anabaptists and the related/inspired-by groups like the UK Anabaptist network. There are several denominations holding such views, many independent churches, and many individuals and churches in mainstream denominations as well.
There is also a big area which is just confused. And even those clearly on the wrong side of the line vary in how far over they are, and also in how bad the effects are. The CofE is theoretically at the extreme, but so soggy it doesn't have much actually violent effect; other groups wouldn't want such a degree of establishment in the state, but nevertheless expect a 'Christian country' and may be actually violent, eg in NI.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[long discussion about disestablishment of the CofE]
(...)
And I repeat, not because I really want to, because I'm getting fed up of having to say it, but because people keep ignoring me saying it, this is NOT JUST ABOUT THE CofE; it is a very much wider issue.
That's a bit rich when I've just quoted you to make the point that you claim not to be talking just about the CofE.
Indeed, you aren't just talking about the CofE when it comes to lumping together everyone you don't agree with as "Constantinian" (your definition being so elastic as to be able to include everybody else).
However (and correct me if I'm wrong), the only practical suggestion you have made as an outworking of your view to address this "wider issue" is disestablishment, first and foremost of the CofE. It's all you've got: quote:
the CofE should be disestablished
It's the only extant example of your quote:
practical suggestions about application. Starting, of course, with disestablish the existing established churches
or, as you later put it, quote:
a voluntary disestablishment by a church which understands that the establishment was wrong
because quote:
Disestablishment of the CofE is perhaps the one single act that would clarify that (...) Christianity is voluntary and on a 'born again' basis
I could go on.
So what is this "wider issue"? I have a new hunch. Your posts are full of expressions like "I'm worried", "I'm concerned"... It seems to me that you are living in the "delicious terror" of an upsurge in "Islamic State" terrorism, possibly mirroring an imagined upsurge in a heightened entanglement of the kingdom of God and the state in the UK - or (to also enjoy the thrall of the equal and opposite fear), an imagined radicalist muslim upsurge following the collapse of the established church.
In which the Anabaptists have a final moment of glory before joining their illustrious ancestors in martyrdom, probably at the hands of gleeful technical antichrists, headed up by the Queen.
[x-post]
[ 19. December 2014, 11:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm looking at Scripture, looking at how it says the church should be, and I'm seeing a line we're supposed not to cross.
Your mistake is to look at Scripture and try and discern lines. Look how well the Pharisees did at that game.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Steve Langton's definition of 'Constantinianism' seems to be just about broad enough to include everyone but himself, so I guess that by his lights, we all hold to it [Disappointed]
Actually my 'definition' is quite 'narrow'; I'm looking at Scripture, looking at how it says the church should be, and I'm seeing a line we're supposed not to cross.
And that line is what, exactly? Can you describe it succinctly and precisely, while avoiding formulations that are just more or less emphatic paraphrases of "READ THE NEW TESTAMENT: AND DO IT!!!!"?
(If not, or if you think you've already explained it as clearly as you can, feel free to ignore this request.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
One of the effects of establishment is that the church gets gradually conformed to the world which it has got entangled with; and by losing its distinctiveness also loses relevance because it isn't offering anything the world can't do for itself.
I agree with you that being conformed to the world is a real danger for Christians and the Church. However, I don't see how that's an effect of establishment (though it might be argued that establishment was a consequence of conforming too much to the world). After all, Paul told us not to conform to the world long before anyone in the Church had any thought about the Church being established, or Christians having any real political presence.
I know that the churches I've been directly involved in have conformed to the world probably too much - so much for so-called "non-conformist" churches! I expect the established churches have too, and even the Anabaptists. We walk a careful tightrope between not conforming to the world and being relevant to the world so that all may be saved - being, as Paul put it, "all things to all people" - and dare I say it if it would mean more people hearing the gospel would Paul even go so far as holding political office?
Conforming to the world isn't really about external appearances. You can be in the establishment and not hold the values of the establishment - how many politicians have been prophetic voices for something different than the values of the establishment? how many troublesome priests have been thorns in the side of the rich and powerful? You can be totally outside the establishment, living in some holy huddle cut off from the world, and still be conforming to the underlying values of the world.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think you've said it yourself, Steve ... your definition of almost anything and everything is 'quite narrow' it seems to me ...
Arguably, your interpretation of scripture is quite narrow too.
But you don't appear to be able to tell the difference between scripture and your interpretation of scripture because the two seem to be commensurate as far as you are concerned.
Whatever the case, whether we consider the CofE to be on the 'wrong side of the line' or consider Establishment to be a major issue or an insignificant one that will resolve itself in the fullness of time, I do think that the issues are indeed broader that that ...
And also not as 'narrow' as you appear to believe.
One could, if one wanted, turn your argument around against you. I could easily take your assertions, alter them slightly and use them against you should I so be inclined.
Just as a hypothetical example, consider the following - which is based on some wording you might recognise:
'One of the effects of DIS-establishment is that the church gets gradually ISOLATED FROM the world which it has BECOME DISENGAGED FROM; and by losing its ENGAGEMENT also loses relevance because it isn't offering anything the world IS INTERESTED IN. One scenario is a church which has become like that and BECOMES INCREASINGLY INVISIBLE because it has become irrelevant.'
I'm not convinced that either establishment or disestablishment increases or decreases a church's 'relevance'. It seems to me that some disestablished churches can become 'irrelevant' because they potentially become 'holy huddles' that are invisible to almost everyone except their own members.
On the Dis-Establishment of the CofE - as has been pointed out on this thread many, many times, the current situation is that the CofE can't 'request' to be Disestablished even if it thinks or 'recognises' itself to have been 'wrong' (as you put it) in going along with Establishment in the first place.
It's a political decision. Like it or not.
This is where the inherent judgmentalism in your position becomes apparent. Current adherents of the CofE are to be judged and criticised on the basis of decisions made hundreds of years before they were born. Their decision to remain part of the CofE and not leave it in favour of some non-conformist group or Anabaptist sect is held against them and seen as reprehensible in some way. The quality of their Christian commitment and level of spirituality is thereby called into question.
Again, Baxter was spot-on with his observations three hundred and fifty years ago.
None of us are squeaky-clean, none of us offer a perfect witness to the world. That applies just as much to Anabaptists as it does to anyone else - of whatever churchmanship.
I don't think anyone here is ignoring what you are saying - it is a much wider issue than the CofE and its establishment or disestablishment.
All of us are in the same boat to some extent - we are all heading into an increasingly secularised, post-Christendom and indeed post-Christian future.
What all of us need are models to help us deal with that. An intentional, gathered or - in sociological rather than pejorative terms - 'sectarian' model is one model or 'plausibility' structure than can help us do that.
My own view is that this is where we are all headed. Indeed, I'd argue that most churches - of whatever stripe - are already there because that's the reality on the ground.
To that extent, Orthodox, RC and Anglican churches are becoming increasingly 'intentional' in a similar way that 'gathered' non-conformist churches have been for centuries. Indeed, outside of the Orthodox heartlands in Greece, Russia and the Balkans and the 'ethnic ghettoes' of the 'diaspora' that's been the default position for Orthodox churches in 'the West' for decades.
So, in one sense we are all becoming 'Anabaptist' in terms of intentionality ... if not baptismal polity and so on.
What I'm interested in - and you don't appear to be able to offer any constructive answers on this - is how we maintain our engagement in the world without losing our distinctiveness.
I am not interested in withdrawal from the world. Nor am I interested in forms of pietistic, judgmental religion that look down their noses on everyone else and which claim to be purer or less sullied because they don't get their hands dirty.
If Anabaptists are doing that then great, bring it on.
But all I'm seeing from you at the moment - as the Ship's main Anabaptist representative - is a whole set of 'don't do this, don't do that' and not a great deal by way of positive suggestions as to how we actually best position ourselves for a post-Christendom, post-Christian future.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It strikes me that if we are going to be concerned about 'rising levels of poverty, UKIP ... etc' as Laurelin (rightly, in my view) suggests, then we can't address these issues without engaging with them in some way ...
And, in our society, that involves politics. How can it not do so?
If I want to oppose the rise of UKIP how can I do that without either voting for alternative candidates or perhaps standing as a local council candidate myself? I am actually doing that - but not primarily to oppose UKIP, I hasten to add, I don't see them as a viable force around here ...
I know it's a different thing, but one may as well say that it's 'wrong' to get involved with one's local model railway club because people have been killed in railway accidents and because the coming of the railways caused disruption to farmers and robbed stage-coach companies of their livelihoods etc. Heck, the Nazis used the railways to transport their victims to concentration camps.
Therefore anything to do with railways or the glorification of them through making models in their image is wrong and something that good, true and honest Christians should not in all conscience engage with ...
How does 'love not the world ...' apply to one's local council but not to one's Hornby railway set?
Model railways are wicked and evil, they are blasphemous and idolatrous representations of things that must even be named among us ...
Flee, flee these things, abjure them completely ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But you don't appear to be able to tell the difference between scripture and your interpretation of scripture because the two seem to be commensurate as far as you are concerned.
This point keeps never getting addressed.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I want to oppose the rise of UKIP how can I do that without either voting for alternative candidates or perhaps standing as a local council candidate myself? I am actually doing that - but not primarily to oppose UKIP, I hasten to add, I don't see them as a viable force around here ...
And when you do so you will find yourself enmeshed in issues to which there is no distinctively Christian answer (should we have weekly or fortnightly rubbish collections?) and have to find answers via natural law and the good sense God has gifted you via common grace.
ISTM that the Anabaptist position is to renounce the office of magistrate as something unworthy of the Christian altogether, even as they don't - in the style of the monastics - renounce the benefits of society.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, absolutely Chris.
That's why I consider it to be an other-worldly and untenable position ... one which, taken to an extreme, plays down the kind of common grace (and common sense) issues you allude to and can lead to illuminism and unreality.
That's not to suggest that all Anabaptists are liable to go to those extremes - far from it.
From where I'm at now, I think there is a need/role for monastics and indeed neo-monastic or 'base-communities' with a focus on many of the issues that Anabaptists (rightly) advocate ... peace, social justice, integrity of creation (as some put it) ...
I'm happy to hear more about those positive aspects of the Anabaptist witness. I'm still waiting to hear about them from Steve.
Just as, along with Mousethief and others, I'm still waiting for him to explain how he knows that what scripture teaches and what he believes scripture to teach are necessarily commensurate.
I'd imagine I'll be waiting for some time ...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Therefore anything to do with railways or the glorification of them through making models in their image is wrong and something that good, true and honest Christians should not in all conscience engage with ...
Model railways are wicked and evil, they are blasphemous and idolatrous representations of things that must even be named among us ...
Even before you posted this I have been irresistibly reminded by this thread of the hapless Stenneth Flushpool's sinful passion ("in the natural") for balsa wood model aeroplanes as reprimanded by Mrs Flushpool in The Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
ISTM that the Anabaptist position is to renounce the office of magistrate as something unworthy of the Christian altogether, even as they don't - in the style of the monastics - renounce the benefits of society.
I don't know much about the Anabaptists, but presumably they each have to do a job of work and earn a living like everyone else. In that sense they're contributing to 'the benefits of society.' Some of them may even be employed in the public sector, in which case their contribution to society will be quite easy to track down.
It's perhaps a bit unfair to single the Anabaptists out for their criticisms of the political system (in which institutional religious structures are in various ways a part) when there are plenty of other people who are alienated from the political system as it currently stands. It could even be said that with the rise of someone like Russel Brand in the UK politically dissatisfied people are now having their moment in the sun. Their particular concerns may all be different, but their basic lack of enthusiasm for the status quo is something that could draw them together.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think anyone is singling the Anabaptists out for their criticisms of the political system. I'd criticise the political system. So would many other people - and not just the Russell Brand's of this world.
I'm not having a go at the Anabaptists for criticising politics or 'worldliness' (whatever that means in practice) per se.
What I'm trying to puncture is the rather sanctimonious way they can sometimes go about it - it all sounds rather 'holier than thou' - which is the main criticism Richard Baxter had of this particular position 350 years ago - and it's the main criticism I'd level at it today.
In doing so, I'm by no means suggesting that it's all bad, or all wrong or that Anabaptists have to stop being Anabaptists and become something else.
What I'm waiting for is an indication that there is more to the Anabaptist position than simply carping and railing about 'worldliness' in other people and that they actually have something positive and constructive to say and bring to the party.
So far, I've not seen a great deal of evidence of that from our main Anabaptist contributor.
Instead, all I've seen is carping and criticism of other people and other Christian movements.
I'm waiting for Steve Langton to define Anabaptism by what it is 'for' rather than what it is 'against' and to show us that there is more to it than simply criticising the CofE for remaining Established and banging on and on and on and on at inordinate length about the Inquisition, the evils of Rome and the wickedness of everyone else who doesn't happen to share the same views as him.
Ok, that's something of a caricature of his position and I'm sure that in real life there is a lot more positive about the Anabaptist stance than that.
But I'm still waiting for him to articulate it here - as well as demonstrate why his particular 'take' and understanding of the scriptures is the one we should all adopt if only we were as enlightened as he believes himself to be.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Not having followed this thread in detail I hesitate to comment, but the Quaker position is probably in the same ballpark and they've not been exactly politically uninvolved. (Although they've perhaps not shone in the actual governing stakes! (The history of Pennsylvania could, arguably, make Gamaliel's point for him...) It may represent a difference in origins: crudely, the Quakers rise from the collapse of the New Model Army, while the Anabaptists come from essentially powerless communities.
To take it further, the folks over on Ekklesia (sorry: on the tablet and struggling with links)aren't purely negative in their political views (whether you agree with them or not) and they, I think, would see themselves as inspired by the Anabaptists movements.
Next, a comment from a CofE bishop on being asked what he would do rather than bombing (I think) Kosovo: we could not bomb them. I'm all for a bit of yellow hat thinking, but do we have to have a positive alternative before we criticise the status quo?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I'm not suggesting that we always need a water-tight alternative manifesto of some kind before we criticise the status quo.
I don't think that's the issue at stake here.
But I would like at least some detail of what Steve Langton's alternative Anabaptist universe would look like.
I'm not the only one here who appears to have become rather jaded by carping comments about so-called 'Constantinian' churches and individuals without any corresponding sense of what the alternatives would actually look like.
All we've had so far are vague generalisations about 'doing what the NT says' and 'having faith' ...
Sure, we'd all agree with that ...
But other than pacifism and disestablishment - which may very well be good things in and of themselves, I'm not getting much of a 'sense' for Steve Langton is actually proposing.
Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against non-conformists or Anabaptists or anyone else - I was happily involved in a Baptist church for 6 years for goodness sake and whilst it certainly wasn't perfect I count it as one of my fonder ecclesial memories ...
It's simply that I'm not getting much of an impression of what it means in practice to be 'not of this world' ...
The only indications I'm getting at the moment is that it's all about being negative about this, that or the other, rather than actually being 'for' anything ...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't know much about the Anabaptists, but presumably they each have to do a job of work and earn a living like everyone else. In that sense they're contributing to 'the benefits of society.' Some of them may even be employed in the public sector, in which case their contribution to society will be quite easy to track down.
Of course - and that is not the point I was making. Rather considering the 'magistrate' and the 'sword' referred to in Romans they benefit from these - but still consider them unworthy of a Christian.
But of course, if you want to consider the wider benefits of society as a whole they will - unless they go in the direction of the Amish - and probably even then to some degree.
I used to live in a town which had a small, rather self contained, Mennonite community. They believed that they should limit contact with technology, and so many of them worked as solicitors or lawyers of some form - as it's one of the few professions that could be conducted without making use of a computer. Of course - they'd still drive cars to the supermarket (leaving inside the thousands of lines of code that run inside any modern car ..)
Now - there isn't anything wrong with being selective in this way. The problem comes when you try and build up a theology on top of separation.
At the root of radical anabaptism is a denial that we live in two kingdoms, and as such tends to end up being a form of over-realized eschatology. I believe it is problematic to look at structures which God seems to bless - in a limited and temporal way - and decide that it is sinful to participate in them. Hence my comment about marriage above - it is also after all something that in classical christian thought is for this age only - yet on this point at least most Anabaptists are selective [of course historically there have been radical strains that have gone off in odd directions, the excesses of Munster not being much of a reach if you decide to push the idea to its limits]
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Other than pacifism and disestablishment - which may very well be good things in and of themselves, I'm not getting much of a 'sense' for Steve Langton is actually proposing
Isn't that a fairly good start?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Your mistake is to look at Scripture and try and discern lines. Look how well the Pharisees did at that game.
What I'm seeing on the church and world issue certainly implies a line not to be crossed; but the key element is the positive aspect, the positive definition of the church as "God's holy nation" in the world. The 'line' results from that. Not a legalistic rule, but a basic inconsistency between that NT image or presentation of the Church and the various attempts to have so-called 'Christian countries'.
It really isn't just about the CofE; though it still remains true that sorting that out will be a very major contribution to the situation, given that the CofE's establishment is theoretically at the extreme end of such things. I keep pointing out the international aspect - I spelled out one of those aspects in one of the posts I repeated to 'reboot' the thread earlier - and you insular self-centred lot keep ignoring that, though it's far more important and far more damaging to both church and world.....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, it's a fairly good start, Garasu ...
But look where it ends up ...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
- you insular self-centred lot ...
Judgmentalism, judgmentalism all the way.
I rest my case.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
given that the CofE's establishment is theoretically at the extreme end of such things
My problem - it may be others' problem too - is when you say something like this, I simply don't recognise the church I belong to. Granted that Establishment is an anachronism, but there's a long list of things it is before it's anything like 'extreme'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
More seriously, I'm happy to address the international aspect - and I'm sure others are too.
I think we all of us here agree that the Christian church is international in scope and reach and knows no political boundaries.
I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise.
It's another of these straw-men. This thread is strewn with them.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To be fair, Doc Tor, Steve did say 'theoretically' ... I think what he's getting at isn't that the CofE is somehow 'extreme' theologically speaking but potentially 'extreme' in terms of the level of involvement/entanglement with the State.
I can see what he's driving at but still think he's tilting at windmills to a certain extent.
As far as the 'international' aspect of things go, all churches have a sense of that. Heck, I've just been watching that BBC2 programme about Canterbury Cathedral and whatever else we might say - positively or negatively - it was pretty clear that the CofE regards itself as part of an international communion ...
That might not be 'realised' to the extent that Steve Langton might wish ... but arguably - as Chris Stiles suggests, his view is based on an over-realised eschatology to a certain extent.
It reminds me in a lot of ways of the 'restorationist' milieu I was involved with in the '80s and '90s - that, too, had an over-realised eschatology.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm waiting for Steve Langton to define Anabaptism by what it is 'for' rather than what it is 'against'
I keep doing that, you know; why do you keep overlooking it?
As a starter, The Church as "God's holy nation" in the world - an international 'nation' with no geographic or ethnic homeland in this world. Work out some of the implications of that and you'll find it a pretty positive 'for'.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm waiting for Steve Langton to define Anabaptism by what it is 'for' rather than what it is 'against'
I keep doing that, you know; why do you keep overlooking it?
As a starter, The Church as "God's holy nation" in the world - an international 'nation' with no geographic or ethnic homeland in this world. Work out some of the implications of that and you'll find it a pretty positive 'for'.
So, you're defining feature of Anabaptism is something shared by all other churches, that we're all part of a universal Church that is not bound to particular geographical regions.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It might surprise you to hear, Steve Langton, that every single Christian church I'm aware of would make the claim to be part of something universal.
Take the term 'Catholic' for instance. What does that mean if it doesn't mean 'universal'?
Show me a church or Christian tradition that doesn't consider itself to have an international dimension nor consider itself to be part of something bigger and more international than its own particular patch.
There are more strawmen here than at the Annual Strawman Convention.
I know you've got stuff coming at you from all directions but there are plenty of issues that you haven't addressed or defined. We've asked you all sorts of questions about scriptural interpretation, for instance, but you've not addressed those either.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As a starter, The Church as "God's holy nation" in the world - an international 'nation' with no geographic or ethnic homeland in this world. Work out some of the implications of that and you'll find it a pretty positive 'for'.
Well, there's the Anglican Communion that covers the entire globe. The Roman Catholic Church likewise. Being an organisation that is both rooted in the local community and transcends national boundaries is something that we Anglicans do quite well, and probably better than the Anabaptists.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I used to live in a town which had a small, rather self contained, Mennonite community. They believed that they should limit contact with technology, and so many of them worked as solicitors or lawyers of some form - as it's one of the few professions that could be conducted without making use of a computer. Of course - they'd still drive cars to the supermarket (leaving inside the thousands of lines of code that run inside any modern car ..)
Now - there isn't anything wrong with being selective in this way. The problem comes when you try and build up a theology on top of separation.
Most of the modern western world doesn't have the means to facilitate the existence of many groups that are quite as separatist as the Amish. In the UK it would be impossible for the Anabaptists to turn their backs on society's rules and create a state within a state. Therefore, I suppose the only option they have is to express their frustration by criticising the entire 'system' under which we're all forced to live.
Despite how much we grumble about it, Westerners in general (including British Anabaptists) are loathe to physically abandon the capitalistic, democratic, post-industrial nation state (etc.)in which they're implicated. That being the case, one might say that the only way for any of us to avoid accusations of hypocrisy is to tone down the criticisms. But almost every one of us is a hypocrite, in the sense that we're all invested in the status quo to some extent, no matter what our objections are. Russell Brand hasn't escaped this accusation, but it could apply to most of his critics, I'm sure.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Church as "God's holy nation" in the world
Biblical support?
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know you've got stuff coming at you from all directions but there are plenty of issues that you haven't addressed or defined. We've asked you all sorts of questions about scriptural interpretation, for instance, but you've not addressed those either.
I'd happily set all the rest aside until this issue is dealt with. It's at the heart of the matter.
[ 20. December 2014, 00:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
I understand Steve Langton's thesis to be, in a nutshell:
"If the C of E would disestablish, that would stop ISIS."
'Nutshell' seems like the mot juste in this case.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the key element is the positive aspect, the positive definition of the church as "God's holy nation" in the world. The 'line' results from that. Not a legalistic rule, but a basic inconsistency between that NT image or presentation of the Church and the various attempts to have so-called 'Christian countries'.
You cannot draw a line, because as you yourself point out here, assuming the Church is God's holy nation, it is in the world even as it is 'not of' it.
Jesus prays that his disciples would not be removed from the world, and Paul says to the Corinthians that he is not asking them to stop having contact with wordly people because to do so, they would have to leave it.
Drawing a line as you seek to do means establishing a long list of what is "holy", behooving the members of a "holy nation", and what is not. That is legalism.
You might as well try to draw a line between body and soul.
What you describe as a "basic inconsistency" is what I would call the tension between the "now" and the "not yet" of the Kingdom of God. So long as we are in this age, there is tension, paradox, and inconsistency. That's not a basic inconsistency, that's life!
You are arguing as though it is possible to resolve this tension fully in the here and now (which is what I understand chris stiles to mean by an over-realised eschatology). That is the kind of mentality that takes you to Münster.
The way I see it, our various positions all represent various tradeoffs to achieve what we think is a best fit to the "in but not of" paradox. Historic established churches have a tradeoff which favours the "in" end of the scale; extreme anabaptists represent a tradeoff right at the "not of" end.
(My own, and of course perfectly balanced approach, right in the midle of this scale is to have a minimum-service church and emphasise the Kingdom of God, along with Alfred Loisy (see sig.), who seems to have got there before me).
As Gamaliel points out, this conversation would go a lot better if you could acknowledge that you might have something to learn from those who have put the "in/not of" cursor at a different place to you, just as we certainly have things to learn from the Anabaptists.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Absolutely.
The last few responses have been like the jackpot line-up on a 'fruit-machine' for me - all the lemons in a row (if that's not too 'worldly' an analogy).
Whatever other disagreements and differences we may have on other issues, I'm completely in agreement with everything that Doc Tor, SvitlanaV2, Mousethief, Leaf and Eutychus have said since I last posted here.
They are all talking common-sense.
As Chris Stiles has been doing from the outset too.
I've got to be honest, if I'd been drinking cocoa last night I'd have spluttered into it when I read Steve Langton's accusation of 'insularity' directed at the rest of us.
If anyone is arguing for an 'insular' position it's Steve Langton himself, despite all the pious rhetoric about the Church being a 'holy nation' that knows no national boundaries and so on.
I'm sure Eutychus wouldn't want to be held up as an exemplar, but here's a chap who has left his own country (this one) to live in another one (France) in the service of the Gospel. I don't see how Eutychus can in any way be accused of being 'insular'.
I also think that SvitlanaV2's point about us all being implicated, all being hypocrites, all being part and parcel of the globalised capitalist system we all rail against. How could we even be typing here on computers if we weren't?
It's all a question of degree - and yes, there's always going to be the tension between the 'now' and the not yet.
Meanwhile, to assist matters with this thread, I'm wondering whether it would be helpful to disaggregate some of the strands - particularly the unanswered question about the basis for biblical interpretation that both Mousethief and myself have been waiting for?
Would it help if there were a new thread on that? or has that issue become a Dead Horses one?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Despite how much we grumble about it, Westerners in general (including British Anabaptists) are loathe to physically abandon the capitalistic, democratic, post-industrial nation state (etc.)in which they're implicated.
The difference is that in the radical Anabaptist perspective (and from what I can tell, Steve's case falls into this category) the critique isn't cultural, or even moral, it's eschatalogical. It's not so much against the morality of the economic system, or even the extent to which we find ourselves culturally captive to it, but against being part of 'this present age'.
TBH, contra Gamaliel/Eutychus I don't believe we 'need' the Anabaptist perspective in this sense.
Historically - of course - groups like the Mennonites (as contrasted with the Amish and Hutterites) have moved their critique in a semi-monastic or cultural direction, and it's this cultural exegesis (where present) that we can learn from.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I rather think that's the element that Eutychus and I both have in mind, Chris Stiles - but I take your point of clarification here.
We don't need the over-realised eschatological aspect at all.
In fact, we need to resist and reject it as much as we need to resist full-on 'Constantinianism' in the sense that Steve defines and demonises it.
As Eutychus has said, there is wriggle-room between those twin, opposing poles.
Or have I missed the point you're making?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I rather think that's the element that Eutychus and I both have in mind, Chris Stiles - but I take your point of clarification here.
Yeah, understood. I guess I'm just slightly over-sensitive to the thesis/antithesis/synthesis style of things
The point was that Steve was arguing from what seemed to be an eschatalogical perspective, so without clarification it seemed there was a danger of the point being misunderstood.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It might surprise you to hear, Steve Langton, that every single Christian church I'm aware of would make the claim to be part of something universal.
No, it would not surprise me at all; and could you please try thinking that I do know things like that, and I'm still saying what I did, and therefore just maybe I'm seeing an angle to the situation that you aren't, and that it might be a valid and even important angle?
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Take the term 'Catholic' for instance. What does that mean if it doesn't mean 'universal'?
As pointed out above, during most of the Christendom era it came to mean in practice something remarkably like 'totalitarian'....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Drawing a line as you seek to do means establishing a long list of what is "holy", behooving the members of a "holy nation", and what is not. That is legalism.
Actually no; the particular line I'm seeking to draw - or rather draw attention to the fact that the NT draws it - tends if anything to free from the need of the long lists of legalistic stuff. We are to be - I think the word 'separate' has become a bit loaded in the context, so let's say 'distinct' - at one simple but crucial point, and then indeed live 'in the world' in a positive non-legalistic way.
In this kind of context it is less 'what behooves a holy nation', and more 'What witnesses to Jesus and his message'.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Steve, I'm still not clear as to what you think the majority of non-established churches (and the people who comprise those churches) are doing wrong.
I get that you think having an official state church is not God's will. But for all those churches which are not state-sponsored or state-favoured; what are they doing wrong, would you say?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Leaf;
quote:
I understand Steve Langton's thesis to be, in a nutshell:
quote:
"If the C of E would disestablish, that would stop ISIS."
'Nutshell' seems like the mot juste in this case.
No, nowhere near that simple - if only!!!!
And I do keep trying to point you all to the issue being far wider than the CofE - just that the CofE is the biggest local example if you live in the UK.
But surely it is obvious that the IS case is not going to be challenged much by any church that subscribes to essentially the same 'religious state' principle as IS (and indeed Islam generally, even if we might feel Muhammad would be horrified by some of the actions of IS).
Nor is it challenged much by a secular idea of separation of religion and state, to which they can simply respond "God in the Quran tells us otherwise".
Christians taking and demonstrating every different approach to 'religion and world', based on the teaching of the Muslim prophet Isa - that might at least give them pause, and a peaceable Christianity would not give them the excuse/provocation provided by the notion of supposed 'Christian countries' supposedly 'crusading' against Islam.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by South Coast Kevin;
quote:
I get that you think having an official state church is not God's will. But for all those churches which are not state-sponsored or state-favoured; what are they doing wrong, would you say?
That requires a longer answer which I hope I'll be able to do justice to. As a short version there are
a) a lot of non-established churches which aren't doing anything wrong at all, but also
b) a lot of such churches which may not be established right now, but have a theology of a 'Christian state' in one form or another rather than the kind of biblically based separation of church and state which I'm advocating - and they are doing wrong by holding such a position. As with many of the NI groups, they might not want their particular version of things to be formally established, but they still expect a basically formally Christian state - and the NI situation shows that such a position is still potentially troublesome.
c) And there are churches/groups which are just confused....
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...they might not want their particular version of things to be formally established, but they still expect a basically formally Christian state...
Many thanks, Mr Langton. May I further ask what you think a 'basically formally Christian state' looks like? I'm guessing you mean in a legislative sense, with 'Christian' behaviour being favoured (e.g. through the tax system) or 'non-Christian' behaviour being outright illegal. Am I on the right lines?
I think for this argument to be fruitful, you need to be clearer regarding your terms and what you see as the goal for churches in these matters. You're being very critical of most churches / denominations but without enough clarity (ISTM) on what exactly they're all doing wrong. Concretely, what would you say needs to change?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You obviously missed the tone of sarcasm here, Steve Langton ...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It might surprise you to hear, Steve Langton, that every single Christian church I'm aware of would make the claim to be part of something universal.
No, it would not surprise me at all; and could you please try thinking that I do know things like that, and I'm still saying what I did, and therefore just maybe I'm seeing an angle to the situation that you aren't, and that it might be a valid and even important angle?
I'm not sure what 'angle' I'm not seeing that you are - but seeing as you are clearly so much cleverer than I am - and everyone else on this thread beside yourself - and far more capable of interpreting the Bible correctly than the rest of us, then I will bow to your better judgement ...
Like South Coast Kevin, I can understand your view that 'established churches' are severely compromised, but you seem to extend that to every other church - established or non-established - other than your own.
I can certainly see how a 'sub-Constantinian' epithet might fit certain Ulster Protestants and the US Religious Right - but I can't see how it could apply to South Coast Kevin's church - the Vineyard - for instance, nor to most Methodists, Baptists, URCs, Pentecostals or Brethren or any other non-conformist churches.
Heck, I don't even believe it applies to most CofE parishes these days ... for all your attempts to insist that it does.
It seems to me that you have seized on this single, 'catch-all', overly simplistic, black-and-white approach in order to differentiate your own over-realised eschatology from everyone else's way of doing things - whether good, bad or indifferent.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've 'called' you on this before, Steve, but for all its faults, the CofE does not insist on the same kind of religious state idea as IS does.
To insist that it does not only flies in the face of the fact but is deeply offensive.
I don't know any Anglicans who would insist on some kind of 'religious state' in the way that IS does.
It's no wonder so many of us find it difficult to take your arguments seriously when you are comparing apples with pears.
I'd argue the same way if I were a non-conformist too ... but I know that wouldn't be good enough for you either.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I've 'called' you on this before, Steve, but for all its faults, the CofE does not insist on the same kind of religious state idea as IS does.
Not in detail in the present day, perhaps - though the CofE's past is at times not as different to IS as you might wish it to be. And there is the obvious difference that whereas IS is fighting to establish a religious state, the CofE didn't have to fight for its initial position in the same way, it was already there, just the management changed from Pope to King. Even so there were wars and rebellions against Henry over the issue, brutally suppressed.
But in underlying principle, which concerns me more than the superficial actions, there isn't enough difference. Don't get me wrong here; I'm appalled by the violence of IS - though also by the CofE's past - but I'm seeing here the same principle at work, the result differing in degree, not in nature.
Because it is a difference in degree, the problem is that IS, and indeed many other Muslims in my experience, do in fact interpret the CofE in general as the same kind of thing they're doing, and see it as justification/encouragement of their own religious state position. They also tend to interpret the situation as "The UK is a Christian country and if their armies are fighting wars against Muslims, these are Crusaders fighting Islam". (This among other things threatens Christians around IS and in other Muslim states, who may be seen as 'allies' of the 'Crusaders'). I've known even moderate Muslims here in the UK who, because of the basic Muslim mindset about this, have trouble understanding the UK is different. To Muslims in far off lands with a past history on the receiving end of Crusades and/or later Western colonialism, and with Western armies currently in their countries or neighbouring lands, such understanding is even harder to come by.
Insofar as such Muslims do recognise the difference in the modern UK, they are not likely to see it as an improvement of the past but as a weakness and near-apostasy by the CofE in not working harder to enforce their faith in the land against secular/ungodly influences.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm not sure what 'angle' I'm not seeing that you are - but seeing as you are clearly so much cleverer than I am - and everyone else on this thread beside yourself - and far more capable of interpreting the Bible correctly than the rest of us, then I will bow to your better judgement ...
First off, yes, I noticed the sarcasm; us Aspies once aware of our condition can actually get rather good at spotting such things.
And clearly you haven't the slightest intention of 'bowing to (my) better judgement' - more sarcasm? - but seeing intractable problems from odd angles and getting a better analysis as a result is an Aspie trait (see inter alia Einstein, Turing...) - which just might be what's happening here.. Yes it looks a bit nutty - but like quantum theory, it may still be the answer. What's to lose by checking it out a bit?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The problem is that IS, and indeed many other Muslims in my experience, do in fact interpret the CofE in general as the same kind of thing they're doing, and see it as justification/encouragement of their own religious state position. They also tend to interpret the situation as "The UK is a Christian country and if their armies are fighting wars against Muslims, these are Crusaders fighting Islam". (This among other things threatens Christians around IS and in other Muslim states, who may be seen as 'allies' of the 'Crusaders'). I've known even moderate Muslims here in the UK who, because of the basic Muslim mindset about this, have trouble understanding the UK is different. To Muslims in far off lands with a past history on the receiving end of Crusades and/or later Western colonialism, and with Western armies currently in their countries or neighbouring lands, such understanding is even harder to come by.
Insofar as such Muslims do recognise the difference in the modern UK, they are not likely to see it as an improvement of the past but as a weakness and near-apostasy by the CofE in not working harder to enforce their faith in the land against secular/ungodly influences.
These are two interesting paragraphs, and IMO there's some truth in them. However, I think it might help your case a bit if you could post some links, or at least give some references to books or other relevant printed matter.
In particular, can you point to anything to substantiate your claim that (some) Muslims see an equivalence between the Muslim understanding of the nation and the position of the CofE in particular? Can you supply the names of any other commentators who believe that Muslims are currently influenced by the political or institutional status of Christianity or Christian churches in any Western nation? I'm fascinated to see who else is making such claims.
[ 20. December 2014, 17:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Souith Coast Kevin;
quote:
May I further ask what you think a 'basically formally Christian state' looks like?
One of the problems I have here is that those with such ideas have quite varied and diffuse views themselves. For details you might do better asking those concerned themselves; the US 'Religious Right', people who think like the late Ian Paisley, that David Silvester guy, the evangelical opponents of legalising SSM, and many more - they are 'Legion', and even I find them confusing....
There are also lots of nice moderate nostalgic people who in effect want the 1950s back, and phrase that in terms of 'England is a Christian country', but are quite vague themselves about the realities that might entail in our rather different world.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We are to be - I think the word 'separate' has become a bit loaded in the context, so let's say 'distinct' - at one simple but crucial point
So what is this point?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
seeing intractable problems from odd angles and getting a better analysis as a result is an Aspie trait (see inter alia Einstein, Turing...) - which just might be what's happening here..
Whatever your condition and any brilliant insights you might feel it gives you by association with some brilliant company, the proof of the pudding here in Purgatory is not invoking that condition but your ability to explain those insights intelligibly and respond to objections and requests for clarification without descending into incoherence or plain rudeness. This, by and large, you are singularly failing to do by all accounts.
Unless you know any of the posters here in real life, you have absolutely no idea what abilities, disabilities, commitments, or qualifications anybody here has, largely because people don't blether on about them - neither to invoke them as a defence nor to wield them as a trump card.
Get by on the strength of your arguments, not by invoking special privilege, or expect a return to Hell.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry Svitlana2
I'm falling victim here to my own 'absent minded professory' side which is good at spotting these things but isn't all that good at collating information and making notes. It's a fault that right now I really wish I didn't have!
Quite a bit of what I'm reporting here is simple experience, talking to Muslims and to others who do. Much of it is things I've picked up from news and current affairs which by the nature of things aren't easy to document. There's not a lot I know of in neatly packaged books - not to say there's nothing, just I don't know of it or can't remember the detail reference.
But as one fairly well documented case showing relevant attitudes, take that raid on a desert oil plant a bit back, where the local native workers were reassured by the attackers that they were safe - "We've come to kill the Crusaders" - that is, the Europeans there, seen as representatives of 'Christian countries'. That general trend in Islamic extremism of interpreting Europeans as 'Crusaders' crops up a lot on the news and in Islamist propaganda. And so interpreting Europeans does depend on that 'Christian country' perception....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
And I repeat my suspicion that for you this is more about fear of Muslims, how they perceive the Church, and what they might do as a result, than anything else.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
So what is this point?
Back to John 18, I guess - there will be a pause while I work on that further.
As regards the other, I guess I'll have to stop responding to Gamaliel. As I pretty much said in my initial response to him, I am feeling in general that rather than constant automatic sarcasm, suggesting that I 'might be surprised to know...' whatever, people might try instead assuming that I do know the obvious and am saying something different because from an unusual angle. That might allow the discussion to get further faster.
When that suggestion just met further sarcasm I lost it a bit. I'll try not to do so again.
Please guys, even just politely asking "Have you taken account of...?" would help. The sarcasm doesn't.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
And I repeat my suspicion that for you this is more about fear of Muslims, how they perceive the Church, and what they might do as a result, than anything else.
My big fear is that a church which continues to disregard or fudge the NT teaching on church and world will have increasing problems one way or another. Not 'what the Muslims might do', but what the churches won't.
There is much in modern Islam to fear; but I was concerned about these issues when Islam did not seem a significant threat.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well stop fearing then!
Faith, promises and grace are much better starting points.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
re response to Leaf earlier;
by SL:
quote:
Christians taking and demonstrating every different approach to 'religion and world',
Sorry, that should have been '... a very different approach...'
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What's to lose by checking it out a bit?
How do you know I haven't?
If I'm sarcastic, it's in response to your intransigence.
I spent 18 years in a full-on evangelical charismatic church which had a strong credo-baptist emphasis and which was as - if not more 'anti' the CofE or any idea of an 'established church' than anything you've outlined on these boards.
I spent a further 6 years - quite happily - in a Baptist church.
I know attend my nearest church, which happens to be an evangelical Anglican parish ... although I'm not particularly happy there - not because it happens to be Anglican or evangelical but because I find I'm rather broader in my sympathies these days ... and don't like simplistic, Janet and John solutions ...
It does some good work and even though it doesn't 'scratch where I itch', I'm supportive of that.
I've got friends and contacts across the broad spread of Christian traditions - from RC and Orthodox to independent evangelical ... and all stations in between.
So it's not as if I'm unfamiliar with the kind of arguments you're putting forward here. Nor am I unsympathetic towards some of your concerns.
To use a phrase that Eutychus doesn't like me using, I find your position rather 'over-egged' ... which is why I've been arguing for a more 'balanced' or nuanced line on these matters.
It's not that I haven't considered the issues you're raising. I have considered them. I've just reached different conclusions to the ones you have.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I've 'called' you on this before, Steve, but for all its faults, the CofE does not insist on the same kind of religious state idea as IS does.
Not in detail in the present day, perhaps - though the CofE's past is at times not as different to IS as you might wish it to be.
Time to stop living in the past, Steve.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But surely it is obvious that the IS case is not going to be challenged much by any church that subscribes to essentially the same 'religious state' principle as IS
No this is no more obvious than your interpretation of Scripture. It's not just not obvious, it's not true of any existing churches, nor are there any existing churches that subscribe to essentially the same 'religious state' principle as IS. Although as has been said the ROC is veering in that direction, alas.
quote:
Christians taking and demonstrating every different approach to 'religion and world', based on the teaching of the Muslim prophet Isa - that might at least give them pause
This is fairyland stuff here.
quote:
by Souith Coast Kevin;
quote:
May I further ask what you think a 'basically formally Christian state' looks like?
One of the problems I have here is that those with such ideas have quite varied and diffuse views themselves.
But the question is what YOU, Steve Langton, think it looks like. Not anybody else.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I will certainly accept that there are parallels between the Islamic idea of a 'Caliphate' and the medieval idea of Christendom.
But the parallels are not exact matches.
Henry VIII was a particularly unpleasant Renaissance monarch and he certainly repressed rebellion and dissent with extreme violence.
What he didn't do, was to go round massacring ethnic minorities or deporting women and children as sex slaves - which is what IS are doing.
I've seen pictures of some of the atrocities IS have been committing against Kurds, Iraqi Christians and others. I wish I hadn't seen them. They are seared into my memory banks now ...
I'm sure I'd have the same reaction were I to see actual photos or footage of some of Henry VIII's executions.
No doubt about that.
But we are still not comparing like with like to the extent that you are suggesting.
That doesn't let Henry VIII off the hook.
But neither does it incriminate a contemporary Anglican church that would no more countenance the execution of rebels and dissenters than you would.
You persist in tarring contemporary Anglicans or RCs with the same brush as their historical forebears.
That'd be like blaming contemporary Germans for what their forebears did under Hitler, or contemporary Russians for some of Stalin's atrocities.
This is what I am objecting to, Steve. The kind of sweeping, broad-brush generalisations that apparently pass as argument or reasoned debate in your book.
Is it any wonder that I respond with sarcasm? Because that's no more than these sweeping generalisations deserve.
Sure, I take your point about the Muslims and their view of the West as 'Crusaders' and so on ... and yes, I'd broadly be in favour of CofE Disestablishment.
The difference is, that I don't see the latter as any cast-iron guarantee of 'progress' in some way nor do I see it as a panacea for the problems facing all Christian churches in an increasingly secularised post-Christendom, post-Christian environment.
Sure, I know you see it as part of the solution, not the solution itself or in its entirety ... which is fine, you are entitled to those views.
But you seem to keep putting 2 and 2 together and making 45 - taking things into an 'over-realised' direction - which is the issue that Chris Stiles has identified.
And you still haven't addressed the issue of why we should take your interpretation of scripture any more seriously than anyone else's.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
One of the problems I have here is that those with such ideas have quite varied and diffuse views themselves.
Is this because you want a single, cut-and-dried answer to all questions? Might it not be that a range of diffuse views on various issues is both acceptable and desirable?
You've previously cited some disagreements between Mousethief and Ad Orientem as evidence that their Tradition might not be all it's cracked up to be ... because, wonder of wonders, they've both ended up with different views on certain matters.
As if that's a bad thing ...
I would expect people to have a range of diffuse and varied views on what a 'Christian state' might look like, or whether such a thing is desirable.
I'd be more concerned if there weren't diffuse and varied views on an issue like this.
[fixed your code which is not of this world]
[ 20. December 2014, 20:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Sorry in advance for the length of this post!
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry Svitlana2
I'm falling victim here to my own 'absent minded professory' side which is good at spotting these things but isn't all that good at collating information and making notes. It's a fault that right now I really wish I didn't have!
Yes, it's a bit of a problem if you're on a 'crusade' to convince people of a rather unpopular stance! You're obviously passionate about this issue, so you owe it to yourself to become organised about it. Even 'absent minded professors' have to provide some evidence for their findings, sooner or later! Or else who will believe them? Who, indeed, will continue to employ them?
quote:
Quite a bit of what I'm reporting here is simple experience, talking to Muslims and to others who do. Much of it is things I've picked up from news and current affairs which by the nature of things aren't easy to document. There's not a lot I know of in neatly packaged books - not to say there's nothing, just I don't know of it or can't remember the detail reference.
News reports are often saved online nowadays. E.g. Youtube has plenty of news clips in which President G W Bush's references to a 'crusade' against Islamic extremists are taken to indicate a 'official' Christian war against Islam.
However, what I'm trying to get at is how you're moving from that situation to the argument that Muslims are highly sensitive to Christian institutionalisation. It's the latter that requires some proof. After all, the USA doesn't have a state church, and AFAIK few Muslims will be aware of the institutional status of Bush's own denomination (United Methodist). If you know Muslims who have specific ideas about institutionalisation you could document that.
The problem you may have (but research would add much clarity) at this point in history is that Christian institutionalisation, if this simply means national laws regulating Christian churches or believers, might have less to do with what Muslims (or others) think than a much hazier idea of a diffuse national Christian 'identity' that's potentially much harder to shift than any law about tax breaks for religious groups, or even Disestablishment....
The reason I say this is because AFAIK (more research needed again) the laws covering a registered mosque in the UK are probably very similar to the laws covering a registered Methodist Church. Both are institutional. So why shouldn't both groups seem themselves as equally participating in the story of British identity and religion? Why should the Methodists seem themselves as participating in the creation of the national religious identity (do they?) and Muslims not (don't they)? It's not that Methodists have numbers on their side! So in theory why should British Muslims feel less British - or English - than Methodists? If this is in fact how they do feel then institutionalised Christian institutions may not be the precise issue (although I agree that the CofE is a different case, as it has a distinct status) and other factors are more important.
Actually, the Daily Mail (horrors!) has published UK research suggesting that Muslims feel more British than Christians do; Christians feel much more English (so the numbers registering as Welsh/Scottish/N. Irish + Christian must be very small). Maybe there's something about Britishness that's somehow less threatening for people of other religions. Is it simply that it enables them to bypass the problem of Establishment in England? I suspect not (again, research needed).
In order for the discussion to become more grounded in realities, it would be useful to clarify the parameters of 'institutional Christianity'. Some of the sociologists would say that denominations are by definition institutions, and that there are several of signs that a Christian movement is becoming institutionalised/denominationalised. So in theory one could make a list of different known movements, churches and denominations and establish where they are in the process. Where would the Anabaptists fit in? They may not be the least institutional group.....
Finally, I wanted to respond to your fear that the CofE will become more Constantinian - by which you seem to mean that it'll move to the extreme right in a political and social sense. The sociologist Eric Kaufmann proposes that the future polarisation between secular and religious Europeans may mean that conservative Christians and Muslims may join forces with each other against secularisation. This is an option for the CofE simply because it's likely to continue declining, and Dis/Establishment may not interrupt that. Engaging with the much larger number of practising Muslims would boost the religious agenda. It might still be a right wing rapprochement, but in a new, exotic, less Islamophobic way....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think that's a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post, SvitlanaV2.
As you rightly point out, hard and fast evidence in the scientific sense isn't easy to come by in cases like this ... but we should, of course base positions and conclusions as far as we can on the evidence around us - and not simply 'see what we want to see' ...
I can certainly see some kind of Christian/Muslim collaboration - if not coalition - on a pro-faith, anti-secularist agenda - but for the time being I think such a dialogue or co-operation would only be likely from those most committed to inter-faith conversations in the first place. So I don't see it as necessarily following a 'right-wing' agenda ...
At the moment, I think such dialogue is more likely to take place at the more moderate and 'liberal' end of the spectrum on each side.
But who knows?
Whatever the case, as I've said before, I do believe that we are all headed into similar post-Christendom, post-Christian territory - and we need models to steer our way through that.
The 'intentionality' found in the Anabaptist approach is one model - but it's not a model that is exclusive to Anabaptists.
Indeed - as Steve has noted - many of the issues that Anabaptists are concerned about are concerns elsewhere - and that's a good thing ... I'm glad that the Anabaptist Network exists and that it's serving as a forum for debate around these issues.
What doesn't help - to my mind - is an overly otherworldly and over-realised approach ... this doesn't help anyone - least of all the Anabaptists themselves.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Steve Langton may well appreciate Giles Fraser's column in today's Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/dec/19/christmas-story-god-divesting-himself-power
There are plenty of digs there at what might be considered 'Constantinian' Christianity - as well as a dig at Constantine himself.
But oh ... look ... what's going on? Giles Fraser is a canon in that wickedly 'Constantian' church, the Church of England! Whatever next ... ?
I'm sure Steve would go along with some, at least, of the 'Loose canon's' views - but equally sure that Steve would find Giles Fraser overly liberal in terms of theology ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I don't think this paragraph was very clear:
The problem you may have (but research would add much clarity) at this point in history is that Christian institutionalisation, if this simply means national laws regulating Christian churches or believers, might have less to do with what Muslims (or others) think than a much hazier idea of a diffuse national Christian 'identity' that's potentially much harder to shift than any law about tax breaks for religious groups, or even Disestablishment....
I meant that at this point in history it's possible that formal de-institutionalisation wouldn't do away with the rhetoric about a 'Christian nation'. Our attitudes about religious identity are possibly less wedded to official rules and regulations than we might think. They're likely to be hazier and much more irrational than that. Ancestral memory takes a while to shift.
We're in uncharted territory, but as I've said before, I think many more Christian groups should jump before they're pushed. The smaller denominations in the UK ironically seem to have more power over their own legal and politcal destiny than the CofE does.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Well stop fearing then!
Faith, promises and grace are much better starting points.
Any snappy sound-bite answer to that would be asking for trouble....
I suspect a four-page sermon would also be unpopular....
BTW, stop fearing who?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Any snappy sound-bite answer to that would be asking for trouble....
I suspect a four-page sermon would also be unpopular....
By Jove, he's getting it at last!
'By George, she's got it, by George she's got it!'
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=B211GB649D20141110&p=you+tube%2BMy+Fair+Lady%2Bshe%27s+got+it
[all that remains is for you to get UBB code...]
[ 20. December 2014, 21:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We're in uncharted territory, but as I've said before, I think many more Christian groups should jump before they're pushed. The smaller denominations in the UK ironically seem to have more power over their own legal and politcal destiny than the CofE does.
Jump where and to what?
The 'smaller denominations' aren't Established anyway ... although there are certainly 'institutionalised'.
Are you suggesting that they 'de-institutionalise'?
If so, what does that mean in practice?
I don't believe that a completely 'de-institutionalised' Christianity is possible.
Even if you meet down Starbucks with South Coast Kevin and his pals, you're going to 'institutionalise' to some extent or other over time.
I remember all this rhetoric from my 'house-church' days ... and we became just as 'institutionalised' as anyone else.
It's all a chimera.
I don't disagree that we are ultimately heading into lighter-footed territory - but I don't see that lower-key or less formal forms of church are any less demanding in terms of time and resources as the most formally institutionalised ones.
There's a lot of fantasy-island going on here, I think.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I am quite interested in Eutychus's notion of a 'service-lite' but 'community-engagement-heavy' church, though ... and I think that's a model that could apply to any Christian tradition or churchmanship.
It might be worth starting a new thread on that issue ... then we might actually get some practical suggestions on how we might best engage with the world - and not simply run away from it or pick and choose what bits we'll 'take' and which aspects we reject according to some idiosyncracies of our own which we take to be 'what scripture teaches' ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But, of course, this will necessarily be an area where there are range of views on what is permissible and what isn't ... which is, of course, entirely healthy.
That's not to argue for 'situational ethics', but it is to acknowledge that we are between 'the now and the not yet' and have to live with the tensions that this involves.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Well stop fearing then!
Faith, promises and grace are much better starting points.
Any snappy sound-bite answer to that would be asking for trouble....
I suspect a four-page sermon would also be unpopular....
BTW, stop fearing who?
As I posted earlier, the words "concerned", "worried" and so on occur frequently in your posts, and frequently with respect to ISIS, Muslims, etc.
And my comment didn't require an answer. It was a suggestion. "Fear not" is all over the Bible, on this much I think we can agree.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Svitlana2
I'm not really discussing 'institutionalisation' because as you point out, it's a wide enough term to include pretty much anything except that 'church of one' that Gamaliel keeps going on about.
Even a single local congregation is an 'institution' of sorts.
You're also right that there is a considerable if fuzzy idea of religious identity out there which won't shift easily; but at the same time, isn't actually very Christian.
That's why it is important that ideally (the now I think inevitable) disestablishment shouldn't be just a 'tidying up' or a negative thing; ideally it should involve the church embracing a more positive better way and strongly saying so.
I'm not suggesting that Muslims are 'highly sensitive' to the 'institutionalisation' of the CofE; just that it's a rather obvious fact which looks to them like the kind of 'religious state' that Islam also involves. The USA is different but also 'looks like' a 'Christian country' if anything, especially when Republicans were in power talking about godless Communism and similar rhetoric.
The church shouldn't be 'institutionalised' in the state - that's the negative. The church should be something else, not entangled in states which war against Islam, but having a critique of both Islam and the states that oppose Islam.
We're not meant to be 'unworldly' or so 'out of this world' that we are no use to it; but at the same time our one great use to the world is to be God's holy nation in distinction from the world and its values.
I said I'd get back to John 18 etc. And I've a couple of 'case studies' I'm working on to open up some other relevant discussion. I may be a while....
PS - liked the 'loose canon' - though yes he does seem a bit liberal; I hope the Anglicans and Parliament were listening. And I'm looking forward to meeting a certain recently promoted lady cleric too....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
She's going to be our bishop and due to visit our parish sometime in 2015.
I have met her once before, briefly.
I think you'd get on. You may find her a bit 'on the liberal side' I suspect ...
Giles Fraser is probably the most prominent mouth-piece the lib'rul Anglicans have at the moment ... and most of the liberals I know find him a tad embarrassing ... even if they agree with what he says.
Rather like those evangelicals who find Nicky Gumbel and HTB embarrassing even though they approve of, and use, the Alpha course ...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I am quite interested in Eutychus's notion of a 'service-lite' but 'community-engagement-heavy' church, though ... and I think that's a model that could apply to any Christian tradition or churchmanship.
A few brief thoughts here, some repeated.
I think church should be a service-station and not Disneyland: somewhere you stop off at but not somewhere that you want to stay at.
If churches grow they spawn management tiers that can easily become dominated by people more interested in (Christian) work creation and securing their own positions than in where the Spirit is leading, and become inward-looking. They create a sub-culture and you've lost your counter-cultural engagement right there.
The church I'm currently leading has just one mid-week meeting in addition to Sunday morning. If people want to go and do Christian stuff there are enough project-focused, parachurch organisations in town to get involved in. Others get involved in ecumenical associations, others again in, well, whatever everyone else in the World™ does. I think that's called being Salt and Light.
I see the functions of Sunday morning as corporate worship, teaching, and equipping people to realise their New Covenant identity by which the Spirit writes the law on their hears and gives them the ability to think for themselves and have their consciences educated by him.
Inasmuch as it exists, my long-term vision for the church is to have a whole bunch of people who could encourage others to realise the same thing, no matter where they are or what type of church they attend (or don't).
My philosophy of ministry ( ) is "God made it grow". That is all. I try and get on with applying Kingdom values as I see them in all walks of life. Most of this is by accident and necessity, not design, but I can honestly say it seems to work as well as any other approach I've tried.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gamaliel
I wasn't talking about the CofE on this occasion.
One sociologist predicts that on current form, the Methodists are due to de-construct as a separate denomination by about 2030. Not long ago I spoke to a CofE theologian who whispered to me in the loos after an ecumenical service that the URC was declining so much that it was destined to be absorbed by some other denomination before long.
You see, from my perspective, there's a point at which institutionalisation (as we know it, although perhaps it might be done differently and better?) seems to become a bit of a waste of time and money. I don't see the sense in dragging things on to the bitter end, by which time everyone might well be thoroughly miserable. Make changes while there's still time, and a modicum of energy left.
Sure, there are many denominations that are doing okay and will have some sort of future more or less as they are, as far as we can tell. Most of them are evangelical. But I'm not convinced that we all need to be spreading ourselves thinner and thinner and becoming less and less effective.
What I will say is that, as I implied in my post above, institutionalisation is a vague term, and so de-institutionalisation might look a bit different in different circumstances. Fair enough.
Anyway, I'm not sure why the de-institutionalisation of Non-conformist or new churches that you don't attend is such a difficult thing for you to contemplate. It's not as though I'm arguing that no British church group should ever own their own building or hire a paid and highly educated minister every again. As you say, that would be totally unrealistic. It's also unnecessary, I think.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As for hoping that 'the Anglicans and Parliament were listening ...'
You write as if the kind of views Giles Fraser is putting forward in The Guardian are somehow unusual or unexpected.
As if senior Anglican clerics or Parliamentarians would pick up today's Guardian and go, 'Blow me down! I never thought of that before! Let's Disestablish the Church of England forthwith!'
There have been debates about Disestablishment since the early 19th century - hence the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland.
Plenty of posters here have attempted to explain how these things work and how, currently, there's no particular appetite for Disestablishment either within the CofE or within Parliament. It's not a priority issue - even though you believe it should be.
I wouldn't be surprised if it happens eventually - perhaps even within the reign of the next Monarch.
Meanwhile, we are where we are and we need to 'work with the difficulty' - just as, in a post-Establishment phase, the CofE would need to learn to work with whatever difficulties and opportunities that poses.
It's called real-life.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@SvitlanaV2 and then @Eutychus ...
Sure, SvitlanaV2 - I'm interested because I've heard loads and loads of rhetoric about churches 'de-institutionalising'.
Back in the late '90s there was a move by some of the more artsy and 'trendy' of the 'new churches' to 'deconstruct' themselves ... they began to meet less frequently, to de-clutter themselves to a certain extent ...
It all sounded very well and good, but because these churches were predicated on close and regular fellowship they quickly disintegrated ... for the most part.
The model Eutychus is suggesting strikes me as more feasible. He still has a regular Sunday meeting and one mid-week one - so there's sufficient there to provide a framework but also flexibility and 'space' for people to get involved with other things.
More broadly, I'm interested because, as I've said, I believe we are all of us - RCs, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, non-conformist or 'new church' or whatever else ... headed into post-Christendom, post-Christian territory - so any models that any of us adopt which prove useful and sustainable, are likely to be of interest to us all.
@Eutychus ... I like the idea in principle and I wish you well with it. I have to say that I was surprised at some of the - to my mind - pietistic language which you deployed - but perhaps I'm simply a bit hyper-sensitive to that and it isn't as pietistic as I thought ... more practical.
I still think it might be helpful to have a thread on this topic ... to bounce ideas around.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The model Eutychus is suggesting strikes me as more feasible. He still has a regular Sunday meeting and one mid-week one - so there's sufficient there to provide a framework but also flexibility and 'space' for people to get involved with other things.
Well, if his congregation (or parish, or circuit, etc.) can fund everything they're doing and they have the people to do it, then that's all fine, IMO. If it ain't broke, why fix it? But there are a lot of broken churches around (and not all in the 'inner cities' either).
quote:
More broadly, I'm interested because, as I've said, I believe we are all of us - RCs, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, non-conformist or 'new church' or whatever else ... headed into post-Christendom, post-Christian territory - so any models that any of us adopt which prove useful and sustainable, are likely to be of interest to us all.
I don't think the exact same models will be suitable for all these churches, because they won't be able to de-construct themselves to the same extent. RCC congregations will never be free at HQ level, even if they have lots of low key gatherings run by nuns, or whatever. (However, I was interested to read somewhere that one bishop was willing to lose all the RC church buildings in his cash-starved parish, so long as the RC schools could be saved. I don't know to what extent RCs expect to worship in a 'proper' church building, but perhaps they're not necessarily all that bothered.)
quote:
Back in the late '90s there was a move by some of the more artsy and 'trendy' of the 'new churches' to 'deconstruct' themselves ... they began to meet less frequently, to de-clutter themselves to a certain extent ...
It all sounded very well and good, but because these churches were predicated on close and regular fellowship they quickly disintegrated ... for the most part.
Well, hey, that's great for us in the 2010s, 20s, 30s, 40s, because it means we can learn from the mistakes of the past! People like you can tell the rest of us exactly what went wrong back then and what we should do to avoid those problems!
[ 20. December 2014, 22:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Quite a bit of what I'm reporting here is simple experience, talking to Muslims and to others who do. Much of it is things I've picked up from news and current affairs which by the nature of things aren't easy to document.
.. and I've had similar conversations. And usually what's occurring is that they are projecting an idealised caliphate onto the actions of some state because of historical events.
So that being the case, I'm not sure there is *anything* we can in terms of disestablishment that would actually make a difference in terms of how we would be seen.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Souith Coast Kevin;
quote:
May I further ask what you think a 'basically formally Christian state' looks like?
One of the problems I have here is that those with such ideas have quite varied and diffuse views themselves.
As mousethief has already said, the issue is what do *you* mean by a 'basically formally Christian state'? It was your phrase, you weren't quoting anyone; so, in your opinion, what does a 'basically formally Christian state' look like? And what do churches who want such a state look like, or have in their statements of faith, or mention in their sermons etc.?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not really discussing 'institutionalisation' because as you point out, it's a wide enough term to include pretty much anything except that 'church of one' that Gamaliel keeps going on about.
Even a single local congregation is an 'institution' of sorts.
You're also right that there is a considerable if fuzzy idea of religious identity out there which won't shift easily; but at the same time, isn't actually very Christian.
That's why it is important that ideally (the now I think inevitable) disestablishment shouldn't be just a 'tidying up' or a negative thing; ideally it should involve the church embracing a more positive better way and strongly saying so.
But I think you need to define your terms somehow, or else what does 'embracing a more positive better way' actually mean? How can someone talk 'strongly' about something if they're not exactly sure what it is?
I suppose you're hoping that the model of church that you'd like to see will become apparent in the course of the discussion. E.g. your comments about
quote:
when Republicans were in power talking about godless Communism and similar rhetoric
suggests that a de-instituionalised 'concept' of religion would mean that Christian politicians shouldn't talk aggressively about the atheism embedded in a foreign political system. So it seems that for you, de-institutionalisation is as much a matter of presentation as of laws. And if the USA
quote:
looks like a Christian country
the problem is that their constitution doesn't even mention Christianity, so what you want them to do involves a change of culture rather than legalities.
However, some atheists online declare that the churches in the USA or the UK should have their tax breaks removed. Would you agree with that? It occurs to me that such a change would lead to the closure of a lot of churches. For some Christians this might galvanise them into organising themselves differently. For others, it would be just another reason to justify giving up on church. Doesn't the latter possibility worry you?
A British or English church survey conducted at some point in the future would do well to ask questions about the acceptability of de-institutionalisation to churchgoers. That would be very interesting.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, if his congregation (or parish, or circuit, etc.) can fund everything they're doing and they have the people to do it, then that's all fine, IMO.
For a warm-bodies-in-the-building Sunday attendance of 70-80, our monthly budget is around €2,500, almost all of which goes on the building and electricity, so I don't think the funding issue is what's going to kill us.
I'm not going to start a new thread about this, but if somebody does I'll probably contribute.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, hey, that's great for us in the 2010s, 20s, 30s, 40s, because it means we can learn from the mistakes of the past! People like you can tell the rest of us exactly what went wrong back then and what we should do to avoid those problems!
If these cash-starved congregations can find the wherewithal to pay me, then I'll do it ...
On the buildings thing - the RCs haven't always had their own buildings here in the UK or Ireland ... until the Catholic Emancipation Act they effectively met in private homes or - in Ireland, out in the fields and under hedges.
So, no, I don't think the RCs are as wedded to buildings as might appear at first sight. I can understand their emphasis on schools as that's currently where most of the catechesis takes place it seems to me.
As far as the Orthodox go, once a building has been consecrated for public worship - that's how it has to remain - in perpetuity. So they don't tend to sell off redundant buildings to be converted into flats.
Their buildings simply fall down in the end from what I can gather.
Time will tell with the 'convert parishes' here in the UK ... and with the older Greek, Russian and Serbian parishes etc. There are more of those around than one might think - and they're certainly experiencing the same issues that are facing the rest of us - young people leaving, or not becoming engaged with things, problems with maintaining 'plant' and so on.
[code]
[ 21. December 2014, 11:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We're not meant to be 'unworldly' or so 'out of this world' that we are no use to it; but at the same time our one great use to the world is to be God's holy nation in distinction from the world and its values.
I'm interested in exploring this, because - as with the issue about the interpretation of scripture - it can so easily hinge on subjective criteria.
What thee or me may consider 'distinct from the world and its values' may not appear so obviously the case to someone else.
We've seen that all the time on this thread. I know there are current debates within Anabaptism about voting and so on, but there seems to be an assumption that political engagement of whatever kind is somehow suspect - but that driving a car, buying things from supermarkets, getting involved with one's local model railway club or whatever else - somehow isn't as suspect.
We're all part of early 21st century late-capitalism whether we like it or not.
Sure, we can be selective about what we do or do not get involved with at a personal and individual level - but as far as the wider societal aspects go, we're all 'involved' to a greater or lesser extent. We have no choice about that - unless we go and sit on top of a pole somewhere.
Like South Coast Kevin, I'd appreciate some greater definition here.
What does it mean in practice to be 'distinctive from the world and its values'?
What 'values' do we have to reject? Which ones can we, in all conscience, share and embrace?
I'm not getting much impression here of a seriously thought-through position as to what this means 'on the ground', I'm afraid - neither at an individual level nor a 'congregational one.'
I'm struggling to understand and appreciate how an Anabaptist congregration may differ from - say - a paedobaptist Methodist one or an RC parish or a Salvation Army Corps, when it comes to living these things out practically on the ground.
All I've seen so far is a certain amount of railing against the 'Establishment' and vague calls for us to separate ourselves from particular activities - such as political involvement - that some Christians may actually believe to be part of their vocation.
That's why I've found the writings of Stuart Murray Williams so frustrating - because they seem to be more about what he's against than what he's actually proposing in its place.
No Scouts, no Guides, no flags, no war memorials ...
Ok, fine, you don't have to have those things - but what is he proposing in their place? I don't pick up a great deal of indication of what it actually is and what it might actually look like.
I've got a lot of time for the Quakers, but on the one occasion I visited a Quaker Meeting they had a it of a carping kerfuffle afterwards about the appropriateness of bring chocolate biscuits for the after-Meeting tea and coffee ...
I mean, I could have understood it if they'd devised a policy that only Fair Trade goods could be brought to the Meetings - or that they were only going to have fruit for health reasons ...
But as it was it simply seemed quirky, eccentric and trivial.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I find the problem with a very 'un-worldly' stance is that, aside from the issue with political action being seen as the ultimate worldly action but somehow consumerism not, it seems out of step with the whole point of the Incarnation. I realise this is a very high Anglican/RC viewpoint, but following the liturgical calendar ties you into the world but also removes you from it - marking Advent rather than Black Friday and a general Christmas for the whole of December is a very relevant aspect of this.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - although 'intention' seems to me to be the main issue here. 'Man looks at the outward appearance, the Lord looks at the heart,' type of thing.
But I agree ... the whole thing about the Calendar is 'redeeming the time' ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Talking of which ...
I'm running out of road on things I have to do before Christmas so I won't be aboard Ship for a few days.
May I take this opportunity to wish all contributors to this and other threads a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Nadolig Llawen!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I'll be working on this one further over Christmas and probably also won't be back till after. But here's a preliminary thought on the issue of church authority in biblical interpretation.
For a moment let's leave aside the generalisation 'Constantinianism' and go for a specific; the guy who said "If you're in my empire you're a Christian or else...." was in fact Theoodosius". We're talking 'Theodosian'.
From that point, in the Roman Empire, (and the same point logically applies to any other state/nation where Theodosius' example is followed), the very definitions of 'Christian' and 'Church' have been changed compared to what the NT teaches. Can this redefined Church realistically claim full authority in biblical interpretation?
Is it not rather the case that the kind of inherently worldly church which results cannot in fact be trusted? Is it not the case also that by being able to make such a wrong decision the church has demonstrated the general point that it should be the Scripture that rules the church, not the other way round.
Yet it is precisely the 'Theodosian' churches which have made, and even today continue to make, the strongest claims for a supposed church authority....
Think hard please... no hasty snappy sound-bite replies please, this is a serious issue.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
No, you don't even have to look post Constantine or post Theodosius to see the Church's authority regarding interpretation of scripture. All you have to do is look to the ante nicene Fathers to see the bishop's authority and the importance of that which has been received (tradition). But no doubt you will reject that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Can this redefined Church realistically claim full authority in biblical interpretation?
This is a red herring. The argument upthread was a) whether the authority of Scripture could be established independently of the Church that helped define its boundaries b) what legitimacy you have to claim that your interpretation of Scripture is superior. Before leading us on a merry dance, perhaps you might like to tell us what you think about those two issues.
quote:
Think hard please... no hasty snappy sound-bite replies please, this is a serious issue.
You are not in a position to dictate how people answer you, all the more so in that you are not even polite enough to acknowledge, let alone address, many of the questions that have been put to you here.
This attitude does your cause more harm than I think you realise.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
This is a red herring.
Not if you think it through. Whence my request....
by Eutychus;
quote:
You are not in a position to dictate how people answer you,
If I were 'dictating' I would not have used the magic word...
Questions are by the way being addressed - as I get round to them....
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
This is a red herring.
Not if you think it through. Whence my request....
by Eutychus;
quote:
You are not in a position to dictate how people answer you,
If I were 'dictating' I would not have used the magic word...
Questions are by the way being addressed - as I get round to them....
This is an interesting debate, but straying off the substantive matter doesn't help. A large part of the problem is that there isn't much distance between you and, say, Eutychus, but maintaining these separations is the route to the multiplicity of denominations we see today - the joke in Newport is that there are more churches than Christians!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
This isn't a debate at all. It's one person holding forth that they have a brilliant set of ideas, but refusing to say what they are, and a lot of other people trying to elucidate what they are and having side-conversations about their own opinions concerning what they THINK the topic is. But the only person who knows what the topic is won't say.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There's your answer. He don't know. Except in the 'Jungian' sense at best.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
This is an interesting debate, but straying off the substantive matter doesn't help.
Agreed and I'm trying to get back there....
by Mousethief;
quote:
It's one person holding forth that they have a brilliant set of ideas, but refusing to say what they are,
I have far from 'refused to say what (the ideas) are'; I've posted several items which are direct answers and quite a few more which are very relevant questions which nobody else seems to want to engage with. I've just posted (23 Dec 13;29) one particular point which I'll come back to in more detail later (I'm not now intending any more really substantial posts till after Winterval), which directly addresses your point about Scriptural authority and the alternatives - how about dealing with that instead of just making derogatory comments about me....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
This is an interesting debate, but straying off the substantive matter doesn't help.
Agreed and I'm trying to get back there....
by Mousethief;
quote:
It's one person holding forth that they have a brilliant set of ideas, but refusing to say what they are,
I have far from 'refused to say what (the ideas) are'; I've posted several items which are direct answers and quite a few more which are very relevant questions which nobody else seems to want to engage with. I've just posted (23 Dec 13;29) one particular point which I'll come back to in more detail later (I'm not now intending any more really substantial posts till after Winterval), which directly addresses your point about Scriptural authority and the alternatives - how about dealing with that instead of just making derogatory comments about me....
How could I have dealt with something I just now learned, until now? You might have spared us this go-around if you had just said, "I intend to talk about this" the first time the question was raised. By now it has been asked a total of 4 times. Forgive us if we begin to think you don't intend to answer it. It seems a natural conclusion.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've posted several items which are direct answers and quite a few more which are very relevant questions which nobody else seems to want to engage with.
I have little evidence of this, and I've been following the thread closely. Even here:
quote:
But here's a preliminary thought on the issue of church authority in biblical interpretation.
For a moment let's leave aside the generalisation 'Constantinianism' and go for a specific; the guy who said "If you're in my empire you're a Christian or else...." was in fact Theoodosius". We're talking 'Theodosian'.
From that point, in the Roman Empire, (and the same point logically applies to any other state/nation where Theodosius' example is followed), the very definitions of 'Christian' and 'Church' have been changed compared to what the NT teaches. Can this redefined Church realistically claim full authority in biblical interpretation?
The answer is patently, yes, insofar as any church can and probably more so than any of the later 'reformed' or 'restored' churches who seem insistent in ignoring 2000 years of interpretation before them.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Steve, I'm still not clear what you think Christians and churches *should* do. You've given some of your thoughts about what is to be avoided - notably a state-supported church institution - but how do you think Christians should relate to the world, to nation states, political systems and so on? What, for you, are the signs that a church or an individual Christian is getting it right?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
The answer is patently, yes, insofar as any church can and probably more so than any of the later 'reformed' or 'restored' churches who seem insistent in ignoring 2000 years of interpretation before them.
Well exactly, 'insofar as any church can '. Which when they've rather drastically redefined both 'Christian' and 'Church' to suit a worldly state, is clearly not so far at all ....
I'd be with you on any church which totally ignored the previous 2000 years - but since clearly the church of those 2000 years has been far from infallible, why shouldn't they not ignore but re-assess that history in light of the Bible and make the effort to do the job properly according to the NT?
And I'd repeat - how reliable can the mixum-gatherum of a 'Theodosian' state church realistically be? You surely don't believe the church would be unaffected by that shift? If you do, 'naive' would surely be an understatement....
SCK - I'm kind of trying here to clarify some foundation ideas. To my mind success would be when churches are mostly building on biblical foundations and therefore asking themselves the right kind of questions about what to do.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Random observation: I'm just listening to some festive tunes and noticed one I assume Steve won't be singing this Christmastide. Good King Wenceslas. Who clear couldn't have been that good, otherwise he'd have abdicated and therefore wouldn't have led his page across the snow to deliver firewood and pizza (deep pan, crisp and even) to the poor.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Well exactly, 'insofar as any church can '. Which when they've rather drastically redefined both 'Christian' and 'Church' to suit a worldly state, is clearly not so far at all ....
I'd be with you on any church which totally ignored the previous 2000 years - but since clearly the church of those 2000 years has been far from infallible, why shouldn't they not ignore but re-assess that history in light of the Bible and make the effort to do the job properly according to the NT?
And I'd repeat - how reliable can the mixum-gatherum of a 'Theodosian' state church realistically be? You surely don't believe the church would be unaffected by that shift? If you do, 'naive' would surely be an understatement....
Of course the church is affected by that shift. The naivety is firstly, believing that the Anabaptists haven't, and are somehow free of error. And secondly, that all churches, whether they are 'state' churches or not, aren't continually reassessing their dogma and doctrine. Yours is, mine is.
It may be that the CofE decides that establishment was a wrong turning, and revises its opinion. It may decide that what was right in the past is no longer right, and revise its opinion. It may decide to reaffirm the correctness of establishment. It will do so with much prayer, debate, and theology.
It may be that Anabaptists decide it's okay now to vote. That doesn't mean the rest of us who have been voting all along ought to have been waiting for your permission.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
SCK - I'm kind of trying here to clarify some foundation ideas. To my mind success would be when churches are mostly building on biblical foundations and therefore asking themselves the right kind of questions about what to do.
Sorry, that leaves me no clearer. What do 'biblical foundations' look like, in your view? And what do you think are 'the right kind of questions about what to do'?
I share your view that these issues (how Christians should relate to the political world, what sort of influence and power should churches seek etc.) are tremendously important, but after all the posts on this thread I still don't get what you think is the right approach. I know something about what you think *shouldn't* be done, but very little about the positive. What do you think we *should* do, Steve?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... But here's a preliminary thought on the issue of church authority in biblical interpretation. ... Think hard please... no hasty snappy sound-bite replies please, this is a serious issue.
The church assembled the Bible, not the other way around. That's not a snappy sound-bite, that's the actual history that even non-Christians know. And after 14 fucking pages, the suggestion that Shipmates are not thinking or taking the issue seriously comes across as rather patronizing. Maybe they have and your argument just sucks.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Of course the church is affected by that shift. The naivety is firstly, believing that the Anabaptists haven't, and are somehow free of error.
I am certainly not saying Anabaptists are free of error; but errors are a bit easier to correct when one only has to correct the error and not also, as seems to be the case with some, find a form of words to correct the error without admitting a fault in the capital-T Tradition mechanism that gives the church questionable authority.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The church doesn't have questionable authority; it is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Whereas Scripture is defined not as the ground of the truth but as "useful" (2 Tim 3:16)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I am certainly not saying Anabaptists are free of error; but errors are a bit easier to correct when one only has to correct the error and not also, as seems to be the case with some, find a form of words to correct the error without admitting a fault in the capital-T Tradition mechanism that gives the church questionable authority.
Well, the capital-T Tradition is simply folk sitting around, arguing about stuff, then coming to some sort of decision, hopefully based on prayer and scripture. Pretty much how Anabaptists get their tradition of not voting, hating zips and not fighting in wars. You have Tradition, no matter how hard you deny it.
And if they change their Tradition, they may well not admit fault, if they didn't think there was anything wrong with it for the past 16 centuries or so.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Of course the church is affected by that shift. The naivety is firstly, believing that the Anabaptists haven't, and are somehow free of error.
I am certainly not saying Anabaptists are free of error; but errors are a bit easier to correct when one only has to correct the error and not also, as seems to be the case with some, find a form of words to correct the error without admitting a fault in the capital-T Tradition mechanism that gives the church questionable authority.
If 'Not having a capital-T Tradition' is not itself a capital-T Tradition, I'd like to know what the heck is.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
It may be that Anabaptists decide it's okay now to vote. That doesn't mean the rest of us who have been voting all along ought to have been waiting for your permission.
Which rather raises the issue - whose permission really does matter?
Sioni Sais;
The point about 'capital-T Tradition' is that it is a Tradition that is outwith Scripture and can therefore potentially, like the traditions of the Pharisees which Jesus condemned, have the effect of 'making void the word of God'. To obey the word of God, to regard it as useful for reproof, correction, etc., including the correction of human Traditions, is a very different matter.
Mousethief;
I have no problem with the Church being the pillar and ground of truth. But I still have that question - the Church as redefined by Theodosius for the benefit of his worldly empire; can that mixum-gatherum be the Church in that sense?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sioni Sais;
The point about 'capital-T Tradition' is that it is a Tradition that is outwith Scripture and can therefore potentially, like the traditions of the Pharisees which Jesus condemned, have the effect of 'making void the word of God'. To obey the word of God, to regard it as useful for reproof, correction, etc., including the correction of human Traditions, is a very different matter.
Yours is still a Tradition, and how can one pretend it is anything else? After all, the Pharisees used scripture and the established churches do so to this day, and that is the basis of their Traditions. Quite how their use and that of the Anabaptists differ remains a mystery to me.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
Yours is still a Tradition, and how can one pretend it is anything else?
I'm not now sure exactly where it originated - I think it came from discussions with Gamaliel - but a fair number of us here on the Ship have been using the concepts of 'small-t' and 'big-T' t/Tradition to make a distinction between two ways of viewing 'traditions' in general. The point is that Anabaptists, like classic Protestants back to Luther/Wycliffe/etc, view Scripture, the Word of God, as having the ultimate authority in the Church.
In this concept, yes churches will develop new ideas and practices from time to time; but these developments are always supposed to be subject to 'reproof and correction' by the Scripture, so that the church remains in line with the original foundation teaching.
Some church bodies, particularly the RCs and the Orthodox, seem to claim a different kind of situation, which effectively gives the ongoing Church Tradition authority over and above Scripture. The RC Church 'Magisterium' concept is an example of such 'capital-T Tradition'. In theory, this Tradition is not supposed to contradict Scripture; in practice...??
quote:
After all, the Pharisees used scripture
I think Jesus might have said they misused it... or at least that they had built upon the Scripture a mass of added 'Tradition' that was in the end unhelpful and undermined the original intention.
I'm still trying to get back to John 18 etc.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If 'Not having a capital-T Tradition' is not itself a capital-T Tradition, I'd like to know what the heck is.
Quotes file.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The point is that Anabaptists, like classic Protestants back to Luther/Wycliffe/etc, view Scripture, the Word of God, as having the ultimate authority in the Church.
In this concept, yes churches will develop new ideas and practices from time to time; but these developments are always supposed to be subject to 'reproof and correction' by the Scripture, so that the church remains in line with the original foundation teaching.
But here's the issue you keep skirting: Scripture as interpreted how? As interpreted by whom? Using what guidelines? That is your capital-T Tradition. That is what you fail to see or acknowledge. Scripture is plainly not self-interpreting, or everybody who interprets it would come to the same conclusion. Or perhaps you believe it is self-interpreting, and the fact that others don't come to the Anabaptist interpretation is proof to you that they are interpreting in bad faith. That would explain 99% of this thread, actually. (and 80% of reconstructionist claims)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
You can't make a distinction between Tradition and tradition as some seem to do. For a start, where does one end and the other begin? You just can't do it, which is why the seventh ecumenical council says "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema".
And yet again Steve has shown that he has no idea what tradition is. It is not something separate from or adjacent to the scriptures. Tradition is merely the scriptures properly understood, the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church as seen in the ancient liturgies, the holy councils and the fathers, and in the lives of the saints. Outside of the context of the Church the scriptures cannot be understood properly.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You can't make a distinction between Tradition and tradition as some seem to do. For a start, where does one end and the other begin? You just can't do it, which is why the seventh ecumenical council says "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema".
This is risible.
Tradition, as expressed in ecumenical councils and elsewhere, can be immensely valuable, and we are all indebted to it whether we realize it or not,( as an evangelical I am very grateful for the theological and christological work put in by the councils from Nicaea to Chalcedon) but it must always be tested by Scripture.
In the famous words of Luther (a man who certainly didn’t dismiss tradition lightly) “councils.. have often erred and contradicted themselves” and must therefore be subordinate to the “testimony of Scripture”.
To say that there are differences in interpretations of Scripture does not mean that appeal to Scripture is useless, while suggesting that this challenge of interpretation can be solved by appealing to tradition is ludicrous, since there are many traditions, and even ecclesiastical regimes which make special claims to antiquity and the authority of tradition, such as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, differ from one another.
The distinction between capital-t Tradition, which ranges from the toxic to the harmless (everything from indulgences to icons), and small-t tradition which embodies biblical truth, is not only useful, but essential and unavoidable.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Bollocks! You make the same the mistake as Steve, that scripture is somehow self explanatory. It isn't. As I said earlier, tradition is nothing more than scripture properly understood, it is not something separate from it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You can't make a distinction between Tradition and tradition as some seem to do. For a start, where does one end and the other begin?
Meh. Big-T tradition has to do with rightly dividing the word of truth. Small-t tradition has to do with whether you break the fast with avgolimono soup or bacon-wrapped dates, or do vesperal liturgies in the morning or in the evening, or go to confession every time you take communion, or only at certain times through the year. Or to put it more succinctly, small-t traditions are things that don't matter if we do them differently. Big-T traditions do.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Like Kaplan Corday and Steve Langton, I'd seek to draw a distinction between 'Tradition' and 'tradition'. I think SL had it right when he said:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...errors are a bit easier to correct when one only has to correct the error and not also, as seems to be the case with some, find a form of words to correct the error without admitting a fault in the capital-T Tradition mechanism that gives the church questionable authority.
Take an extreme case of 'Tradition' - the Jehovah's Witnesses. AIUI, they view themselves as 'God's chosen channel of communication', making the admission of outright error pretty much impossible. So, as SL put it, whenever a position is changed (or when, in the earlier days of the movement, various prophecies of the end of the world didn't come to pass) a form of words had to be found that avoided any implication of error on the part of the church's hierarchy.
I think it must be a great deal easier for a denomination to change its teaching and doctrinal position when it doesn't consider itself to be God's specially chosen institution in any sense. When it just sees itself as one of many bodies that are trying their best to follow God's guidance and direction.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I always thought Tradition was made up by men in robes, while tradition is put together by ordinary people.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Bollocks! You make the same the mistake as Steve, that scripture is somehow self explanatory. It isn't. As I said earlier, tradition is nothing more than scripture properly understood, it is not something separate from it.
This is a very confused response.
For start, far from claiming that Scripture is "self-explanatory", I made a point of acknowledging that its exegesis can be a challenge.
Secondly, "properly understood" by whom, and according to what criteria?
And thirdly, various traditions are "separate from" Scripture to the extent that Scripture contains no direct reference to them whatsoever.
[ 27. December 2014, 03:20: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
All of this is a tangent to the crucial question being put to Steve Langton.
Steve appears to claim that Scripture is self-evident and that his interpretation is the self-evident one, uncoloured by tradition with T large or small and unsullied by the established Church. He has so far managed to dodge having to provide support for this claim.
He would like to have us believe that he does not stand in any interpretive tradition, but that he merely finds himself fortuitously aligned with one by virtue of reading the Bible properly (unlike those not of like mind).
I have got to the place where, while I seek not to place Scripture above tradition, have to acknowledge the role tradition and the estalished Church have played in passing Scripture on to us, and the influences of historical tradition on my reading.
The equivalent for Steve Langton might be, for instance, to admit that figures like Menno Simons, whose complete works he owns, represent an authoritative (albeit not infallible) viewpoint, or to admit that the sexual failings of John Howard Yoder are a real problem because of the challenge they represent to the integrity of the tradition in which he stands.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Steve appears to claim that Scripture is self-evident and that his interpretation is the self-evident one, uncoloured by tradition.
Even if that were possible (which it isn't), none of us ever approaches any text, whether it be the Bible or Enid Blyton, in an entirely objective manner. All of us have been shaped by all kinds of influences and have developed preconceptions, mostly unconscious ones, before we ever begin reading.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Indeed. That's what I'd like to see him acknowledge. From that might follow a smidgen of acknowledgement that his hermeneutic (which remains almost entirely obscure) is one among multiple possibilities.
Reading this account of John Yoder's abuses reminds me irresistibly of those of Chris Brain of the Nine O'Clock Service (and again offers echoes of Münster). Which reinforces my conviction that thinking you've got your theology right is no recipe for holiness and indeed, can be a recipe for disaster.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Steve appears to claim that Scripture is self-evident and that his interpretation is the self-evident one, uncoloured by tradition with T large or small and unsullied by the established Church. He has so far managed to dodge having to provide support for this claim.
He would like to have us believe that he does not stand in any interpretive tradition, but that he merely finds himself fortuitously aligned with one by virtue of reading the Bible properly (unlike those not of like mind).
Exaggerated, a bit....
If you saw my bookshelves, and these days the contents of my Kindle as well, you'd know that I am very far from disregarding the nearly-2000 years of interpretation - and church history - since the NT was written.
I always considered myself to be following basic Protestant/Reformed principles of Bible interpretation, as do most Anabaptists. No obscure hermeneutics. I've previously quoted Tyndale on how literally the Bible is to be taken, pointing out that the 'literal sense' of medieval scholarship's 'four-fold sense' reading is primary; but also that in that interpretation 'literal' did not mean what we might call 'dumb wooden literal' but meant essentially reading the Scriptures like an ordinary book with due allowance for figures of speech, genre, and other literary artifices. As the Scriptures are not flat but do vary in genre there isn't a single universal way to read all of it - history, poetry, prophecy or whatever each need to be read in an appropriate way.
Believing it is God's word also means interpreting consistently between the various writings. Insofar as there is a distinctive Anabaptist 'hermeneutic' it is probably that more stress is placed on the NT and it is understood that the NT supersedes the OT - not by contradiction, but by fulfillment.
The historic understanding here is that because the Reformation took place in a 'Christendom' context, the theology of 'Christendom/the Christian country' was largely assumed by Protestants and went unchallenged while the various Protestant groups settled out from the Reformation stir-up. For example, the likes of Elizabeth I in England were not likely to consider accepting the plurality of belief in society which the NT teaches. Some of the Reformers are known to have considered going further but drew back; the Anabaptists also considered, realised that the Protestant principle of putting the Scripture first required going further in that area, and went there.
As has been more than adequately ventilated Shipboard already, groups called 'Anabaptist' at that time were not all exactly like the modern Anabaptists - the Munsterites did, in Christendom terms 'rebaptise', but had an essentially 'Constantinian' notion of setting up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus, which of course showed many of the problems of Christendom itself - like warfare....
Unfortunately, I can't reasonably comment on the John Howard Yoder affair; it is currently being investigated by a panel set up for the purpose and is in effect 'sub judice' in Anabaptist circles. I feel that also makes it inappropriate for Shipboard discussion for the time being until that enquiry reports (though I don't think there is any legal danger to the Ship if people want to discuss it - but I won't be engaging with it if they do).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
We could get bogged down in a clash here between the Orthodox view of Tradition - as espoused by Ad Orientem - and the 'radical' (or conservative more like) Protestant view of 'extra-biblical' tradition/Tradition as challenged here by Kaplan.
There may well be some merit in having that discussion, but here I think it's somewhat tangential to the issue -- because what whatever tradition we belong to, there is a tradition to which we belong.
SL doesn't seem to acknowledge this fact. He doesn't appear to recognise that his views are as much part of a tradition as anyone else's here on this thread - be it Kaplan, Eutychus, Sioni, South Coast Kevin Baptist Trainfan, myself or any of the other Protestant posters here - or Mousethief and Ad Orientem as representatives of Orthodoxy - or any RC posters that they may have been.
Eutychus and Baptist Trainfan have nailed it.
There is no possible way we can approach the scriptures at all except through the application of some kind of interpretative framework.
Sure, we may well believe, as Ad Orientem does within his interpretative framework, and as Steve Langton does within his, that ours is the correct one. What we can't say is that ours isn't a tradition at all nor that we aren't using some kind of interpretative framework.
That's just daft.
Even if we are the most Sola Scriptura types that have ever lived, we are still approaching the scriptures through an interpretative framework - in this case a Sola Scriptura one -- which all too easily becomes a Sola Scriptura one - or an imagined position of that kind.
Nobody, but nobody comes to the scriptures ALONE.
We all approach them in a particular context and we all bring our cultural presuppositions, our experiences, traditions, backgrounds and all sorts of other influences to bear.
How can it possibly be otherwise?
And what's wrong with acknowledging that we do so?
That doesn't in any way lessen the importance or the power of the scriptures themselves.
The older I get, the more I agree with the kind of position that Eutychus has adopted here - and the more I appreciate that scripture doesn't 'stand alone' in the way that many evangelical Christians fondly imagine that it is does.
That doesn't make me any less 'Biblicist' - if anything, I'd suggest that such a position is more fully Biblicist as it moves away from the kind of reductionist and overly simplistic approaches that pass for exegesis in some quarters.
I can see what Sola Scriptura is trying to assert and defend - but I'm not convinced that it is a tenable position - at least if understood in the more populist and reductionist way that some appear to apply it.
The Jews were never 'sola scriptura' types. The concept would have been completely alien to them.
It's an understandable sound-bite rallying call adopted by the 16th century Reformers in order to rail against the extra-biblical panoply of penances, indulgences and so-on and so forth that flourished in late-medieval Roman Catholicism.
As far as a convenient label or slogan goes, it does it's job.
As an approach to interpreting scripture - whatever it's merits and demerits - it is simply one of a range of approaches - it represents another tradition that sets itself against Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It is ITSELF a tradition.
The problem is, it isn't a water-tight approach as what it effectively boils down to is 'Sola my interpretation of scripture' rather than 'Sola scriptura'.
The ultimate umpire isn't scripture itself, in this approach, but one's own intepretation of scripture.
That's why, along with Eutychus, I am increasingly of the view that the scriptures are best interpreted in community. We interpret them not as individuals in our own right, but as individuals who are part of the wider community of faith - or the wider Christian tradition as a whole.
Kaplan Corday is aware of that - even though he espouses what might be called a 'radical reformation' approach.
The mileage varies, but what none of us can do is point to the scriptures as though we were the first to read or interpret them -- that was where the US 'restorationists' went wrong.
We all of us stand on the shoulders of giants. We all of us interpret the scriptures through a received tradition.
There is no way around that. Nor should there be.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Where does the NT 'teach the plurality of belief in society'?
There was plurality of belief in the 1st century because the Roman Empire, at that time, tended to tolerate all manner of religions - provided they weren't too much of a threat to the status-quo.
Judaism was regarded with suspicion, but was tolerated and even admired in some circles - hence the reference to Gentile proselytes we find in the NT.
Christianity later became suspect because Christians refused to worship the Caesars as gods.
I would imagine that all of us here would believe that plurality of belief in society is a good thing - but I doubt if we'd be able to 'proof-text' or supply water-tight chapter-and-verse to support this assertion.
That's not how this stuff works.
The NT doesn't have any more to say about 'plurality of belief in society' than it does about nuclear physics, the kind of coinage that should apply or whether we should eat muesli or bacon and egg for breakfast.
Amidst all the cut and thrust about tradition and Tradition, I'm still waiting for Steve Langton to answer South Coast Kevin's question/s about how an Anabaptist approach should 'look' and what positive things it brings to the party that none of the other groups are bringing to the table.
Sure, I can see the pacifism thing and the emphasis on having 'gathered' and 'intentional' communities - but these aspects are not the sole preserve of Anabaptists, of course.
As I've said over and over, we are all heading in the direction of 'intentionality' in a post-Christendom - and increasingly post-Christian - context.
What I'm struggling to see is how Steve Langton's vision plays out on the ground - in a way that doesn't become isolationist or overly Pharisaical and pernickety - too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
The NT doesn't have any more to say about 'plurality of belief in society' than it does about nuclear physics, the kind of coinage that should apply or whether we should eat muesli or bacon and egg for breakfast.
Just all the stuff about the nature of the Church and of Christian faith. John 18 for one, John 1; 12-13 for another... many, many more....
by Gamaliel;
quote:
That's why, along with Eutychus, I am increasingly of the view that the scriptures are best interpreted in community.
That is also the basic Anabaptist view - but of course the community of the Church, NOT the community of an 'Everyone here is a Christian' Constantinian state....
Does it help if I say that my aim in interpreting is that ideally the end result is not "because I say so..." but rather "Look, you can see for yourself..."
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
For the billionth time, Steve Langton, no-one here as far as I can see is advocating a 'Everyone here is a Christian: Constantinian State' position.'
It's a straw-man.
But if it helps you to divide the world into neat, clear-cut, cut-and-dried, Painting By Numbers categories then who am I to stand in your way ...
You still haven't answered South Coast Kevin's question.
All you've down is throw out a few scriptural references and say, 'There you go, look at that ...' as if nobody has read these scriptural references before or as if everyone else is innured to their true meaning and implications apart from a bunch of Anabaptists somewhere ...
You're beginning to remind me of UKIP. They are known for what they are against - the European Union - rather than what they are FOR.
What does 'UK independence' mean in practice? What differences would it make to the way the railways are run, the way the bins are collected, the way housing policies are determined?
We've heard you out on John 18 and there are posters here who don't arrive at the same conclusions from that chapter as you do.
I'm still waiting for you to elucidate what any of this means in practice. Instead, all I'm seeing is some pietistic palm-waving and generalities.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
At any rate, last time I looked, South Coast Kevin, Eutychus and others here who are trying to pin you down to something more definite than pietistic generalities have impeccable credentials on the 'born again' side of things ... if 'born again' (or 'born from above' is to be interpreted in the way you are interpreting it, that is) ...
And yet, they too (as well as myself and I can 'own' and cite all the 'new birth' scriptures just as well as you or they can) are all waiting for you to elucidate some practicalities and specifics.
So far, all we've seen are criticisms of the CofE for not Disestablishing itself in they way you think it should and of anyone and anything pertaining to the so-called 'Constantinian' or 'Theodosian' or whatever-else 'ian' (Christian, perhaps?) churches that you disapprove of so much.
What we haven't seen is any evidence of a positive manifesto - simply pietistic platitudes about avoiding politics (as if this were even possible), and not being as 'worldly' as other people apparently are.
In other words, Pharisaisism.
Prove us wrong.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
It's like trying to explain water to a fish.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'In Him we live and move and have our being,' eh?
Or what the Scotsman (a 'True' one?) said, 'It's better felt than tell't.'
I can see what you are getting at - but I'm not the only one here who would like to see some 'cataphatic' statements and examples from Steve - rather than 'apophatic' or arguments from the negative as it were ...
Surely, after a billion pages and 1,876.003 diatribes against 'Constantianism' and 'neo-Constantinianism' and 'Theodosianism' and 'Anything Steve Langton Doesn't Like-ianism', that's not too much to ask ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'In Him we live and move and have our being,' eh?
I thought the point was more "in our own interpretive framework we live and move and have our eisegesis." Or, it can be difficult to see that you have a Tradition because you're smack dab in the middle of it. After a while, to invoke Saint Clive, you forget you have blue spectacles on, and think the world is just blue.
It's all in Kant, all in Kant. What do they teach them in these schools?
[ 27. December 2014, 16:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I reckon so ...
But is it Kant or cant?
That's where the rub lies, it seems to me.
It's dead easy to claim that this, that or the other practice (or absence of particular practices) is somehow more scriptural than what those other folks down the road get up to ...
I'm interested in the difference it makes.
If it simply leads to isolationism and a Pharisaical attitude towards everyone else then count me out - and I'd say that to any and every tradition and also say it to myself ...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
For the billionth time, Steve Langton, no-one here as far as I can see is advocating a 'Everyone here is a Christian: Constantinian State' position.'
And for the billionth time on my side, I have of course noticed that most people aren't advocating anything that extreme (your 'no-one here' may be overstating the case slightly - I have spotted a few...). So you don't need to say that EVER AGAIN!!!! PHEW!!!!!
But I haven't noticed much sign of a solidly biblical alternative being presented either.
What I'm seeing is more a case of either confusion or that Christians are operating with a secular 'freedom of religion' model (so vague than in the UK it still allows the continuance of the ragged left-overs of a legally 'established' church!). Shouldn't Christians want to be interacting with the world in the way God has described in his word, rather than with a vaguer idea almost 'borrowed from the enemy'?
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Where does the NT 'teach the plurality of belief in society'?
It doesn't.... It teaches a slightly different idea, that Christians shall be separate from society by the simple fact of being 'born again', and shall be citizens of heaven living as 'resident aliens' on earth. Christians will be God's international holy people.
The NT doesn't tell society to be plural; it simply tells Christians follow Jesus as Lord and therefore to be separate and make society ipso facto plural. Society may of course object and respond not by toleration but by persecution. Or they may learn from the peaceable Christian example, that society can work without being totalitarian and uniform....
I'll be back on the tradition thing; but my reaction at the moment is basically that I'm talking about a specific kind of 'Tradition' which is a clear problem and needs to be rejected. In contrast to that, I'm fully recognising the looser kinds of tradition, influences of surrounding culture, etc, just saying that ultimately all of those things are in principle subordinate to Scripture. And I'm aware and have said so at least a few times, that us hooman beanz aren't perfect about this, but I still think aspiring is better than blethering ourselves out of aspiring.
You with your endlessly repeated 'everybody's got traditions' thing are really rather confusing the issues by a usage of the word 'tradition' which is just too wide and foggy to be useful.
The essentials of Scripture ARE self-explanatory - God isn't that bad a writer, even when using human 'ghostwriters' like Matthew, Mark, Paul, etc. And yes, I think the stuff about the 'kingdom not of this world' is pretty much self-explanatory IF you give it a chance - which of course powerful state churches (or even less powerful 21st Century rags of former state churches) don't want to give it....
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
The NT doesn't have any more to say about 'plurality of belief in society' than it does about nuclear physics, the kind of coinage that should apply or whether we should eat muesli or bacon and egg for breakfast.
Just all the stuff about the nature of the Church and of Christian faith. John 18 for one, John 1; 12-13 for another... many, many more....
OK, I'll bite.
quote:
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
John 1:12-13
Where in those verses is any mention of "plurality of belief"? OK, there's an implication that not all believe in the name of Jesus (actually rather explicit if you add in verse 11). Which is an acknowledgement that society has a plurality of belief. But, in theory, why shouldn't the number of people who do not accept Jesus be zero?
But, then again, there has always been plurality of belief. Even at the times when there have been attempts to limit belief, there has been a plurality. When Theodosius tried to make Christianity the one and only religion he had a Senate full of men complaining that the altars to the Roman gods had been removed.
The fact of plurality of belief isn't in dispute, either in the NT era, present day or any point in between. The question is how do we live in a society with a plurality of belief? Options with Scriptural support include total isolation, having nothing to do with non-believers except as potential converts, or to become deeply involved in the working of society such that the values of the Kingdom are (as far as possible) reflected in the government policies and increasing the exposure people have to the gospel message that as many as possible accept Christ. And, a whole range of options in between.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Steve,
Sorry, but nowhere in the scriptures does it say that Christians shouldn't be part of society, as you put it. What you describe is not being in the world but not part of it, rather it's isolating yourself from everyone else.
[ 27. December 2014, 17:34: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Which is maybe why anabaptists are this irrelevant little sect who rebaptise.
[ 27. December 2014, 17:37: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The essentials of Scripture ARE self-explanatory
And there is your Big-T Tradition. It's clearly wrong, given what we see in the world. Unless you want to say that people who disagree with you on the essentials of Scripture are acting in bad faith. Which you almost do here:
quote:
And yes, I think the stuff about the 'kingdom not of this world' is pretty much self-explanatory IF you give it a chance - which of course powerful state churches (or even less powerful 21st Century rags of former state churches) don't want to give it....
Actually I take back the "almost."
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I haven't noticed much sign of a solidly biblical alternative being presented either.
Including by yourself. quote:
it simply tells Christians follow Jesus as Lord and therefore to be separate
And so far you have failed to give a single example of what that means in practice, apart from railing at Anglicans. quote:
The essentials of Scripture ARE self-explanatory - God isn't that bad a writer, even when using human 'ghostwriters' like Matthew, Mark, Paul, etc. And yes, I think the stuff about the 'kingdom not of this world' is pretty much self-explanatory IF you give it a chance
And yet after 15 pages, many promises, and thousands of words about other issues, you have failed to come up with your promised explanation of John 18. Why do you find this so complicated if it's "self-explanatory"?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I haven't noticed much sign of a solidly biblical alternative being presented either.
Why do I need to present an alternative to the status quo, with the CofE being the established Church in England? It has its flaws, but I'm more or less happy with it.
Presenting an alternative is your job, and one which you've singularly failed to do.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I can't help but notice that the technical antiChrist who heads up the CofE said in her Christmas (Winterval?) broadcast that quote:
For me, the life of Jesus Christ, the prince of peace, whose birth we celebrate today, is an inspiration and an anchor in my life.
Are we to conclude that this testimony to the nation(s) is a sad reflection of worldliness on the part of the Church?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure I detect any reluctance or incapacity here for anyone to pose a 'solidly biblical alternative' - it may simply be that most posters here don't want to be as reductionist in their understanding of these things and how they work out in practice.
There's all the difference in the world between being 'solidly biblical' and being inflexibly wedded to a reductionist position.
Forgive me, but there's something almost Manichaean about some of your posts on these matters - as if something either has to be intrinsically evil or else be completely 'of God' as it were.
It's a terribly dualistic world-view.
You also seem to be subscribing to a 'dictation' view of divine inspiration - which is more Islamic than Christian.
God didn't write the Bible. Human beings wrote the Bible. Yes, he inspired it, but he didn't 'dictate' it. And it was also human beings who canonised the scriptures and through a process of collegial discussion and debate eventually decided which books to recognise as scriptural and which to exclude ... although even that isn't clear-cut as there isn't universal agreement on the canon.
What I'm trying to get from you is how Christians 'should be interacting with the world in the way God has described in his word ...'
What does that entail exactly?
How does it work out in practice?
Does it involve the demonisation of anything pertaining to a civil society - which is what you seem to be doing?
On the one hand you condemn attempts at theocracy - and yes, with good reason - and the idea of 'state churches' and then, on the other, you complain about secular or less overtly 'religious' ways of organising governments and societies - even to the point of assigning them some kind of Satanic origin.
A vaguer idea, 'almost borrowed from the enemy ...'
You seem to want your cake and eat it.
Being 'in the world but not of it' doesn't involved separation from society - how could that even be possible?
We are all part of society. 'No man is an island entire of himself ...'
You're beginning to sound like a certain Maggie Thatcher, 'There's no such thing as society ...'
Christians can be 'resident aliens' and so on without being separate from society - such separation, I would argue, is impossible anyway.
When you go to your model railway meetings you are part of society - like it or not. Are you insisting on everyone who attends such meetings should be 'born again Christians'?
You may wish that they were, and you may seek to 'witness' to them and evangelise them - but whether you are involved expressly for that purpose or whether you are there to share an interest in model railways - then either way you are part of that group, that society - and part of wider society too.
How can you not be?
As for the tradition thing - it might sound vague and foggy to you but however we cut it, we are all part of some tradition or other. Whether we like it or not.
Real-life doesn't break down into the nice neat categories you appear to want it to.
It'd be lovely and a lot less complicated if it did - but it doesn't.
We have to learn to live with that tension.
The tension between the 'now and the not yet'.
You might enjoy living in a black-and-white, them-and-us, state churches or raggedy remnants of state-churches versus everyone else but that's not how things are. It's not how these things work. These things are nowhere near as simple and uncomplicated as that.
Sure, Christians are 'born again' and part of an international community of faith - more than that - a community that transcends both space and time - the Church Triumphant as well as the Church Militant.
Everyone accepts that - even those who belong to the so-called 'Constantinian' or other 'inian' churches ...
'But there's another country I heard of long ago ...' as the somewhat iffy hymn, 'I vow to thee my country' puts it.
The Apostle Paul drew on being a Roman citizen, a citizen of Tarsus - 'no mean city' - as well as regarding himself as a citizen of heaven.
He was both, of course. He was a citizen of heaven, but here on earth he was also a citizen of the Roman Empire. We don't lose our identities, nationalities, culture or anything else when we are 'born again' - we don't suddenly stop being British, French, Canadian, Greek or whatever else.
Yes, our loyalties and destination are 'higher' but we are still 'in the world'.
That's the reality. It is not fog or vagueness, it is not confusion - it is how things are.
'Humankind cannot bear very much reality,' T S Eliot memorably observed.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Being 'in the world but not of it' doesn't involved separation from society - how could that even be possible?
Jesus most certainly didn't separate himself from society - indeed, one of the criticisms levelled against him was that he got too much enjoyment out of being part of it!Yet he was not dragged down by it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Apostle Paul drew on being a Roman citizen, a citizen of Tarsus - 'no mean city' - as well as regarding himself as a citizen of heaven.
He was both, of course. He was a citizen of heaven, but here on earth he was also a citizen of the Roman Empire. We don't lose our identities, nationalities, culture or anything else when we are 'born again' - we don't suddenly stop being British, French, Canadian, Greek or whatever else.
Quite right. As you imply, the important thing is that, if there is a clash, one's heavenly loyalty should transcend one's earthly nationality. Sadly it doesn't always work out like that ...
[ 27. December 2014, 19:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Indeed ... which is itself part of the tension.
It's one that is not going to resolved this side of the Parousia - however 'aspirational' we might be to the contrary.
Throughout this thread, I'm afraid that I've found Steve Langton's tone to be rather judgmental and carping - as if the rest of us have somehow 'sold-out' and aren't as 'radical' or wholehearted in their discipleship as he'd like to think that he is.
I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate what his 'better way' actually consists of - other than the taking up of carping attitudes towards other Christians and other churches.
These things happen in all traditions, of course - I've come across Orthodox and RCs, for instance, who seem to consider everyone else substandard in some respects ...
Which brings us back to the points that Richard Baxter was raising in the 17th century and which I have reiterated here several times.
I'm sure it's possible to be Orthodox, or RC or Anabaptist (or anything else) without necessarily being arsey about other Christians and other churches ... but at the same time it seems inevitable that there'll be a certain amount of that inherent and intrinsic within each system.
'We're Orthodox, you aren't. We can't even be sure you are orthodox (small o) ...'
'We're Anabaptists. You aren't. Therefore you must be Constantinians or neo-Constantinians of some kind. We can't actually be sure you're really 'saved' ...'
In fairness, I think there is scope for nuance in both positions ...
I don't see much evidence of that in Steve's posts. What the rest of us see as shades of grey he appears to consider to be 'confusion' at best.
What he considers to be the solid biblicism of his argument, others recognise as a rather inflexible and reductionist approach based on an untenably fundamentalist, almost 'dictation' view of scriptural inspiration that is closer to fundamentalist Islam that Steve would probably be prepared to accept.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
You also seem to be subscribing to a 'dictation' view of divine inspiration - which is more Islamic than Christian.
No - that's why I used the 'ghostwriter' image; ghostwriters contribute considerably to what they pass on. I highly value the fact that the Christian Scriptures are very different to the Quran. But the basic point I made still stands; that however achieved, the essentials of the Scriptures are not incomprehensible to ordinary human readers. (And to be blunt, the things that aren't so comprehensible are the ones where you DON'T want some guy around to tell you you have to interpret it his way because he and/or his church has the 'Tradition/Magisterium/whatever' and so has the kind of authority which is 'because I say so'.)
Mousethief/Ad Orientem;
still waiting for the bit where the Tradition you both belong to gets you singing from the same hymnsheet on state-and-church issues....
by Eutychus;
re Her Majesty's Christmas message;
quote:
Are we to conclude that this testimony to the nation(s) is a sad reflection of worldliness on the part of the Church?
I do wonder how it comes over in a Muslim land which has recently had a 'crusading' British army in it.... I have massive personal respect for the Queen, and her father; my unhappiness is that the English constitution puts a good Christian in a very questionable position.
Oh, and John 18 remains simple in itself; sorting out some of the confusion you threw into the conversation early on, back in Keryg, is causing me work I shouldn't be needing to do.
Winterval? If you're happy with the current state of a midwinter festivity which almost certainly doesn't celebrate Jesus' actual birthday...? But at much risk of 'junior hosting' I think that may well be a tangent too far at this point. Reminds me - I must get on with my 'fluff-free' Nativity play....
Two other general comments; yes, very much 'IN the world but not of it' - I am much NOT an 'Exclusive Brother' and I'd have thought I'd said enough at various points for you all to know that.
And the other; look, it is the state-and-church entanglement which is the big problem. Not only in the gross form of Anglican 'establishment' but all the other forms up or down to the idea of the 'Prawtistant cawntry' of Ulster and the trouble that causes. And not only does this cause problems and confusion for our fellow-citizens, it makes difficulties for Christians. And in this context, it's the people who insist on the state entanglement, the 'Christian country' idea, who are the real 'separatists'. Think about it. The people who do the resident alien thing have to not only distinguish themselves from their pagan neighbours, but also from a way-beyond-dubious supposed form of Christianity itself, which in the past has persecuted in Jesus' name.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And the other; look, it is the state-and-church entanglement which is the big problem.
You say it's a big problem not only for those who belong to the established church, including the technical antichrist at its head, but also for the witness of all Christians in England, and also for the way the nation is perceived abroad.
You have yet to establish this (which is ironic).
Given, at the moment, every household in England is in a CofE parish, and (theoretically if not practically) every parish has a vicar and every vicar has a duty to care for the souls within their parish, be they members or not - what would you replace that with?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Mousethief/Ad Orientem;
still waiting for the bit where the Tradition you both belong to gets you singing from the same hymnsheet on state-and-church issues....
Wait all you want. Why should we try to fit into your Procrustean bed? Let us be who we are and stop trying to make us over into your "Constantinian" model. Oooh, we don't agree on everything, like good Constantinians should. Well you know what? We're not good Constantinians. Get over it. Get the FUCK over it. We are not who you would like to think we are. We are who we are. How dare you tell us what we should be like?
Now stop using that as an excuse to tell us what YOU are. Your dodge is getting old. We're not falling for it. You fail to answer any of our questions. Why? Why? Why this excusing and "you guys aren't perfect so I don't have to answer your questions" bullshit? Do you even HAVE an answer to the many questions that have been put to you? So far all we have gotten is smokescreens and "maybe later"s.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And the other; look, it is the state-and-church entanglement which is the big problem.
You say it's a big problem not only for those who belong to the established church, including the technical antichrist at its head, but also for the witness of all Christians in England, and also for the way the nation is perceived abroad.
You have yet to establish this (which is ironic).
It is a big problem from Steve Langton's personal reading of scripture (untainted by tradition), therefore it is a big problem. A bigger problem than world peace, a cure for cancer and salvation too.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No - that's why I used the 'ghostwriter' image; ghostwriters contribute considerably to what they pass on. I highly value the fact that the Christian Scriptures are very different to the Quran. But the basic point I made still stands; that however achieved, the essentials of the Scriptures are not incomprehensible to ordinary human readers. (And to be blunt, the things that aren't so comprehensible are the ones where you DON'T want some guy around to tell you you have to interpret it his way because he and/or his church has the 'Tradition/Magisterium/whatever' and so has the kind of authority which is 'because I say so'.)
So how does that differ from what you are proposing? You are rejecting one kind of Tradition/Magisterium and replacing it with one of your own - 'because Steve Langton says so ...'
On the differences between Mousethief and Ad Orientem - they can answer for themselves but to a great extent I think it's a healthy thing that people can belong to the same tradition and yet have different views on things.
That's not a weakness, it's a strength.
Obviously, on certain issues Mousethief and Ad Orientem will be on the same page as one another. On other issues they will differ - surely that's a healthy thing?
For one thing it explodes your assertion that Tradition it there to allow some guy or guys to boss people around and tell them what to believe.
If it were, then Mousethief and Ad Orientem would be too kow-towed to disagree with one another. As it is, they do disagree.
And they are free to do so. No-one is going to fling either of them out of the Orthodox Church because they disagree on church/state relations.
Your example doesn't undermine Mousethief's and Ad Orientem's claim to go by Holy Tradition - rather it shows up the paucity of your own understanding of it.
Likewise this business of Northern Ireland being a 'Prawtistant country' that you keep touting - no-one here is advocating any such thing. We're not Ian Paisley.
I happen to agree that Anglican Establishment is problematic, but not everyone does and if we have to deliberately distance ourselves from that then I would suggest that we also have to deliberately distance ourselves from the attitudes and behaviour of minority sectarian groups who take a 'holier than thou' approach and who believe themselves to be more 'biblical' or supposedly more 'radical' than everyone else ...
[code]
[ 28. December 2014, 06:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I have to say, Steve, that I am rapidly losing what respect and admiration I once had towards the Anabaptist position on things.
The way you've been arguing on this thread, eliding direct questions, producing no real evidence for your assertions except to repeat them over and over again in the vain hope that we'll eventually see how self-evidently correct they are and your apparently hypercritical view of every tradition other than your own ... even when you patently misunderstand the other traditions represented here and insist on lumping them all into a 'Constantinian' mould that no longer exists or operates ... has tended to push me in the opposite direction.
The only reason I continue to entertain a degree of respect for the Anabaptist tradition is because I can't imagine all its proponents to offer such palpably lame defence of it.
Of course, no Christian tradition is adequately represented by its proponents. I don't think that Mousethief and Ad Orientem would consider themselves to be the best possible mouth-pieces and advocates for Orthodoxy any more than Doc Tor believes himself to be an exemplary advocate or role-model for Anglicanism.
So, no, I'm not trying to place a burden upon you that is impossible for you - or any mortal being - to bear.
But I'm still not seeing anything 'positive' in what you're proposing. It's all 'negative' - it's all about what you aren't - 'we're not a state church ... we're not allied with the world ...' - rather than what you ARE.
I know you're not some kind of Exclusive Brother nor a po-faced pietist of the 'Holiness' variety - 'We don't smoke, we don't chew, we hold no truck with those who do ...'
But there's very little you've posted here that gives the lie to Baxter's assertion that the Anabaptists and Separatists of the 17th century considered themselves 'holier' than everyone else - just as he saw the RCs and 'the Greeks' as believing that their sheer size and antiquity somehow put them head and shoulders above everyone else ...
I'm sure there are plenty of Anabaptists doing good stuff, playing important roles as salt and light in their societies, spreading the Gospel by word and deed ...
Yet we've heard nothing of them. All we've heard is how bad you consider the CofE to be, how wrong you consider the RCs and the Orthodox to be, how compromised you consider the rest of the Protestant world to be other than the Anabaptists.
Is it any wonder the rest of us are becoming somewhat impatient?
You're not giving us a lot to go on apart from your questionable hermeneutics and separatist/perfectionist attitudes and over-realised eschatology.
You could have done yourself innumerable favours all along by answering direct questions and giving practical and positive examples rather than pointing the finger and carping at and criticising traditions other than your own.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Anyway, I'm not even sure how much we actually differ (though I'm not arguing that there is no difference between Mousetheif and I). I never argued that any synergy between Church and State was a matter of tradition and all else be anathema, only that it was a pragmatic solution to how the Church and State should relate to one another when the ruler identifies itself as Christian. What I would argue is that this was mostly for the good and, quite frankly, under such circumstances I don't even believe in religious freedom in the modern secular sense anyway (which is probably where any difference lies).
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
And one more thing, seeing as Steve has on a number of occasions mentioned being born again and nominalism in his arguments (for what they're worth), I would quite naturally argue, using John 3, that to be baptised with water in the name of the Most Holy Trinity is to be born again and that anyone who says otherwise is anathema.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
You know what... I'm outta here! This thread started in Hell and it's never really got out of it. I'd really hoped for a substantive discussion and it's just been same old same old from the same old people - and you have the brass neck to call me repetitive.... When I've finished it I'll publish the upgraded/updated version of my John 18 comments on my blog where people may actually care - may even actually read it before sounding off....
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Have a tantrum then. Or maybe you just don't like being challenged.
[ 28. December 2014, 00:41: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'd really hoped for a substantive discussion
Too rich. My irony meter just busted a needle and it flew through my first edition copy of "Irony: A History" by I. Ron Iqq.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I hope you find readers for your blog, Steve Langton.
My own view is that you should stick to your model railways and blog about that.
You'd probably find more attentive readers within that constituency.
Who knows, non-model railway enthusiasts might actually read it too and be intrigued. They might actually revise their opinion of model railways and model railway enthusiasts ...
I'd like to revise my opinion of Anabaptists. I'd dearly like to return to my previously warm and open attitude towards them and the tradition they represent.
Perhaps I will one day, when I encounter one who can make a more attractive and convincing case than you have here.
I still believe that the Anabaptists have things that the rest of us can learn from - despite your best efforts to convince me otherwise.
So perhaps something has been achieved after all ...
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd like to revise my opinion of Anabaptists. I'd dearly like to return to my previously warm and open attitude towards them and the tradition they represent.
You can't seriously have revised your opinion of a denomination based on a single internet poster?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My own view is that you should stick to your model railways and blog about that.
You'd probably find more attentive readers within that constituency.
Oi! No dissing of model railways on this thread please (whether run by the State or by private enterprise ...).
Repent thou!
[ 28. December 2014, 17:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, mdijon, I haven't revised my opinion of an entire denomination based on the postings of one contributor. Of course I haven't.
I was writing hyperbolically ... it's something I do all the time ...
'All Cretans are liars,' and so on ...
I also knew that my comments on model-railways would draw the attention of Baptist Trainfan too. Not only is the clue in his title, but he's also been known to wax lyrical about railway engines on these boards at times.
For the record and FWIW, I don't have an 'issue' with Anabaptists at all. I used to be in a Baptist church (BUGB) and remain appreciative of all the contacts I have with Christians of a 'baptistic' persuasion.
I'm not against Baptists or Anabaptists.
The point I was making was that if anyone were going to 'put me off' Anabaptists it would be someone like Steve Langton. Not because he's a terrible bloke or anything of the kind ...
In the same way, if they don't mind me saying so, if anyone is going to 'put me off' Orthodoxy it's going to be Ad Orientem rather than Mousethief. That doesn't mean that Mousethief is any 'better' (or worse) an Orthodox Christian than Ad Orientem is ...
And my judgement on these points probably says more about me than it tells you about them.
Orthodoxy happens to be a Christian tradition for which I've got an awful lot of time - but the problem is, there are people involved ...
In theory, I'd have a lot of time for the Anabaptist position too ... but again, there are those tricky and pesky things called people involved with that as well ...
More seriously, whilst I do think that there are aspects of Anabaptism that deserve a hearing, ultimately it boils down to an over-realised (or dare I say, using Eutychus's least favourite Gamaliel phrase, 'over-egged') eschatology.
At best, it can demonstrate radical discipleship and admirable principles. At worst, it can become Pharisaical and pernickety - we don't have zips, we don't have computers - or more likely, we don't vote and thereby keep ourselves 'unspotted from the world' ... but essentially, we're the same as everyone else except we don't want to accept or recognise that ...
All Christian traditions have their strong points and their weak points - and often our greatest strengths are also our source of greatest weakness.
That applies right across the board.
That isn't to advocate a kind of non-commital, woolly approach ... no - but it is to acknowledge that we live between the 'now and the not yet', that we have to live with the tensions, work with the difficulties.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course I haven't... I was writing hyperbolically ... it's something I do all the time ...
You say "of course", there wasn't anything in your post to indicate you didn't mean it. It seemed like an unnecessary parting shot to me and didn't have any particular communicative value as hyperbole. To say a particular person might put you off a denomination doesn't really add anything to a reasoned discussion of why they are wrong.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I also knew that my comments on model-railways would draw the attention of Baptist Trainfan too. Not only is the clue in his title, but he's also been known to wax lyrical about railway engines on these boards at times.
Wot, me? Guilty as charged, m'lud! (My wife compains, too).
Re. "separation from the world" - years ago I attended a Bible study group of American ex-pat Evangelicals in Portugal. The theme of the study was "separation", which (to them) meant not taking part in the traditional shibboleths of drinking, smoking, etc. At the end of the study they all drove off in (what seemed to me) their expensive cars.
What intrigued me - even then, in 1979 - was that nothing was said about challenging capitalist values, or career ambition, or military assumptions, or political systems. Those aspects of "the world" never even entered their heads, it was all seen in terms of personal details of morality, satisfied of their "separation".
To be fair, Steve Langton has ben much more thoughtful than that ....
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The theme of the study was "separation", which (to them) meant not taking part in the traditional shibboleths of drinking, smoking, etc. At the end of the study they all drove off in (what seemed to me) their expensive cars.
To give another similar example - a friend of mine once observed after meeting with a bunch of Southern Baptists; "Those people talking about their body being a temple of the Holy Spirit .. how big is their temple?"
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I also knew that my comments on model-railways would draw the attention of Baptist Trainfan too. Not only is the clue in his title, but he's also been known to wax lyrical about railway engines on these boards at times.
Baptist Trainfan may be a fan of railways (which he shares with Steve Langton and me) but he doesn't rate all locomotives equally, which is just as well because while some locomotives are recognised as excellent by just about everyone, there are some that only their builders would rate worth more as machines than as scrap metal.
It's like that with doctrine, or anything else for that matter.
Steve,
Best wishes with the blog. Congratulations for trying in this and other threads; I think we all know what you are on about!
Sioni
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You say "of course", there wasn't anything in your post to indicate you didn't mean it. It seemed like an unnecessary parting shot to me and didn't have any particular communicative value as hyperbole. To say a particular person might put you off a denomination doesn't really add anything to a reasoned discussion of why they are wrong.
Perhaps not. I thought it was a 'fun' thing to post at the time. I won't die in a ditch over it. Steve might not even read it. He may be miles away by now sharing his wisdom on his blog or playing with his toy trains.
I'd rather he did the latter, to be honest, but it's not my call ...
I'm sorry my post offended you, but if you'd bothered to read on you'd have found that my sarky 'parting shot' also contained a hint that I hadn't given up on Anabaptists entirely.
Meanwhile, I'll readily agree with what's been said. Steve Langton is a heck of a lot more thoughtful than many 'US-style' evangelicals (and indeed 'UK-style' ones) but FWIW, to my mind he hasn't helped his own cause by restricting himself to carping about the sins and faults of others rather than seeking to demonstrate a 'more excellent way' in anything other than pretty broad, catch-all pietistic terms.
If he'd bothered to answer South Coast Kevin's questions properly - and had engaged with some of the challenges that others were making to his position rather than eliding them all the time then I wouldn't have given him such a sarky send-off.
[code]
[ 28. December 2014, 19:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Gamaliel, posting as a Shipmate here, if Steve Langton's posts of late have done nothing to endear me to the Anabaptist cause, yours since his announced departure from this thread have done nothing whatsoever to endear me to yours.
I suggest we either divert the conversation to discussing the views of people still taking part in it or let it rest.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair enough.
I don't have a 'cause' - I'm a rebel without one.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If he'd bothered to answer South Coast Kevin's questions properly - and had engaged with some of the challenges that others were making to his position rather than eliding them all the time then I wouldn't have given him such a sarky send-off.
Not once did he engage with anyone. I particularly wish he would have answered by last two posts.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I'd have liked to have seen answers to those posts too, Ad Orientem.
To be honest, I've been wondering what my responses to those would be had they been addressed in my direction.
Anabaptists or no Anabaptists, a lot of Protestants would baulk at the 'baptismal regeneration' thing ...
I'm still trying to work that one out. If we take it to its logical conclusion then both Hitler and Stalin were 'born again' in the sense in which you are applying the term ...
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Steve, I'm still not clear what you think Christians and churches *should* do. You've given some of your thoughts about what is to be avoided - notably a state-supported church institution - but how do you think Christians should relate to the world, to nation states, political systems and so on? What, for you, are the signs that a church or an individual Christian is getting it right?
Are these the questions?
Christians need to be a testimony to the world don't they?
Various things come to my mind. Humility? Being a good employee? Taking the time to meet needs of others ? Driving considerately? Generosity in all it's forms?
Every now and then I meet someone who does it not just talk about it and they blow me away. I want to be like them.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anabaptists or no Anabaptists, a lot of Protestants would baulk at the 'baptismal regeneration' thing ...
I'm still trying to work that one out. If we take it to its logical conclusion then both Hitler and Stalin were 'born again' in the sense in which you are applying the term ...
Yes, in as much as the baptism they received left an indelible mark on their soul. But then we don't believe in once saved always saved. In fact it's not even the kind of terminology we would use, it's western, mainly protestant rationalism and badly wrong.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Thinking of what Gamaliel wrote, it strikes me that Steve has never worked out a fundamental problem within his view, which is how you run a society when a (large) majority of its members are professedly Christian. It's all very well being a radical alternative when you are only a tiny minority; but the whole thing changes when the "alternative" view is to not be Christian.
Inevitably such a society will have its institutions formed and informed by Christian values, even if these have not become formalised into the apparatus of state. Furthermore, for Christians living in such societies, isolation from stuff such as politics and voting would simply cause the State to collapse.
[ 29. December 2014, 08:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Every now and then I meet someone who does it not just talk about it and they blow me away. I want to be like them.
Absolutely, Jamat. But I was trying to find out what Steve believes about how Christians and churches should relate to the world in terms of political involvement, campaigning and the like. Through the whole length of this thread, I never got a clear sense of what Steve understood being part of 'a kingdom not of this world' to mean...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I concur with what South Coast Kevin has said on the 'societal' issues - and with what Baptist Trainfan wrote before that.
That isn't to detract from the personal, individual responsibility issues that Jamat has - rightly - highlighted.
I have to say, I now regret some of the things I said to Steve Langton and the satirical tone I sometimes took with him ... but I was increasingly frustrated by his apparent inability to sketch out for us some kind of response to the issues South Coast Kevin and Baptist Trainfan have raised.
Both of them - like Eutychus - are believers within a 'credo-baptist' frame of reference. If they can frame some kind of rationale or response to this issues - or at least make a stab at it - then I don't 'get' why Steve was finding it so difficult ... but I appreciate that he is no longer here so it is probably counter-productive discussing what he didn't say ...
I'd imagine though, that he had the kind of 'personal' and individual responses in mind that Jamat has outlined.
Which is fair enough as far as it goes, but these things are by no means confined to any particular Christian tradition - I believe it's possible to find individuals of the kind Jamat describes everywhere and anywhere.
I think Baptist Trainfan is on the money on this one. In a society which is, or has been, majority Christian - even if largely nominally - and has been shaped to some extent by Christian values, then it's a 'dereliction of duty' on the part of individual believers to withdraw from the public sphere - if they did then the effect and influence of those values would diminish still further.
But Steve's no longer around to outline his views. I may go and look at his blog at some point.
Meanwhile, @Ad Orientem - yes, I thought about the 'once saved, always saved' thing after I posted that, but not all Protestants believe that - those of a more Arminian persuasion for instance.
But I can certainly see what you mean about Western and particularly Protestant 'rationalisation' - attempts to codify everything and pack it all into neat categories and formularies ... that is, indeed, a very Western trait.
Without, hopefully, straying into 'Dead Horses' territory, how would it be apparent that someone was 'indelibly' marked by their baptism - infant or otherwise?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-sacramentalist or anything of that kind ... I'm gradually feeling my way 'further up the candle' - as it were - particularly in my understanding of the eucharist.
But at the same time I'm inevitably influenced (perhaps indelibly ) by the credo-baptist/Anabaptist and more generally Protestant milieu in which I've tended to operate hitherto.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Steve Langton having left the thread, please stop speculating about the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments; also his RL activities. Please stick to the discussions which the rest of you are having.
This is a rule we have for folks suspended and it seems appropriate to apply it in this case to someone who has voluntarily departed, at least for the time being. It is part of being courteous in your debating style - Purg guideline 5.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
how Christians and churches should relate to the world in terms of political involvement, campaigning and the like.[/QB]
It is a really interesting issue. Miller's play, The Crucible, comes to mind. Miller reflects the human failings intrinsic to a theocratic attempt at community. In the end, personal freedoms are curtailed. It is also clearly a mistake to associate a faith belief with right/ left politics but in microcosm a bit clearer. I worked at a Christian school for 9 years. The politics there were, let's say human. Overall, decisions that counted were made similarly to how they are made anywhere else, if the institution thought that a direction was best or a person was not doing a proper job they were pretty ruthless. Overall IMV a truly Christian institution is a chimera.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Aren't the problems with Steve's views solved by living in a secular non-established church society with a majority of atheists? That allows Christians to be the minority apart leading exemplary lives. I think that's been the usual historical role of Anabaptists.
Although I am assuming that a secular society could have Christians participate in leadership o f that society without them being "Constantinian".
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Buggered by even more atheists and Constantinians leading exemplary lives.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Steve has never worked out a fundamental problem within his view, which is how you run a society when a (large) majority of its members are professedly Christian. It's all very well being a radical alternative when you are only a tiny minority; but the whole thing changes when the "alternative" view is to not be Christian.
Inevitably such a society will have its institutions formed and informed by Christian values, even if these have not become formalised into the apparatus of state.
We may say that 'a (large) majority' of a society's members are 'professedly Christian' but what this actually means is hard to define. It doesn't necessarily mean that the people need religious specialists to speak on their behalf; or that they need 'churches' of any sort; or that a belief in any sort of g/God is required; or that it precludes dual/multiple allegiances to different religions or to apparently opposing world views. All things are possible, because there's no end of ways in which one may consider oneself a Christian. For this reason it's problematic to expect institutional churches of any sort to 'represent Christianity' rather than simply their own brand of it.
Moreover, it may be good for Christians to be present in every walk of life, but we can see from the American experience that Christian public figures rarely speak to the range of Christian experience or belief that exists. The Ship is full of moderate Christians who regret that Christian fundamentalists spend quite so much time in the public eye.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The same would equally apply to 'less institutional' churches - they'd only be able to represent their particular brand of Christianity rather than Christianity as a whole.
There's no such thing as an ideal situation - only in the realm of speculation can such a thing exist.
There are problems all ways round.
When the Queen goes on national TV at Christmas and testifies to her faith in Christ we can react to that in various ways.
We can say, 'Oh, goody, the fact that the CofE is Established enables her to do this ...'
Or we can say, 'That's all very well and good but the CofE shouldn't be Established ...'
Or we can be indifferent to it either way.
There are a whole range of options in terms of how we can react to that.
Note, though, that the Queen was talking about Christ's influence and example - something that can apply to all Christians of whatever church or denomination.
She wasn't promoting the CofE but the teachings and example of Christ.
Of course, it's not just a question of 'being in the public eye' and I don't particularly have any issue with evangelicals or any other Christian tradition getting noticed or 'being in the public eye' ...
I might have an issue, though, with some of the things they say and how they act as and when they do have a platform ... but that's another issue.
The Queen does some good stuff, the Queen probably does some bad stuff and the Queen undoubtedly does some indifferent stuff. Same as everyone else.
The same applies to churches of whatever stripe - however 'institutional' or less 'institutional' (whatever that means) they are ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The same would equally apply to 'less institutional' churches - they'd only be able to represent their particular brand of Christianity rather than Christianity as a whole.
Indeed. So why insist that the institutional nature of religious groups is especially valuable? It's only valuable to a fairly small constituency.
By 'institutional churches' I wasn't thinking of the CofE in particular. However, one could argue that the CofE is the bearer of an important cultural heritage so it should be specially supported or affirmed quite independently of its religious or spiritual purpose. For example, the secular French state pays for the repair of old RC churches even though state and church are supposedly strictly separate in France.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Buggered by even more atheists and Constantinians leading exemplary lives.
Exemplary in the sense of behaviour as in golden rule or exemplary in the sense of unselfish motivation?
'In the world' is not a choice a Christian has but if we are selfishly motivated then we are in fact of it as well, ergo,not Christian at all.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Surely, Jamat, it is ultimately only God who can 'judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart' as it were ... although I'd agree that we are given means and frameworks to help us ... but we are infallible and won't always judge and assess things correctly.
For all the proof-texts that evangelicals sometimes sprinkle around, I don't see any NT evidence that God despises or necessarily rejects the good things that people do - whether from a Christian base or otherwise.
Virtue is often its own reward.
That doesn't mean that people shouldn't be given the opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel - of course not. We are not saved by our own works.
But I don't see anyone being smacked across the head by Christ or by anyone else in the NT for simply trying to do what they thought was best.
I s'pose the closest to that is the incident with the Syro-Phoenician woman, but even there, Christ is impressed with the answer he receives and effectively says, 'Ok, it's a fair cop ...'
Sure, it's right to try to assess and judge our own motives to ensure that we are motivated by genuine love and not trying to draw attention to ourselves etc.
But we aren't in a position to judge anyone else's motives - 'the Lord looks at the heart.'
We none of us have 'windows into men's souls'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
[/b]
Indeed. So why insist that the institutional nature of religious groups is especially valuable? It's only valuable to a fairly small constituency.
I'm not 'insisting' anything.
I'm not 'sold' on either Establishment or Disestablishment - there are pros and cons with both systems.
I must admit, that I'm not convinced that it is possible for churches to escape 'institutionalism' of some kind or other. I've seen that process at work with new churches that have gradually become institutionalised. It's an inevitable process and it's naive, in my view, to think that we can elide it.
If, on balance, I say that I think it's a good thing that the Queen has the scope to go on the telly on Christmas Day and talk about Christ - which I do - it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm comfortable with every other aspect of Anglican Establishment.
But we are where we are and we're between the now and the not yet.
I've yet to see any church model or system that doesn't have difficulties of some kind or other. The same applies to everything else.
We are all where we are and we have to work with the opportunities and constraints that wherever we are provides.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not convinced that it is possible for churches to escape 'institutionalism' of some kind or other. I've seen that process at work with new churches that have gradually become institutionalised. It's an inevitable process and it's naive, in my view, to think that we can elide it.
Agreed, it's impossible to avoid. Both Troeltsch and Weber (as long ago as 1912) talked of the "routinisation of charisma" and the tendency of most radical sects to gradually accommodate to surrounding society.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We're ALL selfishly motivated. How enlightenedly?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
We are where we are, obviously.
Our church culture currently seems to be in a place of stasis, which is probably the result of late secularisation. There's so much anxiety and/or exhaustion among most Christians here that there's no taste for founding new sects (as dissatisfied Christians in 'routinised' churches used to do) or for switching to groups such as the Anabaptists. We either stick with the familiar or we give up on church life entirely.
I can see that this state of affairs makes things easier for church leaders who want to keep control of their congregations. Churchgoers who leave out of boredom or loss of faith are less of a threat than those devout believers who might once have left to found a rival movement that risked splitting the church in a noisy or painful fashion.
Church switching goes on, though, and Gamaliel seems to have more experience of that than most people, but I don't know if the benefits of doing so are as striking as they once might have been. Since few of us are driven by doctrines, maybe it's now more a question of taste than anything else. This is why I don't think there's much point in Steve or others focusing on biblical perspectives when arguing for de-institutionalised churches. We all have a different and very personal idea of what it means to be 'in/of the world', so what's the point?
Finally, it's apparent from threads like this and from the world in general that de-institutionalisation only occurs on a significant level if Christians are forced into it, so my low-key hope would be that the relevant Christian groups begin to reflect on it before it's imposed on them by circumstances. The Ship may not be the best place for such reflection, though.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think that's entirely the case, SvitlanaV2.
There is a 'new' house-church or new-church movement going on and only the other day I heard of another group I'd not been aware of before ...
Admittedly, I don't think this sort of thing is going on - at least in white Anglo-Saxon circles - as much as it was in the 1980s but it's still happening.
I think if you or I or any of us were involved with the mostly migrant congregations in London we'd report a different picture - new groups setting up and splitting and either imploding or multiplying left, right and centre.
I have to be honest, I don't really 'get' what you mean about churches somehow 'de-institutionalising' themselves. What does that involve? What does it look like, exactly?
To be blunt, I don't have any clearer impression of what you mean or what you'd like to see than I did from Steve Langton's posts calling for 'separation from the world' ...
I could understand, perhaps, what you mean if you were talking about churches selling off their buildings or adopting a more 'Quaker-ish' stance with no ordained/trained leaders as such ...
But the last time I looked the Quakers I know had a meeting hall and a fairly 'institutional' way of conducting their affairs.
I'm no clearer as to what you want or what you'd like to see than I was with Steve.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm not certain that an inward-looking discussion about how the various denoms order themselves or whether they have a building or not is particularly relevant to anyone not part of that denom.
I'd much rather (and the discussion I wanted from the off) talk about how we - our local and national churches engage with the State. My own - I have Anglican written through me like a stick of rock - has exclusive seats in the House of Lords and is the default, unthinking position of many (especially older) Britons. It also produced the cataclysmic Faith in the City report so hated by Thatcher. It also often has the last professionally-educated person left in many inner-city parishes.
So, for example can the CofE maintain its network of covering every household in the country if it wasn't the Established church?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On an admittedly far smaller scale, Doc Tor, the Church in Wales has continued to do so - at least in theory - since its Disestablishment in 1920.
I suspect a lot of Welsh people don't realise that the CinW is Disestablished ... and an North Walian Archdeacon once concurred with me when I expressed this view.
I get the impression from this thread and from off-thread conversations in real life, that some non-conformists feel somewhat 'disenfranchised' by the presence of CofE Bishops in the House of Lords ... 'How come THEY get a presence and we don't?'
- Whereas others take the view that at least there is SOME kind of Christian representation there.
Others would take the view that the House of Lords is an anachronism and should be dissolved.
I'd like to explore the issues you've raised too - how does any church - not just the Church of England - relate to the State and to the wider society?
Can it ever be more than purely 'symbolic' or token? Such as the presence of Jains, Sikhs and representatives of other faiths at the Cenotaph on November 11th each year alongside representatives of the various Christian churches ...
To an extent, I can sympathise with what I take to be SvitlanaV2's perspective ... which is that in many areas of the country the Christian presence is rapidly evaporating ... so these discussions are a luxury to some extent - fiddling while Rome (or Christendom) burns ...
The issue might be more one of survival than how churches can be involved with whatever's going on in society at large.
It's an interesting issue, though, this business about the CofE being some kind of 'spiritual NHS'. I've noticed a change in the approach that our local, evangelical vicar takes. When he was first here he was adamant about not taking communion around to little old ladies' houses - he'd rather get voluntary drivers to bring them to a fortnightly mid-week service ... but he seems to have mellowed on that.
Equally, it was clear that he regarded his pastoral responsibilities to lie more with his own congregation than anyone in the parish who didn't darken the door of his church from one year to the next ...
Which I can understand - as he tends to operate in a 'gathered church' kind of way. But as time has gone on, he has become more involved with people and groups beyond his immediate constituency of 'regulars'.
It's been interesting seeing this process slowly taking place ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There is a 'new' house-church or new-church movement going on and only the other day I heard of another group I'd not been aware of before ...
From what you've said previously there's obviously a lively Christian presence in your area, represented by various different kinds of churches. That's a rather unusual situation, I'd submit.
However, I get the feeling that you're not entirely happy about all this diversity where you live. Am I right?
quote:
I think if you or I or any of us were involved with the mostly migrant congregations in London we'd report a different picture - new groups setting up and splitting and either imploding or multiplying left, right and centre.
I'm not sure about that. I don't live in London, but I get the impression that the migrant congregations there are settling down now. Some are in the process of church planting, but this isn't the same as splitting or imploding. In any case, London is hardly representative of the country at large.
quote:
I have to be honest, I don't really 'get' what you mean about churches somehow 'de-institutionalising' themselves. What does that involve? What does it look like, exactly?
To be blunt, I don't have any clearer impression of what you mean or what you'd like to see than I did from Steve Langton's posts calling for 'separation from the world' ...
As I've said before, my feeling is that churches in some areas and in some denominations are and will continue to be fine regarding the maintenance of buildings, hiring ministers, speaking on behalf of fairly homogeneous middle class communities, having the resources to diversify or produce high quality in terms of worship, and pursue evangelism, etc.; but very many congregations in many areas won't be.
Therefore, to my mind, reflecting on the possibilities of working without (paid) clergy, without dedicated church buildings, without constant fundraising for maintenance, without rigid national structures that may hamper the need to respond quickly to local pressures on the ground may - again, in some circumstances - be worthwhile. I agree that what this means in practice isn't clear, hence the need for reflection. I imagine that the outcomes would be somewhat different depending on the environment.
You insist that de-institutionalised churches tend to evaporate. You may be right. But the recent history of British Christianity is leading me to the view that institutionalised Christianity is itself on the road to oblivion in many contexts. (Take note, please, that I'm not talking about your particular community, and I'm not arguing that anyone should go around driving congregations out of their churches! People will do what seems best for them.) That being so, it behoves us to think of ways in which some groups of Christians might operate otherwise.
You also say that informal church movements tend to institutionalise instinctively. That's also apparent. But I'm still waiting to read something that explains how this might happen sensitively and wisely in the post-Christian British landscape of the coming decades. Because this is what I'm hearing about: theological colleges and closing and amalgamating. Denominations are facing anxiety over clergy pensions. Congregational hierarchies are struggling due to a lack of lay candidates to fill posts. Church incomes are frequently strained by the burdensome cost of building maintenance, with the burden falling on congregations that are getting smaller. And denominations such as the Methodists and URC are closing huge numbers of buildings. I can't see how it's possible or reasonable for the newest church groups in general to drift mindlessly into more institutionalisation in this situation, although, again, some of the newer groups (the Redeemed Christian Church of God?) may find that it works for them, up to a certain point.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
I've just read something which neatly encapsulates a concern I have about establishment and state-supported religion:
quote:
When a person is immunized against the flu, they receive just enough of the flu virus to trick their body into acting as if they had the real thing so that they build up a resistance to the real thing. So too, there is just enough truth in this certainty-seeking, contractual, belief-oriented, individualistic version of Christianity to trick people into thinking they have the real thing. They thus aren’t open to, or hungry for, true faith because they assume they already have it when they believe.
The author is talking about low-commitment Christianity rather than state / civic religion, but I think the same argument applies - that people are 'inoculated' against genuine faith in Christ by the existence of a state church, which makes them think they are already a Christian.
Link here
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The new group I was referring to wasn't anywhere near here. I'd heard about it on a visit to a large city in the north of England.
If we are talking about my immediate area, though, then yes, there are a fair number of churches to choose from - six, in fact, for a population of around 15,000. Seven, if we include a tiny Adventist group which meets on a Saturday with about a dozen people at most.
On the average Sunday I'd imagine you'd find around 750 people or so across all six churches.
That'd be about 250 Anglicans (across two parishes), perhaps 60 or 70 Penties, perhaps 40 to 60 at the URC and the rest spread between the Methodists and RCs.
All the churches are ageing ... and I'd suggest that it's only one of the Anglican parishes and perhaps the Penties to some extent, who are getting younger people involved.
How unusual this is, I don't know.
As for 'diversity', the Methodists and URC are barely distinguishable from one another (and could easily merge in my view) - the one Anglican parish is very low-church evangelical and the other liberal catholic - or 'catholic-lite'.
The Penties are quite moderate as Penties go and the RCs seem pretty ecumenical in outlook.
I don't know why you get the impression that I'm not happy about any of that.
I don't feel particularly happy where I am - because I find it all a bit simplistic ... but I see no guarantee that I'd feel happier anywhere else ...
Anyhow - I'm thinking my broadly than my own patch.
I agree with you that things are in a pretty parlous state by and large. Churches are struggling to stay open and to carry the overheads involved with maintaining ministers and buildings and so on.
There's quite an interesting Anglican/Methodist ecumenical partnership in a village near here which may be an example of the kind of instance/s you have in mind - they're raising funds for a building refurbishment which will give the old Methodist building a multi-purpose community function as well as being a place of worship.
They're going to sell off the old Anglican building.
I'm not disputing that high-maintenance, institutionalised ways of doing church are facing oblivion in many areas. I've never said otherwise.
I agree there's a need for reflection.
But, as you say, congregations will largely have to decide how to organise things for themselves - with whatever input there might be within their wider denominational or 'connexional' structures.
Some of the people who are now happily involved with the LEC I was telling you about were saying, 'Over my dead body ...' only 18 months ago. They've come a long way.
Yes, Bible Colleges are closing and amalgamating - and I think there's scope for more amalgamation, truth be told. I've done some freelance projects for a Bible College so I am aware of the issues they face.
I'm all for rationalisation, for multi-use facilities, for churches to organise themselves as they believe best.
I can't see where I've argued otherwise.
Reading your posts, I sometimes get the impression that you think everyone else is oblivious to these issues and are blithely carrying on as they head obliviously towards the abyss.
As far as I can see, there's all sorts of dicussion and reflection going on in all manner of churches and denominations ... there have been all sorts of initiatives ('The Decade of Evangelism' anyone?) - Messy Church, Back to Church Sunday and all sorts of other things besides.
No-one is going to come along and do a 'quick-fix' on Trout Street Methodist or St Saviour's by The Gasworks ... there are all sorts of complex issues to sort out in each case and I'm glad I'm not the person who has to sort them out ...
It's not a case of newer groups 'drifting mindlessly' into anything either. Newer churches, in my experience, are forever experimenting and trying to reinvent the wheel and they often go round and round and round in circles trying to do so.
People then get dizzy and fall off ...
All I'm saying is that a level of institutionalism is inevitable - however we cut it. I can see that in the community/voluntary groups I'm involved with as well as churches.
I s'pose the issue is what level of institutionalism can we settle for or how much do we need in order to keep the show on the road?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Cross-posted with South Coast Kevin ...
Sure, I've heard that said many, many times, South Coast Kevin - and not just about the CofE but about the 'disestablished' US Christian scene too ... which is where that article comes from, of course.
It's often been said that the British have been given sufficient Christianity to inoculate them against it.
The question is, what do we do about it?
I started out nominally Anglican - and left when the confirmation classes started (although a lot of it stuck with me despite that) - I was 'born again' - to use the parlance - at university and after a short time with the Methodists (I wanted to suss them out) and visiting Baptist and other churches) I encountered the charismatic scene (in an Anglican context initially) and headed into house-church/'new church' restorationist territory.
I was there for 18 years.
I then spent 6 years, quite happily, in a Baptist setting which was mildly charismatic with some 'emergent' tendencies.
For the last 8 years (since I moved to this town), I've been involved with our evangelical Anglican parish which is trying to operate on a 'gathered' model ... although I'm sort of post-evangelical (or 'pre-catholic' ) these days ...
Whatever else that's done, I think it allows me to speak with some insight on how things work out in various settings.
My own 'take'/observations are that whatever the 'churchmanship', most churches are pretty 'intentional' these days ... other than at Christmas and Easter you don't tend to have people going purely out of 'tradition' or because of heritage/convention ...
Whatever they may or may not believe - and 'orthodoxy' (small o) seems to fluctuate across most churches, I find - even in those which are convinced that they are 'sound' ... - these days most people who are involved with church are there on a 'voluntarist' level.
No-one's forcing them to go.
Equally, levels of 'commitment', understanding, engagement and involvement fluctuate right across the board - irrespective of whether a church is 'established' or not.
Which is why I no longer believe the Establishment issue - as problematic as it undoubtedly is - to be the big, over-riding issue.
How do we encourage greater levels of depth, commitment and discipleship?
Well, I s'pose we must first demonstrate that ourselves - which is easier said than done, I suppose.
I always find St John Chrysostom's famous Easter Sermon encouraging though - the 'feast' is there for all - whether they've observed the fast or not, whether they've borne the heat and burden of the day or come along at the 11th hour ...
See: http://anglicansonline.org/special/Easter/chrysostom_easter.html
It's certainly the case that there are higher levels of 'nominalism' across the historic Churches than you might find across the 'newer' set-ups - but as the article you've linked to demonstrates - there are levels of nominalism in societies like the USA where a significant proportion of people claim to be 'born again' ...
So, I don't see Disestablishment in and of itself as a panacea against such a state of affairs.
What do I see as the answer?
I'm not sure there is one.
I've enough on dealing with my own sins and lethargy without going round trying to determine who is or isn't a Christian anywhere else ...
That's God's call, not mine.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Intriguingly, a Nigerian Christian from a huge, revivalist style church over there, once told me that they loved coming to the UK because even though the churches were a lot smaller and less lively, they thought there were more genuine Christians among them ...
I don't know how they assessed that or judged that to be the case - but whatever view we take of that it suggests that revivalism and charismatic practices don't, in and of themselves, deliver the answer to nominalism and shallow levels of discipleship.
As to what does ...
Answers on a postcard please ...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I think "institutional" is one of those things that is a very broad spectrum, and inevitable once any group of people exceeds a threshold in size. It started with the Church when the Apostles realised that they needed help caring for the poor in their community and appointed Seven people to that task.
In a more modern context, a group with a treasurer and bank account has become a form of institution. Even half a dozen believers meeting in a house with no group assets benefits from other institutionalised churches - the people who provide the translations and market for large print runs of Bibles, who write music, who produce commentaries and Bible study notes etc.
I don't think it's possible to realistically ask "should the church be an institution?", we have no choice about that. Of course, "what should the characteristics of the institutional church be?" is a very important question.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[...]
I don't know why you get the impression that I'm not happy about [what the churches are doing in my area].
[...]
Reading your posts, I sometimes get the impression that you think everyone else is oblivious to these issues and are blithely carrying on as they head obliviously towards the abyss.
The impression I get reading your posts is that the churches in your environment are quite active, yet you're still not entirely happy with the choices available to you. Moreover, despite your own moderate dissatisfaction with what's on offer where you are you're a bit cross with anyone who envisions anything being done a bit differently in their neighbourhood. This is where we're misunderstanding each other, I think.
Perhaps your long history of trying different churches has made you fairly cynical about almost all possible options? You've chopped and changed a lot and got fed up. But for many others a change may be as good as a rest.
Speaking for myself, I still feel that my duty is to work for the church, but I devoted too much money and effort to supporting an institutional church structure that wasn't fit for purpose. Maybe it's wrong of me, but I just can't warm up to the idea of doing more or less the same thing in more or less the same way again; but that's what almost all the institutional churches I know of seem to want. Who knows why.
As for the 'abyss' you mention, most churches have their plans and projects for the future. Under the right circumstances some of them will do okay. One does sometimes come across expressions of concern, in places like 'The Methodist Recorder', etc. But IME it's not the done thing for ordinary Christian folk to express too much concern about the future of the church.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think "institutional" is one of those things that is a very broad spectrum, and inevitable once any group of people exceeds a threshold in size. It started with the Church when the Apostles realised that they needed help caring for the poor in their community and appointed Seven people to that task.
In a more modern context, a group with a treasurer and bank account has become a form of institution. Even half a dozen believers meeting in a house with no group assets benefits from other institutionalised churches - the people who provide the translations and market for large print runs of Bibles, who write music, who produce commentaries and Bible study notes etc.
I don't think it's possible to realistically ask "should the church be an institution?", we have no choice about that. Of course, "what should the characteristics of the institutional church be?" is a very important question.
I don't see those characteristics of institutions as being harmful in themselves. Institutions are one thing but once they become institutionalised, they do become a problem. That is when inertia sets in and a great deal of effort goes into maintaining 'the church' which too often means devoting resources towards keeping things exactly as they are.
When anyone is disparaging of institutions, I think it is institutionalism that they criticise. The contrast is like that between authority, which is essential for effective leadership, and authoritarianism, which was the dominant character trait of the first half of the 20th century, and we don't want to repeat that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure I have 'chopped and changed a lot', SvitlanaV2.
After my conversion at university I visited a few different types of churches over a period of about a year/18 months at most - and was then in one particular church for 18 years. After that, I was in another church for 6 years and I've been involved with our local parish church here since 2007.
So it's not as if I've chopped and changed every five minutes.
I've always had contacts in a wide range of churches, though - and have visited almost every kind of church I can think of (apart from the Copts and Ethiopians).
I can understand your frustrations at 'institutional' forms of church but agree with Alan Cresswell, that some form of 'institution' is inevitable. I don't see any way around that.
Sure, I can see scope for smaller groups meeting in houses and so on - but even these have to depend on institutions of some kind - as Alan Cresswell notes - Bible Societies or publishers and the like.
I remember South Coast Kevin outlining a model where these kind of 'service' institutions remained - rather like service hubs - whilst the churches themselves reorganised themselves more flexibly.
I can see some merit in that suggestion but even then such groups are bound to institutionalise at some point - once they grow beyond a certain level. And it'd take some kind of 'central control' - which indicates some kind of institution - to ensure that they planted out, divided or did whatever was necessary to keep things small and low-key.
If I do sound impatient on these boards it's because I've heard it all before ...
Perhaps I am a bit world-weary and cynical ... but I'm not really against anyone trying anything new or organising things differently - provided they don't see this as some kind of automatic panacea.
As it happens, though, I do believe that we are all inevitably headed towards a post-Christian, increasingly secularised society where flexibility is going to be key ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I certainly wouldn't be 'against' you or anyone else trying to 'do church' more flexibly or less 'institutionally' (were such a thing possible) - where you are, SvitlanaV2.
What I'm having difficulty with is that no-one seems any more able to articulate what this might look like in practice anymore than we got to the bottom of what it might look like to live 'in the world and not be of it' nor how churches should relate to society and the state from all the pages and pages of discussion preceding Steve's departure.
If you can give an idea of how such a 'de-institutionalised' church might look and function in your area then I'd be pleased to hear how you envisage it might be.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even half a dozen believers meeting in a house with no group assets benefits from other institutionalised churches - the people who provide the translations and market for large print runs of Bibles, who write music, who produce commentaries and Bible study notes etc.
Without meaning to imply that churches can be completely non-institutional, I don't think your point above is accurate. All those activities you noted are valuable, I agree, but they don't have to be carried out by churches.
You can have organisations that publish books and music, organisations that provide Bible translations and commentaries, and so on; but the people who work within those organisations could also belong to highly non-institutional churches. That's a point which gets missed in a lot of the criticism of simple / organic church, I think.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gamaliel
Can you explain to me how we can be more 'flexible' yet become more institutionalised at the same time? How does that work?
If a new group has no money and hardly any members (since we're in a post-Christian culture with few conversions likely except among highly committed christianised immigrants) then where will this institutionalisation come from, and who will benefit? This is what doesn't make any sense.
Since few people have the inclination or the ability to give much money or time to the the church these days it would make more sense for most low-key groups to focus on the 'spluttering out' scenario rather than the 'let's send So-and-So to theological college and then build a church' scenario. So my perspective would be to work on a model of built-in obsolescence rather than trying hard to become more and more institutional to no purpose. The RCC and the CofE have had the best of that process.
As for how non-institutional churches would work; I did say to you that each area would develop in its own way. This is the advantage of non-institutional churches; they don't have to work with cookie-cutter structures that have to be applied in all circumstances without exception.
In our Churches Together network there are churches that have closed in the past few years. This leads to a loss of choice for worshippers, and not all go on to transfer their membership elsewhere. A new organic church plant would offer more choice, without requiring new buildings. It could 'associate' with CT (I don't know what level of institutionalisation is required for membership) and benefit from that kind of ecumenicalism. It could work on missions to Muslims, or to the elderly, or to those with mental problems (and some Christians in the area are suffering with such issues). The existing churches have their mission, but who says they can do it all themselves? Whether they'd appreciate such a fellowship in their midst is another matter, but I think they'd appreciate the participation of any willing and able Christians who were driven by love and humility rather than by isolationism and self-regard.
BTW, I do wish you'd stop referring to 'panaceas'. No one on these threads is offering any kind of church as a panacea, so it's very unhelpful of you to keep mentioning it.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
You can have organisations that publish books and music, organisations that provide Bible translations and commentaries, and so on; but the people who work within those organisations could also belong to highly non-institutional churches.
The problem is that these organisations are then unaccountable to the churches that they serve - this is an issue if you don't consider doctrinal clarity to be an issue.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
One of my family works for Campus Life. Experience is that churches look down on para church organisations. I agree with Alan the option is only what sort of institution the church becomes but the fascinating issue is that institutions have a life bigger than that of the individuals who make them up. That is where they continue to exist and morph despite the actual people who staff them continually coming and going. The people some of them can be marvellous as individuals but still quite ruthless in their roles as was shown in the Christian School I worked at. The welfare of the individuals was only a concern in as far as the School was affected. My conclusion is that no institution is Christian in essence. A bit cynical but thoroughly based in experience. Some of the expectations on the teachers trespassed hugely on their goodwill as individuals and this was taken for granted. Your burnout was your problem. In contrast a secular institution I worked at had a sabbatical system for loyal staffers.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
You can have organisations that publish books and music, organisations that provide Bible translations and commentaries, and so on; but the people who work within those organisations could also belong to highly non-institutional churches.
The problem is that these organisations are then unaccountable to the churches that they serve - this is an issue if you don't consider doctrinal clarity to be an issue.
In what way are they unaccountable, Alan? Actually, thinking some more, why do you see the need for any accountability beyond the basic fact of competition? (i.e. if churches / Christians don't rate a particular book, commentary, song or whatever, then they just won't buy it.)
Isn't there sufficient scope for accountability with each church (large or small, highly institutional or very flexible) being responsible to its members / attendees for the books etc. that it provides or recommends?
Personally, I don't feel that, say, Hodder & Stoughton have any responsibility or accountability to me. They produce and promote their books, I decide whether I'd like to buy / borrow them. It's my church leaders (and other Christian friends, for that matter) who I'd say have a responsibility to me, in terms of what books they suggest to me.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Lots of issues here ...
Where to start?
@SvitlanaV2, don't misunderstand me, I've kept saying that we are all headed towards 'flexibility' and a more organic way of operating. I think that's inevitable as we head further into a post-Christendom and even post-Christian future.
And apologies for the 'panacea' accusations, I recognise that they are wide of the mark.
I s'pose we're both coming at this issue from different experiences. You've been frustrated - rightly - by institutional inflexibility. I've equally been frustrated by claims to flexibility and 'being led by the Spirit' and so on that haven't really led anywhere.
In my experience it's been the more ostensibly 'organic' forms of church that have tended to end up in glorious isolation ...
Although I think that trend no longer applies, by and large.
@Jamat - yes, I can certainly see what you are getting at. I've not had experience of 'Christian schools' but I have had experience of 'Christian companies' and 'Christian businesses' and they can be a heck of a lot worse than 'secular' ones from what I've found. I'd probably run a mile if someone offered me the opportunity to go into partnership in a 'Christian business' ...
@South Coast Kevin, the doctrinal accountability thing is an issue here ... you are assuming that there is sufficient theological nous and accountability within each congregation to ensure that things stay on track.
I'd argue that this isn't always going to be the case.
To give a tooty-fruity whacko-jacko instance, I know of an independent pentecostal/charismatic church in a conurbation near here which has an Israeli flag across its 'altar' - and where they no longer teach that Christ is divine. They have 'gone by the Bible' (as they see it) and because they don't have any meaningful links with anyone else they have begun to drift from recognised orthodox (small o) Christianity.
Of course, the whole panoply of Archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, deans and rural deans and so on ans so forth in the historic episcopal churches such as the CofE doesn't necessarily ensure doctrinal consistency, clarity or purity.
But, by an large, I'd argue that it's easier for smaller, independent, organic groups to develop whacky ideas and practices.
As far as the publishing houses and so on are concerned, of course there's nothing to stop people who work for Hodder & Stoughton, say, from belonging to some kind of organic fellowship. I'm sure there's nothing in their contracts of employment that say that they have to belong to the CofE, the Methodists, RCs or whoever else ...
But what worries me about the overly 'market-driven' approach that you seem to be advocating here is that the kind of books and titles that may start to predominate might end up rather skewed in terms of themes and topics.
When I used to attend a particular Bible week regularly, I noticed how the range and quality of the books on display became narrower over time. Initially, there was a breadth of material - admittedly from within the broad evangelical spectrum - but gradually it narrowed down to particular - and often questionable - material from particular stables.
In a more 'organic' setting, what's to stop the leadership advocating or promoting titles that put forward an idiosyncratic agenda?
Those are the sorts of concerns I'd have, and I'd suggest - on the basis of experience - that these concerns are well-grounded.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
We're probably heading into tangential territory and onto topics we've previously rehearsed on other threads - about organic ways of developing churches etc ...
But to address SvitlanaV2's question about how it's possible to balance flexibility with the institutional.
I think this is possible - bearing in mind that I believe that each and every church is an 'institution' and that the idea of a non-institutional' church is an oxymoron or a non-sequitur ...
I suppose a LEP - local ecumenical partnership - could be an example of flexibility within well-worn routes and tracks.
Some of the 'Fresh Expressions' initiatives might fall into this category too.
I don't see why an historic or 'traditional' church can't be flexible in its approach - within its particular guidelines and modus operandi of course. I mean, the RCs were pretty flexible here in the UK between the Reformation and Catholic Emancipation in the 1820s. They didn't have church buildings for several hundred years. They met in one another's homes - or, in Ireland, out in the open air.
Heck, even the Orthodox in rural Greece have come up with a solution to the problem of priests being thin on the ground - the priests consecrate the elements for the eucharist and then a duly appointed lay person administers them out in the country churches - at least, that's what I've heard.
So, I can't see how it is beyond the wit of man for the CofE - for instance - to develop a system for rural parishes that both respects its tradition of having an ordained minister/priest to preside at communion and allows flexibility in terms of its regularity and 'reach'.
All it takes is a bit of imagination.
Surely?
All that said, I've heard priests in all kinds of episcopal settings - Anglican, RC and Orthodox - complaining about inertia at an episcopal level. 'The Bishops all agreed it was a good idea ... then nothing happened ...'
I can't speak for the Methodists, but one area there which seems to be crying out for some flexibility is the circuit system. Someone is just settling into their stride somewhere when - whoosh - they get whisked off somewhere else ...
I know that doesn't always happen and I know Methodist ministers who have been in post for a long time in one place ... but it's an example of a system that was initially developed for good reasons but which can easily stifle rather encourage ...
As for managing decline or 'built-in obsolence' - from what I can see, that's a position that many church leaders/clergy find themselves in - not only in the CofE but also across some of the 'older' non-conformist groups.
There could well be scope for more 'organic' forms of church to develop alongside these groups - but there's no guarantee that these organic groups are going to remain externally focussed and act in an inclusive and outward-looking way.
If they can, then great. But my experience hasn't led me towards a great deal of optimism in that respect.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@South Coast Kevin, the doctrinal accountability thing is an issue here ... you are assuming that there is sufficient theological nous and accountability within each congregation to ensure that things stay on track.
My vision (to use a rather grand word, sorry!) is of churches where each member is encouraged to engage with God and read the Bible for themselves, with the leaders providing guidance and direction, rather than firm authoritarian leadership.
I'd hazard a guess that the independent pentecostal/charismatic church you mentioned has firm leadership where the members are discouraged from thinking for themselves and challenging the theological views of those in charge.
Also, I don't envisage churches abandoning 'any meaningful links with anyone else'; my vision (urgh) is for churches where people are encouraged and empowered to seek spiritual input from a wide variety of sources - books, podcasts, other churches' activities, deep spiritual relationships with folks from other Christian traditions. I'm just very sceptical of hierarchical institutions where doctrinal boundaries are set from the top.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In my experience it's the smaller, independent groups which tend to be the most authoritarian - although I can understand your suspicion of heirarchies and things being determined 'from the top'.
There's a balance somewhere.
From what I've seen of the Orthodox and RCs - two churches which are particularly heirarchical in structure - is that, on the ground, they tend to allow more wriggle-room and leeway - 'ekkonomeia' if you like - than one might expect.
That said, I've certainly come across pretty controlling and sticklers-for-detail priests in such settings - particularly some of the Orthodox priests who've converted from other settings and have become liturgical fascists almost ...
You seem to assume, though, that if people are encouraged to read and study for themselves then they will automatically come to the right kind of conclusions.
I'm all for people being allowed/encouraged to think for themselves - but that doesn't mean I expect them to come up with sensible views every time.
Without singling your particular group out for scrutiny, I've heard some pretty daft things said from Vineyard platforms and heard of pretty daft things happening within Vineyard congregations - and I'd consider a lot of Vineyard theology (or what passes for theology) to be iffy and flawed.
Not those aspects they share with everyone else, of course, but some of the home-grown views ...
Although I'd certainly expect to see some of the dottier stuff modifying itself over time.
However we cut it, the only reason that the rest of us have any impression at all as to what constitutes small-o orthodox Christian teaching is because we've inherited this from the older - and more heirarchical traditions.
If it hadn't been for the Ecumenical Councils then we wouldn't have the general Nicene/Chalcedonian yardsticks that we all use.
It's one thing to say, 'Ah, but we have the Bible ...' but so do the whacky group I was telling you about. They claim to go by the Bible and the Bible alone and look where it's led them ...
But yes, I don't doubt that the leadership there are very controlling and that people aren't encouraged to think for themselves but are spoonfed what to think and believe by the leadership.
I tend to agree with Tom Smail when he said that if we have a whopping big elastic band around our waists which secures us to the main thrust and channel of the wider Christian tradition then we can afford to wander up side-alleys and by-ways ... because the centrifugal pull of the elastic band will always drag us back towards the centre.
Unless it snaps, of course. I think there's a lot of 'give' in the elastic band before it will snap ... but I wouldn't want to chance it too much out in DIY land ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to agree with Tom Smail when he said that if we have a whopping big elastic band around our waists which secures us to the main thrust and channel of the wider Christian tradition then we can afford to wander up side-alleys and by-ways ... because the centrifugal pull of the elastic band will always drag us back towards the centre.
Of course, there might be times when the person wandering off into the side-alleys has a genuine new revelation or insight from God, and starts tugging the rest of the Church in that direction. It's not easy and there's probably going to be a lot of band-snapping involved.
But hasn't that happened over such past topics as the recovery of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, slavery and racism? And isn't it also happening today with certain Defunct Equine issues?
While one must respect the gathered wisdom and tradition of the older institution, it isn't always right.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You seem to assume, though, that if people are encouraged to read and study for themselves then they will automatically come to the right kind of conclusions.
I'm all for people being allowed/encouraged to think for themselves - but that doesn't mean I expect them to come up with sensible views every time.
I don't assume it, or expect people to come up with sensible views every time, definitely not. But I trust God to guide his people if they are seeking him for themselves, in a mutually accountable community with others who are doing the same thing. ISTM that top-down imposition of doctrine, and reliance on those in leadership (what one might call 'clericalism') both mitigate against an accurate discernment of God's will.
EDIT - following from Baptist Trainfan's comment, isn't it often the case that new revelation from God (e.g. on the iniquity of slavery) comes from outside the church hierarchy, and indeed meets significant resistance from the hierarchy?
[ 31. December 2014, 12:06: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suppose a LEP - local ecumenical partnership - could be an example of flexibility within well-worn routes and tracks.
Some of the 'Fresh Expressions' initiatives might fall into this category too.
My impression of LEPs is that they exist basically for the purpose of preventing the dispersal or one or more congregations. They don't become flexible in terms of mission, merely in their institutional working. They may blend worship styles (although LEPs usually involve fairly 'traditional' congregations anyway) but are rarely known for offering distinctive ways of being church.
As for FEs, I think they should be much more numerous. The trouble is that only well-heeled churches with lots of resources and manpower seem to be able to run them. An organic fellowship only needs to start with a couple of people and a safe corner to meet.
One acknowledged problem with trying to develop new fellowships or ways of being as part of settled congregations is that you have to battle against traditions and ingrained habits and assumptions. And congregations may feel, with some justification, that if church leaders are working to build up a new alternative fellowship then the established congregation will have to take a back seat for a while. They may not appreciate this.
quote:
I don't see why an historic or 'traditional' church can't be flexible in its approach - within its particular guidelines and modus operandi of course.
This is true. But it's not the situation you seemed to be referring to previously. You were saying that informal groups must become more institutional. My concern is that this normally happens at the expense of flexibility within those groups. But yes, long established denominations can and do set up alternative fellowship groups that have a certain degree of freedom.
quote:
I can't speak for the Methodists, but one area there which seems to be crying out for some flexibility is the circuit system. Someone is just settling into their stride somewhere when - whoosh - they get whisked off somewhere else ...
I know that doesn't always happen and I know Methodist ministers who have been in post for a long time in one place ... but it's an example of a system that was initially developed for good reasons but which can easily stifle rather encourage ...
The circuit system is the perfect example of how a church structure prevents flexibility and freedom.
quote:
As for managing decline or 'built-in obsolence' - from what I can see, that's a position that many church leaders/clergy find themselves in - not only in the CofE but also across some of the 'older' non-conformist groups.
No, that's not right. The historical churches expected to go on for ever, and they experience decline and church closure as a failure, even if church leaders quietly see the management of decline as inevitable. IMO that's not what 'built-in obsolescence' means.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure the slavery example fits as neatly as we might think ...
Elsewhere on these boards IngoB (and they don't come much more traditionalist than he does) alluded to the often overlooked issue of opposition to slavery within the RCC. There was certainly a vein of disapproval of slavery going way back in some RCC - and indeed Orthodox - quarters ... although this voice wasn't always as clear as it could have been.
It was certainly the case that Roman Catholic Mexico abolished slavery before the largely Protestant USA did.
I take the point that both South Coast Kevin and Baptist Trainfan are trying to make, though -
And, for the record, I do believe that South Coast Kevin's church has a wider elastic band around its waist than the one I was alluding to earlier which is going way beyond the 'stretch'/break point as far as I can see ...
I'm not necessarily arguing for Big T Big Church heirarchies in the Magisterium or Big T Tradition sense ... what I am saying is that we've all taken our cues from these to some extent or other ... I tend to be rather 'paleo-orthodox' on that point ...
But the alternatives do seem to come down to a kind of 'Pope in his own parish' approach (arguably the Anglican position) or the 'Pope in the pulpit' approach that is the de-facto position of many of the more Reformed preaching-shops as it were ... or else some kind of collective 'Me and my mates as our own personal Pope' approach which seems to be what South Coast Kevin is favouring.
I daresay that we all find ourselves somewhere or other along that continuum.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So my perspective would be to work on a model of built-in obsolescence rather than trying hard to become more and more institutional to no purpose.
I've just seen this comment, SvitlanaV2 - could you explain it a bit for me, please? If you mean what I think you might mean, then I like it!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think that ostensibly 'organic' groups try hard to become 'institutional' - I just think that such groups inevitably become institutional whether they want to or not.
It just happens.
We can't avoid it.
We can no more avoid becoming institutional in some way than we can avoid getting older.
It's a fact of life.
But I'd be interested, like South Coast Kevin, in hearing what you mean by 'managing' obsolesence and so on.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...some kind of collective 'Me and my mates as our own personal Pope' approach which seems to be what South Coast Kevin is favouring.
I wouldn't phrase it like this, but aren't we all ultimately responsible for our own spiritual development and faith journey? We should walk in deep, authentic community with others, of course, but I can't delegate responsibility for the state of my soul to a pastor, a bishop, an author, or any kind of mentor. So in that sense, each of us is absolutely 'our own personal Pope', ISTM.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think anyone is advocating that you abdicate personal responsibility and hand it over to someone else - nor do I think that's what any of the more 'Catholic' or sacramental traditions actually teach.
Neither is it anything that is specifically taught by any of the charismatic evangelical outfits - although the US 1970s 'discipleship' and 'shepherding' movements did cross a few lines in this respect ...
It can, of course, happen in practice almost anywhere - I'm sure we've all come across people who defer to a priest, pastor, friend, relative or whoever else rather than trying to stand on their own two feet.
I was teasing to a certain extent - taking the standard canard that more Catholic Christians tend to bowl at Protestants - that 'each Protestant is his own Pope ...' and widening it out to include Kevin's mates as well as Kevin himself ...
The more serious point I'm trying to make is that there is a wider, collective sense to all of this - 'that believed everywhere and by all' - and that it's not just about us and our own particular circles but the wider 'tradition' that we have all inherited - the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant etc ...
I think we'd all go along with that to a certain extent - even if we don't have as 'specific' and 'realised' a view of it as Ad Orientem and Mousethief will.
I s'pose that also brings us back round to the issue of how we react/relate to the wider society around us ... 'No man is an island, entire of itself ...' - and why I don't think that withdrawal from the world into some kind of 'holy huddle' is a particularly smart move.
Although, conversely, I don't have a problem with monastics and with abbeys, convents, retreat-houses and the like.
It's another of these both/and things ...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
The circuit system is the perfect example of how a church structure prevents flexibility and freedom.
Having been in congregations where the same minister has served for 25 years, and Methodist churches where there were new ministers in the Circuit every year or two bringing new ideas and approaches, I know which model I prefer.
The Methodist system has a lot going for it. It means a congregation gets to experience a variety of people in the pulpit - ministers and local preachers from throughout the Circuit. Ministers get to lead worship in different churches. And, with a regular turnover of ministers in the Circuit bring in new blood. It should allow much greater flexibility and freedom to experiment with new approaches.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
Incidentally, I'm not Alan. Having said that, I'll deal with your issues in a somewhat different order:
quote:
Personally, I don't feel that, say, Hodder & Stoughton have any responsibility or accountability to me. They produce and promote their books, I decide whether I'd like to buy / borrow them. It's my church leaders (and other Christian friends, for that matter) who I'd say have a responsibility to me, in terms of what books they suggest to me.
The problem with the market mechanism is that it often doesn't allow for unpopular but useful, or niche views to be expressed. As it stands, the smaller publishing houses - usually tied to a denomination directly, or indirectly via seminary - serve as a kind of corrective in terms of things that are able to be published to the likes of Harper Collins, Zondervan etc.
It is *exactly* the approach that you subscribe to above, extended across more than one church (after all - even your organic church has church leaders in the above).
Historically, a lot of the smaller publishing houses have been set up because of exactly this issue - by groups dissenting from the majority opinion, who needed a vehicle to spread their own views.
[Now obviously I would have a wider critique of the current situation that would encompass Gamaliel's points about doctrinal accuracy, but I realise you wouldn't subscribe to it in quite the same way, and so will restrict my interaction to the above.]
[ 31. December 2014, 13:30: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It should do - in theory - Alan - but as SvitlanaV2 can probably tell us from bitter personal experience, it can also become a stranglehold in itself - and I've heard plenty of Methodists say the same.
I'm all for having elastic bands, but not when they get caught around our necks rather than being secured around our waists ...
It seems to me that the flexibility of the circuit system is fine - if it's allowed to be flexible ...
All too often it isn't ... from what my Methodist friends tell me.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Having the chance to work as a local preacher is cool, and I value that option. But it's not normally possible for a minister to reinvigorate a church in just a few years, especially if he or she is hardly ever there.
Regarding the inevitability of institutionalisation, the impression I'm getting here is that Christians naturally get richer and richer, and just can't wait to plop their money into church coffers. But how can a budding fellowship institutionalise if there's no money?
There seems to be something quaintly old-fashioned about all this. It's as though capitalism were still in the ascendancy. This may still be the case in China, Brazil, or certain English commuter towns with booming house prices. Otherwise I'm not sure that the Protestant work ethic is still inevitably placed to lead to upward mobility and greater church institutionalisation. Maybe we have to adapt Weber's model a little bit.
Admittedly, this conversation has made me feel I've missed out by not witnessing this famous process in action. Being at the fag end of things is probably far less dramatic....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can't remember whether it was South Coast Kevin or myself who got Alan Cresswell and Chris Stiles mixed up ...
Howbeit, here's something else to throw into the equation.
Whilst I'm all for people thinking for themselves and studying for themselves, I think we have to accept that not everyone wants to be able to do that. What do we do then?
Sure, plenty of people who were put off study at school can suddenly find a new lease of studying life later on - I've seen that happen time and again through people involved in Adult Education of one form or other.
But not everyone wants to study - nor has the inclination or capacity. How do they fit in? What can churches - organic or otherwise - offer them?
I'm reminded of the famous story of Jean Vianney - the Cure d'Ars - who remembers an old, illiterate peasant in his village parish who used to come into the church and sit there looking at the crucifix - the figure of Christ on the cross.
One day, Fr Vianney asked him what he was doing and he replied, 'Oh, I come in here and I look at him and he looks at me ...'
It's easy to get all prickly and Protestant about that, but this was where the guy was 'at' - and I'm sure God in Christ met with him there.
I've sometimes spoken on these boards about my Great Aunt Nell - one of 12 and severely disabled - she was literally corkscrewed right round towards the end of her life, with her head facing over her back.
She was couch-bound for much of her life and used to lie there dribbling into a hankie. Yet her face would light up whenever we visited as kids and even though it was hard to make out what she was saying she exuded love.
I still treasure the Book of Common Prayer she gave us when we left for Australia as 'Ł10 Poms'.
Like all my mother's aunts, hers was a kind of 'folk-Anglicanism' that you rarely encounter these days. And none the less real for that. She was steeped in the Prayer Book and the vicar would bring her communion once a week. At her funeral he said he'd learned more from her about patience and long-suffering than anything he'd been taught at seminary.
What was she doing? Was she giving up personal responsibility to a priest or bishop?
No - she was reaching out from where she was towards God and towards others.
And - as Doc Tor would no doubt note - thanks to the parochial system here in the UK, there was a priest on hand to minister to her spiritual needs through word and sacrament.
I'm not using that instance, in and of itself, to argue for Establishment or anything of the kind - simply to state that this is one aspect of it.
On the organic church thing - I'm still not convinced that a bunch of people meeting in someone's front room can somehow avoid becoming an 'institution' of some kind. Even it's only 'a bunch of people meeting in someone's front room' institution.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Who's said anything about money?
You're the one who has brought that up.
I'm simply suggesting that any group will 'normalise', 'stablise' and 'institutionalise' over time.
I've seen Gypsy churches in Spain where nobody's had any money and they still seemed pretty institutionalised to me.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
How does that work, then?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whilst I'm all for people thinking for themselves and studying for themselves, I think we have to accept that not everyone wants to be able to do that. What do we do then?
Ah, but I don't think I was speaking of merely 'thinking... and studying for themselves'. My point is that each of us is responsible for the state of our soul and our spiritual development. That's a far bigger point than thinking and studying, I'd say, and indeed encompasses the things you mentioned with your Great Aunt and the old, illiterate peasant.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Historically, a lot of the smaller publishing houses have been set up because of exactly this issue - by groups dissenting from the majority opinion, who needed a vehicle to spread their own views.
Great! If a Christian or a group of Christians with the resources to do so wish to subsidise the production of materials to spread their views, I'm all for that. My point was just that it doesn't have to be churches that do this, and I think maybe it shouldn't be (because it dilutes what a church is really for).
[ 31. December 2014, 13:56: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But not everyone wants to study - nor has the inclination or capacity. How do they fit in? What can churches - organic or otherwise - offer them?
Or often - the time. Yes, that is what occurred to me also, and ISTM that in that sense the 'organic' church (presumably soon to be the 'authentic' church, followed by the 'artisinal' church') is a fundamentally middle class pre-occupation.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So my perspective would be to work on a model of built-in obsolescence rather than trying hard to become more and more institutional to no purpose.
I've just seen this comment, SvitlanaV2 - could you explain it a bit for me, please? If you mean what I think you might mean, then I like it!
Well, it's just the idea that you're focusing on trying to meet just a few of the needs where you are, or where you go, rather than trying to build a big edifice (physical or institutional) that's meant to last for centuries, regardless of where or how you might be most useful.
There's nothing newfangled or middle class about the realisation that institutional churches are often slow to react to changing local circumstances. Church historians and sociologists have made the same point. But being flexible enough to respond to those circumstances means accepting from the start that you might have to leave, or pass the work on to someone else, or stop meeting in the same way or with the same people, because a new stage has to begin.
Most churches don't work on this basis; leaving is treated as failure, a last resort, etc. And there's usually a large building to dispose of, which creates another level of anxiety.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How does that work?
Well, being 'institutional' doesn't necessarily imply having one's own building ... although the Gypsy church I visited in Spain did have one - or at least the use of an empty space in a block of flats which the local council allowed them to use as a meeting place.
The house-church/'new church' I was involved with eventually got hold of its own building - but for years it met in hired halls - and yes, that required money.
I'd argue that even if it hadn't and even if it eschewed buildings and simply met in people's homes it'd have still have been institutionalised.
How could it not have been?
You're the sociologist around here, you'll be well aware that the family unit is often regarded as an 'institution' in sociological terms.
By 'institutional' I mean that it quickly developed its own jargon, mores, often unconscious 'cues' and ways of operating. The thing had only been going for about 4 or 5 years when I got involved and already by that time it had developed its own distinctive jargon and ways of conducting its operations.
You appear to hold the view that 'institutionalism' only applies to churches with physical plant and resources.
I'm suggesting that it goes deeper than that - it can be seen in the way people speak, the way they conduct themselves, those things they consider important and so on and so forth.
If I started meeting with a group of friends in my living room then before long we would develop our own particular 'culture' and modus-operandi. Gradually, that would become an established or 'institutional' way of operating.
I really don't see what is so contentious about this assertion. All human groups and societies have their own particular 'cultures', tone and ways of operating - be it the local tennis club, a mosque, Hindu temple, house-church, political party or whatever else.
Of course, a group that meets in someone's house rather than in its own building or hired-hall is going to remain more flexible and less rigidly institutional than one that goes for plant and property - but that doesn't mean it's any less of an 'institution' in the sociological sense.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Pretty much what I thought you were getting at, SvitlanaV2, thanks. And it's an approach I'm thoroughly in favour of. In slightly fancy terms, I like the expression 'ecclesiology follows missiology' - our concept of church should follow from and be driven by our concept of mission, both in global terms and at the local level.
Globally - our mission (or rather, God's mission) is to bring about his rule, his kingdom, on earth; and the way church is 'done' needs to facilitate this. Locally - church patterns, structures etc. need to fit with the cultural context and life patterns of the people who we're trying to reach with God's good news. (For example, a church meeting at 10.30am on Sunday is not much good to people with children who do sporting and other activities on Sunday mornings.)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Let me give you an example of what I mean ...
The Gypsy church I visited in Spain was very 'formally Pentecostal' ... the men sat on one side of the room, the women on the other. The style of music was quite 'flamenco' in feel with distinctive Spanish sounding guitars and that kind of clapping on the off-beat that the Spaniards go in for.
I liked the music.
The prayers and responses were very stylised though - with 'Amens' and 'Alleluias' adhered to just as rigidly as any written liturgical responses you'd be likely to find in an Anglican, Orthodox or RC context.
In fact, it was pretty obvious what the format was going to be - it was all 'true to type'.
I've observed the same thing in black-led Pentecostal churches - there's a kind of formulaic Pentecostalism in operation. You know exactly what's going to happen next.
All charismatic and apparently spontaneous practices become routinised over time.
They become institutionalised.
That's got nothing to do with money or the lack of it.
It's simply a facet of human behaviour.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Remember that it is totally correct English to refer to "the institution of Marriage"
Institutions are the formal ways of doing things. The setting up of legally enstablished organisations to carry out things is just the Western way of creating institutions.
The reason why buildings are associated with institutions is because the creation of a legal established organisations is the one way that an organisation can own something rather than individuals. That says something about ownership as an institution. Needless to say things can be institutions without owning any buildings.
Actually I am worried that anti-institutionalism far from destroying institutionalism is actually making institutions less accountable and accruing power into the hands of fewer people. The institutions created in the twenty-first century are markedly less accountable than the institutions created in the nineteenth.
Jengie
[ 31. December 2014, 14:42: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gamaliel
I'll accept that every group in human society might be described as 'institutionalised' to some extent. But the nuances obviously matter somehow, or else this discussion wouldn't be happening.
Do you think the CofE, the Methodists or the Adventists, etc. have anything to worry about regarding the 'less' (rather than non-, if you like) institutionalised church groups? If not, then what does any of this matter? People will do what they like, depending on their means. That's freedom.
[ 31. December 2014, 14:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
(For example, a church meeting at 10.30am on Sunday is not much good to people with children who do sporting and other activities on Sunday mornings.)
Which is a pretty middle-class example.
It's an issue predominantly middle-class churches face.
The reality is, whatever time of day you meet you are going to run the risk of excluding someone or other.
You might as well say that we shouldn't have church services on Christmas Day because members of the health and emergency services aren't able to attend because they are on duty.
I can see the point you're making, but unless you had stacks of churches in the same area all meeting at different times then I don't see how we can get over this one.
I've told you all before about the time in our restorationist set-up when it was decided (by the elders of course) that we weren't going to meet on Sundays but would meet regionally on mid-week evenings. The idea was that we'd spend our weekends getting to know people outside the church that we could then invite to meetings mid-week ...
Of course, that didn't happen.
All that happened was that we became less visible in our communities and we lost a load of people.
We reverted to meeting back on a Sunday. The church never quite recovered numbers-wise from that experiment.
Not that it's all a numbers game, of course.
But you can see why I'm somewhat cynical and difficult to convince can't you?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you think the CofE, the Methodists or the Adventists, etc. have anything to worry about regarding the 'less' (rather than non-, if you like) institutionalised church groups? If not, then what does any of this matter? People will do what they like, depending on their means. That's freedom.
No, of course not.
Why should I think that there's a 'threat' involved?
If people want to experiment with less 'institutional' forms of church then fine, that's up to them. All I'm saying is that they'll end up more 'institutionalised' than they think they are.
I can see what you're getting at with the need for flexibility - people moving on, things morphing, closing down if necessary - I don't know what the Orthodox do whenever any of their churches become redundant. Once they consecrate a church-building that's it - it's meant to continue having that purpose ad infinitum or until it falls down ...
If one isn't wedded to that kind of more sacramental approach then it strikes me that there is room for more flexibility than is usually the case - and very 'non-sacramental' non-conformist churches can be the worst - in my experience - for not countenancing change or pulling out of of large, cavernous chapels that are no longer fit for purpose ...
So, yes, I'll meet you half-way on that one.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If people want to experiment with less 'institutional' forms of church then fine, that's up to them. All I'm saying is that they'll end up more 'institutionalised' than they think they are.
I suppose today's groups need to be more thoughtful and intentional about what level of institutionalisation they're happy with in concert with the goals they hope to achieve. I think some groups end up trying to do too much, which will lead to a multiplication of official roles and tasks, and a thinning out of effectiveness in some respects.
Many people here will reject the idea of specialisation, but I can't see how a church in a society like ours can meet the needs of everyone in our pluralistic communities. I'm always suspicious of the churchy slogan 'All are welcome'. It's idealistic, and implies that everyone can feel at home in a particular church environment. That's highly unlikely.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, that's a conundrum.
I'm not particularly a fan of 'specialist' churches - bikers' churches, cowboy churches, Elvis-fans churches, surfer churches, Goth churches ...
Or whatever else ... but I think you're right from a pragmatic perspective. Not everyone is going to feel welcome everywhere and the Pandora's Box of diverse types of church is a fact of life now and we can't put the lid back on even if we wanted to ...
I'd be very happy, by the way, if some kind of organic church community could get underway where you are and if you could get involved and feel part of it ...
I'm be thrilled on your behalf.
I think we live in 'interesting times' and I'm sure we'll see some interesting experiments in church life in future - even in some surprising places.
I think we're all in for a bumpy ride though ...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Gamaliel
I'll accept that every group in human society might be described as 'institutionalised' to some extent. But the nuances obviously matter somehow, or else this discussion wouldn't be happening.
Of course the nuances matter, and in that sense what Jengie Jon says is highly apposite. It's often the case that in more 'organic' settings that the actual leaders end up with far more actual power than they would in a much more formal and hierarchical setting. Simply because the means and control of power are invisible. If and when the minister in my church goes off the rails, there are obvious routes down which I could go - in many other settings I've been in, that was far from clear (and in the most extreme case the minister only disappeared when he was finally committed).
quote:
Do you think the CofE, the Methodists or the Adventists, etc. have anything to worry about regarding the 'less' (rather than non-, if you like) institutionalised church groups? If not, then what does any of this matter? People will do what they like, depending on their means. That's freedom.
Well, not everyones first question is 'how does it affect me'. It matters in the sense that it is what this thread is about.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Great! If a Christian or a group of Christians with the resources to do so wish to subsidise the production of materials to spread their views, I'm all for that. My point was just that it doesn't have to be churches that do this, and I think maybe it shouldn't be (because it dilutes what a church is really for).
Why? Isn't the church supposed to teach the faith? It starts to be deeply problematic if the church then effectively outsources this, to someone with no two way relationship of accountability with the people in the church - this is exactly the same issue I'd have with Willow Creek claiming that people should be 'self feeders'.
I'd say that in this case you have an even bigger problem - with totally unaccountable people outside the church effectively setting the agenda based on their ability to control a large market segment.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The marketisation and commodification of the Christian 'worship music' scene is a case in point.
Market forces have driven what has effectively become a multi-million dollar industry where a pleasant tune and singalongable words matter far more than doctrine, catechesis and even sound common sense.
Be careful what you wish for, South Coast Kevin!
I'm sure your particular leaders are pretty benign - but they'll have bought into a particular theology and agenda that might not necessarily be balanced at all points.
In fact, from what I've seen of the Vineyard and from the writings of some of its major figures, I'd say that there are certainly imbalances there - in terms of an over-realised eschatology in some areas.
It's a tricky area, right enough - and I'd say the same about Rick Warren and Willow Creek - there's not a lot of 'roughage' there ... it's all sloppy pottage.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I s'pose I've got nothing against these 'new' or 'newish' groups presenting old things in a more modern form - or using modern methods/techniques of communication and so on ...
Or presenting stuff in an engaging way.
It's just, I dunno ... these attempts always seem to bring some kind of imbalance in with them ...
Perhaps it was ever thus.
I'm not sure inertia is the answer either - or trying to keep things the same as they were in the 10th century or the 16th century or whenever else ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd say it wasn't as simple as that - they weren't just meeting in a way that was convenient they were confirming to a set of revivalist expectations - as well as worshipping in a way that fitted with their particular musical culture and style.
There was a cookie-cutter template of Pentecostalism for them just as much as there is/was for the Afro-Caribbean churches here in the UK from the 1950s onwards.
None of this stuff happens in a vacuum.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
How can an organic set-up can be all that 'unbalanced' when the CofE and the Baptists are just around the corner to provide a bit of mainstream ecumenical common sense....? Very few British church groups these days live in a vacuum, surely?
Regarding the Gypsy church and the black-led Pentecostal churches you mentioned, it should probably be said that these churches were not, I suspect, trying to be 'non-institutional'. They were simply Christians meeting together in a manner that happened to be convenient, faced with a lack of other spiritually and culturally appropriate alternatives. And the 'black Pentecostals' were probably already part of an established American denomination and hence under a degree of external control.
When most people talk about non-institutional or organic churches there's usually an intention to maintain a certain kind of structure or practice. However, I'm sure there's some overlap between what you've described and a more intentionally organic set-up. The various proponents of small group church life get their ideas from everywhere.
As for what I might be able to do here, well, these folk might do better with a more devout 'prophet' from another town. I think some of them are tired of my face! Maybe I'll come back here at a later date when I have more skills (if not money) to be inevitably 'institutional' with. Someone will have to take on the delicate responsibility of deciding which sofa the men should sit on!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
That's weird! Gamaliel seems to have responded to an earlier version of my post that I deleted!
Anyway, let's agree that we all have our traditions. That being so, there's not so much for any of us to disagree about.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hey - what happened there?
I could have sworn there was a SvitlanaV2 post I was responding to ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, SvitlanaV2 - I'm just an awkward so and so!
I think what it boils down to for me are the practicalities and the acceptance - which I think you share - that whatever we do is going to have pros and cons about it.
Life is messy. We have to deal with that.
Which is one of the reasons why I kept on at poor old Steve Langton - it's as if he had some kind of idealised 'vision' of church purity and commitment that couldn't be articulated in real, flesh and blood, out on the street, into the shit terms.
South Coast Kevin is able to articulate a 'vision' - and yes, I cringe at the term too, Kevin but I know what you mean.
As far as it goes, I think South Coast Kevin's vision is fair enough - and I could see it working in some settings - but not right across the board.
No disrespect to South Coast Kevin, I have a lot of time for him - but the 'vision' he articulates has always struck me as one that could only work if everyone of us were the same as him - similar age and life-experiences, similar educational background and so on.
That's why I tease him about it being a vision for 'South Coast Kevin and his mates' - because it's effectively a 'people like us' vision.
It wouldn't work for anyone who wasn't like him.
That's fine, as long as he recognises that - which I think he does to some extent - but it's when it's put forward as some kind of universal panacea that it strays into what I see as 'Steve Langton' style territory - ie. an idealised but ultimately unrealisable dream.
Doing away with Popes, bishops, parish priests, denominational committees and whatever else we may disapprove of isn't going to create the kind of idealised 'New Testament' church community that South Coast Kevin and others envisage.
For a kick-off, it's based on an idealised view of what the NT church was actually like - and also all that would happen would be that new Popes, new bishops, parish priests, denominational committees and whatever else would arise in their place - only under different names.
I'm sure that's happened already in the kind of churches and networks that SCK is involved with - only, as Chris Stiles has said - these structures are less visible and obvious in those sort of settings.
That doesn't mean that the leaders are wicked and evil - any more than parish priests and denominational committees and so on are wicked and evil (hmmm ... steady on, I'm not so convinced about the latter ...)
The status quo might be bust, but whatever we replace it with is also going to be bust - because we are all bust ...
That's not a recipe for pessimism. It's a liberation from the kind of unreal pressures that an over-realised eschatology brings in its train.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
How can an organic set-up can be all that 'unbalanced' when the CofE and the Baptists are just around the corner to provide a bit of mainstream ecumenical common sense....? Very few British church groups these days live in a vacuum, surely?
I think you would be amazed at the extent to which they do. Whenever I go to one of these multi-church meetings, I usually see at least one instance of someone surprised to meet someone else who goes to the church just down the road from them - which they have invariably never been to. And that's with a self selecting crowd of people who would be more connected than normal.
Churches with absolutely no contact with each other is very much the norm. Sufficiently so to allow an underlying feeling of 'god's chosen people' to spring up.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Yet I thought we were almost all more ecumenical these days.
The Churches Together network I've been a part of has been praised for the extent to which the different churches have been willing to work together. Maybe this means churches in many other places are less united.
Ironically, as much as I fear for the future of the Church in parts of my city, it's probably true that church decline often makes churches more willing to be ecumenical. Towns and regions with higher levels of church attendance may feel far less inclination to come together. The perceived need simply isn't there.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think the mileage varies. I'm often surprised how little the people from the evangelical Anglican parish here have to do with the other churches in town ... and that's not the current vicar's doing - he'd encourage them to get involved with Churches Together etc ...
To some extent it goes back to the previous incumbent who very much kept himself (and the parish ) to himself - but I think it's also to do with the fact that some church cultures create 'walls' around themselves.
In some evangelical settings the church becomes the focus for almost everything - people's social lives and everything else. They don't get involved with anything outside of church-based activities because they don't have time to do anything else.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I suppose that some of your successful evangelical congregations might garner some good PR by being publicly chummy with the MOTR Methodists, etc., but would anyone really care, on the whole? Our culture values politeness, and cooperation is valued if deemed essential, but people don't normally hang out with someone they don't have much to say to, unless they have no choice.
In our CT network, I get the impression that the division is between older Christians and younger ones rather than between congregations. Youth activities are particularly likely to be ecumenical. Again, this is perhaps down to need; one church in particular has the resources, the leadership and the numbers of young people to be able to offer something that the other churches can benefit from.
The evangelical churches in your area might participate more if they felt that they were offering something of value to the others, rather than being expected to 'join in' for the sake of it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Not sure that follows in this case. I gave you what I thought was the reason - busyness combined with exclusivity on the epart of a previous imcumbent
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Look, I've attended churches in tesm ministries where the other churches in the team might as well have been on the other side of the world. I suspect that most lay people focus on what is going on at their own shack first and don't give much of a thought to anything outside it except perhaps on special occasions like an ecumenical Good Friday walk. Ecumenism is IME largely for clergy and a minority of 'professional' lay people.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
If you want to get different types of Christians together at an event, make sure you lay on some good food. People will get off their bums and face the cold night if there's the promise of tasty nosh at the other end.
What people don't want to do is attend meetings and take minutes, etc. Younger Christians especially have no interest in that.
[ 01. January 2015, 21:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you want to get different types of Christians together at an event, make sure you lay on some good food. People will get off their bums and face the cold night if there's the promise of tasty nosh at the other end.
And something to drink besides tea and coffee. Plenty of people, adults even, prefer a cold drink and it doesn't have to be booze: helps if it isn't (there, bet you didn't expect me to say that!)
quote:
What people don't want to do is attend meetings and take minutes, etc. Younger Christians especially have no interest in that.
Oh I don't know. Every now and again you meet someone who is interested in meetings, minutes etc. They may even be young. Make them secretary. Do not under any circumstances allow them to be chair or even participate in meetings or you will be snowed under by points of order, suspensions of standing orders, Chatham House Rules and all that shit.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Look, I've attended churches in tesm ministries where the other churches in the team might as well have been on the other side of the world. I suspect that most lay people focus on what is going on at their own shack first and don't give much of a thought to anything outside it except perhaps on special occasions like an ecumenical Good Friday walk. Ecumenism is IME largely for clergy and a minority of 'professional' lay people.
That's because there seems to be very little point to ecumenism. Has there been any major unifications between Churches?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I'd agree with you that the kind of old-fashioned pursuit of institutional unity is mostly (not always: depends on specific situations) pointless. But for those of us who acknowledge Christians of other traditions as being nonetheless Christians, it can make sense to work together.
[ 02. January 2015, 07:36: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
That depends upon one's ecclesiology, of course, though I don't think you necessarily need a low ecclesiology to recognise others as Christian, even if you don't believe them to belong to the Church. Many Protestants are horrified when they hear that. "If you don't believe I'm part of the Church don't you think I'm a Christian then?", "I never said that".
[ 02. January 2015, 07:51: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Ad Orientem, you could start with the Church of South India, but 20 years before that there was the Uniting Church of Canada and in the seventies, the Uniting Church here. Perhaps the Maronite Church? There were of course the Uniate Churches of the Balkans and Ukraine, perhaps elsewhere in that general region, back into communion with Rome but despised by those who did not make the move. Who knows, one of these days some of the various Russian Orthodox Churches abroad (not using an Abroad) might even wave to those walking along the opposite side of the street.
[ 02. January 2015, 08:59: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Certain types of RC like to goad the Orthodox as being almost as fissaporous as the Protestants.
Sure, the Orthodox are all technically 'One Church' but some of the jurisdictional and ethnic spats make one wonder sometimes ...
But people are people and the Orthodox are no better or worse than anyone else in this respect.
I agree that a kind of 'official' or systemic ecumenism isn't on the cards - and the example of South India is conspicuous by its rarity, I'd suggest.
There was a lot of heady and (sadly) misplaced ecumenical enthusiasm back in the mid-60s that has all but dissipated (at an official level at least).
I could take you to a university chapel that was designed and built in the mid-60s with the belief that full, organic unity between the churches would be achieved by the end of that decade ...
Coming back to SvitlanaV2's point though, I'm not envisaging grass-roots ecumenical interaction as necessarily involving young people coming forward to serve on committees and all that malarkey.
Attending one another's services or joint events would be a start.
I help to organise arty events here and on one evening can remember two concerts and a comedy event happening at three churches in the town all on the same evening - with potential audiences diluted for all three. This isn't Manchester, this town ain't big enough for three potentially competing events on the one night.
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that in those settings where churches are struggling - such as the inner-city areas she's described - then there is more genuine ecumenical co-operation.
For all that she appears to throw accusations of middle-class otherworldliness at me because I live in suburban/semi-rural Cheshire - I have lived in a range of settings - from inner-city (both gentrified and otherwise) to council estates and leafy suburbia.
I've seen enough to know that what she is saying about ecumenical relationships in less privileged areas to be the case.
To an extent, I'd also suggest that some evangelicals still keep themselves at some distance from the more 'liberal' or MoTR churches - but this isn't always the case.
The Orthodox can also be exceptionally sniffy towards everyone else - just as some of them can be towards Orthodox from other jurisdictions ...
But again, these generalisations don't always apply. Some of the most ecumenical people I know around here are Pentecostals, for instance. Likewise, some of our local RCs are genuinely eirenic and mix widely with Christians of all persuasions.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
And if you're prepared to go beyond organic unity to communion (and after all, that is really what the Eastern Orthodox world is all about) you have the Porvoo Agreement between the C of E and several of the Lutheran Churches of northern Europe, and the very, very close communion of TEC and the ACC, and ELCA and its Canadian colleagues.
On the ground there are close ecumenical ties here between the Anglican diocese of Newcastle and the Catholic dioceses of Broken Bay and Maitland/Newcastle; and even in Sydney, some Anglican, Catholic, and Uniting Church parishes have close working relationships extending as far as shared preaching arrangements. In more remote areas, there are combined Anglican/Uniting Church parishes - Rowen's being but one. I gather that GG is in parish in NZ where a lot of sharing occurs.
ISTM that communion and shared arrangements are much more feasible than the unity hoped for in the 60s and 70s - allowing for the formation of the Uniting Church here in the seventies, a unity which is only in the last decade settling in to place.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree that a kind of 'official' or systemic ecumenism isn't on the cards - and the example of South India is conspicuous by its rarity, I'd suggest.
.. and in reality the CSI has ended up over time being mostly Anglican with probably as much (or maybe somewhat less) variation in it's services than the CofE. And various Methodist and Reformed denominations continue to exist in India.
Plus, for ever CSI church, there is this kind of thing (also from India):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/St_Thomas_Christians_divisions.svg/600px-St_Thomas_Christians_divis ions.svg.png
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wish I had your optimism, Gordon, but I'm not sure I can share it ...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I meant 'G Dee' - why did I say 'Gordon'?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There seems to be very little point to ecumenism. Has there been any major unifications between Churches?
IMO the point of ecumenism is to ensure that churches in a given context don't duplicate work wastefully or acrimoniously, especially if resources and membership levels are reducing.
I don't see 'major unifications' as an important goal apart from this, but churches can still work today at grassroots level to achieve common goals, especially regarding social justice, poverty, etc.
Regarding the topic of this thread, I cant't see why a more informal type of church fellowship would be less willing to get involved in this sort of thing than a more institutional church, since the issues involved have no bearing on church structure. If a such a fellowship refused to be involved that would be because of their theology more broadly.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that in those settings where churches are struggling - such as the inner-city areas she's described - then there is more genuine ecumenical co-operation.
For all that she appears to throw accusations of middle-class otherworldliness at me because I live in suburban/semi-rural Cheshire - I have lived in a range of settings - from inner-city (both gentrified and otherwise) to council estates and leafy suburbia.
I've seen enough to know that what she is saying about ecumenical relationships in less privileged areas to be the case.
I'm sorry if you feel that I'm throwing 'middle-class otherworldliness' at you. What I'm struggling to do is to assert the validity of my own experience in my own context. You can't do that for me, no matter how many times you've been round the block, nor where you might have lived 10 or 20 years ago.
Your experiences and stories are, however, very instructive in themselves.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm glad you think so ... but I'm not sure what lessons - if any - can be learned from my meanderings ...
In theory, I think you're right. It should be possible for some kind of informal, less institutional church set-up to exist alongside other more 'historic' or more 'formal' settings - and in all sorts of areas, not simply the ones you've been describing.
Although I do agree that there would be a particularly good case for such a thing where you are - with resources stretched and so on.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
However, this might only be my indigestion repeating itself ... so far, I've not come across any 'informal' or apparently less structured or more 'grass-roots' group that hasn't either held to a more exclusive theology or which didn't want to distance itself in some way from whatever else is going on.
This thread started with a particular Anabaptist stance on that issue - a form or organisational withdrawal from whatever else is going on in the area in terms of church life in order to maintain apparent 'purity' etc.
In theory, I think it could be possible for a group which doesn't have that kind of self-definition to operate in a more informal and less institutional (but not completely uninstitutional) way.
I'd be interested to see how an informal Methodist church might function in that way, for instance - or some kind of 'informal' Anglican parish - if such a thing were possible.
In some ways, I wonder whether neo-monastic (or even historic monastic) groups could provide some kind of model ... but as has been observed on threads where that topic has come up, these largely tend to be a middle-class preserve.
So, don't get me wrong. I'm interested in exploring the issue because, like you, I think we are all headed towards stretched resources and unsustainable plant and so on.
But you'll also appreciate why I have a bit of wind occasionally and you'll excuse me if I burp ...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Having recovered a bit from being rather overloaded before New Year, a couple of comments;
by Svitlana2
quote:
Regarding the topic of this thread, I can't see why a more informal type of church fellowship would be less willing to get involved in this sort of thing than a more institutional church, since the issues involved have no bearing on church structure.
The 'topic of this thread' was originally related to church-and-state relationships and similar issues. Clearly a 'state' church (bearing in mind that that covers more options than just the CofE 'establishment') is likely to be heavily 'institutional'; while a church independent of the state can be much less so and in places very informal indeed (perhaps especially so in times of persecution).
However, outside of state linkage, being 'institutional' is pretty much a non-issue; I can't see there being much disagreement on the Ship (and certainly not by me) that anything that constitutes a reasonably stable 'local church' will also have a degree of 'institutional' nature - and even more so for any wider association of several local churches
up to national level. The only issue is not to have so much that it hinders the church's major purposes. An interesting discussion but nothing much to do with John 18 and related texts....
by Gamaliel;
quote:
This thread started with a particular Anabaptist stance on that issue - a form of organisational withdrawal from whatever else is going on in the area in terms of church life in order to maintain apparent 'purity' etc.
Actually no; it started from the basic Anabaptist stance of being 'distinct' within the surrounding society - and so not being a 'state church' or trying to be. And yes, being a bit careful about how involved one gets in worldly power structures in the society. Also from the stance of the church being INTERNATIONAL in concept, and so it being inappropriate to be too entangled in or aligned with particular states. The biblical definition of that kind of purity seems to be plenty wide enough - that is, it doesn't require an 'Exclusive Brethren' approach or similar, either to the 'world' or to fellow Christians.
Just there's a bit of a practical problem when a large number of one's fellow Christians are too much involved in/confused with the state in various ways, and instead of a simple separation from the world you also have to work round Christians behaving inconsistently and unbiblically in their church-state relationships....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually no; it started from the basic Anabaptist stance of being 'distinct' within the surrounding society
Which would be impossible by definition if the Anabaptists formed the majority of people in the society. So how would the Anabaptists deal with it if this were to come about? Is the Anabaptist movement only useful or even possible if they remain a small minority? It's up to somebody else to convert the masses, we're too busy being 'distinct'?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
. And yes, being a bit careful about how involved one gets in worldly power structures in the society. Also from the stance of the church being INTERNATIONAL in concept, and so it being inappropriate to be too entangled in or aligned with particular states. The biblical definition of that kind of purity seems to be plenty wide enough - that is, it doesn't require an 'Exclusive Brethren' approach or similar, either to the 'world' or to fellow Christians.
Just there's a bit of a practical problem when a large number of one's fellow Christians are too much involved in/confused with the state in various ways, and instead of a simple separation from the world you also have to work round Christians behaving inconsistently and unbiblically in their church-state relationships....
As you have some time on your hands, can you answer the questions that remain outstanding from before and are raised in the above:
a. What is the biblical definition of purity that you rely upon?
b. Are you aware that the majority of states do not have an established church?
c. What is inconsistent and unbiblical behaviour by Christians in church-state relationships in that large majority of states where there is no established church?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Welcome back, Steve Langton.
I won't pose any more questions until after you've answered some of those you have yet to address - such as those G Dee has summarised.
These are questions that have exercised me too.
If you've posted something on your blog about John 18 then I'll look it up there.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Having recovered a bit from being rather overloaded before New Year, a couple of comments;
by Svitlana2
quote:
Regarding the topic of this thread, I can't see why a more informal type of church fellowship would be less willing to get involved in this sort of thing than a more institutional church, since the issues involved have no bearing on church structure.
The 'topic of this thread' was originally related to church-and-state relationships and similar issues. Clearly a 'state' church (bearing in mind that that covers more options than just the CofE 'establishment') is likely to be heavily 'institutional'; while a church independent of the state can be much less so and in places very informal indeed (perhaps especially so in times of persecution).
However, outside of state linkage, being 'institutional' is pretty much a non-issue; I can't see there being much disagreement on the Ship (and certainly not by me) that anything that constitutes a reasonably stable 'local church' will also have a degree of 'institutional' nature - and even more so for any wider association of several local churches
up to national level. The only issue is not to have so much that it hinders the church's major purposes. An interesting discussion but nothing much to do with John 18 and related texts....
I'm afraid you've misunderstood the particular conversation I was having at the time.
My post was made in response to comments that non-institutional (or organic, or informal, etc.) fellowships are less likely to be of service to a local community. I responded by saying that church structure should have no impact in theory on the willingness to get involved in community issues and needs.
I wasn't responding to what you were saying, as you had left the conversation at that point! Moreover, I have chosen not to get involved in your discussion about John 18.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, OK then, I'll give you all a bit of space. But be warned.
If I see this thread doing no more than going round the "I've answered, no you haven't" loop, then it's toast. So please try to find a way out of that.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Svitlana2
quote:
I wasn't responding to what you were saying, as you had left the conversation at that point! Moreover, I have chosen not to get involved in your discussion about John 18.
OK, fair enough! I'd picked your comment to comment on myself as the latest of a string dealing with the 'institutionalism' issue.
My effort at expounding John 18 has reached about 5 pages already - which makes it questionable whether it will really work on the Ship.... I'll see how it goes on. It certainly will go on the blog, where there's already an earlier, briefer version under the title "In which Pilate's exercised".
And yes, I'm working on some of the other 'outstanding' issues. I don't necessarily have a lot of 'time on my hands' - it was more that the sheer volume of stuff that had been thrown at me had become overwhelming and I needed a break. Expect my next post tomorrow afternoon.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Welcome back Steve - genuinely.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My effort at expounding John 18 has reached about 5 pages already - which makes it questionable whether it will really work on the Ship.... I'll see how it goes on. It certainly will go on the blog, where there's already an earlier, briefer version under the title "In which Pilate's exercised".
Like a sermon - if it takes more than 10 minutes, you are incapable of making the point for which you aim. Aim for concise, accurate brevity.
Point taken Barnabas 62. That's why I asked 3 short questions.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My effort at expounding John 18 has reached about 5 pages already - which makes it questionable whether it will really work on the Ship....
I think it is beyond question that it won't work. It would be worth taking more time to boil your response down to what you think is really essential to communicate.
Conversations can't function with huge tracts of information passed back and forth, they need to have a common thread from person to person which evolves between the participants, rather than having an extended evolution within one individual.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My effort at expounding John 18 has reached about 5 pages already - which makes it questionable whether it will really work on the Ship....
I think it is beyond question that it won't work. It would be worth taking more time to boil your response down to what you think is really essential to communicate.
Conversations can't function with huge tracts of information passed back and forth, they need to have a common thread from person to person which evolves between the participants, rather than having an extended evolution within one individual.
Isn't that what Kerygmania is for, when passages of scripture are the subject?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
If any proof of the now-circular nature of this thread were needed, this is it. It was started in Kerygmania.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Yes, that about sums it up. I think we need to take a step back from this ultimately mutually frustrating and circular thread and maybe return to it after a decent interval.
Thread closed.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0