Thread: 'Resident aliens' - how does it work? What does it look like? 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=028933
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
This is follow on from the Constantine thread.
If Christians are to be 'not of this world' and 'resident aliens' what should this look like in practice?
I'm interested in practical and positive suggestions - not negative reactions against so-called 'Constantinian Christians' and 'Constantinian churches'.
On this thread I'm not interested in pointing the finger at this, that or the other group - be they RCs, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, Anabaptists, Mennonites or anything else.
What I'm interested in is practical suggestions on how Christians are supposed to engage positively with the world around them.
I'm interested in suggestions from all church traditions and streams.
And yes, I am looking at Steve Langton to some extent ... but I'm not looking for a continuation of the kind of 'Constantinianism = bad' - 'Anabaptism = good' dichotomy that seems to surface a fair bit here.
I want practical examples. I want practical suggestions.
Withdrawal from the world - whilst that might be a suitable tactic in some circumstances - is not an option on this thread.
I want examples. I want answers. I want practical suggestions - not pietistic hand-wringing at the apparent sins and short-comings of everyone else.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
It seems to me we have a number of nice little statements about this: "Judge not lest ye be judged", "Do unto others" and "Trust in Allah but tie up your camel."
As for withdrawing from the world, isn't that a variation of the Pharisee's stance, just one more way to not care about one's neighbors?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I mentioned this on the other thread, but I'm partial to Greg Boyd's take on it. He isn't so much interested in particular outcomes in terms of pitting "the world" vs. "the Kingdom", but rather particular methodologies, In this he's drawing heavily on his mentor, Walter Wink. The "way of the world" is to seek "power over"-- to bring about change thru coercion (including the legislative agenda so dear to American Christians these days), force, and even violence. Wink would describe this as "the myth of redemptive violence". The way of the Kingdom, otoh, is "power under"-- following Jesus in an incarnational ministry that seeks to bring out change through service and sacrifice-- the whole "the way to gain your life is to lose it" thing.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Couple of thoughts that jump into mind, at least as peripherals -
A resident alien doesn't equate patriotism for the place he lives with Godliness, if only because he doesn't particularly identify with the place he is visiting, but with a different place.
An alien probably doesn't focus his life on making his mark on, being remembered by, the community he is just visiting; to the extend these are a goal it's to make his mark on, be remembered by, his real home.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
At the same time, it's probably best to remember the term "resident aliens" comes from elsewhere (most notably Stanley Hauerwas in a book I failed to appreciate as much as many others) not from Jesus. Jesus' words were "in the world but not of the world". IMHO, "resident aliens" has far too negative a connotation for the world, and far too distant our relation to it. I think of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, Jeremiah exhorting the exiles to "seek the prosperity of the city you live in". We are not to be shaped and formed and controlled by the "ways of the world" (or "powers that be"). But that doesn't equate to "we're just a-passin' thru" either. This is the world God created, the world God loves, and the world that God is redeeming. We are to be IN it-- ALL in. As Jesus went "all in". Not "of" it-- not conformed-- but thoroughly IN. Because ultimately, there is no "other world". There isn't some other place that's our "true home." Jesus tells us the Kingdom of God is upon us-- right here.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
No time for a major contribution (I'm due an early morning - well, later today now!) but just one thing...
Jesus didn't use the term 'resident aliens', but its Greek equivalent is used by Peter in I Pet 1v1 and in 2v11. The word is 'parepidEmois' in Greek - he also in 2v11 uses the similar meaning word 'paroikos'. He also associates it with the Jewish concept of the 'diaspora' (though other verses imply that he is writing to a non-Jewish community). That would relate the idea to Jewish ideas about 'living in exile' in a reference in Jeremiah which isn't to hand right now but I'll try and mention it sometime this evening when I get back home.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
ah, yes, quite right. I'd forgotten those two passages.
Perhaps what we really see, then, is a tension in the biblical text-- the same sort of tension we see in John 17's "in the world but not of it". We error whenever we fall to far to one side or the other. We error when we align ourselves too closely to the "powers that be"-- to the agenda and means of this world. But we also error when we distance ourselves too far or harden our hearts against the world that God loves.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think it means to echo Jesus' own life--to set aside one's own rights for the sake of others as needed, but to shoulder all one's responsibilities without bitching about it. So if we're half-citizens, we're the half that does the work.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I will give you an example of how Christianity eventually survived in the Roman Empire.
It was during a rather nasty episode of Bubonic Plague. Most of the Romans deserted the city leaving only the sick and dying. However, Christians stayed in the city, ministering to the sick and dying. Romans were very impressed with this and many converted to Christianity.
A resident alien today speaks the truth in love often against the cultural attitudes of today. Pope Francis comes to mind. He is taking on the bureaucracy of the Vatican. He is like a breath of fresh air in a stale church. Now, granted, in my mind he has not gone far enough but a long journey begins with a single step.
My son is another example. Last year he participated in a Young Adults in Global Mission service. He was in Palestine teaching English. He saw the abuses Palestinians have to put up with. While he could not speak up against what he saw while there for fear of losing his visa, he is very much active now in speaking up for them. As a resident alien he worked to give his students hope. He was an adviser to their Model UN program. The Palestinian kids had never been able to participate in any international Model UN conference before. But he was able to have a group participate in Denmark last year.
This is what a resident alien does. He or she takes everything to the next level, seeking justice in an unjust world.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
There is some danger in being a resident alien and allowing resident aliens. Society requires that all its parts are in a mutual chain of responsibility and participation. If anyone is not allowed to fully partake of that or do not wish to partake of it in a way that fully sustains the society it comes from, then it's medically equivalent to an infection or some other form if immune disturbance.
Of course, societies are ideally dynamic, so there is some leeway in this, but if the society it is happening in is already too heavily structured to be able to dynamically respond, it's an illness.
[ 21. March 2015, 12:17: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
It should perhaps be pointed out that Christians are 'resident aliens' in a slightly different way to, say, my friend who is a Pakistani living in the UK.
For one thing, the Christian 'resident alien' may in fact be paradoxically living in his native country, yet he now owes primary allegiance to another kingdom.
But many of the problems that might bring are offset because the 'other kingdom' of the Christian is NOT a rival earthly nation which threatens war in earthly terms, or other violence, against the land he lives in, whether it be his native land or another earthly country in which he is a 'resident alien' in the conventional 'this world' sense. Rather Christians are citizens of a 'kingdom not of this world' and represented by other kingdom citizens throughout the kingdoms of this world.
The passage I mentioned from Jeremiah is important here; it is chapter 29;4ff, where the exiles are told to make their homes in the land where God has sent them into exile, and to "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord for it; for its welfare shall be your welfare". They are indeed to look forward to a day when they will no longer be exiles, but in the meantime they are to trust God and represent him in exile. Christians in joining God's people become 'resident aliens' in a similar sense.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, we all know the theory, Steve. But how does it work out in practice? What does it look like?
Forgive me, but you seem very good at stating what Christians shouldn't be like but I don't get much of an impression from your posts about we should be doing. It's all thou shalt not, rather than any kind of positive mandate or manifesto.
I'm not accusing you of the following necessarily but it reminds me to some extent of a very pietistic men's meeting I once attended when the visiting speaker noted how, as he drove in, he'd noticed how there'd been a sign from the city council saying how it was 'making things happen.'
No, the preacher declared, it wasn't the council that made things happen but we as the people of God ...
Lots of cheers and Amens.
I found myself wondering how this could be - all we were doing was holding loud and lively pietistic meetings. In whst way could we possibly claim to be making anything happen?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It should perhaps be pointed out that Christians are 'resident aliens' in a slightly different way to, say, my friend who is a Pakistani living in the UK.
It should be noted that the 'resident alien' communities from the Indian sub-continent substantially enriched British culture, creating an entirely new cuisine of British curry. And, they didn't stay as resident aliens, becoming full citizens of the UK voting in elections, and holding positions throughout government - I hope within the next few decades we'll be seeing a PM who has ancestry traced back to one of the communities who had been 'resident aliens'.
What aspects of your friends 'resident alien-ness' do you want the church to emulate? Bringing our own particular flavour to how we view the world to be part of the cuisine of our country of residence? To become full citizens taking our place as equals besides those who have lived here longer?
quote:
But many of the problems that might bring are offset because the 'other kingdom' of the Christian is NOT a rival earthly nation which threatens war in earthly terms, or other violence, against the land he lives in
Even in purely geopolitical terms that isn't always the case, it depends heavily upon the country you find yourself resident in. There was an extended period in Japan, for example, where simply being not-Japanese was sufficient cause to have you shipped out of the country, or worse. A European simply stepping off a ship onto Japanese soil, let alone seeking to live as a 'resident alien' in Japan, was considered an act of violence against Japanese cultural purity. There are mindless thugs in the UK who would like to see a similar sense of UK cultural purity with anyone who does not hold values sufficiently close to that to be kicked out of the country.
There are places in the modern world where being a Christian is seen as a threat to the cultural and religious identity of that country. Places where converting to the Christian faith is seen as an act of violence against the nation, one that in some cases is seen as sufficiently threatening to warrant a death sentence. Being a 'resident alien' Christian in such places is a threat to the nation.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I also find it interesting that the vision of a 'resident alien' church Steve seems to be advocating is very different from what we see of the church in the first few centuries (ie: before Constantine) that was also described as 'resident alien' by Peter.
That early church was making strong political statements all over the place.
In a culture where it was expected to be loyal to Caesar and his representatives, to serve the Roman state, to declare "Caesar is Lord", what did the Church say? "You can't serve two masters", "Jesus is Lord".
In a time when the political power of Caesar was based on the common people, who formed the bulk of the legions, he ensured that support by providing all Roman citizens an allowance of free grain, so they were never hungry, and slightly later than the Gospel period entertainment to distract them from problems - bread and circuses. What did the Church do? They prayed "Give us our daily ration of bread", they celebrated a meal remembering Christ who declared "I am the bread of life, whoever comes to me will never hunger".
If you read Acts 10 and 11, at no point does Peter tell the Centurion "Now you've been baptised, you're a 'resident alien' and must resign your commission in the legion". In Acts 16, Paul doesn't tell the jailer he needs to stop acting as an agent of the state, holding people against their will. Are any of the tax collectors we meet in the Gospels told to stop collecting taxes?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Yes, Alan. There are lands in which being a Christian is decidedly unsafe. These lands tend to be places which are either dictatorial, like Stalinist Russia, or places where the local religion takes a 'sacral' form - that is, it is related to the state in a form essentially similar to what we've been calling in a Christian context 'Constantinianism'. For example, Shinto in Japan.
It is for this reason that Christians are taught to be peaceable resident aliens. Many territories will find 'non-conformists' a problem; they must not be given further positive reason to persecute Christians on grounds that they are a threat of actual rebellion. And that includes ideally they must not be given such grounds by the existence anywhere in the world of Christians who believe in being such a positive threat, setting up 'Christian states' and threatening war, persecution and conquest against non-Christians.
Peter is rather emphatic about this in his first epistle which I suggest every participant in this thread should go off and read - read deeply and repeatedly.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
Rather than "resident aliens", would it not be better to use the term "exiles" - which is surely more "biblical" and then opens the door to all sorts of insights from Israel's experiences of exile in Babylon. This, it seems to me, is surely one part of what Peter (a Jew) would have understood by the term "resident alien".
As always, Brueggemann would be a good person to consult for ideas on what "exilic living" might look like.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
It so happens, Oscar, that the term 'resident aliens' has been given some currency by a well-known book of a few years ago by Stanley Hauerwas, and a sequel. It's also, as I pointed out back upthread, the near enough literal translation of one of Peter's words.
There isn't an exact equivalent between the term in England and what the Bible implies. But it is pretty close and conveys the unsettling idea of being a citizen of heaven living on earth. Peter says a great deal about it; and the passage I quoted from Jeremiah is a starting point in the OT, from the exile period, which leads to the distinctive NT usage.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It so happens, Oscar, that the term 'resident aliens' has been given some currency by a well-known book of a few years ago by Stanley Hauerwas
Yes. As I mentioned upthread, that's probably why I have a somewhat lukewarm reaction to the term-- didn't really appreciate Hauerwas' book, which seemed like one long straw man-ish rant vs. Niehbur.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Forgive me, but you continually write and act Steve as if none if the other contributors here are as familiar with those verses in the Petrine epistles as you are yourself - and that if only we read and studied them sufficiently we would all come to the same conclusions as you have.
You also post as if there is no other possible way to read the NT than the one you read it.
The point is, any number of people could come along and 'call' you or any one of us on something or other they may believe we are insufficiently NT enough on. Heck, a sacramentalist could accuse you of not having a sufficiently developed eucharistic doctrine - for instance - and cite their understanding of John 6 in support of that.
Meanwhile, you have yet to supply any positive or practical example or instance of what being a 'resident alien might involve.
Reading your posts I get the impression that it is all about what we don't do - rather than what we actually do.
Not being a member of some nasty, wicked, evil 'Constaninian' state church is what it seems to boil down to. Surely there must be more to it than that?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The passage I mentioned from Jeremiah is important here; it is chapter 29;4ff, where the exiles are told to make their homes in the land where God has sent them into exile, and to "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord for it; for its welfare shall be your welfare". They are indeed to look forward to a day when they will no longer be exiles, but in the meantime they are to trust God and represent him in exile. Christians in joining God's people become 'resident aliens' in a similar sense.
There is an important difference in the NT understanding of this concept from its implementation in the OT.
In the OT the Israelites are actual, not spiritual resident aliens. Their status of exile presumably deprived them of certain rights and certainly did not make it possible for them to have dual citizenship.
In the NT, our "exile" here is figurative. It is perfectly possible to be a Christian and a national citizen, and indeed be involved as both. In fact I'd argue that 1 Peter, which as it happens I have read and re-read, makes a good case for engagement on both fronts. Which is why I took part in the Charlie Hebdo march and why I preached this on that day.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Meanwhile, you have yet to supply any positive or practical example or instance of what being a 'resident alien might involve.
Who needs my examples? Why do you think I keep referring you to Peter and Paul who are very positive and practical - but not at all 'Constantinian'!
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Not being a member of some nasty, wicked, evil 'Constaninian' state church is what it seems to boil down to. Surely there must be more to it than that?
As I repeatedly say, it's about following the positive teaching of the NT on how the Church is supposed to relate to the world. As that whole scheme is completely subverted by the 'Constantinian' way of doing things, obviously rejecting that route is part of it. But I prefer the positive also - it's just unfortunate there are so many people still following the negative route that Constantine started and unwilling to take on the NT challenge to live differently.
Haven't time for further right now; will be back late evening. Meantime what about a specific opinion from you on my post above at 00.22 this morning??
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Peter and Paul who are very positive and practical - but not at all 'Constantinian'!
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
They are not 'Constantinian' because at the time they were writing, Christianity had not expanded to the point where interaction of church and state had become a live issue.
That's why you can't look back to the NT in isolation and expect it to give a definitive answer on this, any more than you can expect a definitive, clear-cut answer from it on some of the ethical issues thrown up by progress in medicine.
I tend to agree with you that Peter or Paul might not have approved of the full-blown church-state fusion that followed, but I don't think it's a given that they were protoanabpatists either. You skip too lightly over the biblical case for engagement with the authorities.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Meanwhile, you have yet to supply any positive or practical example or instance of what being a 'resident alien might involve.
Who needs my examples?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the question was asked what being a 'resident alien' would look like. Today, in the sort of democratic nation states we live in. Nice practical examples - can 'resident aliens' vote, hold political office, serve in the police or army? You are the person here who is advocating a 'resident alien' ideal, so we're asking you for those examples. Something that will help us get a handle on what it means.
quote:
Why do you think I keep referring you to Peter and Paul who are very positive and practical
Well, stop referencing them. Tell us how you interpret these verses. With particular emphasis possibly on how your interpretation presents the positive and practical side of 'resident alien'.
At the moment I suppose we can guess at what you mean. But making guesses as to what someone else will say is a very stupid way of having a discussion with them. We want to know what you mean, then we can engage with what you actually say.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alan Cresswell: Nice practical examples - can 'resident aliens' vote, hold political office, serve in the police or army?
(I think they can vote in local elections in the Netherlands.)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you read Acts 10 and 11, at no point does Peter tell the Centurion "Now you've been baptised, you're a 'resident alien' and must resign your commission in the legion". In Acts 16, Paul doesn't tell the jailer he needs to stop acting as an agent of the state, holding people against their will. Are any of the tax collectors we meet in the Gospels told to stop collecting taxes?
I'd like to highlight these examples - these were the ones I used in Steve's original thread to his contention that Christians should not be involved in vocations that smacked of Constantinianism - I'd like to see his answers here, because all I see is a lot of dancing around the issue.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
An interesting point - especially because I know that there are a few Nonconformist ministers who refuse to conduct weddings, or even have their buildings registered for them, because they feel that "a church should not be an agent of the state". (Just to clarify: they're not anti-marriage and are quite happy to bless couples who have first "done the legal bit" at the Town Hall. Of course that's the normal pattern in many European countries, anyway).
I believe that there are a few churches which refuse to register as charities (and choose to forego the benefits thereof) for the same reason.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you read Acts 10 and 11, at no point does Peter tell the Centurion "Now you've been baptised, you're a 'resident alien' and must resign your commission in the legion".
No, but I understand that in later years it was seen as incompatible for a Christian to be in the Roman army because (a) legionaries had to swear allegiance to the Emperor as God and (b) they didn't feel that they should kill. Don't know how widespread this view was, though.
[ 22. March 2015, 13:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Why do you think I keep referring you to Peter and Paul who are very positive and practical - but not at all 'Constantinian'!
Okay. So, Paul. What did he do when he was in trouble with the local authorities?
Did he:
(a) claim that as a citizen of Heaven the court had no jurisdiction over him?
(b) damned the earthly authorities to do their worst because God would save him?
(c) claim his rights as a Roman citizen and appealed to the emperor himself?
If you went for (c), please explain how that fits in with Paul behaving like a 'resident alien'.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well I just went to vote. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Just a comment about nonconformist ministers refusing to be agents of the state in performing the rite of marriage.
I tend to agree with their position. I think all people should get married by a licensed civil authority. Then, if they want to have a religious blessing, they can go to the church of their choice and do what it takes to get church's blessing.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Cheekily, why do you keep referring me back to a handful of Pauline and Petrine texts? Well perhaps it's because you are prone to proof-texting rather than engaging with NT texts in a less two-dimensional way.
More charitably, I do see some hints of positive and practical actions underneath your posts - but I would like to see these expanded and elucidated. Instead, for the most part I am afraid the vibes I pick up are those of a somewhat judgemental and Pharisaical attitude towards other churches and other Christians. I am giving you the opportunity to correct that impression and challenge Richard Baxter's old adage that Anabaptists were on some kind of holier than thou crusade.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Helps me to think of this in terms of promoting an "alternative culture" to the one prevailing around me. Giving away a significant proportion of your disposable income which means you have fewer possessions than people around you, or similar possessions of lower quality would be examples. So that's from a mindset that has a notion about storing up treasures in heaven.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
talking of resident aliens, there's a huge spider crawling across my wall
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
talking of resident aliens, there's a huge spider crawling across my wall
Maybe just "passin' thru'"
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
The term doesn't imply that one is an Anabaptist. Augustine argued that Christians were primarily citizens of the City of God and tolerated the earthly Babylon as a short term compromise but, in practice, his politics were what Steve would call Constantinism.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
They are not 'Constantinian' because at the time they were writing, Christianity had not expanded to the point where interaction of church and state had become a live issue.
Are you quite sure you're reading the same Bible I am? (Usually NIV, occasionally TEV, often Berkeley, quite often Greek/English(RSV) Interlinear NT) Interaction of church and state is a live issue throughout the NT from the nativity narratives of the new-born King of the Jews all the way to Revelation; if you can't see that, I'm very worried.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
talking of resident aliens, there's a huge spider crawling across my wall
Maybe just "passin' thru'"
If it were my wall, I'd be hurrying him on to his future and eternal home...
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
talking of resident aliens, there's a huge spider crawling across my wall
Maybe just "passin' thru'"
If it were my wall, I'd be hurrying him on to his future and eternal home...
You could serenade him on his way with this
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can't see why you're worried, Steve Langton. I don't think Eutychus - or any one else here - is calling for the kind of 'Constantinian' stereotype you are so concerned about.
Eutychus is a non-conformist and he's repeatedly said that he isn't particularly in favour of state churches.
I would submit that you are dealing with an anachronistic image of what so-called 'Constantinian' churches are actually like.
I'm not saying that there isn't a case to answer, but the idea that the contemporary CofE, say, or the contemporary Roman Catholic Church for that matter is some kind of hot-bed of anti-Semitism and potentially Inquisition-like activity is over-egging the pudding.
Whatever view of 'Constantinianism' you have, it's based, I suggest, on how these churches were 500 years ago and not how they are now.
I also think it's the height of naivety to suggest that if only we could shrug off the remnants of Christendom then we'd see some kind of revival.
Revival - in its traditional sense - depends, to a large extent, I would suggest on the concept of Christendom.
The Wesleys and even Billy Graham would have made little head-way unless they were operating within a broadly Christian, historically Christendom paradigm.
To suggest otherwise is historically inaccurate and spiritually naive.
Nominalism is far from ideal - but if it hadn't been for some kind of nominal patina of residual Christian faith then neither the Wesleys, the 19th century revivalists nor 20th century evangelists would have been able to win many converts.
Like it or loath it, Christendom created the conditions for the kind of Free Church non-conformity you hold so dear.
There is no way around that.
It is a fact.
Now, as Christendom crumbles, I submit that we are all heading into survival mode rather than revival mode.
I'm all for 'gathered' and intentional churches - fellowships of true and sincere believers. Post-Christendom, I think that's the default position that we're all heading into. Whether those are conditions that promote revival is a moot point. I would argue that they don't.
The intentional, 'sectarian' model is undoubtedly the kind of 'plausibility structure' that all of us are going to adopt - or have adopted to a greater or lesser extent - as we head into the choppy waters of post-Christendom.
To that extent, you've got a point.
Otherwise, I find your presentation rather simplistic and facile.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
They are not 'Constantinian' because at the time they were writing, Christianity had not expanded to the point where interaction of church and state had become a live issue.
Are you quite sure you're reading the same Bible I am? (Usually NIV, occasionally TEV, often Berkeley, quite often Greek/English(RSV) Interlinear NT) Interaction of church and state is a live issue throughout the NT from the nativity narratives of the new-born King of the Jews all the way to Revelation; if you can't see that, I'm very worried.
Yes, and one of the recurring themes is one that uses well known (at the time, at least) stories of Augustus Caesar - and I would suggest by implication the subsequent Roman Emperors - and used these to describe Christ and His purpose.
I think we would both agree that the implication is that Christ has come to be the King/Emperor of a new Kingdom/Empire. Where we disagree, because the Scriptures are silent or unclear, is the extent that the Kingdom of Christ will be similar or dissimilar to the Roman Empire.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I can't see why you're worried, Steve Langton.
My worry here is quite specific and limited. Eutychus responded to my comment that neither Peter nor Paul were 'Constantinian' with the comment
quote:
They are not 'Constantinian' because at the time they were writing, Christianity had not expanded to the point where interaction of church and state had become a live issue.
Now OK, if you're even more pedantic than me (and that should really worry you) it is a bit anachronistic to use the phrase 'Constantinian' of something written before he existed; but surely it was obvious that I simply meant "What Paul and Peter taught was clearly in disagreement with the ideas we have since come to think of as 'Constantinianism'".
But suggesting as Eutychus did that interaction between church and state was not a 'live issue' in NT times is surely an obvious massive misstatement. Again, they may not have been using our precise terminology, but 'state and church' issues are very much 'live issues' as I said throughout the NT, and Peter and Paul do deal with the issues, and in a way that very much disagrees with 'Constantinianism' (and BTW is stated in a very positive form in its own terms, not just as a negative response to the later events).
Before I respond further I'd also still like to see your specific response to my post at 00.22 this morning, itself responding to Alan C. And maybe other Shipmates' responses as well....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Interaction of church and state is a live issue throughout the NT from the nativity narratives of the new-born King of the Jews all the way to Revelation; if you can't see that, I'm very worried.
Instead of parading your breadth of Bible versions (and presumably re-reading 1 Peter once more, as you enjoined us to do) you would do better, for the purposes of discussing, to read what posters actually put.
I did not say interaction of church and state was not discussed in the NT. I said that Christianity hadn't expanded to the point where it had become a live issue, i.e. in terms of actual government.
In the NT Christians are still a tiny minority. By the time Constantine came along, there were so many that they were - like it or not - a political force within the Roman Empire by sheer weight of numbers.
That was an entirely new issue which is not addressed directly in the NT simply because it had not yet come about.
[x-post]
[ 22. March 2015, 22:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Where we disagree, because the Scriptures are silent or unclear, is the extent that the Kingdom of Christ will be similar or dissimilar to the Roman Empire.
Jesus was neither silent nor unclear - "My kingdom is not of this world". And given all the other stuff in the NT outlining the position the church is meant to adopt, I'm again wondering are you sure you're using the same NT most people do? A kingdom whose warfare is not with physical weapons, which is to be 'subject to the powers that be' and not rebel against them, and whose members are told things like not to be 'allotriepiskopoi/managers-of-other-people's-affairs' is surely prima facie VERY dissimilar to the Roman Empire.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I did not say interaction of church and state was not discussed in the NT. I said that Christianity hadn't expanded to the point where it had become a live issue, i.e. in terms of actual government.
I know what you wrote. And I still say that church and state issues were well 'alive' in the NT era and that the NT provides info on how to deal with it. 'Church and State issues' are explicit in Jesus' claim to be Messiah, and the fact that he clearly chose not to follow certain ways of being Messiah is extremely important to all subsequent discussion of those issues. It didn't need to wait for Constantine and the possibility of a 'Christian Roman Empire' before those issues were considered. They were live issues the moment Jesus claimed to be the successor to David. They were certainly live in Jesus' trial before Pilate. And the NT makes provision on the subject which unfortunately Constantine and his successors ignored.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A kingdom whose warfare is not with physical weapons, which is to be 'subject to the powers that be' and not rebel against them, and whose members are told things like not to be 'allotriepiskopoi/managers-of-other-people's-affairs' is surely prima facie VERY dissimilar to the Roman Empire.
The NT says we're citizens of a Kingdom that is in the world but not off the world. What does that mean? The NT is largely silent, because it's not something that the authors of the NT needed to tackle. They did have some issues to tackle, and for instance the evidence is that an armed revolt against Rome, or support for the Jewish rebellions, was not considered right. Some of the methods used by contemporary political powers (eg: the Roman Empire) are not methods we should be using. But, that doesn't answer the question of if a political system could be formed and sustained by other methods whether that would also be wrong. The question isn't addressed in the NT simply because it was not a possibility at the time - the church was too small, and besides it's clear that many of the NT authors thought that they were going to see the Day of the Lord any time now and there were more urgent things to do than try and establish the Kingdom through the slow process of political action.
Which doesn't stop the NT writers telling Christians to fulfill their political roles with integrity, honesty and justice. Soldiers to be satisfied with their pay and not extort a few wee extras from the people. Tax collectors to not cheat people. Masters to treat their slaves well. Advice to the rich and politically powerful. Christians are called to use their public positions as a) a witness to Christ and b) to act to reduce the evils in this world and further the aims of righteousness and justice.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I'm aware that Hosts can take a 'dim view' of repetitive posting but I also believe this one to be very important, and directly relevant to Alan C's current line of argument....
by Steve Langton, just over 24 hours ago;
quote:
Yes, Alan. There are lands in which being a Christian is decidedly unsafe. These lands tend to be places which are either dictatorial, like Stalinist Russia, or places where the local religion takes a 'sacral' form - that is, it is related to the state in a form essentially similar to what we've been calling in a Christian context 'Constantinianism'. For example, Shinto in Japan.
It is for this reason that Christians are taught to be peaceable resident aliens. Many territories will find 'non-conformists' a problem; they must not be given further positive reason to persecute Christians on grounds that they are a threat of actual rebellion. And that includes ideally they must not be given such grounds by the existence anywhere in the world of Christians who believe in being such a positive threat, setting up 'Christian states' and threatening war, persecution and conquest against non-Christians.
The point being that Christians need to be in a position in effect of neutrality in the wars of 'the world' and whatever association of church and state you may be envisaging must NOT compromise that.
As a current example, native-born Christians in Muslim lands face a just-about-acceptable risk of persecution for being 'non-conformists' within the surrounding society.
They also very clearly face a further unacceptable risk in that they may be perceived as allies/supporters of 'the Crusaders', that is, nations perceived as 'Christian' which are currently fighting in the Middle East.
This would be a persecution not for being simply 'Christian' but for posing a military threat directly related to the perception of a 'Christian state' and the assumption that 'Christians' pose such a threat to their native Islamic state.
It has to be said that while obviously those who persecute Christians for that reason must bear a portion of the responsibility and will no doubt be held accountable by God for it, it is also true that those direct persecutors are in a position to claim some justification for their actions, a justification essentially supplied by the people who have created that perception of Christianity - that is, the 'Constantinians' and their 'Christendom' idea.
God will surely hold those people to account alongside the actual persecutors; and it will not be a light matter, to have endangered God's people and compromised witness to the Gospel by disobeying God's instruction on how the church should relate to the world.
And even what Eutychus, I think, described as the 'residual Constantinianism' in Western countries has sufficed to create that risk and cause lethal persecution....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Okay. So, Paul. What did he do when he was in trouble with the local authorities?
Did he:
(a) claim that as a citizen of Heaven the court had no jurisdiction over him?
(b) damned the earthly authorities to do their worst because God would save him?
(c) claim his rights as a Roman citizen and appealed to the emperor himself?
If you went for (c), please explain how that fits in with Paul behaving like a 'resident alien'.
First thing to say is that neither your (a) nor your (b) would be appropriate Christian actions or in line with the general Christian teaching.
Even Jesus accepted Pilate's jurisdiction, though pointing out that it was only by divine permission. Paul of course taught 'subjection to' the earthly authorities, and not rebelling against them, though in some circumstances both he and Peter would clearly agree that Christians would have to 'obey God rather than man' in cases of conflict - but also in such a case still accept the authority of the government and accept the punishment the government chose to apply.
'Damning the authorities' would hardly be helpful in any way whatever, and saying 'God will save me' is true but of course doesn't necessarily mean Paul would avoid martyrdom. Worth pointing out that a major part of the impact of Christians arose precisely from their conviction that the God who had raised Jesus from death could 'save' them even through a martyr's death, and their acting on that conviction rather than responding with armed rebellion like, say, the Jews in 70CE and 132CE.
In a rather heated situation what Paul does there is in effect to appeal beyond the local court to a higher human court to clarify how Rome would see the new faith - that seems totally in order. As Eutychus and others have pointed out, this 'resident alienness' of Christians is not an exact parallel to the regular earthly version and to some extent involves a kind of dual citizenship. This thread is about sorting out the limits of that situation.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
Steve, having read several of these lengthy threads you seem to me to be confusing being a "resident alien" on earth with being a "resident alien" in a particular country. In 1 Peter Christians are called to live as "resident aliens" or "strangers and pilgrims" on earth - i.e. recognising that this current state of things in the world is not our eternal destiny. It doesn't say that Christians shouldn't engage with secular government in whatever country they happen to live.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
A kingdom (...) whose members are told things like not to be 'allotriepiskopoi/managers-of-other-people's-affairs' is surely prima facie VERY dissimilar to the Roman Empire.
I suspect you are referring to 1 Peter 4:15. Which says this: quote:
But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
Leaving aside your translation (or rather, I supsect, J.I. Packer's) of allotriepiskopoi as "managers of other people's affairs", you have wrenched this phrase entirely out of context.
Peter is talking about the things Christians should not have to suffer for - the other things in the list are unequivocally undesirable, as is the commonly accepted translation of "meddling".
If you insist on making it mean "managers of other people's affairs", this exhortation focuses on the stupidity of suffering for doing so - presumably by being incompetent.
Arguing that this exhortation somehow constitutes a Petrine prohibition on being managers of other people's affairs really is special pleading.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Gamaliel writes
Now, as Christendom crumbles, I submit that we are all heading into survival mode rather than revival mode.
Total garbage. Christianity is riding an unprecedented wave of international growth. You're stuck in your Christian ghetto. Climb out for a bit and try taking a global view.
Main answer to your o/p is evangelism. That's how Christianity became a global faith in the first place, and how it's expanding today.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In a rather heated situation what Paul does there is in effect to appeal beyond the local court to a higher human court to clarify how Rome would see the new faith - that seems totally in order. As Eutychus and others have pointed out, this 'resident alienness' of Christians is not an exact parallel to the regular earthly version and to some extent involves a kind of dual citizenship. This thread is about sorting out the limits of that situation.
Paul used his special privilege of being a Roman citizen to trump the local court. Equivalent to "Don't you know who I am?", that is, he pulled rank.
That doesn't sound like someone who was uncomfortable with using worldly power to Gospel advantage. In fact, he was entirely comfortable with it, just as he was when he was persecuting Christians - except now he was using his power for good, not evil.
The idea that he was on his way to Rome to see how the Empire would handle a new faith in their midst is preposterous. He was going to Rome to evangelise the Emperor.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Gamaliel writes
Now, as Christendom crumbles, I submit that we are all heading into survival mode rather than revival mode.
Total garbage. Christianity is riding an unprecedented wave of international growth. You're stuck in your Christian ghetto. Climb out for a bit and try taking a global view.
Main answer to your o/p is evangelism. That's how Christianity became a global faith in the first place, and how it's expanding today.
Au contraire, Truman, it's not me who is spouting garbage here.
Yes, globally the churches are growing but there's also a corresponding increase in nominalism - talke to anyone from Nigeria and they'll tell you that - and the situation here in the UK is pretty desperate to be honest.
The only people who seem to think otherwise, in my experience, aren't those like me who are actually out and about and involved with non-churchy things but those who are involved in large and lively churches who think that they're on a roll ...
When just a few hundred yards down the road nobody is aware that they actually exist ...
It's not me who needs to climb out of my Christian ghetto ... mate ...
Meanwhile, my brother lives in a small Welsh village near the coast. There must be about 8 regulars at his local parish church and about a dozen or so people at a rather liberal non-conformist chapel on the edge of the village - none of whom actually live in the village itself but who come from far and wide because they want something more liberal than is generally available where they live.
And this out of a population of several hundred.
Of course evangelism is the answer - but you go to that village and tell my brother that there's unprecedented church growth and revival going on internationally and see what reaction you get.
I'm tempted to call you to Hell, but will resist that temptation.
I can't guarantee that my brother would temper his language when faced with the pietistic unreality of your latest post.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Meanwhile - @Steve Langton - it might just be me but I can't find this 0.22 post you're referring to. I can see posts with different times indicated but not that precise one ...
If it's the Jeremiah quote you're alluding to then yes, I've seen that.
What I haven't seen - so far, and forgive me if I've missed something, is any practical suggestions about what we should actually DO - rather it's all the same old, same old denunciations of so-called 'Constantinian Christendom' ... which isn't actually a position that I see many people actually adopting and espousing.
It's a straw-man and something that's easy to blame.
One of the key things in our society that people hold up as an objection to the Gospel isn't 'Constantinianism' as such but the attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I don't see you rushing out to amend your views on those issues in order to make the Gospel more attractive to outsiders.
Whatever we think on that particular issue, the point is that you appear highly selective in what you pick and choose to concentrate on as 'worldly' or reprehensible.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gracie;
quote:
Steve, having read several of these lengthy threads you seem to me to be confusing being a "resident alien" on earth with being a "resident alien" in a particular country. In 1 Peter Christians are called to live as "resident aliens" or "strangers and pilgrims" on earth - i.e. recognising that this current state of things in the world is not our eternal destiny. It doesn't say that Christians shouldn't engage with secular government in whatever country they happen to live.
I don't think I'm confused. The imagery of being a 'resident alien' is used in the NT to express indeed the point that we are 'citizens of heaven' living for the present in a kind of exile. This inevitably raises the question of generally how far we engage with the local secular government in our particular earthly nation. And bluntly, in many nations there may not be much possibility of engagement.
Contrary to what some people keep suggesting, I'm not advocating an Amish or 'Exclusive Brethren' approach of living outside society as a 'holy huddle'. I do, so far, vote in UK elections - though I am also increasingly disillusioned with our politics and am looking for ways Christians can achieve things which governments can't in various ways.
My particular concern has been with one issue which confuses the position of Christians in the world - the notion of having 'Christian states' and Christians believing they are entitled to be the government, or Christianity to have a favoured or privileged place in the state compared to others. For example, rival Protestant and Catholic versions of that idea have contributed considerably to the problems of Northern Ireland, and the perception of the West as 'Christian' and by implication 'crusading' is decidedly not helping current problems with extremist Muslims.
Christians are called on to be distinct from their pagan neighbours by living Christian lives among them. A formally 'Christian' state confuses this, even compromises the definition of what it means to be a Christian, and puts Christians in a place not of humble 'resident aliens' but of dictatorial conquerors, with results in the past such as the Crusades and Inquisition. Things are fortunately not so extreme now, but there are still clear problems.
As I see it, if Christians can agree to abandon the temptations of being or trying to be the government themselves, and accept the humbler position of, if you prefer, 'strangers and pilgrims', we can then work out from there what level of engagement is proper in our particular earthly nation. (In terms of what others have said, I suspect this would be much less than Alan Cresswell seems to want; in some ways less than Eutychus seems to want, but also in both cases much more in less directly political ways)
The 'resident alien' concept also helps to point up the nature of Christianity as "God's holy nation" on earth in the present age, an international body.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
One of the key things in our society that people hold up as an objection to the Gospel isn't 'Constantinianism' as such but the attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I don't see you rushing out to amend your views on those issues in order to make the Gospel more attractive to outsiders.
I'm not sure how far I can address the specific homosexuality issue outside 'Dead Horses', but as a wider point 'Constantinianism' resulted in many specifically Christian moral rules being imposed legally on society as a whole - rules on other sexual matters, but also such matters as 'Sunday Observance'. One of the matters exacerbated and in my opinion also distorted by this 'Constantinian' approach was the issues surrounding gay sex, which is thus part of the 'Constantinian' issue.
My position is that whatever Christians think about such issues, we were never supposed to 'be the authorities' and legally impose our views on others - 'resident aliens' don't do that kind of thing to the people they live among.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I am also increasingly disillusioned with our politics and am looking for ways Christians can achieve things which governments can't in various ways.
Of course, there are many non-Christians who are equally disillusioned and seeking to voice their concerns in ways which do not fit neatly into the normal democratic process.
quote:
Christians are called on to be distinct from their pagan neighbours by living Christian lives among them. A formally 'Christian' state confuses this, even compromises the definition of what it means to be a Christian, and puts Christians in a place not of humble 'resident aliens' but of dictatorial conquerors.
As you say yourself, this is now much less a reality in states like Britain ... so is it really worth bothering to make such a fuss about? We are neither living in medieval Spain nor Calvin's Geneva. Surely the greatest risk today is confusion about the notion of "secularism" - i.e. regarding it as the total exclusion of any religious values from public debate, rather than a state system which is not religiously partisan.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My position is that whatever Christians think about such issues, we were never supposed to 'be the authorities' and legally impose our views on others - 'resident aliens' don't do that kind of thing to the people they live among.
Right, but as I said elsewhere, Hutterites and Amish and other forms of conservative Anabaptists are quite content to operate with highly authoritarian church structures which impact on many aspects of individual lives.
It is in fact rather easy to take this position when you live in a country which basically allows you to get on with it with minimal negative impact and positive respect for your views.
But, clearly, if the majority of people with goodwill refuse to co-operate with systems of decision-making, then this is almost inevitably a system which will lead to authoritarianism.
So in both scenarios - the first where all Christians refuse to get involved in decision-making and where (even the most anti-government) Christians end up being the total of the population, you'd end up with authoritarianism. Albeit maybe the latter would be a bit kinder than other extremes.
In a situation where the world is about to end, we can all live as if the structures of the world are temporary and useless. In the real world, these things are often the only barrier between us and authoritarianism - and also the very things which ensure we have the freedom to make statements about the superficial nature of democracy and government anyway.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The imagery of being a 'resident alien' is used in the NT to express indeed the point that we are 'citizens of heaven' living for the present in a kind of exile. This inevitably raises the question of generally how far we engage with the local secular government in our particular earthly nation. And bluntly, in many nations there may not be much possibility of engagement.
The jump between your second and third sentences summarises where I think you are confusing two different things. We are resident aliens or strangers and pilgrims on earth not in the particular country that we are citizens of. The apostle Paul had no problem with the idea that he was a citizen of heaven at the same time as being a Roman citizen, with all the rights and privileges that gave him. The principle of modern-day democracy is that any citizen can be elected to government. If this kind of democracy had existed in New Testament days, we may well have seen Christians being elected to government, in the way we see Esther becoming queen in the Old Testament.
I don’t see any democratic countries where Christians believe they are entitled to be the government simply because they are Christians. That’s certainly not the case in the country where I live and I don’t believe it’s the case in the UK either.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I suspect you are referring to 1 Peter 4:15. Which says this:
quote:
quote:
But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
Leaving aside your translation (or rather, I suspect, J.I. Packer's) of allotriepiskopoi as "managers of other people's affairs", you have wrenched this phrase entirely out of context.
I was indeed referring to that verse. I was not aware that JI Packer had come to the same conclusion about the translation as me....
In my younger days, I was always a bit puzzled that Peter felt the need to warn Christians not to get in trouble over such obvious sins as murder and theft. It was when I looked at the behaviour of the Ulster Protestants that I realised there would be a situation in which Christians might actually - though of course wrongly - believe that such conduct might be justified; namely, when they believed in a 'Christian country' and engaged in violent means to bring that about as rebels/paramilitaries or similar. Indeed that is just about the only situation in which Christians might not just be tempted to such conduct in the ordinary human way, but actually think such conduct to be OK.
Peter is writing in a time both of imminent persecution of Christians (which is, in the verses before, the immediate context of 4; 15), and an imminent war between Rome and Jewish rebels. I believe he felt it necessary to warn his readers not to respond to the persecution by murder and theft etc. on their own side, or to become a Christian version of the rebel Jewish Zealots.
This I feel also fits the context of I Peter as a whole, rather than being an isolated and otherwise somewhat inexplicable warning. And in that context I take the warning against being 'allotriepiskopoi' as, in a time of threatened persecution, a warning against provoking pagan neighbours by being, in effect 'bossy-boots' over them. In effect, don't compromise your Christian standards, but bear in mind that as 'resident aliens' you must be gentle and humble in how you advocate your different moral stance.
A 'Constantinian' Christianity of course becomes very much a 'bossy-boots' or 'manager' (literally 'bishop') of other people's affairs....
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
we can then work out from there what level of engagement is proper in our particular earthly nation. (In terms of what others have said, I suspect this would be much less than Alan Cresswell seems to want; in some ways less than Eutychus seems to want, but also in both cases much more in less directly political ways)
It is, of course, to carefully consider how we relate to the rest of society, including our political opinions and involvement. I just don't see how thinking of ourselves as 'resident aliens' helps - especially if as a consequence of that view we do not engage in political processes; do not use our skills for the service of our community through, say, being a local councillor, or in other ways distance ourselves from the political system.
Which is partly why I keep asking for examples of what being 'resident aliens' would look like in practice. Perhaps if I can see how it helps to be light in the darkness, to help those in need, to bring justice as far as we can, and all the other things we are called to then perhaps I will actually understand what you think we should be aspiring too.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gracie;
quote:
We are resident aliens or strangers and pilgrims on earth not in the particular country that we are citizens of.
Yes; but of course we live on earth in a specific country, and we have to decide our engagement with the world according to that specific situation. You're also slightly neglecting the point that Christians are universally resident aliens/strangers/pilgrims throughout the world and we have a primary allegiance to that global diaspora; that has considerable implications (which my aching typing finger doesn't want to go into at length right now!) for how far Christians may engage with one particular government.
by Gracie;
quote:
I don’t see any democratic countries where Christians believe they are entitled to be the government simply because they are Christians.
Maybe; but I certainly know all too many Christians who very much think God wants them to be the government, and who seek election in order to push 'Christian' causes like anti-gay legislation. Thinking of yourself as a 'resident alien' is some antidote to such attitudes....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To an extent - but the antidote to such attitudes, I would contend, doesn't lie in withdrawing ourselves from the political process but engaging with it.
If there were some jerk putting themselves forward for the local or borough council - or beyond - because they thought they had some God-given mandate to do so in order to push through particular policies they thought were the big deal from a Christian perspective then I think I'd want another Christian to stand against them - if only to show that not all Christians are tarred with that particular brush.
I don't know who these Christians are that you're talking about who believe that God is calling them to stand for election on the kind of ticket you're describing - but if they are out there then it behoves other Christians to stand in opposition to them ... or else for them to realise, when they things don't go so smoothly or according to plan, that life isn't as neat and cut and dried as they'd like to think of it in their pietistic little bubble ...
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes; but of course we live on earth in a specific country, and we have to decide our engagement with the world according to that specific situation.
But that is the bit that the text does not actually say. Your interpretation is one possible interpretation, but it certainly isn't the only one and from my perspective probably not the best one. In fact Peter was originally addressing his letter to people who were literally resident aliens in the countries they were living in, probably converted on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem.
There's always a danger when reading the Bible of applying images too literally.
Our primary allegiance as Christians is to God. We do form a peculiar people - but in the present age that people is not identifiable per se other than by God, so we cannot have a primary allegiance to it in the same sense as we are citizens of an earthly nation. This is imagery.
I do not know any Christians who believe that God wants them to be the government to the exclusion of all others.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'd like to suggest that there is a big different between being a small community in an antagonistic country (where, indeed, non-cooperation may well be the way to protest and stand for truth) and the kinds on non-involvement with politics in relatively free societies. In the latter case, I'd argue that non-involvement is actually a total cop-out.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If there were some jerk putting themselves forward for the local or borough council - or beyond - because they thought they had some God-given mandate to do so in order to push through particular policies they thought were the big deal from a Christian perspective then I think I'd want another Christian to stand against them - if only to show that not all Christians are tarred with that particular brush.
I agree completely. And of course there are "Christian parties" such as
this one. I'm not saying that they are "jerks" but I'd never vote for them, partly because I simply don't think there is one "Christian" political view on everything and also because I suspect that they may be quite reactionary on certain DH issues.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd like to suggest that there is a big different between being a small community in an antagonistic country (where, indeed, non-cooperation may well be the way to protest and stand for truth) and the kinds on non-involvement with politics in relatively free societies. In the latter case, I'd argue that non-involvement is actually a total cop-out.
This.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Alright Gamaliel? Thanks for the family tree bit
Meanwhile, my brother lives in a small Welsh village near the coast. There must be about 8 regulars at his local parish church and about a dozen or so people at a rather liberal non-conformist chapel on the edge of the village - none of whom actually live in the village itself but who come from far and wide because they want something more liberal than is generally available where they live.
Course, you could have referred me to a district in Pyongyang, a street in Bradford or a block of flats in Birmingham. Sure it's relevant to the individual's concerned but as a way of understanding the world it's all too parochial. Globally we're locking at unprecedented demographic change, movements of people groups redefining populations and a movement away from atheism to theism, with Christianity leading the charge. Sleepy Cheshire and rural Wales aren't the best vantage points for viewing megatrends.
BTW - how would you reply to your own OP?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, indeed, as you'd expect, I'm in complete agreement with both mr cheesy and Baptist Trainfan.
And yes, my 'jerk' comment was overdone.
I think it is possible to find Christian Parliamentary candidates and MPs in all mainstream parties (as well as non-mainstream ones) who believe that this is part and parcel of their 'calling' or vocation.
That's fine - I don't have an issue with that at all - nor with Christians standing for political parties that I wouldn't support myself.
Of course, the political process isn't the only way to engage with our societies - there are plenty of other ways too - voluntary groups of various kinds, charitable work, aid and development, medicine, health, sport, the arts ...
I don't doubt that Steve Langton is also contributing positively in whatever way to whatever groups and societies he's involved with - such as the model railway club he's part of. That's great too. Bring it all on.
I don't want Steve to get the impression that I have some kind of personal image of him as someone who is aloof and disengaged from the wider world around him. I don't know Steve, of course, but he doesn't strike me as someone who is hiding himself away in a holy huddle. Far from it.
The concern I have is that this could be the implications of his particular theology.
There is an equal and opposite danger, I would submit, with disengagement as there is with some kind of overly Erastian engagement with the state and its mechanisms.
Where we individually draw the line is going to vary.
As Baptist Trainfan has said elsewhere - whether on this thread or a related one - it's not as if any of us are living in medieval Spain or Calvin's Geneva - or even 18th century England.
As Orthophile as I can be at times, I don't doubt that the Orthodox Churches can be overly in cahoots with the state at times - witness Greece under the Colonels, or the way that Patriarch Kyrill cosies up to Putin ...
At the same time, there is a tradition of 'speaking truth to power' and of prophetic witness against tyranny and oppression there at times - but perhaps not as much of it as we - nor some of the Orthodox themselves would like.
All these things are pretty mixed and variable.
On the one hand we've had the Roman Catholic Church supporting Franco, on the other we've had figures like Archbishop Romero - gunned down for his support of the oppressed and marginalised.
In the Phillipines under the Marcos regime it was the Catholics who were more vocal in opposition - and non-violent protest - than the Pentecostals and Protestant charismatics, for instance - some of whom actively supported Imelda Marcos and all that she represented.
Within Orthodoxy there's been Mother Maria of Paris and Fr Demetrius - sent to the death-camps for helping Jewish people escape the Nazis - whilst there's also been pogroms in Tsarist Russia where priests were among the mobs looting and lynching ...
And that's not even mentioning Rwanda ... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
We've got to look at all these issues on their own, respective merits I think.
Good and bad examples can be found all round.
Back in my native South Wales I can remember stories of a respected Pentecostal guy who was often called in to arbitrate in disputes between management and workers in the coal mines - this was in the era before Nationalisation - but people were still talking about this guy years and years later. Apparently, both sides trusted him and he was often brought in as a neutral observer/mediator.
Now, that strikes me as a good example of the kind of thing I have in mind. It could be seen as a 'resident alien' thing - he had no axe to grind with either side in the disputes - but it could equally be seen as an indication of the value of rolling one's sleeves up and getting involved.
This guy was running the risk of being seen as supporting one side or another irrespective of how the dispute was resolved - but he was prepared to take that risk and to play a role in resolving conflict.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Truman - my patience is wearing thin ...
My brother's village is in industrial South Wales.
He works in a power station. You can't get more industrial than that.
I may live in 'sleepy Cheshire' but I'm not far from either the Potteries or Crewe. Yes, it's pretty comfy here compared with both those places. I moved here when I had a high paid management job. I no longer have that high paid management job. I was made redundant. I am self-employed and earning a fraction of what I was earning in a management position.
I'm also standing for my local town and borough council in order to get involved in some way and to engage with the political process and the community.
I also chair a local voluntary arts group and get involved in all sorts of things besides church.
So get off your high horse before lecturing me, sunshine or I'll pull you off it and offer you outside.
Which is it to be? Outside or an appointment in Hell?
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Gamaliel
I'm also standing for my local town and borough council in order to get involved in some way and to engage with the political process and the community.
Good luck with that. What are you asking people to vote for?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Truman White, would it be possible for you to properly use the quote function, please?
It is quite hard to read your posts, and it isn't really so hard to quote properly the posts of the people you are responding to.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So get off your high horse before lecturing me, sunshine or I'll pull you off it and offer you outside.
Which is it to be? Outside or an appointment in Hell?
I think you might be getting annoyed at his coding rather than his comments.. just saying.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm asking them to vote for me ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Meanwhile, don't get me wrong. I'm not touting for sympathy over my redundancy and so on nor trying to claim that I'm any more 'engaged' with society than anyone else here.
Far from it.
However, it does gall a bit when you jump to conclusions about 'sleepy Cheshire' and 'rural Wales' without first bothering to check up on the facts. For all you know I might have lived in Runcorn or Widnes or some grim spot like Winsford.
I don't, but I might have done ...
Equally, terms like 'garbage' count like fighting-talk in my book. I don't mind people disagreeing with me but if you're going to accuse me of typing 'garbage' then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on it. I could easily do that by finding and quoting some of your more outrageous posts.
I am well aware that theism is on the rise around the world and that Christianity is growing in many areas. The corollary of that is that it ain't always the kind of Christianity that you or I might necessarily approve of ...
I've faced a few brick-bats here in my time for pointing out to ardent revivalists how syncretic or whacky some of the groups are that have emerged in China and elsewhere in the wake of revivals.
It's as if because these things are the result of revival they are assumed to be sacrosanct. They aren't.
Now, in your particular case, from the way you post on certain threads I recognise that you aren't quite as knee-jerk as that and do have a more balanced view.
However, if you accuse me of typing 'garbage' again without first trying to understand where I'm coming from and the point I'm trying to make then I am afraid I will have no compunction but to invite you to the Ship's infernal regions.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In the Phillipines under the Marcos regime it was the Catholics who were more vocal in opposition - and non-violent protest - than the Pentecostals and Protestant charismatics, for instance - some of whom actively supported Imelda Marcos and all that she represented.
/Bit of a tangent/
I suspect (but don't know) that the Protestants there may have been influenced by right-wing US Christianity which may well have given it birth and sustained it.
Similarly, the Catholics may well have been influenced by South American Liberation Theology (Leonardo Boff and co., rehabilitated by the present Pope).
I can't speak for Filipino or South American Pentecostals - but I suspect that may be fairly disengaged politically, or perhaps rightward-leaning (since they tend, I believe, to support "status lift" produced by individual hard work and self-discipline, i.e. the Protestant work ethic).
Others will know better.
/Back to the mainstream./
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can't criticise Truman for his coding, mr cheesy, my attempts are even worse ... and Hosts and Admins are always having to correct the codings on my posts.
To be frank, the tone of some of Truman's posts gets on my wick ... his cod bonhomie - 'mate' - and so on. But Hell would be pretty full if people called one another there simply on the grounds of an irritating posting style.
I'd probably be a permanent resident there if everyone who was irritated by my posting style were to call me on it.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Peace and lurv, guys.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was indeed referring to that verse. I was not aware that JI Packer had come to the same conclusion about the translation as me....
I'm not sure he has, but he seems to be about the only other person to transliterate the Greek the way you do.
Which is a long way from justifying that the word means "managing other people's affairs" in the sense, say, of being part of local government.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gracie;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes; but of course we live on earth in a specific country, and we have to decide our engagement with the world according to that specific situation.
But that is the bit that the text does not actually say. Your interpretation is one possible interpretation, but it certainly isn't the only one and from my perspective probably not the best one. In fact Peter was originally addressing his letter to people who were literally resident aliens in the countries they were living in, probably converted on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem.
There's always a danger when reading the Bible of applying images too literally.
Our primary allegiance as Christians is to God. We do form a peculiar people - but in the present age that people is not identifiable per se other than by God, so we cannot have a primary allegiance to it in the same sense as we are citizens of an earthly nation. This is imagery.
I do not know any Christians who believe that God wants them to be the government to the exclusion of all others.
Taking the last first, sadly I do know such people, and even some who would be willing to fight for it. But also, I was talking more generally about Christians who may accept democracy but they would seek election in order to bring about a specifically 'Christian' agenda - they often use phrases like 'godly government'.
On the interpretation of Peter, my own conclusion is that he is writing to natives of Asia Minor who are not 'resident aliens' in earthly terms. If any were Pentecost converts, they'd be visitors to Jerusalem now 'back home'
Though he writes in terms of Jewish diaspora, there's a verse (2;10) about them once having been no people, but now they are the people of God, which suggests to me they are Gentiles or mostly so. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it makes much difference to the overall interpretation. What Peter says about the relations of church and world is pretty much throughout the epistle and doesn't depend just on the interpretation of the one word.
Yes, sorry of course I know our primary allegiance is to God; but also to his people the 'Body of Christ'. My point is that the imagery of 'resident alien/stranger/pilgrim/sojourner' is used precisely to point to our citizenship of the kingdom of heaven, and therefore also our membership of the wider church as God's holy nation on earth, a nation all of whom live as 'resident aliens' this side of Jesus' return. This fact has relevance to our position in our own local nation
BTW as an 'aspergic' I am unusually aware of the dangers of treating images too literally; but as I'm 'hyperlexic' as a result of AS, I'm also pretty good at understanding non-literal meaning. At the same time, I tend to assume that a particular image is used for a reason and that the meaning of the image should be taken fairly seriously, even when not 'dumb wooden literally'!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Which is a long way from justifying that the word means "managing other people's affairs" in the sense, say, of being part of local government.
I wasn't being that specific; but Christians among pagans could face some of the kind of risk that Lot suffered in Sodom - his place 'at the gate' suggests something like being in local government in those days, and it brought him envy and jealousy which eventually threatened his family.
I stress that I'm not really addressing your issue directly - I'm trying to clear up the foundational ideas about church and world from which we could then decide how we might relate to such things. As I pointed out above, and BTW on reflection I don't think your reaction was very fair, most discussion of these issues is unbalanced while we do not clear up the issue of 'Constantinianism', and act in a more NT style.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm asking them to vote for me ...
However, it does gall a bit when you jump to conclusions about 'sleepy Cheshire' and 'rural Wales' without first bothering to check up on the facts. For all you know I might have lived in Runcorn or Widnes or some grim spot like Winsford.
What's wrong with Runcorn?
I am well aware that theism is on the rise around the world and that Christianity is growing in many areas. The corollary of that is that it ain't always the kind of Christianity that you or I might necessarily approve of …
Looking at the caveats in here - "Christianity is growing in many areas" "ain't always" "you or I might necessarily approve of" I reckon I've had the desired effect.
Assuming you get elected - what do you want to change?
Mate.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[code]
[ 23. March 2015, 18:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was talking more generally about Christians who may accept democracy but they would seek election in order to bring about a specifically 'Christian' agenda - they often use phrases like 'godly government'.
Standing for or seeking election is not the same thing as seeing one’s self entitled to be the government, which is what you said earlier. Every citizen is entitled to seek election, for whatever particular motives they may have. Only those elected by the voting system of the country they are in are actually entitled to be the government. If their agenda does not appeal to the majority of voters they will not get elected.
quote:
On the interpretation of Peter, my own conclusion is that he is writing to natives of Asia Minor who are not 'resident aliens' in earthly terms. If any were Pentecost converts, they'd be visitors to Jerusalem now 'back home'
Those converted at Pentecost were Jews from the diaspora – already living as resident aliens. I believe that is why Peter used this picture to talk about what life is like for us as Christians on earth. He wasn’t talking about whether or not to be involved in national governments – especially because democratic systems had not yet come into being. He was saying that as long as we’re on earth we’ll always have the feeling of not really belonging, exactly like you do when you live in a foreign country even if you live there for many years.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think we're at cross-purposes to some extent, Truman.
Nothing wrong with Runcorn. I was simply thinking of parts of Cheshire that weren't leafy and full of footballers' wives ...
What would I like to change?
I'm under no illusions that I'd be able to make any massive changes or difference. I've been told that you can make a difference locally if you stick at it long enough but it takes time ...
It's just that I thought I'd get involved. I've got the time to do it as I can work it around my freelance work. Also, I can't really criticise anything or point the finger unless I try and do something myself. Whether I'll live to regret it, remains to be seen.
Anyway, apologies for my testiness earlier. I'm going to have to develop a lot more patience if I'm going to get involved with local/community politics.
Peace be to all.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Gamaliel. Peace it is. "Garbage" is on the happy side of neutral for me - it's not for you so I'll respect that.
O/p - Engaging positively with the world. Context makes a difference here. Working out what it means to be a Christian in an apathetic post-Christian culture is different from being half a mile away from someone who wants to slit your throat, or trying to work out how to disciple more people coming to faith than you know what to do with. We also move in one or more sub-cultures as part of what we do in an average year.
In my sub-culture, I'm surrounded by people who are open to, and practice, various forms of spirituality whilst few would describe themselves as Christian in any sense. Engaging positively for me includes valuing the reality of their experience, and valuing where we work to a common purpose that benefits our wider community (which is city-wide in my case). The bigger picture for me is that whilst the world is coming to an end, God's in the process of redeeming it. So I'll value (almost) anything that helps repair the brokenness and sickness of our world either spiritual, physical or relational.
So part of my "engagement" is accepting that I have as much of a right to articulate my own philosophy of life as anyone else, and to ask them to reconsider theirs in the light of a Christian worldview.
Another part of engagement - and part of being distinctively Christian - is being confident that God is still interested in directly intervening in our day to day affairs. So I'm not shy about praying for people (maybe two in a hundred aren't keen). I aim to model my own dependence on God which does make an impression on colleagues and co-workers since, objectively, I'm good at what I do.
Also helps to have a robust view of providence (in my book, you can take your pick on anything short of determinism). If we believe we're God's workmanship created to do good works prepared in advance for us to get stuck into, then that presupposes we can make a difference in the world. It's what we were made for.
That's why I asked what Gamaliel wanted to change - every new phase of life is an opportunity to discover something else about the difference, over a lifetime, we are here to make.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I wasn't being that specific; but Christians among pagans could face some of the kind of risk that Lot suffered in Sodom - his place 'at the gate' suggests something like being in local government in those days, and it brought him envy and jealousy which eventually threatened his family.
Sure, but please note the examples brought up above, which you still haven't dealt with. On the two occasions when the NT could have perfectly easily said something directly about *Christians* also holding offices that directly related to enforcing government powers, it is completely silent.
[code]
[ 23. March 2015, 18:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Gracie;
What I said earlier, tracked down through a desolate waste of even longer posts by Gamaliel than most of mine, was this
quote:
My particular concern has been with one issue which confuses the position of Christians in the world - the notion of having 'Christian states' and Christians believing they are entitled to be the government, or Christianity to have a favoured or privileged place in the state compared to others.
The Christians who set up those 'Christian states' very much did see themselves entitled to be the government - I mean, why would God want any other kind of government than by his followers? Or as I suggested, many have thought they should have a privileged or favoured place even if they just about tolerate unbelievers. That's what this 'Constantinian' stuff was about...
Such attitudes do, I fear, still have some modern followers. And there are also a lot such as I also described who think God wants them to bring 'godly government' and will seek election to follow such an agenda. You may not be aware of quite as much of it as I am, my interest in these issues means I tend to particularly notice it; but it is very real even today.
by Gracie;
quote:
Those converted at Pentecost were Jews from the diaspora – already living as resident aliens.
Right - though even so some of them might have been 'God fearers', people who kind of followed Judaism but were not full converts. As I say, my conclusion is that most of Peter's readers were probably Gentiles - I won't repeat my reasons. (I'll add one which is that Peter seems to be referring to the coming Neronian persecution some thirty years after Jesus, by which time most churches outside Judea would have significant Gentile numbers if not a majority). The Jews in that Christian community would indeed be 'resident aliens' in the secular sense; Gentiles would effectively have metaphorically joined them in that status by joining God's people as newly defined in the 'new covenant' brought through Jesus. (Remember that the NT depicts the church as being in continuity with OT Judaism).
I don't want to get too bogged down in this because those like myself and Stanley Hauerwas who use the term use it as just a summary of a much wider idea which is laced through the NT as quite a detailed description of how to be God's people in the world in that new covenant. What we're talking about doesn't depend just on that one word either in Greek or English. As I said, almost all of I Peter is on the general theme, Paul has quite a bit to say about it, and there are even a lot of relevant bits in the Gospels. My understanding of Christians as resident aliens is founded on those wider sources as well.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
Yes, Steve, but you haven't said what you actually think it means to be a "resident alien" or "stranger and pilgrim", other than saying that it isn't what other people think it means.
It would be good to have some positive things that it means, rather than negative ones. Have you ever lived as an resident alien anywhere in the temporal sense?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And of course there are "Christian parties" such as
this one. I'm not saying that they are "jerks" but I'd never vote for them, partly because I simply don't think there is one "Christian" political view on everything and also because I suspect that they may be quite reactionary on certain DH issues.
The Christian Peoples Alliance evolved out of the Movement for Christian Democracy, which was an organisation I supported. I considered (and, still consider) it to be important that Christians be involved in politics, and that they bring with them the practical outworkings of their faith - concern for others, especially those beyond the people who actively support them, humility, a desire to serve rather than gain power and influence. The MCD supported Christians across all parties, and none, actively involved in politics.
I think it was a mistake to form a specifically Christian party because it cut the rug out of the cross-party work of the MCD. Although I appreciate the frustration some felt when others thought policies that they thought were central to Christian faith were apparently ignored if not actively opposed by others claiming the name Christian.
The CPA does have high and worthy ideals. But, I also suspect that they will attract more than their fair share of support and candidates who have particular views on a limited range of subjects which we discuss on Dead Horses. Those without those particular hang-ups who would generally agree with the CPA ideals are more likely to be in one of the mainstream parties - those ideals match quite well with the Greens, for instance, or so it seems to me.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think I'm right in saying that the leader of the Christian People's Alliance recently joined UKIP.
It seems to be a truism that Christian political parties in the UK attract fruitcakes.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gracie;
quote:
It would be good to have some positive things that it means, rather than negative ones. Have you ever lived as an resident alien anywhere in the temporal sense?
No, I've never been a conventional resident alien, though the experience of undiagnosed Aspergers is said to be very similar, witness the informal term "Wrong Planet Syndrome"!
To me being a 'resident alien' is just one aspect of being Christian according to the NT. Doing that without the added baggage that comes from the 'Constantinian' line of things. It's not this great super extra thing, but it's being a Christian with a very different focus to many I know. It is Christianity that defends people's right to be different even when I think they're wrong, as opposed to the Mary Whitehouse way of doing things. It's Christianity concerned about the problems of Constantinianism, and why not as the problems are considerable? This is one of the cases where the negative is actually being negative about harmful and restricting stuff to free things up for the positive. I'm kind of saying "Take out this toxic additive and then just do it as Jesus and the apostles originally taught" - it's probably the Aspie in me that sees the outworkings so obvious I sort of don't feel the need to explain at length, and the libertarian in me wants people to discover it for themselves, not just do as I say. Sorry if that doesn't seem helpful, but it is about Jesus, not me.
I'm not usually so outgoing ... wow!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
It seems to be a truism that Christian political parties in the UK attract fruitcakes.
They attract 'Constantinians'.... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
As a resident alien in the entirely worldly sense of a Brit living and working in Japan, I
- Attempt to learn the language and local customs
- Love local food
- Attend a local church and am getting to know local people there as well as through work
- I can't vote, but I'm learning about the local political system and what the various parties and politicians stand for. I did have a short conversation after church last year regarding a candidate for local mayor who happened to be Christian and was somewhat naively assuming automatic support from the very small Christian community here (about 1% of the population). A conversation in which the Japanese people I was with (who, afterall, were the people voting) immediately decided his policies were unworkable and his being a Christian wasn't going to change that, therefore their votes were going elsewhere.
- My work directly relates to matters of local and national political importance and policy making. My presence in the country to do the work I am doing is universally appreciated by the people in Japan - even when on the basis of my expertise I make comments that directly relate to political discussions.
So, what part of my 'resident alien' status means I'm not to be involved with the people, culture and politics of the country I'm living in?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
How about this from Jeremiah 29?
quote:
4 This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. 7 Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To me being a 'resident alien' is just one aspect of being Christian according to the NT. Doing that without the added baggage that comes from the 'Constantinian' line of things. It's not this great super extra thing, but it's being a Christian with a very different focus to many I know. It is Christianity that defends people's right to be different even when I think they're wrong, as opposed to the Mary Whitehouse way of doing things.
I would say that being a resident alien is one image among many used in the NT to describe the Christian life, but you still haven’t said what you think it means, other than “not Constantinianism”. I think bringing Mary Whitehouse into the debate is another issue altogether. As far as I remember Mary Whitehouse was not a part of the government. However guided or misguided one may believe her to have been, she approached the media in her own name – not in the name of the church or government.
quote:
It's Christianity concerned about the problems of Constantinianism, and why not as the problems are considerable? This is one of the cases where the negative is actually being negative about harmful and restricting stuff to free things up for the positive.
In my experience it’s never very helpful to say to someone “don’t do it that way”. It’s far more helpful to say “you might find it easier/better or whatever to do it this way”.
Alan Cresswell has given some very good insights about what it’s actually like to live as a resident alien – which can be helpful in seeing what Peter’s image might actually mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As a resident alien in the entirely worldly sense of a Brit living and working in Japan, I
Attempt to learn the language and local customs
For example I would say this corresponds to part of what Peter is talking about when he says “show proper respect to everyone”.
quote:
…getting to know local people there as well as through work… My work directly relates to matters of local and national political importance and policy making. My presence in the country to do the work I am doing is universally appreciated by the people in Japan - even when on the basis of my expertise I make comments that directly relate to political discussions.
I would say this is an application of what Peter is talking about in chapter 12 verse 12 : “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.”
As someone who lived as a resident alien in another country for over 20 years, I can say that this involves “behaving better” than national citizens in all areas, because your behaviour is taken as representing your country of origin. I believe this is one thing that Peter is talking about. He is not talking about avoiding being elected to a governmental position.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Related to that point, another image used is of ambassadors. Ambassadors are sent from one country to another with the specific aim of representing their home nation, but also to attempt to influence the nation they are sent to to discourage actions that would be to the detriment of their home nation and encourage actions that would be of benefit. Ambassadors are professional meddlers in the affairs of other nations.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Related to that point, another image used is of ambassadors. Ambassadors are sent from one country to another with the specific aim of representing their home nation, but also to attempt to influence the nation they are sent to to discourage actions that would be to the detriment of their home nation and encourage actions that would be of benefit. Ambassadors are professional meddlers in the affairs of other nations.
Yes, indeed, Alan. Which is also a good demonstration of the fact that you can't take any one image too literally to the point of excluding the others.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gracie;
quote:
I think bringing Mary Whitehouse into the debate is another issue altogether. As far as I remember Mary Whitehouse was not a part of the government. However guided or misguided one may believe her to have been, she approached the media in her own name – not in the name of the church or government.
She also, as I said, got a guy prosecuted for 'blasphemy' - to have blaspheming the Christian religion as a crime is an essentially 'Constantinian' situation, as was Mary Whitehouse's general attitude of wanting to use the law to enforce Christian morality.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Ambassadors are professional meddlers in the affairs of other nations.
Ambassadors are sent to influence others, Christians are 'ambassadors'. Fine.
This is why I prefer the translation "managers/overseers of other people's affairs".
Preaching the Gospel can look like 'meddling' - but is on an entirely different level to being an 'overseer/manager/bossy-boots'.
Again, the image must not be pushed too literally (as I keep saying myself, Gracie please note!). Whether you are talking resident aliens or ambassadors, we represent a kingdom which is itself 'off-earth' and is manifested throughout the world in 'resident alien' form. That makes a difference to how we do it. 'Constantinians' try to manifest Christian presence in a different and inappropriate way which unfortunately also compromises and confuses the message.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I don't imagine that there are many subjects on which you would agree with the late Archbishop Fisher, Steve, but this is what he said in the House of Lords when debating the Wolfenden report (which among other things proposed decriminalising homosexual activity between adult males in private) in 1957:
quote:
One of my correspondents boldly writes to me: "So far as possible, every sin should be declared a crime "—which is precisely the belief of the totalitarian State, which defines its own sense of sin and then makes it a crime.
Fisher believed both that homosexual acts were sinful, and thay they should not be crimes.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
She also, as I said, got a guy prosecuted for 'blasphemy' - to have blaspheming the Christian religion as a crime is an essentially 'Constantinian' situation, as was Mary Whitehouse's general attitude of wanting to use the law to enforce Christian morality.
That's not entirely accurate. She brought a private prosecution not for blasphemy but for blasphemous libel. I didn’t know Mary Whitehouse personally, but it seems to me that she used what you call Constantinianism to further her agenda because that was what was available to her. If she had been in different situation she would have used other means. For her it was absolutely clear that she was acting as a private individual.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is why I prefer the translation "managers/overseers of other people's affairs".
On what grounds, other than "that's the meaning that fits my narrative"?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd also tentatively suggest that the exercise of power needn't inevitably lead to lording it over everyone else.
Whatever we think of MPs and councillors etc, I very much doubt that many of them are motivated by naked ambition, greed or lust for power. Heck, there are a lot easier ways of exercising power over other people than standing for Parliament or holding some form of public office where everything you do is subject to comment and scrutiny.
Someone who exercises a pastoral or leadership role within a church setting could equally and easily be accused of having a lust for power or the desire to manipulate and dominate people ... are we then to say that there should be no church leaders or 'officers' of some form or other?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't see how what happens in local church life is necessarily any purer or more holy than what goes on in other kinds of organisation ... we hope that it will be, but there's no guarantee that it will work out that way.
As IngoB observed in a thread about financial support for churches, a 'budget is a budget' - it doesn't somehow become sacrosanct if it's a church budget as opposed to any other form of budget.
The same is true with the exercise of power - it should be done in a way that 'serves' and does not seek to dominate and oppress.
Yet we see all too many examples of the latter in all kinds of contexts - including Christian ones.
Somewhere in these debates, Steve Langton has alluded to 1 Peter 4:15 - that if Christians are to suffer it should not be because they are a 'murderer or a thief or evildoer or troublesome meddler' ...
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/4-15.htm
This seems a shocking list - 'murderers'?
And yes, Steve does have a point about religiously motivated violence and murder.
But here, surely, the context is more of general, natural, human propensities towards such gross and grievous crimes? The context isn't about religious violence.
Surely, the epistle is telling us that even Christians, even people in a regenerate state - can still be capable of the most wicked crimes.
I remember an Orthodox priest friend telling me about his visit to Lebanon and Syria - this was pre-Civil War - and how the Bishops he'd met there were involved in all sorts of mediation between rival families and feuding relatives etc etc - some of whom would even go so far as to murder one another. 'It's like a different world,' he said.
At least Orthodoxy has a realistic view of human nature ...
I'm assuming that some of the converts that 1 Peter was addressing came from pretty violent or lawless backgrounds. There was every chance of some of these people offending again - hence the need for nurturing, discipleship and support.
We've all known even fervent Christians who've gone off the rails - I can think of people who've run off with other people's partners, who've engaged in the sexual abuse of minors - even in one case, their own children ...
All these people would have appeared outwardly as upright and fervent believers.
Anyhow - that's a tangent ...
On this thread so far I think there have been some positive examples put forward as to how Christians should conduct themselves. I don't think we've quite tied up all the loose ends though.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Ambassadors are professional meddlers in the affairs of other nations.
Ambassadors are sent to influence others, Christians are 'ambassadors'. Fine.
So, how do we influence the government? In a representative democracy, the usual way of influencing government is assorted campaigns - writing to your MPs, signing petitions, joining marches etc - voting, being an active member of a political party, and even standing for election.
If we're ambassadors called to influence others then the strict anabaptist avoidance of political processes is counter productive. The non-existant 'Constantinian' approach is probably way off the other end of the spectrum. Somewhere in between the two extremes is where I believe Christians and the Church should be - and, by happy coincidence, the sort of representative democracy most of us live in provides straight forward means of being in that middle space.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Ambassadors are professional meddlers in the affairs of other nations.
Ambassadors are sent to influence others, Christians are 'ambassadors'. Fine.
This is why I prefer the translation "managers/overseers of other people's affairs".
Preaching the Gospel can look like 'meddling' - but is on an entirely different level to being an 'overseer/manager/bossy-boots'.
.. but we aren't talking about preaching the Gospel here. and I disagree somewhat with Alan's emphasis in the post preceeding my one here - I don't think that a 'middle ground' is a particularly helpful way of thinking of these things.
Let's go back to the example of Paul claiming his rights as a Roman Citizen and appealing to Caesar (another issue which you haven't addressed yet), it's more useful to see voting (as an example) as simply claiming our rights as citizens of the particular countries that God in his providence has chosen to place us.
Again, IF the NT authors wanted to make a point about the separate life, this would have been a perfect point at which to do so - yet once again they don't.
[ 24. March 2015, 12:32: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
It seems to be a truism that Christian political parties in the UK attract fruitcakes.
They attract 'Constantinians'....
The solution to this would be for more non-'Constantinian' Christians to run for office.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
First, Albertus, yes I agree with Archbishop Fisher (who I seem to remember was once guest of honour at my school's prizegiving/Speech Day) on that point at least - and I'd want to point out that one of the problems of an established religion is a propensity to bring too many 'sins' under the criminal law.
by Gracie;
quote:
That's not entirely accurate. She brought a private prosecution not for blasphemy but for blasphemous libel. I didn’t know Mary Whitehouse personally, but it seems to me that she used what you call Constantinianism to further her agenda because that was what was available to her. If she had been in different situation she would have used other means. For her it was absolutely clear that she was acting as a private individual.
Sorry, I wasn't quite accurate; as some excuse, I'd just realised I was becoming late for somewhere else I was supposed to be, and made a few posts in haste (and because of that appointment this response is somewhat belated). But basically, the fact that there was a crime of 'blasphemous libel' for which a prosecution of any kind could be brought was a decidedly 'Constantinian' situation, and only an essentially 'Constantinian' Christian would want to bring such a prosecution.
As I understand it, Mrs Whitehouse wanted and sought a regular prosecution but in the increasingly liberal times, the authorities wouldn't do it.
A non-Constantinian would, while not approving, have defended the right of the journalist to blaspheme, not expecting the state to give Christians such a privileged protected status.
For what it's worth, a few years later I wrote to a local newspaper defending the recently released 'Life of Brian'.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
For what it's worth, a few years later I wrote to a local newspaper defending the recently released 'Life of Brian'.
Good for you, although Mrs. Whitehouse would presumably have considered you to have been a Very Naughty Boy.
quote:
As I understand it, Mrs Whitehouse wanted and sought a regular prosecution but in the increasingly liberal times, the authorities wouldn't do it.
Yes, and I think she was genuinely surprised by that. You would say that society was becoming less anti-Constantinian or, at least, that it possessed less of a Christian consensus. It was also - I suggest - less hypocritical, no longer publicly espousing Christian values while not truly believing them; to me that represents positive progress, much as I disliked it at the time.
[ 24. March 2015, 19:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I understand it, Mrs Whitehouse wanted and sought a regular prosecution but in the increasingly liberal times, the authorities wouldn't do it.
I cannot find any evidence to suggest this is the case. My reading indicates that Mrs Whitehouse obtained a copy of the "offending poem" in November 1976 and immediately announced her intention to bring a private prosecution.
Interestingly enough one of the Law Lords who heard the appeal was of the opinion that blasphemy laws should cover all religions and not just Christianity. I believe this was a logical step on the way to the abolition of the blasphemy laws altogether in 2008, and a step away from Constantiniansim, so maybe you ought to be thanking Mrs Whitehouse for that.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
On what grounds, other than "that's the meaning that fits my narrative"?
First, as with my response to Gracie just above, sorry this is a long time after your post.
Basically that 'meddling' is a somewhat vague translation and potentially covers far too wide a field of possible Christian conduct. As I said, even preaching the Gospel generally would probably be regarded as 'meddling' by many non-Christian fellow-citizens, but can hardly be what Peter meant.
While I'm aware of the risks of translating a word simply by its roots, the fact is that 'allotriepiskopos', which Peter tells his readers NOT to be and get in trouble by being, is composed of the roots 'allotria/other people's business (allos='other)' and 'episkopos' a manager or overseer.
Even accepting a later post's mention of general human sinfulness, I still think that basically Peter shouldn't have needed to warn Christians against murder and theft (two of the Ten Commandments, in an assembly which will certainly have had some Jewish component even if I also believe it to have probably been largely Gentile at the time of writing).
The possible impending persecution, and the tensions in the Jewish community that led to the AD70 Jewish Revolt, provide a context in which it would be way above normal likely that Christians might respond with violence (like both the Zealots of Peter's time and the later paramilitaries in Ireland who wouldn't commit murder or theft in more ordinary circumstances, but feel justified in their politico-religious cause).
Again in the context of impending persecution, the Peter who stood up to the Sanhedrin with "We must obey God rather than men" and who says "don't be ashamed to suffer as a Christian " is probably referring to something fairly serious but also specific here that Christians must avoid. Being an 'allotriepiskopos' as actually being a bit bossy over other people's lives seems to me to fit.
And bear in mind that 'Constantinianism' rather explicitly involves a whole higher level of being a 'manager of other people's affairs'.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Basically that 'meddling' is a somewhat vague translation and potentially covers far too wide a field of possible Christian conduct (...)
Woah. You don't like the choice of the first dozen or so translations I checked, so you pick an interpretation that suits your hermeneutic?
What are your qualifications for translating NT Greek (maybe you have some, but I note you read Greek in the interlinear...)? And can you point to any scholarship that takes the same line? (Maybe you can, but if so it would be a lot more convincing than simply marshalling more of your own arguments...)
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gracie;
quote:
I cannot find any evidence to suggest this is the case. My reading indicates that Mrs Whitehouse obtained a copy of the "offending poem" in November 1976 and immediately announced her intention to bring a private prosecution.
Interestingly enough one of the Law Lords who heard the appeal was of the opinion that blasphemy laws should cover all religions and not just Christianity. I believe this was a logical step on the way to the abolition of the blasphemy laws altogether in 2008, and a step away from Constantiniansim, so maybe you ought to be thanking Mrs Whitehouse for that.
On the first para, fair enough; I won't make a big thing of it though something is ringing faint bells for me about previous cases where the authorities didn't act.
On the second, the judge may have expressed that opinion but at the time that wasn't the actual law; the law specifically defended Christianity - indeed my memory is that strictly the law defended specifically the Church Of England. Whatever way you look at it, the law at the time was 'Constantinian'.
Opinions like that judge's certainly prepared the way for the eventual abolition - but the fact that it took till 2008 rather supports my view of the matter, I think! (and BTW, defending 'all religions' against whatever they think is blasphemous is seriously impractical - imagine the use Scientologists could make of such a law!) Yes, Mary Whitehouse's efforts did indeed, contrary to her wishes I suspect, contribute to that eventual abolition - but in the process brought Christianity into disrepute in ways we're still barely recovering from. I want to be generous but I'm not sure that deserves actual 'thanks' from any Christians....
And as I say, only a basically 'Constantinian' Christian would have brought that prosecution even as a private citizen. And as I see it, such prosecutions are a great example of the 'meddling in other people's affairs' that Peter warned Christians against....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, it could well be that when he gets to heaven, Steve may find - along with many of us - that he has Constantine and many other 'Constantinians' to thank for his responding to the Gospel in the first place. Arguably, the reason the Gospel survived until modern times was partly the result of official patronage of various kinds - unpalatable as that may be for some to accept. For all its faults, Christendom did provide a framework and structure for the faith to be conveyed and for it to permeate society until relatively recently. Sure, there was nominalism, there was hypocrisy and, in times past, violence and coercion. Those things are lamentable and cannot be condoned. But the fact that we are living in societies where it has been possible to live according to the Christian faith is one legacy of Christendom. To suggest otherwise strikes me as the height of dualism and unreality.
It's been a warts and all thing - a bit like our individual lives.
In fairness, Steve has acknowledged the providential aspects. 'Constantinianism' is on the way out and has been for some time - at least in the West. It will run its course - these things generally do. We are all headed into post-Christendom. Some of that will be good, some bad, some indifferent - the same as everything that preceded it. As ee enter a new Dark Age some elements of Christendom will look strangely attractive, other aspects less so.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well, I've pulled out my venerable copy of Thayer's Greek-English lexicon and what do I find?
It's as I suspected, allotrioepiskopos is a hapax legomen, i.e. used only once in the entire NT. So not a good starting point for any sweeping doctrines.
Thayer's suggested definition is quote:
one who takes the supervision of affairs pertaining to others and in no wise to himself
If "resident alien" is a both/and, that doesn't exclude being involved in government to my mind.
Thayer does go on to suggest that Peter uses it to refer to quote:
those who, with holy but intemperate zeal, meddle with the affairs of the Gentiles - whether public or private, civil or sacred - in order to make them conform to the Christian standard
That almost reads like a description of Mary Whitehouse - but that last bit is a complete interpolation on his part, and apparently also on yours.
Finally, Thayer adds the only other occurrence of the word is in Dionysius Areopagus, used of "one who intrudes into another's office", which seems to support the standard translation of "meddling in others' affairs" pretty well to me.
[ 24. March 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Woah. You don't like the choice of the first dozen or so translations I checked, so you pick an interpretation that suits your hermeneutic?
What are your qualifications for translating NT Greek (maybe you have some, but I note you read Greek in the interlinear...)? And can you point to any scholarship that takes the same line? (Maybe you can, but if so it would be a lot more convincing than simply marshalling more of your own arguments...)
Knowing you're a professional translator I almost saw that coming. No, I'm not claiming any great qualifications in Greek - just doing my best in an age when we don't all just treat the KJV as perfect! And when I can have things like an interlinear text available. Which BTW in the interlinear translates as "a pryer into other men's affairs", and in the main English text (RSV) gives 'mischief-maker' which I feel is a little stronger than mere 'meddler'.
I also have some suspicion that post-Constantine it's actually a case of 'suiting the hermeneutic' of people who by becoming the 'establishment' were now engaging in large-scale interference in others' business....
Having said that, the difference is not all that great; you'll note that in my immediate previous post (cross posted with yours so I hadn't read it) I was myself quite content to use the word 'meddler' in a reference to Mary Whitehouse. This particular point doesn't affect the main topic of the thread, so do we need to keep on and on at it?
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the second, the judge may have expressed that opinion but at the time that wasn't the actual law; the law specifically defended Christianity - indeed my memory is that strictly the law defended specifically the Church Of England. Whatever way you look at it, the law at the time was 'Constantinian'.
Opinions like that judge's certainly prepared the way for the eventual abolition - but the fact that it took till 2008 rather supports my view of the matter, I think!
Actually I don’t think that in a democracy thirty years is all that long in terms of changing opinion to the point of repealing a law. So no, I don’t think that it supports your view of the matter. It shows that things are changing and that there is a definite move away from Constantinianism.
I don’t believe that Mrs Whitehouse brought Christianity as a whole into disrepute. I well remember the reactions of my friends and neighbours when she was active in the sixties and seventies. She may have brought the established church into disrepute, but the non-Conformist churches certainly didn’t suffer.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This particular point doesn't affect the main topic of the thread, so do we need to keep on and on at it?
You introduced your translation as "managers-of-other-people's-affairs" as, and I quote, "prima facie" evidence that the Kingdom of God is "VERY dissimilar to the Roman Empire", which as far as I can see is pretty much bang on the main topic.
A retraction of your "prima facie" evidence in this respect, after I've bothered to go and look it up, would be nice.
[ 24. March 2015, 21:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[Peter] is probably referring to something fairly serious but also specific here that Christians must avoid.
I think that's right. The problem is that whatever that was would have been clearly understood by his original audience, but it's entirely unclear to us. We can speculate, and I agree that a context of warning Christians from engaging in increasing rebelliousness in Judea (and those Christians from a Jewish or God-fearing Gentile background may have been strongly attracted to the cause of liberating the Jewish homeland from the Romans) makes sense. But, it's still speculation and even so while in that context it's easy to see why murder and theft are highlighted (it would seem likely that many of the armed rebel groups probably routinely sought food and other supplies in the villages of Judea, and if not given freely would have taken what they needed anyway ... it's been common practice for most rebel groups), what sort of "meddling" (however one translates that word) is meant is incredibly unclear. Even if we could be sure of the context.
Whatever, you are taking a verse, indeed a word in a verse, that isn't very clear and which you yourself describe as specific and use it as a major point of support for a doctrine with substantial implications for Christian life. Every part of my evangelical background, fed with countless "how to read the Bible" books and courses, screams out that that is something you do not do.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
I don’t believe that Mrs Whitehouse brought Christianity as a whole into disrepute. I well remember the reactions of my friends and neighbours when she was active in the sixties and seventies. She may have brought the established church into disrepute, but the non-Conformist churches certainly didn’t suffer.
The reactions of people I knew wouldn't even go so far as to say it brought the established church into disrepute. The majority reaction was that it brought Mary Whitehouse into disrepute. Attempts by clergy and others clearly identified with the church (and often beyond the CofE) to ban Life of Brian did far more to bring the church and Christians into disrepute.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
Yes, Alan, you may well be right that she only brought herself into disrepute. I was in a non-Conformist church and I know that the churches I was involved with did not suffer. I had very little knowledge of the Church of England at the time.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
After traipsing all the way back to page 1 of the thread I tracked down my original comment which provoked all this nit-picking from Eutychus; what I said, in answer to Alan C's point about how similar or dissimilar Jesus' kingdom is to the Roman Empire, was this...
quote:
A kingdom whose warfare is not with physical weapons, which is to be 'subject to the powers that be' and not rebel against them, and whose members are told things like not to be 'allotriepiskopoi/managers-of-other-people's-affairs' is surely prima facie VERY dissimilar to the Roman Empire.
This is not building a 'sweeping doctrine' on a single text - nor, as I've pointed out, is the way I use 'resident alien' - I simply quote it as one example, alongside two other specific examples, one of them Romans 13, of things about Christian behaviour which suggest the Christian kingdom is NOT meant to be like the earthly Roman one. And as I hinted, there are quite a few other texts which also carry that implication - much of I Peter, Jesus' 'kingdom not of this world' where similarity to the Roman Empire would have seriously compromised his claim to innocence - there's lots of it....
Yes, I used a literal rendering of the word you've been questioning, and that comes over a little stronger perhaps than the regular translations - is that so big a thing compared to the wider point I'm making which has far wider Scriptural support? And to refer to Mary Whitehouse bringing a private prosecution for blasphemous libel as 'meddling' - I think her victim would feel that that was letting her off rather lighhtly.
Look, you've repeatedly said you yourself don't accept 'Christian states' - and at the other extreme you are repeatedly implying I take a far more extreme position than is actually the case. My primary argument is simply for a really clear separation of church and state and a clear and emphatic disavowal of 'Constantinianism' and also of quasi-Constantinianisms which, as someone recently quoted from Greg Boyd, result in Christians still trying to be in a 'power-over' situation. As part of that Christians are to be 'subject to the authorities' (with some qualifications but for sure none that allow rebellion) and are to be 'sojourners/pilgrims/resident-aliens'. In a world where the literal kind of resident alien is more common than through most recent centuries, I'm one of many who use the rendering 'resident alien' NOT to found a sweeping doctrine but to make people take a fresh look, after centuries of 'Christian countries' at how Christians are really supposed to relate not just to the state but generally to the world around them.
I've not resolved all the details myself yet; up till now I have to some extent been dealing mainly with 'clearing the ground' and mulling over where we can go positively thereafter - and I recognise that the details will be different for different people/situations. I'm trying NOT to be too prescriptive but to get people, again, to take a fresh look at scripture and ask some questions outside the usual box.
Also as I see it the residue of 'Constantinianism' presents a problem that some things I might broadly approve of may at present be inadvisable because they will be interpreted by others as if we were still doing them from a Constantinian viewpoint. I feel we ALL need to do some creative thinking of a 'reculer pour mieux sauter' variety to maintain a positive Christian presence while we 'live down' Constantinianism and establish for others that we don't at all threaten similar behaviour in future.
After a heavy day I'm going to call a halt there.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Alan C
For some answers to your points see my last post.
As regards I Peter and 'allotriepiskpoi', again there's quite a bit in my last. I'm a bit concerned that your post here talks about Christians 'in Judea' and only relevant to the Jewish Revolt. Peter's original addressees are in Asia Minor, are at least probably mostly Gentile, and appear likely to face imminent persecution as Christians which could be a likely cause for them to respond violently, perhaps partly in imitation of Jewish Zealots, but also and probably mostly as a natural human reaction; and Peter is saying that's not how Christians are to respond and indeed says a lot more to that effect in the rest of the epistle.
Now I really am going to call it a day here, just check on another thread I've been involved in.....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry, just found this by Eutychus earlier;
quote:
You introduced your translation as "managers-of-other-people's-affairs" as, and I quote, "prima facie" evidence that the Kingdom of God is "VERY dissimilar to the Roman Empire", which as far as I can see is pretty much bang on the main topic.
A retraction of your "prima facie" evidence in this respect, after I've bothered to go and look it up, would be nice.
NO!! I quoted more than one text as that 'prima facie evidence' and by the phrase about the church being taught 'things like' that hinted there were others as indeed there are. And interpreting 'allotriepiskopos' that way isn't essential to my point - the translation you prefer does it just as well.
And Thayer didn't seem to be disagreeing with me much anyway....
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm a bit concerned that your post here talks about Christians 'in Judea' and only relevant to the Jewish Revolt.
That was just, more or less, an impression I'd got from other posts as a possible example. Given the audience being mostly in Asia-Minor I was thinking more along the lines of the very small minority of young Muslim men and women going to Syria and Iraq to join IS - in the process bringing the whole Islamic faith into disrepute, even though the vast majority of Muslims are as appalled as the Mail is about that. A suggestion of sympathy for rebels in another part of the Roman Empire isn't going to help avoid persecution - Peter is quite clear, if you're going to be persecuted make sure that it's because of Christ not because of being an actual criminal (after all, being imprisoned for a crime isn't persecution - unless being a Christian itself is a crime, which it wasn't at that point in history).
I'm not going to claim the NIV is right in it's translation, but that translation does make sense. If you suffer, it shouldn't be for being a murder, thief or other criminal. Or even as a meddler. The implication of that translation is a difference between criminal acts and being a meddler. I'm sure we've all known people who always know best, who will constantly butt in to tell you how you should be doing things. Anyone ever felt tempted to punch such a person in the face? Don't be a criminal, don't even be one of those annoying gits that get everyone's back up.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, I used a literal rendering of the word you've been questioning, and that comes over a little stronger perhaps than the regular translations - is that so big a thing compared to the wider point I'm making which has far wider Scriptural support?
I see, no retraction. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Yes, it is so big a thing when you can't find a single scholar to back up your translation and use it as "prima facie" evidence (which you did, I never said it was the only evidence used) that Christians should not be "managing the affairs of others", i.e. engaged in government à la Roman Empire. That is what you want 1 P 4:15 to mean.
I gave you a fair and polite chance to assert your command of Greek or adduce scholarly support for your position. Rather than admit you had neither, your response is more "well, it's not that important, but it does mean that anyway". Not very credible in my view. quote:
My primary argument is simply for a really clear separation of church and state
Yes, and despite innumerable questions to this effect and multiple threads, many of us are still waiting for one single practical suggestion as to how this is to be achieved.
The only practical thing you've mentioned doing that I can recall is writing to a newspaper, once to diss Mary Whitehouse and once in favour of screening Life of Brian. How does this further your "primary argument"?
[ 25. March 2015, 05:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Yes, and despite innumerable questions to this effect and multiple threads, many of us are still waiting for one single practical suggestion as to how this is to be achieved.
The only practical thing you've mentioned doing that I can recall is writing to a newspaper, once to diss Mary Whitehouse and once in favour of screening Life of Brian. How does this further your "primary argument"?
The first necessary and very practical thing in achieving the end of 'Constantinianism' is that Christians should at least mostly agree that it's a bad thing and understand the biblical reasons why, and explain those reasons to everybody else. Otherwise the 'practicalities' will likely end up as an increasingly secular state not only disestablishes the church but also goes a long way towards treating us like Muslim extremists.
At the moment we've got a lot of people in churches who do disagree with the state church and similar, but
1) their disagreement is not on the biblical grounds which they have not really thought of, let alone thought through, but is on an essentially Enlightenment modern secular basis.
Something like the post from mr cheesy, who referred back to the C17, and said something on the lines of "We've grown up since then". From where I'm standing the position is that the church of the first few centuries, following the NT, had already 'grown up', and unfortunately under Constantine & Co then regressed - not so much to infancy as to become almost a different species from an earlier stage of evolution.
We need to cure that internal regression and put ourselves back on the NT foundations even before we consider the practicalities of putting it right politically; and if we do get the church back on track it will considerably facilitate the necessary practicalities. In asking for too much detail now you're trying to run before you've even got back to being able to walk....
2) Failing to appreciate the biblical position Christians are often thrashing around confusedly trying to preserve influence and unhelpfully looking to outsiders as if they're simply trying to hang on to their past improper dominance.
As a guy who nit-picks everything I write, please tell me where I said I wrote to the press 'dissing' Mary Whitehouse? I wrote the one letter about 'Life of Brian' - and I don't know for certain what effects that had; though nothing more was heard of the previously vocal objections to the film in our area....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
I'm not going to claim the NIV is right in it's translation, but that translation does make sense. If you suffer, it shouldn't be for being a murder, thief or other criminal. Or even as a meddler. The implication of that translation is a difference between criminal acts and being a meddler. I'm sure we've all known people who always know best, who will constantly butt in to tell you how you should be doing things. Anyone ever felt tempted to punch such a person in the face? Don't be a criminal, don't even be one of those annoying gits that get everyone's back up.
Which is basically what I've been saying; and making the point that 'Constantinianism' and similar approaches more or less institutionalise being that kind of 'meddler', while Christians regarding themselves as 'resident aliens' should be a great deal less liable to that temptation.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
I'm not going to claim the NIV is right in it's translation, but that translation does make sense. If you suffer, it shouldn't be for being a murder, thief or other criminal. Or even as a meddler. The implication of that translation is a difference between criminal acts and being a meddler. I'm sure we've all known people who always know best, who will constantly butt in to tell you how you should be doing things. Anyone ever felt tempted to punch such a person in the face? Don't be a criminal, don't even be one of those annoying gits that get everyone's back up.
Which is basically what I've been saying; and making the point that 'Constantinianism' and similar approaches more or less institutionalise being that kind of 'meddler', while Christians regarding themselves as 'resident aliens' should be a great deal less liable to that temptation.
I can see that the state can be seen as a "meddler", and quite a lot of what government does is disliked by a lot of people. That's not going to be any different if the Church was dis-established, or had never been established.
I don't see how not being established is going to make any difference to Christians being "meddlers" or not. Mostly it's down to personality rather than religion anyway. Would having political influence make any difference to those people who everytime you meet them in the street tell you that you're doing something wrong raising your children - "it's cold today, you should have put an extra pair of gloves on them", "why are you pushing that buggy, he's old enough to walk on his own", "is he eating his brocolli? well, I found that ... will always get them to eat their greens", ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
FWIW I don't think Mary Whitehouse did any of us any favours and I've seen interviews with her son where he sounds actually quite bitter about his upbringing ...
Which is a sad state of affairs, whatever we think of Mary Whitehouse or even 'Constantinianism'.
The thing that bothers me most about this desire to point the finger and 'blame' this, that or the other - be it 'Constantinianism' or anything else for people's indifference or hostility to the Gospel is that it takes the onus away from ourselves and places the blame firmly on someone else. 'It's not my fault, guv ... it's all the fault of those Constantinians down the road ...'
Neither of my teenage daughters are particularly interested in engaging with the Christian faith.
Is that the 'fault' of my wife and I as parents? Is it the fault of the churches we've attended as they were growing up? Is it simply their own choice?
I'm not sure getting into the 'blame game' helps us out very much here. There will be a whole range of factors influencing their choices, some potentially within our 'control' as parents and others well outside of it.
'My name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,' is something that could apply to each and any of us at times.
It's one thing to point the finger at Mary Whitehouse (or anyone else) for bringing the churches and the Christian faith into apparent disrepute but what about me? What about the way I behave? Is there anything that I am doing or not doing that hinders the cause of the Gospel?
I once came across an intriguing quote/parable which had people of various churchmanships and traditions citing the basis for their claims to be making some kind of difference, when it came to the Anabaptist's turn, the reply was, 'Ask my neighbour ...'
This sounds great - and would be wonderful if demonstrably true in all instances - whether for Anabaptists or anyone else.
I don't want any of my comments here to come across as if I'm dismissing the Anabaptist contribution - far from it.
Nor do I intend my more 'moderate' stance to imply that I condone or justify religious violence or the use of coercion by state-churches - or by anyone else. Far from it.
What I am looking for, though, is for Steve to provide some positive and 'cataphatic' - rather than 'apophatic' examples of what he envisages Christians should be doing - rather than continually hammering away at forms of 'Constantinianism' that, by and large, no longer exist.
Sure, religious violence and coercion sucks. We're all agreed with that.
But forms of religious abuse can be found right across the board - they are by no means restricted to so-called 'Constantinian' outfits and I'd go so far as to suggest that certain avowedly 'non-Constantinian' groups are far more interfering, meddling and abusive than historically 'Constantinian' ones.
We have to assess each case on its own merits.
I'm still waiting for Steve to demonstrate that he has more tools in his tool box than a hammer with 'Use this end to bash Constantinian nails' inscribed on it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Which is basically what I've been saying; and making the point that 'Constantinianism' and similar approaches more or less institutionalise being that kind of 'meddler', while Christians regarding themselves as 'resident aliens' should be a great deal less liable to that temptation.
But we always come around to the same point.
If Christians aren't to 'meddle' in the affairs of the State by enforcing its rules, serving as its agents, or choosing its officials, then how should we be governed? Especially in a state where the majority of the citizens are Christians - are you advocating a form of anarchy? Because if you're not (and you repeatedly refuse to tackle this point), what are you advocating?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Could I suggest that we look at this sermon by J C Ryle, which does provide quite a lot of ideas about what "be ye separate" might, and might not, mean.
At least there is something to get our teeth into there. Who knows? Steve L may actually register specific agreement with Ryle.
A short cut? Not sure, but I thought it was worth a try. Hope it's not a straw man!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As a guy who nit-picks everything I write, please tell me where I said I wrote to the press 'dissing' Mary Whitehouse? I wrote the one letter about 'Life of Brian'
I'll pass over the personal attack and apologise for mistakenly imagining you wrote about Whitehouse.
I'll maintain that apparently, you have zero actual practical suggestions for moving forward, and echo Doc Tor's request.
You must surely know that asking Christians to "leave their denominations" to shake off the CofE has already been tried, notably by Martyn Lloyd-Jones at the National Assembly of Evangelicals in 1966, and it backfired pretty spectacularly (cf NEAC, 1967).
Do you have any other suggestions?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I wonder if SL would advocate joining groups like the FIEC (which, incidentally, were strongly influenced by the Brethren during their early history and was IIRC chaired by LLoyd-Jones for a time).
My reading of this is that SL seems to be trying to suggest that there is widespread support for his views, whereas the reality when they are examined is that even those he claims are close to the anabaptist ideals would be so disagreeable that he would not be in fellowship with them.
Clearly other members of the Anabaptist Network do not think like this, otherwise they'd have left their Constantinian churches and made their own anabaptist churches.
So I suspect that SL is actually in a small minority approaching himself on this.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But we always come around to the same point.
If Christians aren't to 'meddle' in the affairs of the State by enforcing its rules, serving as its agents, or choosing its officials, then how should we be governed? Especially in a state where the majority of the citizens are Christians - are you advocating a form of anarchy? Because if you're not (and you repeatedly refuse to tackle this point), what are you advocating?
Some vocal Anabaptist/Mennonite-inspired radical Christians really are advocating a form of anarchy - see http://www.jesusradicals.com/
The problem is that it is almost impossible to get them to explain how this would work in real life. Freedom of expression and from the shackles of the oppressive Constantinian state sounds all very well - and then you get Jim Jones and the koolaid.
The fact is, however much romance there might be about it, those who actually believe the things that SL is advocating - including living as resident aliens separate from the fallen world - end up producing highly controlled, authoritarian and frequently abusive religious communities.
Of course, Stuart Murray Williams and his friends are advocating an anabaptist-lite version which would never get to these extremes, but one wonders still what they think they are gaining by an insistence on the so-called Anabaptist critique.
Stuart seems like a genuinely nice guy, but many others seem to just be on the 'Anabaptism is Real Christianity, you are all Apostates from the True Faith' bandwaggon. Personally, I find it pretty tiring.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think this is the nub of it:
'The problem is that it is almost impossible to get them to explain how this would work in real life.'
Hence the convolusions and length of the threads where this topic comes up.
We're all waiting for practical suggestions which never actually arrive.
I think there is a role for the gadfly and those who provoke and challenge - and to an extent I think the Anabaptist tradition does this pretty well.
What I suspect it's less good at is articulating its alternative to what it takes to be the status quo.
As it happens, while these posts have been darting back and forth, I've been thinking of some good examples of social engagement, protest and lobbying - both positively and negatively - and other initiatives that people I know with a broadly Anabaptist (or Anabaptist-lite) approach are engaged in.
I've hung fire on citing instances of these - and were I to do so, I think we'd pretty much all agree that they are worthy and admirable - because I've been waiting for Steve to cite some himself.
So far, he hasn't.
I could cite these instances myself - as someone who he would probably consider overly 'Constantinian' simply by virtue of my attendance/involvement with my local parish church ...
However, I've hung fire to give him time to cite instances himself.
So far, he has signally failed to do so.
From my perspective, he's been so busy saying what it shouldn't look like that he's been unable to demonstrate how it ought to look.
I don't think that's necessarily a reflection on Steve personally - I think it's something systemic, something intrinsic to the tradition as a whole. I'd like to think otherwise but nothing I've seen so far has convinced me that this is the case.
Stuart Murray Williams seems very good at saying how things shouldn't look - we shouldn't have this, we shouldn't have that, we shouldn't have the other - but I've searched his writings in vain for any positive suggestions as to how these things should work out in practice.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Eutychus;
quote:
You must surely know that asking Christians to "leave their denominations" to shake off the CofE has already been tried, notably by Martyn Lloyd-Jones at the National Assembly of Evangelicals in 1966, and it backfired pretty spectacularly (cf NEAC, 1967).
I'm very aware of it; I've even blogged about it. Sometime tomorrow I'll try and make time to consult with some host in Styx to solve some problems I've had in the URL process so that I can give you links to the blog on that and a few other points.
My basic analysis is that Lloyd-Jones failed because he made his call on the basis of 'doctrinal purity' rather than on the basis of 'Constantinianism'. Although he certainly didn't believe in the CofE establishment, he was, as far as I can gather, somewhat of the Cromwellian kind of 'Independent' who believe in a 'Christian country' in general terms.
(Don't say it, Gamaliel! You don't need to, I can already hear your response to that one!)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Perhaps my response would be as predictable as your posts.
I am beginning to wonder who isn't too 'Constantinian' for you ...
Also, how are you so sure that an appeal on 'anti-Constantinian' grounds would have been more successful? Just because you would have preferred it wouldn't have guaranteed its success ...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Also, how are you so sure that an appeal on 'anti-Constantinian' grounds would have been more successful? Just because you would have preferred it wouldn't have guaranteed its success ...
The clue is in some of the things recorded of Lloyd-Jones himself subsequently - for example in the memoir by his grandson (I think) Christopher Catherwood in 'Five Evangelical Leaders' - where he nearly himself saw the flaw in the 'doctrinal purity' approach. 'Constantinianism' wasn't quite such a live issue back then. Apart from this one point I rarely find anything in M Ll-J to disagree with.
It is interesting to compare Lloyd-Jones with JI Packer in that controversy - again, hopefully I'll do you the blog link tomorrow.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Barnabas62;
quote:
Steve L may actually register specific agreement with Ryle.
Steve L would register a lot of agreement with Ryle. But he would point out that the one aspect of the world Ryle doesn't discuss is the worldliness of having an established Church. A quick look at other items about Ryle on the web shows him frustrated by all kinds of aspects of the Church which were essentially 'Constantinian'. I think he must have been just too busy to sit down and work out that aspect of the problems he had....
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
However, I've hung fire to give him time to cite instances himself.
I have quoted a few - Christian Peacemaker Teams, for example. Actually I tend to be a bit shy of appearing to boast and am more at home dealing with the logic and principles.
If you know some of these things, feel free to tell everybody - your testimony about them is probably worth more than mine in the eyes of Shipmates....
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
From Christian Peacemaker Teams website quote:
CPT places teams at the invitation of local peacemaking communities that are confronting situations of lethal conflict. These teams seek to follow God's Spirit as it works through local peacemakers who risk injury and death by waging nonviolent direct action to confront systems of violence and oppression
So, either they only confront "systems of violence and oppression" that are non-governmental, or they (and the local peacemaking communities) get down and dirty, directly involving themselves in politics.
Very admirable, for sure. But, not exactly exemplars of 'resident alien' non-involvement in politics.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I was thinking of some things that people I know of a broadly Anabaptist inclination do in terms of engagement with their communities, with the wider society and - yes, with politics.
I admire them.
The onus isn't on me to share these examples. What I was looking for in the OP was some examples from you of what these things might look like.
So far, apart from the very laudable peace initiatives you've mentioned, I don't see anything that is distinctively Anabaptist about the practical suggestions you've made. I know people from churches you'd consider 'Constantinian' who are involved in these things too - these things are not the province of any one particular Christian tradition.
As for Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J I Packer etc - yes, I'm very aware of their respective roles in that controversy - and also with John Stott's part in it all too.
I'm not sure rehearsing them here would be of any great value other than of general or historical interest.
I'm not convinced that 'Constantinianism' as you call it was any more or any less of a 'live-issue' then as it is now. If anything, the general sense of a largely 'Christianised' society was certainly prevalent back then - even if there was a lot of nominalism around ... as indeed I'd suggest there always and inevitably is once Christian churches and communities achieve 'critical mass' or grow beyond a certain size.
That isn't to condone or justify nominalism - it's simply an observation.
I also fail to see how 'Constantinianism' is such a live-issue today as it's been receding for generations here in the Western world.
Unless you insist on linking it to extreme jihadism and calls for caliphates within Islam then I don't see how 'Constantinianism' is as much of a threat - at least not in its Christian form.
That said, I think we are wise to be wary of certain theocratic tendencies among US fundamentalists and of nationalist and anti-Semitic tendencies among some of the Orthodox - but then, there are counter-balancing tendencies within both these traditions.
There may be some fruit-cake 'neo-Constantinian' or 'Cromwellian' style characters who aim to manipulate the political process for their own ends - but these are few and far between as far as I can see. I certainly don't see a groundswell of support for the whackier end of the Christian spectrum in political terms.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
But citing Christian Peacemaker Teams is not actually answering the question of how to live in the here and now, is it? For one thing, there is very little distinctively anabaptist about the CPT approach - first because members are not all anabaptist, and second because there there are plenty of other organisations which are not anabaptist which do the same things in the same kind of way. The Ecumenical Accompaniers in Palestine, for one and the Guatemala Human Rights Accompaniers for another.
Even if we are to argue that such people are somehow expressing some kind of anabaptist-like behaviour (which, as I've said, seems to me to be totally bogus and an attempt by SL to include everyone he likes and exclude all he doesn't on a more-or-less random basis), how exactly should we take the example of the CPTs in the UK (North America, Australia, etc)? What, actually, does this anabaptist critique look like outside of an oppressive war zone?
That, for me, is the question you are forced to address rather than just expressing a rather idiosyncratic religio-political manifesto.
[ 26. March 2015, 08:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Barnabas62;
quote:
Steve L may actually register specific agreement with Ryle.
Steve L would register a lot of agreement with Ryle. But he would point out that the one aspect of the world Ryle doesn't discuss is the worldliness of having an established Church. A quick look at other items about Ryle on the web shows him frustrated by all kinds of aspects of the Church which were essentially 'Constantinian'. I think he must have been just too busy to sit down and work out that aspect of the problems he had....
I think that is a reading back of your own views into someone else's history.
Ryle was an evangelical Anglican and also a Bishop. Unlike anything you have said so far, he seems to have given a lot of thought to the implications of "in the world, but not of it". And on the issue of involvement in government, he is quite specific.
quote:
A true Christian will strive to do his duty in whatever station or position he finds himself, and to do it well. Whether statesman, or merchant, or banker, or lawyer, or doctor, or tradesman, or farmer, he will try to do his work so that no one can find occasion for fault in him. But he will not allow it to get between him and Christ.
And there is much in his section II a)-f) along the same lines. Here is a further quote.
quote:
When St. Paul said, Come out and be separate, he did not mean that Christians ought to give up all callings, trades, professions, and worldly business. He did not forbid men to be soldiers, sailors, lawyers, doctors, merchants, bankers, shopkeepers, or tradesmen. There is not a word in the New Testament to justify such a line of conduct. Cornelius the centurion, Luke the physician, Zenas the lawyer, are examples to the contrary.
A Christian calling and a call to public service, in the military, or as a statesman, are specifically endorsed.
I'm not a betting man and I understand the temptations of that. I think Ryle was wrong about the theatre. But he made a systematic attempt to identify both a specific lifestyle and the guidelines for employment. He's thought deeply about it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Let me just apologise in advance for the following interesting tangent:
I don't know for a fact, but one assumes that having been at Eton and studying Literae Humaniores at Oxford (if wikipedia is right on that point, I have no idea) he would have been strongly influenced by classical educational and philosophy.
If that is true, it does not seem to me to be a stretch to assume his understanding of the position of work and politics was influenced by Aristotle - who taught that humans are by very nature "political animals" - and that one cannot be a full human unless one is engaged in political engagement.
Consciously or unconsciously, I think the prevalence of this kind of classical education amongst the upper classes on 18 and 19 century England led directly to the elevation of politics as a desirable lifestyle for the affluent young, the reinforcing of the idea of people "being in their place" and the curious lack of interest in the struggles of poor people, even when they are in close proximity.
I do like Aristotle, but it seems something of a bastardisation to use it to suggest that the English upper-classes are the "real humans" because they are involved in politics and everyone else is somehow sub-human and only good for servicing them.
I know nothing about J.C.Ryle other than the name, but it seems from many sources that upper-class clergy of the period were engaged in persuading lower-class Christians to put up with their lot, even where their lot did not amount to very much. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Again, apologies that this had little to do with the previous posts, I was just reading and thinking about this today.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think there's something in that, mr cheesy - but I think things were more complicated than that. You did have upper-class and aristocratic folk back then who did get involved and get their hands dirty - but one imagines in a fairly paternalistic way.
Only today, for instance, I noticed that Harriet Monsell is commemorated in the Anglican calendar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Monsell
Born into a genteel Irish family, Harriet Monsell - nee O'Brien - became involved with one of the first Anglican religious orders to be established after the Reformation and worked with prostitutes and destitute women.
I don't know what form this work took - whether it was patronising, moralistic or whatever else - but it will have been according to the social mores and conventions of the time. How could it have been otherwise?
I've long been intrigued by the fact that the chap who brought in perhaps the most far-reaching legislation that benefited the ordinary working man - a limitation on working hours - was the arch Tory and evangelical Anglican, Lord Shaftesbury. He wasn't motivated by 'socialist' principles in the slightest - he believed that by putting a limit on working hours in factories and mines then more people could be persuaded to attend church.
Whatever his motives, good came of it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There is some evidence of condescension and paternalism in "Victorian thought", but I wouldn't want to make too much of that. Seeking to "lift up the lowly" doesn't necessarily involve seeing the "lowly" as inferior in any way, or responsible for their poverty of circumstances. From that era, both evangelical Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics (e.g. Oxford movement) were involved in social reform as a good thing in itself.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I was intrigued to read that some of those involved in the slavery abolition were against the 1847 Factory Act that limited the exploitation of workers (including the limiting to 10 hours of labour).
In other trades, virtual slavery continued for many years in English industry.
I am not sure what my point is here - other than that telling people to stay in their place was a particularly unkind and unchristian thing to do when their place was in an industry where they frequently got sick and died.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In other trades, virtual slavery continued for many years in English industry.
Oh, there is undoubted truth in that assertion! To exploit may well be an irregular verb, but where exploitation is found, I just think it is an example of abuse of power. The Trade Union movement was founded on the principle that such injustices were commonplace and could only be reformed by collective action.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think it simply illustrates that all of us - whatever our religion, political stand-point or persuasion - are products and people of our own time.
Applying that to the 'resident aliens' thing, what might be an appropriate 'resident alien' stance in one century, may not be in another.
There are broad principles, of course, that apply in each and every era. Anabaptism in 1600 would look very different to Anabaptism in 1960, say, conversely 'Constantinian' behaviour in 1630 is going to look very different to how it would look in 1930 or 2015 or 2030 ...
Which is one of the reasons why I find Steve Langton's single-issue, single tool in the tool-box - a hammer - approach, very hard to swallow - because it doesn't appear to take those nuances and contextual aspects into account.
So, for instance, he'll hector the CofE for persecuting non-conformists in the 1660s even though the contemporary CofE doesn't behave in the same way its ancestors did in centuries past.
Then, when you point that out he turns around and says that its not good enough because their more pluralistic approach is based on humanistic and extra-biblical principles and not on the word of God itself - unlike his beloved Anabaptist position ...
I can't help but conclude that he's either making it up as he's going along or else my charge about him having only one tool in his tool-kit holds good.
He appears to have a one-size fits all approach whereby everything and everyone is 'Constantinian' apart from his own church and is therefore a nail which deserves to be struck with his single-issue hammer.
Consequently, he appears unable to provide positive role-models and examples of what it means to be a 'resident alien' but can only hammer away at an abstract concept of 'Constantinianism' as the 'other' that must be opposed at all costs.
It's a bit like the old story of the Welshman on the desert island who shows the sea-captain who rescues him around his island domain before the ship carries him home. He points out his runner-beans, his hut and his neat goat pens, the rugby pitch he's laid out carefully for himself ... then, impressed, the captain asks him to identify a building on the top of the hill.
'That? why that's my chapel ...'
The sea-captain is profoundly moved. 'You've been shipwrecked here on this desert island for 20 years and not only have you survived, you've found time to build a chapel to the glory of God. What's that other building over there?'
'That? oh that's the one I don't go to ...'
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0