|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Liturgy as performance
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by leo;
quote:
Christianity is communal because we are baptised INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST, i.e. the Church.
When we are discussing the Anabaptist issue one of the things being discussed is the nature both of baptism and of the precise way the church is communal. I totally agree that Christianity is communal because we are baptised into the body of Christ; but Anglican and other state church infant baptism is questionable compared to believer's baptism.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Enoch; (and supplementary to my earlier comment)
quote:
to break the body of Christ into pieces and separate ourselves from the brothers and sisters he has chosen for us?
One of the problems of traditional state churches was precisely whether our 'brothers and sisters' were chosen by Christ through faith and being born again, or chosen for us by a state for essentially worldly reasons, mixing all citizens into a conformist state body.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Gamaliel; no, I'm not putting forward a full Donatist position - on the contrary I see major problems in it. But there is one aspect of the Donatist position which I would go with; that they realised one simple truth which the 'Catholic' church of the time didn't.
The Donatists asked the question "Quis est Imperator cum ecclesiae?" that is, "Since when is the Church the Emperor's business?" If only the Catholics had realised the same point and asked the same question....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Why do you keep bringing up the 6 counties in reference to a "state church"? There is no established or national church in the province, any more than there is in the US. It seems to me that you're trying to pin every evil influence acting on people who claim faith as being a result of establishment, which doesn't remotely hold up.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I didn't say that you were putting forward a completely Donatist position, Steve. What I wrote was that there were 'elements' of Donatism in what you write.
The thing with heresy of all kinds is that there are elements of truth in it. There was an element of truth in what the Donatists were saying - 'What has the Emperor to do with the Church?'
They were making a fair point.
I can see what you are getting at but what I don't see is how the ordinary bod in the pew at our local parish church is somehow tainted or associated with bomb-throwing thugs in Northern Ireland or Henry VIII's totalitarianism or the treatment of non-conformists during the reign of Charles II ...
That isn't to say that there isn't a case to answer nor that there aren't issues around church/state connections - of course there are.
As for the born-again thing and believer's baptism as opposed to infant baptism and so on ... well there are non-state churches which practice infant baptism too - such as the Congregationalists and United Reformed - although they do have believers' baptism too of course.
Heck, so does the CofE and all the historic Churches that I am aware of. There are going to be baptisms - by total immersion - of people who have come to faith and not previously been baptised in our parish church in a few weeks time. Of course, these will be performed alongside infant baptisms and the renewal of baptismal vows - which is permitted under canon law etc.
One could argue for baptismal regeneration from the passage you have in mind in John's Gospel - 'by water and the Spirit' and so on. Many sacramentally inclined Christians do that.
So it's not even as if there is one, single, clear-cut interpretation of those verses. People take them in different ways - which is one of the reasons why there are so many different churches and denominations, of course.
If it was all clear-cut and beyond any shadow of doubt then everyone would all be of the same opinion. But they aren't.
Ultimately, we pays our money and we makes our choice. And how we do that depends on a whole load of factors and influences - tradition, inclination, conviction, culture etc etc etc.
You can't simply point at a Bible passage, proof-text it and say, 'Here it says this. I'm right, you are wrong.'
Well, you can, but all it does is take you into separatist and schismatic territory ... which is where we all are, of course, by somebody's lights.
I'm a schismatic in RC and Orthodox terms. You are in RC, Orthodox, Anglican and various other terms.
The extent to which we think that is good, bad or indifferent depends on where we are standing in the first place.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Remember also the persecution carried out by Cromwell and the Puritans during the Commonwealth. While there was a (welcome) and wide-spread toleration, that did not extend to members of the Church of England, which formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Their prayerbook was proscribed and their clergy very severely restricted. Yet those in power were people who were strongly against the establishment of any church.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Why do you keep bringing up the 6 counties in reference to a "state church"? There is no established or national church in the province, any more than there is in the US. It seems to me that you're trying to pin every evil influence acting on people who claim faith as being a result of establishment, which doesn't remotely hold up.
Sorry, this is a confusion difficult to avoid without giving 'book-length' posts to cover every slight distinction.
It is not just the 'established' Anglican church which I oppose, but the general idea of a 'Christian country'. That idea exists in Northern Ireland despite the lack of an established church. Many, possibly most Protestants there do adhere to the idea that NI is a 'Protestant country' for which many of them are prepared to riot, parade, fight, throw bombs etc. Even non-conformists like Ian Paisley, and even some Baptists who really ought to know better, hold such ideas.
That is, the problem is a great deal wider than just 'establishment' and the CofE. It is of course the CofE which makes the mainland UK a 'Protestant country' to which NI's Protestants are 'Loyal' and with which they want 'Union'. The connection does 'hold up', and far from remotely.
I'm not the only person on the Ship who has pointed out that the attitudes of many Americans, particularly on the right wing, mean that despite the lack of a specific established church, America is far too much a 'Christian country'.
My point is if anything reinforced by the following from GeeD;
quote:
Remember also the persecution carried out by Cromwell and the Puritans during the Commonwealth. While there was a (welcome) and wide-spread toleration, that did not extend to members of the Church of England, which formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Their prayerbook was proscribed and their clergy very severely restricted. Yet those in power were people who were strongly against the establishment of any church.
Again, the Civil War era 'Puritans' mostly wanted a national church of some kind, and certainly a Christian and distinctively Protestant country. The Presbyterians certainly seem to have aimed at a Presbyterian national church similar to the then Church of Scotland.
Cromwell & Co didn't want the Anglican church which they considered inadequately reformed. They also rejected the greater freedom of conscience proposed by the few 'sectaries' who wanted real separation of church and state.
English Baptists to this day are somewhat ambivalent on state and church and on pacifism, as Baptists did fight on the Puritan side in the Civil War, and in some cases became clergy in the parish churches of Cromwell's settlement. Modern 'Anabaptism' is related to the continental tradition going back to Mennonites and Swiss Anabaptists; after only a brief but infamous glitch at Munster, Anabaptists have been consistently pacifist and opposed to 'Christian countries'.
In Anabaptist eyes Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and the Civil War Puritans all represent the same unbiblical thing in different degrees. And going back to Arethosemyfeet's point, the Troubles-some NI Protestants are descendants of the Civil War Puritans.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
There was an element of truth in what the Donatists were saying - 'What has the Emperor to do with the Church?'
They were making a fair point.
And that's all I was saying, too - well, and also "If only the (then) Catholics had realised the same point and asked the same question....", and if only the modern CofE would ask "Since when is the Church the business of our Queen and her ministers such as David Cameron?"
again by Gamaliel;
quote:
I can see what you are getting at but what I don't see is how the ordinary bod in the pew at our local parish church is somehow tainted or associated with bomb-throwing thugs in Northern Ireland or Henry VIII's totalitarianism or the treatment of non-conformists during the reign of Charles II ...
That post was aimed at Enoch's comment, of course; and I was trying to say that there are good reasons to reject and be 'schismatic' from a view and from versions of the Church whose entanglement with the state in varying degrees has led to such unChristian consequences. It is good that the modern CofE (arguably because of the influence of the non-conformists, which they have conceded only reluctantly) doesn't do such things; but Muslims, for example, would very much consider the CofE 'tainted' by the activities of English soldiers in certain current wars - and with the royal head of the CofE also being C-in-C of our armies, they have at least a good bit of a point....
I've previously pointed out that it is the establishment of the Anglican church here which makes us the 'Protestant country' which is the focus of NI's 'Unionism' and 'Loyalism'. That gives Anglicanism a responsibility in NI's affairs which they fail so long as they continue to support a form of 'Christian country' here on the mainland.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
there are non-state churches which practice infant baptism too
Yes, and even though I don't entirely agree with them I have no great problem with those who baptise their own members' infants as an act of, if you like, faith for the future. The pre-Reformation Waldensians did that and because they would often be 're-baptising' infants who had been baptised by the RC church, were considered 'Anabaptists' by the RCs! I decidedly have a problem with a practice of baptising anybody's children under the assumptions of a state church. Actually in my experience even where infant baptism is still available it seems to be a diminishing practice; many URC churches rarely baptise infants, and I know of quite a few Anglican clergy who avoid it if they can.
Going back a bit - "smug self-righteous separatism" and Richard Baxter describing Anabaptists as 'judgemental'....
Anglicans can also be more than a bit smug about their own position - and seriously, present company perhaps not quite as excepted as it would like to think? People being smug about their position pretty much cancel each other out; leaving still the question "Which is right?", which is what we ought to be considering...
Baxter seems to have been better than some of his era; but becoming a military chaplain, as he did, in England's most destructive war ever (relative to the population size) seems to me to be a pretty 'judgemental' position on his part. I think this may be a case where describing others as 'judgemental' means little more than that they were disagreeing with HIS judgement and how dare they!!
I too by the way would like to get back to the original point of the thread - but the rest of you aren't exactly letting me. I think I'm going to have to post a new thread purely to deal with this issue. The reaction I get does suggest that people think it very important....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Again, the Civil War era 'Puritans'…
No true Scotsman, I see… So when a Puritan or an Anabaptist does something wrong, it’s his fault, but when a Lutheran, Anglican or Catholic does something wrong, it’s the fault of the ‘system’?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by k-mann;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Again, the Civil War era 'Puritans'…."
(k-mann response)
No true Scotsman, I see… So when a Puritan or an Anabaptist does something wrong, it’s his fault, but when a Lutheran, Anglican or Catholic does something wrong, it’s the fault of the ‘system’?
I'm certainly no Scotsman! Not sure what you're getting at here. It is simply fact that the English Presbyterians of the ECW did aim at a Scottish style Presbyterian church to replace the CofE. Ironically about a century later the English Presbyterians to a large extent went 'Arian' and became the Unitarian Church, since when English Presbyterians were a minority among 'Dissenters'.
'The Puritans' were a very diverse group, all the way from people who just wanted a 'more reformed' CofE to some Baptists. Baptist John "Pilgrim's Progress" Bunyan was a Puritan in that broad sense. He indeed fought in the Civil war, but before his conversion; subsequently he seems to have become either a pacifist or at least a person who thought war and other compulsion inappropriate in religion. But a broad-brush picture applicable to most is that they basically wanted a formally 'Christian country' but with a slightly different kind of church, not necessarily 'established' in exactly the way the CofE was/is. For example the Presbyterians would expect to be much more independent of the king, who rather than controlling the Church would be regarded as a 'nursing father' to support and protect them.
When people do wrong, it is basically their fault, of course, whatever their religious label; but also of course, people often do wrong things in good faith because of a system they've been brought up in and haven't yet examined to realise its faults. Those brought up in any of the varieties of 'Christian country' culture are vulnerable to some particular ways of doing wrong for that reason. Anabaptists have a different set of temptations from their culture, and as one Gamaliel quite properly keeps reminding me, are certainly not exceptions to the basic rule that all men are sinners and even Christians are tempted and can fall.
The faults of the 'Christian country' culture are more likely to end up killing people....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
No true Scotsman
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Establishment and the use of faith-related identifiers as tribal markers are not necessarily linked.
I would like to pose a hypothetical question, however. In the event that the ruler of a state is a Christian, the elected representatives of that state are 90%+ Christian and the population likewise, how would establishment vs disestablishment make any difference to the behaviour of that state?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Arethosemyfeet;
quote:
Establishment and the use of faith-related identifiers as tribal markers are not necessarily linked.
I don't think I said they were directly linked; rather that establishment such as the CofE, and the 'religion as tribal markers' thing seen in NI are different manifestations of an interpretation of Christianity which sees it as valid to have "Christian states". In contrast I'm asserting the Anabaptist view that the only 'Christian nation' the world has or needs is the church itself, which is international and can't appropriately be entangled with the state, whether that entanglement is Anglican style or Ulster Unionist style.
I have a basic answer to your hypothetical; but I'm going to go off shopping and try to come back later with a fairly comprehensive response. At least you're taking the question seriously...!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
k-mann; thanks for the info on 'no true Scotsman' - it's a concept that had somehow escaped my attention up till now. As I just said to Arethosemyfeet, I'm now off out shopping and may actually be further out till quite late; but I'll check my previous comments and try to see your point about them.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
k-mann;
I think I’ve worked out what you were getting at, and roughly, I think, things went like this (not helped by the fact that religion in England in the ECW period was a very complex picture);
Enoch picked me up on ‘breaking the body of Christ’ over the establishment issue. As a quick (and ipso facto only partial) response, I put forward a scattergun selection of the bad things that have followed establishment – Crusades and Inquisitions for example – and posed the question whether I could rightly stay associated with such conduct.
GeeD I think (but he’s welcome to correct me if I misunderstood) came across this and thought I was making a general non-conformist v Anglican point, and reasonably pointed to the discrimination against Anglicans by the pro-tem victorious ‘Puritans’ of the ECW as an example of wrong-doing from what he (GeeD) probably thought was the side I was taking.
In fact I wasn’t taking a simply non-conformist side but the distinctive Anabaptist view, and furthermore the reason I take that view actually came about from considering the conduct of the descendants of the Civil War Puritans in NI – eg Ian Paisley, who very clearly perceives NI as a ‘Protestant country’. So I wrote back to clarify that as far as I was concerned the ECW Puritans were part of the same problem – a view I have held since the late 1960s/early 1970s.
You then interpreted that as a ‘no true Scotsman’ response, as if it were just an instant response to an unwelcome fact challenging my view – but the reality was far from that, as I’d been aware of the problem over the ECW Puritans for many decades. I may consider them somewhat better than their Anglican opponents; but the Puritans also were clearly mostly wrong on the state church issue.
Hope I got that right; I’m now definitely off out till late – or even LATE!!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The reason we aren't 'letting' you get back to the OP, Steve Langton is that you seem so convinced that the state/church entanglement is the worst of all possible vices. The rest of us seem to have issues with it to a greater of lesser extent, but we don't appear to regard it as the source of all ills as you appear to ...
But you're right, it's probably time for a separate thread on this issue. You start it and the rest of us will join in.
I can see what you're getting at - particularly with the fair comment about the way Muslims might regard the CofE seeing as the Queen is the titular 'Supreme Governor' and also head of state and ultimately in charge of the armed forces.
Disestablishment would address that to a certain extent but I'm not sure it would make the problem go away.
The Church in Wales (Anglican) has been disestablished since the 1920s yet hardly anyone seems to have noticed.
It certainly hasn't had any bearing on whether people in Wales take the church more seriously or not. Things have simply gone on much as before.
On the smugness thing - yes, of course there are smug Anglicans. There are smug Catholics, smug Orthodox, smug Presbyterians. There are also smug Anabaptists.
But that's probably matter for t'other thread. How far do we separate ourselves? To what extent do we up the ante on all of that?
I rather suspect that we'd end up each of us with a church of one ... ie. we'd keep distancing and separating ourselves from ourselves everytime somebody did something we thought was wrong.
Of course, I'm exaggerating but it is a serious issue that Anabaptism has to contend with ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Enoch;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... But put it this way, the ecclesiastical links with the state are straight-up disobedience to God
(Enoch's challenge)
Can you point to a clear statement in scripture that is categoric authority for that blanket statement?
Personally I think the exchange between Jesus and Pilate in John 18 comes pretty close to what you're asking for. Jesus saying "My kingdom is not of this world" in a context where he is, in effect, on trial for supposedly attempting to set up a Christian/Messianic kingdom of this world is fairly clear, especially if you consider the whole context. Trying nevertheless to set up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus not only constitutes disobedience,it has other awkward implications as well - one of the least of those implications is the claim to apparently know better than the Son of God what kind of kingdom he is king of....
At the same time I wouldn't rely on a single text anyway - see Gamaliel's disparaging comment on proof-texting in one of his recent posts. As I see it there are lots of texts setting forth a different way for Christians to relate to the state they live in, and no suggestion I've been able to find that the 'Christian country' idea was ever supposed to happen, and lots of texts which in various ways rather rule out the state linkage.
And a challenge I make frequently which nobody seems to have a convincing answer to - can you suggest any texts that prove we are meant to set up Christian states????
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Shipmates' ability to cross-post with me is getting as bad as the ability of the local meter-readers to always catch me on the loo or even in a bath!
by Gamaliel;
quote:
The reason we aren't 'letting' you get back to the OP, Steve Langton is that you seem so convinced that the state/church entanglement is the worst of all possible vices. The rest of us seem to have issues with it to a greater of lesser extent, but we don't appear to regard it as the source of all ills as you appear to ...
Not exactly the 'source of all ills', or the 'worst of all possible vices' for that matter! But it is a rather bigger problem than many are willing to realise, and has ramifications or causes confusions in a lot of different areas. Indeed it's a bit of a case that I've specialised in it because so few others bother.
OK, I'll try to compose an OP on the church and state issue that we can all go and play with. I'll have to try and work out an OP which covers the fact that the issue is far wider than just Anglican establishment (after all, it was non-conformist Ian Paisley who gave me my starting point, and one of the most highly publicised recent examples (albeit rather trivial) was David Silvester who is a Baptist - unless they've followed Ukip's example and kicked him out too!)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Although, theoretically speaking, in a rather arcane way, the British Establishment is a kind of theocracy - I don't think many of us think in those terms ... so it's all a bit academic.
Sure, there are polls and so on that suggest that many people do consider the UK to be a 'Christian country' - but what exactly do we (or they?) mean by that?
I think the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams made a lot of sense in his recent musings on the subject. This country is one that has been influenced and shaped by broadly Christian values - but that doesn't mean that everyone who has ever lived here has been a practising Christian of some kind ...
I agree that there are a lot of concepts here that need unpacking.
And yes, my comment about proof-texting was disparaging. All I was getting at was that what you (or I) might take to be the obvious or plain meaning of a text isn't necessarily how others might see it ... the born-again references for instance. Those verses are perfectly capable of being understood in a different way to how evangelicals understand them.
I don't think those who would argue for a strong link between Church and State - as some Orthodox would for instance, in a rather starry-eyed view of Byzantium or Holy Russia - would look for single texts to support that view. They'd see it as arising naturally from the concept of a society saturated or permeated by Christian values - as they would understand it.
Similarly on the Anabaptist side of things ... it's not as if there is a single proof-text that says, 'Thou shalt not mingle Church and State' - rather the Anabaptist understanding arising from particular views on ecclesiology, soteriology and so on ...
We need a new thread ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But it is a rather bigger problem than many are willing to realise…
So you are saying that we wilfully ignore this problem? That we *really* know that you are correct, but just aren’t willing to admit it? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
k-mann; I'm certainly not saying you wilfully ignore it. Just that in my experience most people don't realise how big a problem it can be. Also at present 'ecumenism' seems to have failed in what I recall as one of its original intentions, that disagreements between churches should be talked through and resolved - instead the differences, which include church and state issues, get ignored.
Many people have I feel a rather 'rosy' view of the state/church issue - they see the apparent advantages but don't fully realise the disadvantages.
Anyway, I'll try to compose a starter for a new thread on the issue.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Good idea to start a new thread, Steve.
Meanwhile, I don't think any of us here have a 'rosy' view of church/state connections. Far from it. We're simply saying that you appear to have an overly rosy view of the alternatives.
You have illustrated Baxter's point (and my point) perfectly about Anabaptism being inclined towards judgementalism - in your rather disparaging reference to Baxter serving as a chaplain in Cromwell's army. As though that somehow taints and implicates him.
Chaplains aren't combatants - although in contemporary theatres of war they are trained to use sidearms in self defence ...
We may agree or disagree with Baxter, but it seems wrong to me to sit in judgement on him on that particular instance - we haven't walked in his shoes.
This is what I'm getting at. For all the laudable motives seperatism and Anabaptism can lead to all manner of puritanical, judgemental and pernickety attitudes. There are similar dangers, of course, on the more Erastian side of things - triumphalism, bully-boy tactics, ethnocentricism and so on and so forth ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm certainly not saying you wilfully ignore it. Just that in my experience most people don't realise how big a problem it can be.
So we are just stupid, then?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Many people have I feel a rather 'rosy' view of the state/church issue - they see the apparent advantages but don't fully realise the disadvantages.
Or, and this might shock you to the core: They don’t agree with you. But no one has said that established churches are perfect. But the fact is that non-established churches haven’t proven to be any better.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I think a new thread is a good idea - we've been happy enough for the discussion to range around topics related to the OP but concept of Christian priesthood and so on - but the church-state question is it own subject for sure.
Also, please try to avoid the discussion becoming too personal!
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think Steve Langton is accusing the rest of us - or you in particular - K-mann - of 'stupidity'.
Rather, he is suggesting that we are 'wilfully ignoring' the implications of state/church interaction/connection - and thereby being wilfully sinful.
So we are not stupid so much as deliberately sinning. Which is the kind of judgemental attitude that one could suggest is inherent in the Anabaptist position - which is what Baxter was driving at.
There has been a Hostly warning here that this could get too personal - and I can see a danger of that on both sides of this debate.
I don't think Steve Langton is suggesting that non-Anabaptist Christians are any greater sinners than Anabaptist ones are. He is simply suggesting that we have allowed a blind-spot to develop over this particular point in the way that Anabaptists haven't.
All I'm suggesting is that there may well be areas where Anabaptists too have blind-spots ... and I'm sure he'd agree with that. Where we might differ is to where those blind-spots lie.
Anyway - that's a matter for another thread I think. I've started on in Purgatory to explore the separatism and smugness issue ... fully accepting that there is a case to answer on both sides.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry all! It is incredibly difficult to express the point I tried to make without appearing personal. The basic problem is that many people are taking for granted what they've been brought up in, and simply haven't looked at it in depth; I was in a similar position to that back before 1970. I don't think I was either stupid or wilfully ignorant, it was just something I hadn't got round to, and I assume it's much the same for others. The Ulster 'Troubles' meant I did get round to it, realised it went deeper than most people realised, and set out to do something about it by exploring the biblical teaching and passing on what I then learned.
Mousethief's recent post on current Orthodox issues is part of the same thing, as Gamaliel seems to have realised.
by k-mann;
quote:
Or, and this might shock you to the core: They don’t agree with you. But no one has said that established churches are perfect. But the fact is that non-established churches haven’t proven to be any better.
'non-established' includes groups like Ian Paisley's which still have a theology allowing use of force, discrimination in the state, etc. Anabaptism certainly has its faults but is at least a lot less dangerous to outsiders and people of other countries....
I'll try and compose a satisfactory OP for proper exploration of the church/state issue; it may take a while, not least because the next few months will be busy in terms of my model railway hobby. meanwhile I'll look at Gamaliel's 'separatism' thread....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Steve Langton
I think you really do need to do some reading of Puritans and particularly those close to Oliver Cromwell who do come from the strand of the English Independent tradition that is strongly influenced by the radical Reformation. Try John Owen for starters.
Baxter is actually from a different strand and more strongly influenced by the Magisterial Reformation.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Rather, he is suggesting that we are 'wilfully ignoring' the implications of state/church interaction/connection - and thereby being wilfully sinful.
That was the first thing I asked him, and he denied it. That leaves us being just stupid. Because we cannot, of course, have come to another conclusion than him on rational grounds.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The basic problem is that many people are taking for granted what they've been brought up in, and simply haven't looked at it in depth.
That is something you have no way of knowing. You base your arguments on sweeping generalisations about people who are ‘wrong’ simply because they do not agree with you (and thus are either ‘wilfully ignoring’ the issue or are just stupid).
I disagree with you, but not because I haven’t studied it. I disagree with you because I have studied it.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anabaptism certainly has its faults but is at least a lot less dangerous to outsiders and people of other countries....
That is an assumption which you cannot prove.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, but it seems that you, Steve, base your arguments on a kind of Marxesque view that the ‘system’ is the problem. Any given system are only as good or bad as those whom it includes.
[ 02. May 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: k-mann ]
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Jengie Jon; I have done a great deal of Puritan reading in the past, and much of it still on my shelves or in my Kindle and quite often consulted; must admit being a bit rusty as having spent more time in recent decades reading modern and Anabaptist (old and new) materials. Yes, Baxter was more influenced by the 'Magisterial' style of Reform, Owen an 'Independent' (in modern terms 'Congregationalist').
The ECW Puritans were, as I said, a VERY mixed lot, and almost anything I said would be generalised unless done at great length; but those who FOUGHT in the ECW were clearly on the 'Christian country' side of this argument rather than the pacifist/Anabaptist/full-separation-of-church-and state side. Cromwell was a military general and guilty of one massacre which still has some effect in Ireland issues. He was no modern religious pluralist by a long way.
by k-mann;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anabaptism certainly has its faults but is at least a lot less dangerous to outsiders and people of other countries....
k-mann response;
That is an assumption which you cannot prove.
Er, let me see, since 1960 nearly 3,000 killed in NI or in connection with NI issues mostly by people on the 'Christian country' side. How many were killed by Anabaptists like me? Has there even been one? On the contrary Anabaptists have been working hard for peace there... And that's a small example....
by k-mann;
quote:
but it seems that you, Steve, base your arguments on a kind of Marxesque view that the ‘system’ is the problem. Any given system are only as good or bad as those whom it includes.
So your 'system' is only a problem because of bad people included in it? Judging by consequences such as the Crusades, there must be an awful lot of bad people in the various forms of 'Christian country' system....
Look, people believe things, those beliefs are their 'system'; they act on their beliefs, the consequences are likely to be in line with their beliefs, that is, their 'system'. People believing in the concept of a 'Christian country' tend to produce the logical results of that belief, people believing in separation of church and state in the Anabaptist way will tend to produce the logical results of that belief; that is, the 'system' does affect the results. Fortunately the 'Christian country' side, though sinful men, doesn't always do quite as bad things as their system could imply; unfortunately Anabaptists, being sinful men, don't always live up to their system. I still regard it as better to have a good system as a foundation. In this case, a biblical system derived from the original teaching of Jesus and his apostles as conveyed in the NT. I'm still waiting for people showing that the NT teaches the 'Christian country' view - please expound in detail, not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure that it is the case that the bulk of the casualties during the NI Troubles were caused by those on the 'Christian country side'.
Republican terrorists weren't pushing a 'Christian country' agenda. Sure, they were linked with the largely Republican Catholic communities but they were essentially pursuing a radical Marxist influenced agenda.
Some of the Protestant paramilitaries may have been pursuing the kind of agenda you've highlighted but I'd suggest it was by no means clear-cut even there.
As for the Crusades, they happened in the middle ages and everyone has distanced themselves from those - including various Popes.
But this is a matter for the thread you are promising to compose.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... I'm still waiting for people showing that the NT teaches the 'Christian country' view - please expound in detail, not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed.
The New Testament does not teach a clear 'Christian country' view. There was no need to since the option did not exist at the time. It did not look as though it was likely to. It was so remote an idea that I suspect nobody had as yet thought that this was something they might ever need to think about.
When the time came, though, there was plenty of material in the Old Testament to draw on. With the exception of the 'two swords' doctrine which to most C21 people looks like a very far fetched exposition, the Old Testament has been the main source of thinking on the Christian and involvement in running the state over the centuries.
I have a lot of sympathy with those who are wary of Caesaropapism, and even those who think Constantine might have been the wrong step. However, we have to live with that. Once you have a state which has some sort of formal Christian identity, I think it's obvious we have to argue the state should take that commitment more seriously rather than less.
By and large, I think the different permutations there have been of a link between church and state have been bad for the church but good for the state. The two things that worry me about the arguments over not having a connection are:-
a. I would rather, and wouldn't you, Steve, rather, live in a state and under rulers who at least recognised they were accountable to God and had some aspiration to Christian faith, than a state and rulers who don't? And
b. What are the implications for us if we live in a state which formally commits apostasy? That isn't by the way the same as disestablishment. The Welsh Church Act 1914 wasn't national apostasy. Disestablishment under present day conditions and for the reasons it is argued about now, would be.
It seems to me that most people who maintain any sort of anabaptist position don't really appreciate quite how fundamental a difference there is between a state that is non-denominational, and a state that is non-Christian, secular or irreligious.
[ 02. May 2014, 16:45: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Hmmm! OK, not every killer in NI was doing it for a religious reason - some of them were doing it in opposition to the religious reasons of others. But the conflict started from a Catholic civil rights movement reacting to Protestant discrimination, and then the Protestants reacted violently to that, and the left-wingers wouldn't have had the support they did if they hadn't appeared to be defending the Catholics....
I've already said repeatedly on Ship-board that I recognise there is more to the NI situation than the religious bit; but even you can hardly deny that it's a major part of the problem and a major aggravation. There is a reason why the Press rarely represents it as other than 'Catholic v Protestant'. And those deaths were not the result of Anabaptists throwing bombs or shooting guns - the Anabaptist 'system' would object to that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course the Anabaptist position would be opposed to political violence or religio-political violence. No-one is denying that.
The issue is the one that Enoch has articulated. To what extent are we expecting a state/society to informed/formed by Christian principles?
Or are we advocating some kind of withdrawal from society and its political processes?
Of course there are problems with Caesaropapism. But is the antidote to that the equal and opposite extreme of hiving off into eccentric and 'otherworldly' territory - such as the extreme Amish have done?
I'm not suggesting that Steve is advocating that and as he says, he has repeatedly distanced himself from that kind of approach.
We are where we are. The problems in NI go way, way back - and the events of the 17th century have a lot to answer for - as well as earlier ones.
But are we seriously suggesting that the existence of an Established Church in the UK somehow legitimises and encourages the kind of activity undertaken by Loyalist Paramilitaries?
I'd broadly be in favour of Disestablishment but can't see how it would effect things in NI one iota.
I'm not sure whether I'd go along with Enoch's concept of 'national apostasy' - people and individuals can apostasise - I'm not convinced that country's can.
That said, I am grateful for the way the institutions of this country have been shaped and informed to a large extent by the Judeo-Christian tradition. We've all benefited from that. Heck, even Anabaptists benefit from that did they but know it ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I have a lot of sympathy with what Steve is driving at - and yes, I agree that the kind of issues that have arisen on the Orthodox Shit-Storm thread over in Purgatory are related to all this.
What I don't 'buy' is the idea that a separatist, Anabaptist approach necessarily solves anything. I'd be all in favour of Anabaptists leading self-sacrificial and exemplary lives - and if that is the case then bring it on.
Sure, both the Quakers and Anabaptists have maintained a great witness in terms of non-violence and so on - and I'd suggest that for various reasons the Quakers have actually had a lot more influence historically ...
What Anabaptism can lead to - at worst - is a kind of pietistic aloofness and lack of involvement with the wider world.
If there are Anabaptists getting stuck in and involved with things then great, bring it on.
But what I see for the most part is some carping and hand-wringing and blarting on about how wicked and compromised everyone else is in comparison with themselves.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I would rather, and wouldn't you, Steve, rather, live in a state and under rulers who at least recognised they were accountable to God and had some aspiration to Christian faith, than a state and rulers who don't?
All else being equal, I think I'd prefer to live in a state which was considered to be secular than one which was considered Christian. For two main reasons:
Pragmatically, the state being Christian wouldn't mean every person who considered themselves to be a Christian would be able to live freely and happily. There's 2,000 years of Christian on Christian violence and persecution as evidence of that.
But also I think a nation being 'Christian' can easily make mission and discipleship difficult. If I live in a Christian country then surely I'm a Christian; why do I need to do any of this over-zealous nonsense like prayer, sacrificial service and genuinely seeking transformation into greater Godliness?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I repeat;
quote:
please expound in detail, not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed.
Though I'm copying bits of the recent posts from others as material towards the said OP (and more selfishly as inspiration for my blog...)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
It seems that the problem here is that Steve is assuming that the fact that some people who espouse a certain doctrine have done terrible things it must be a result of that doctrine and so the doctrine should be abandoned. That's broadly the same view taken by militant atheists.
It seems to me that there is no more risk of organised violence from liberal Anglican pacifists like me, or liberal Presbyterian pacifists like the local minister here than there is from Anabaptists like Steve. A national or established church has the benefit of being available to all, being a place where everyone has the right to be welcome. No national church is ever in a position to say "well, it's none of our business" about any group in society. Of course the idea can be used for sinful purposes. But so can communion. It doesn't mean the sacrament should be abandoned.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I repeat - again;
Not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed. I have taken note of your comments....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Sitting in my hostly chair
Despite the admonition of my hostly colleague dj_ordinaire, we seem to be still in the realm of endless tangents ever further away from the OP. As dj said, we have allowed a degree of latitude in the interpretation of the OP topic but we are at the point now where I barely know what thread we're on.
The instruction relating to not getting personal also needs to be obeyed.
Can I ask posters hereafter to be mindful that they need to be relating to the OP topic? Otherwise, please go to one of the threads this thread has spawned or start another.
There will be no further warnings; the thread will just be closed.
seasick
Rising from my hostly chair
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I repeat - again;
Not here but on the new 'church and state' thread when I get the OP composed. I have taken note of your comments....
When is this thread coming?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamaliel started it on 2nd May.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Sitting in my hostly chair
Did I or did I not say that further posts should be related to the OP?
If you want to ask a question of a specific poster, the Ship has a PM function.
k-mann and Jengie Jon, you should both know better.
Thread closed.
seasick
Rising from my hostly chair
[ 10. May 2014, 11:42: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
