Posted                       

quote:

---

If that's your goal,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why specifically Islamic states? Is the Russian bombing campaign in Syria (to pick one example) notably less extreme than the Syrian government's own bombing campaign (conducted with Russian support)?

---

In this case, context again - the discussion was about the difference between different manifestations of Islam. I actually did originally leave out the word 'Islamic' there but realised that I'd be widening a bit beyond the original context. Anabaptist pacifism isn't exactly happy about any war. Syria is a mess; the only distinction I can see is that Russia may be trying a bit harder to appear civilised than the Syrian government itself.

---

Your opposition seems to be to the state generally, so we're talking not just about war but also the other forms of state use of violence. This includes most of the ways modern societies discourage or punish internal bad actors. Abolishing the state would create all kinds of problems, none of which you seem to have any realistic solutions to.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

We are utterly dependent on the state,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Martin60;

quote:

---

We are utterly dependent on the state,

---

I think I'd say we are utterly dependent on God.

---

quote:

---

God deals in the world explicitly via his people,

---

quote:

---

less obviously 'providentially' through the world's own institutions.

---

quote:

---

We trust him when he says we his people are to limit our tendency to meddling and being 'bossy-boots' in the state ourselves,

---

quote:

---

that he is also providentially ruling/overruling the state to bring good out of it, including to bring good even out of its evil acts.

---

quote:

---

And yes we are to seek to do good to the world around us, even if sometimes the world doesn't see it that way.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Martin60;

quote:

---

We are utterly dependent on the state,

---

I think I'd say we are utterly dependent on God. God deals in the world explicitly via his people, less obviously 'providentially' through the world's own institutions. We trust him when he says we his people are to limit our tendency to meddling and being 'bossy-boots' in the state ourselves, that he is also providentially ruling/overruling the state to bring good out of it, including to bring good even out of its evil acts.

And yes we are to seek to do good to the world around us, even if sometimes the world doesn't see it that way.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

So, keeping out of the way and not engaging in 'the world' in any way whatsoever other than to preach at people and warn them of the judgement to come constitutes 'doing good' does it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I've seen plenty of posts where you've outlined what you think Christians shouldn't be doing but very few where you've outlined what they should be doing instead.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

sufficiently separated themselves into the kind of purity you imagine Baptist/Anabaptist churches to have over and against everyone else.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You in effect are the one (or the main one of a few) who keep trying to foist a more extreme position here on me than I'm actually stating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye, the universe freely increases in the quality of its organization.

---

nice one!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We trust him when he says we his people are to limit our tendency to meddling and being 'bossy-boots' in the state ourselves,

---

quote:

---

Martin:

quote:

---

Steve: And yes we are to seek to do good to the world around us, even if sometimes the world doesn't see it that way.

---

We are the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I owe my peace to the state monopoly of violence. I rely on it. Invoke it. Abolition of the state cannot be a Christian tenet.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;

quote:

---

I've seen plenty of posts where you've outlined what you think Christians shouldn't be doing but very few where you've outlined what they should be doing instead.

---

That might be because most of 'what they should be doing' is not some exotic 'instead' but just ordinary everyday life but with a significantly different Christian attitude. Because the Constantinians have added something questionable to what we do, of course dealing with it concentrates on getting rid of the unnecessary extras rather than on the ordinary which is largely in common - you know, the 'Mere Christianity' stuff.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You in effect are the one (or the main one of a few) who keep trying to foist a more extreme position here on me than I'm actually stating.

---

You're the one who brought up "negative legalistic purity," not Gamaliel. You're foisting your presupposition of what Gamaliel is saying onto him, and calling what he is doing "foisting." Freud would call that "projection."

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye, the universe freely increases in the quality of its organization.

---

nice one!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We trust him when he says we his people are to limit our tendency to meddling and being 'bossy-boots' in the state ourselves,

---

Where exactly did he say that? Do you have chapter and verse? "Thou shalt not be bossy-boots." I'm guessing this is the result of some interpretation from passages that not everybody interprets in the "Anabaptist" fashion.

---

quote:

---

12 Beloved, think it not strange at the fiery suffering among you that is coming to try you, as if a strange thing were happening to you, 13 but, according as ye have fellowship with the sufferings of the Christ, rejoice ye, that also in the revelation of his glory ye may rejoice--exulting; 14 if ye be reproached in the name of Christ--happy are ye, because the Spirit of glory and of God upon you doth rest; in regard, indeed, to them, he is evil-spoken of, and in regard to you, he is glorified; 15 for let none of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evil-doer, or as an *inspector into other men's matters*; 16 and if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; and let him glorify God in this respect 1 Peter 4:12-16 (YLT)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Martin:

quote:

---

Steve: And yes we are to seek to do good to the world around us, even if sometimes the world doesn't see it that way.

---

We are the world.

---

The urge to sing here is nearly overwhelming.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I owe my peace to the state monopoly of violence. I rely on it. Invoke it. Abolition of the state cannot be a Christian tenet.

---

Indeed, St. Paul defended it in rather strong terms. Not just the state. The wielding of violence by the state.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I owe my peace to the state monopoly of violence. I rely on it. Invoke it. Abolition of the state cannot be a Christian tenet.

---

Indeed, St. Paul defended it in rather strong terms. Not just the state. The wielding of violence by the state.

---

And if you mean by that to justify Christians/the-Church wielding violence through the state or the state wielding violence on behalf of the Church, you've very much misunderstood Paul.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What I don't do is either go all Jacques Derrida and similar acting as if all interpretations are equally credible, or go all papal suggesting I or my church has some infallible authority that makes my interpretation special.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I owe my peace to the state monopoly of violence. I rely on it. Invoke it. Abolition of the state cannot be a Christian tenet.

---

Indeed, St. Paul defended it in rather strong terms. Not just the state. The wielding of violence by the state.

---

And if you mean by that to justify Christians/the-Church wielding violence through the state or the state wielding violence on behalf of the Church, you've very much misunderstood Paul.

---

I don't think mt meant to do that at all, and I expect Martin60 was taking a kind of two kingdoms approach to supporting the state monopoly on violence.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What I don't do is either go all Jacques Derrida and similar acting as if all interpretations are equally credible, or go all papal suggesting I or my church has some infallible authority that makes my interpretation special.

---

Nor do most of, perhaps all, the rest of us here.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

what this means in practice other than we shouldn't get involved in the nasty, tainted State in any way whatsoever - which is difficult to envisage as being practically possible in a modern, developed society

---

quote:

---

If we're a teacher, a civil servant, an NHS employer or a whole host of other things then it's the State that will pay our salaries. So far as I can see Steve Langton is suggesting: You can be a teacher but not a magistrate or policeman. You can do all manner of things as long as it doesn't make you a busy-body in some way. Which would immediately rule out any number of roles that involve regulation in some form or other - be it the DVLC, Trading Standards or being a School Inspector ... well, actually, come to think of it ... [Big Grin]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Indeed, St. Paul defended it in rather strong terms. Not just the state. The wielding of violence by the state.

---

And if you mean by that to justify Christians/the-Church wielding violence through the state or the state wielding violence on behalf of the Church, you've very much misunderstood Paul.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

From the examples Gamaliel gives, Yes, in most democracies I wouldn't see a problem in being a teacher in a state school; but one teaching job I wouldn't take would be RE, because I don't think that's the state's business. I also think that 'church schools' should in fact be private rather than entangled in the state, with the risk that the state, 'paying the piper', may end up calling unacceptable tunes.

Police - On the whole I think not even in a democracy; I'll hopefully get back to the 'state violence' thing again, but one of my main reasons here is that I see the Church's job as being in 'preventative medicine', socially speaking, and in a role akin to Christian Peacemaker Teams in a warzone. Street Pastors work with the Police to quite an extent - but it is part of their value that they are clearly a distinct 'rescue service' rather than a moral enforcement service.

---

quote:

---

I think a lot of the same might apply to 'magistrates' - but if a Church friend felt led to that kind of role, I would be advising caution rather than outright "You mustn't". Even in our democracy there are some trends that might change that.

---

quote:

---

Should be noted, BTW, that in reading older texts you need to be aware that until quite recently 'magistrate' was not just a word for a local low-level judge, but meant anybody of 'high level' in society up to and including kings and emperors. The Anabaptist 'Schleitheim Confession' uses it in that wider sense.

---

quote:

---

On the others, I think the point is not things that involve regulation in general, but what is being regulated and by what rules. "Obeying God rather than man" is not likely to be a regular issue for workers in the DVLC, for instance. As I pointed out above, the 'busy body' business is actually rather specific; it's effectively about the "Because God is on my/our side I'm/we're entitled to boss you around" kind of idea. In the DVLC you are doing a neutral kind of job which nobody can realistically object about normally, and there are usually no religious implications where you can be seen as an inappropriately religious 'bossy-boots'.

---

quote:

---

Different jobs in different societies you assess on a case-by-case basis.

I think being a soldier is a very clear NO-NO! And more rather than less so in a supposedly Christian state where Jesus gets explicitly involved in the state's acts. Christians ought to witness strongly against that.

---

quote:

---

Having said that, I wouldn't confront a recently converted soldier with a kind of 'fatwa' that he must leave the army immediately or be excommunicated. I think the appropriate thing is to give him space - and importantly information - to think the thing through for himself in light of his new Christian status; while also warning him that he's in a position where even in our democracy that "We must obey God rather than man" might come up sooner rather than later.

---

quote:

---

And I don't think I could advise a new convert to carry on in Hitler's SS except in terms of protesting against it....

Sorry, got to do something else now till later, possibly tomorrow...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
As near as I can tell from what I've read on the Ship, the Anabaptist position is: God bless the status quo, and the best we can do is ameliorate the damage done by the state to the poor and disadvantaged after the fact.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
As near as I can tell from what I've read on the Ship, the Anabaptist position is: God bless the status quo, and the best we can do is ameliorate the damage done by the state to the poor and disadvantaged after the fact.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Given that state use of violence is the underlying mechanism for the rule of law, I suspect the confusion comes from your lack of understanding of the Weberian state.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

One of the ambivalences of the situation for Anabaptists is that we find ourselves dealing not with a straightforward 'World/Church' dualism but also with a third body of a 'world-entangled' church which basically we also need to separate from. And that's on the one hand a difficult dance, on the other hand it's a dance we shouldn't be having to do because the serious Christians should join us in obeying God, and the 'nominal' Christianity created by that world-entangled church, of people who think they're Christian by birth in a so-called 'Christian country' basically shouldn't exist (and before any idiot says it, even in jest, that is NOT, of course, a call for extermination).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
mr cheesy; Anabaptists are not objecting to 'the state' per se - we accept it as part of the world we live in, and occasionally we find ourselves having to oppose it in the interests of 'obeying God rather than man'; and in most of those cases you'd probably agree with us. Some states we find much more difficult to live in/with than others.

---

quote:

---

What we do very much object to is the dubious creation of the so-called 'Christian state' which confuses the whole issue for everybody.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote: by Steve Langton;
Should be noted, BTW, that in reading older texts you need to be aware that until quite recently 'magistrate' was not just a word for a local low-level judge, but meant anybody of 'high level' in society up to and including kings and emperors. The Anabaptist 'Schleitheim Confession' uses it in that wider sense.

---

Not really sure what that has to do with anything. Surely it is less about their status in society as "kings and emperors" and more to do with their status in the law system as purveyors of justice.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

OK, but you're not untangling yourself from "the world", you seem to be relatively randomly deciding that some bits are worth using (but not participating in) and other bits are not. In fact you're just picking-and-choosing which bits of the world are convenient for you to make us of. Just like everyone else.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Two different questions going on here

Q1; Should the church be institutionally entangled in the state in such a way that the state can be regarded as a 'Christian country'? This can actually range all the way from a national establishment like the CofE to the kind of thing you see in the US 'Religious Right'.

A: NO.

---

quote:

---

Q2; And having hopefully not too far in the future got rid of that, how do Christians live in the state?

A; Well for starters it's likely to depend on which state. It's not so much we 'pick and choose what we like', it's that we have this ultimate limiting point of 'obeying God rather than man'. If we are allowed, we should overall benefit the state. Unlike many others who disagree with their state for various reasons, the state should not have to fear violent rebellion by the Christians, even though there may not be absolute obedience to whatever the state wants.

---

quote:

---

Bear in mind that when Christians have conned themselves into believing it's OK to be in armies, it's not a big step to the kind of thing seen in Ian Paisley on Romans 13, of getting a Christian army together to effectively take over the state. Are you sure you'd approve of that?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
As near as I can tell from what I've read on the Ship, the Anabaptist position is: God bless the status quo, and the best we can do is ameliorate the damage done by the state to the poor and disadvantaged after the fact.

---

NO!

Actually what you're describing sounds more like the position of those who issued that "A Call for Unity" that Croesos referred to in the post preceding yours. Broadly I interpret that situation in the Southern USA as Christians taking just about every attitude but the Anabaptist one, though with Martin Luther King probably closest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
One implication of this is that if/when the Church does become entangled in the Weberian state and tries to use that kind of localised political power for its goals, it becomes compromised and weakened because it is no longer relying fully on God, indeed is in varying degrees disobeying God and following goals he disapproves of in ways he disapproves of.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's not that I don't think Steve isn't raising some valid points, simply that he's offering half-baked airy-fairy solutions that aren't at all grounded in the real world.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

the UK. It is a state that has no religious establishment,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That's nearly as unreal as asking, as you also did, what is the relevance of state Islam to IS - indeed maybe more so, given that you live in England and would have to be severely mentally or physically challenged to have failed to notice the Church of England, by law established. OK, a considerably attenuated establishment, but enough to be little use and a big problem....

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The "Eight Alabama Clergymen", on the other hand, seem a lot closer to your Anabaptist ideal. They do express a hope that Alabama treat its negro citizens more justly (which is bad, from an Anabaptist point of view as you've explained it), but they also counsel against actually doing anything practical to bring that about, which seems to be exactly in line with your "relying fully on God" principle.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:


There is plenty that can be done in Anabaptist terms - and MLK did in fact do a lot of it. His position was also mixed and went too far in places. As in Nazi Germany, it's a case of if everybody who called themselves 'Christian' had believed and followed the Biblical teaching the local government would have had little real power.

Without being there to know every detail I can't comment in detail.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Point of information: I don't live in England.

---

quote:

---

Please answer the question. If there was no established church, no history of Constantinian Christianity, would you still refuse to engage with the state in the ways you've said above?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To a large extent, yes - depending on what was being offered instead of nominal Christianity in the particular state. However in such a case the situation would be very much clearer all round than where we have a three-way situation involving a distorted form of Christianity as well.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
More red herrings. There are Muslims fighting ISIS as well as Welsh lads.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

And why should you benefit from any of them if you are not prepared to participate in them?

quote:

---

Bear in mind that when Christians have conned themselves into believing it's OK to be in armies, it's not a big step to the kind of thing seen in Ian Paisley on Romans 13, of getting a Christian army together to effectively take over the state. Are you sure you'd approve of that?

---

That seems to me to be fairly obviously irrelevant. If you like, let's imagine that the country no longer has a military and has forsworn fighting foreign wars.

---

quote:

---

I prei you tell me nay or yee,
To passe over the grete See
To were and sle the Sarazin
Is that the law?

Reply;
… Sone myn,
To preche and soffre for the feith,
That have I herd the gospell seith,
But forto sle, that heire I noght.

Modern version
…. I pray you tell me yes or no; to pass over the great sea to war against and slay the Saracen – is that lawful?
Reply; …..My son, to preach the faith and suffer for it, that I have heard the gospel says; but to slay for the gospel, I hear nothing in it of that.

Second Poem
To slen and feihten ous bidde
Hem whom thei scholde, as the bok seith, Converten unto Christes feith.
But hierof have I gret mervaile,
Hou thei wol bidde me travaile;
A Sarazin if I sle schal,
I sle the Soule forth withal,
And that was nevere Christes lore.

Modern version ….
They bid us fight and slay those who they should, according to the Bible, convert to faith in Jesus. And it seems to me something to marvel at, how they tell me to work in such a way; for if I slay a Saracen, I shall also slay his soul (because he will die ‘unsaved’ -SL) – and that was never Christ’s teaching.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To a large extent, yes - depending on what was being offered instead of nominal Christianity in the particular state. However in such a case the situation would be very much clearer all round than where we have a three-way situation involving a distorted form of Christianity as well.

---

Yes you would refuse to engage or yes you would engage?

Please try to write clearly. I'm not here talking about Christianity - nominal or otherwise - I'm trying to understand what your problem is with the state, and you keep bringing it back to Christianity, which I've already removed as part of the thought exercise.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've already pointed out that in different states you will run into that 'obey God rather than men' in different areas and at different stages. In some states it would be fine to be a teacher in a state school - in others it would be pretty much impossible. There's no simple answer except to point out the 'obey God rather than men' principle, that when obeying man forces disobedience to God, back out of it. And there will be cases when Christians have different judgement when exactly they've reached that point and I have to respect them even if I also ask "Are you sure?".

---

quote:

---

The 'problem' is simply that the state is the godless world and likely to not necessarily be sympathetic, and likely to present you with occasional pitfalls in obeying God.

---

quote:

---

That's why it's an extra problem when the state isn't the godless world but the confused body of a supposedly 'Christian' state with a mix of the Christian and unChristian, godly and ungodly-but-in-the-name-of-God; including that because it's more or less on the side of the war and persecution business, the supposedly 'Christian' state may be persecuting the Christians who stand against it....

The 'Christian state' is one of the biggest and worst sources of Christian disunity in all kinds of ways, starting simply with the big issue that the 'Christian state' isn't meant to happen in the first place.

---