|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What can the Christian faith learn from secular culture?
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Some Christians complain that certain types of Christians "move with the times" and therefore compromise the Gospel.
Ergo Mudfrog here from a different thread (and Father Gregory from a previous one not long ago):
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the church should always adapt to society then it follows that no longer should the church have any right to say 'Repent!' Instead it should follow the advice of the unrepentant and 'get with it!'
orfeo had a brilliant riposte here:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Sometimes adapating to society does not necessarily mean always adapting to society.
There's got to be some adaptation sometimes, because the church doesn't exactly have a perfect record. Sometimes society has to pull the church into line, not the other way around. Some of the abuse of children that has happened within churches probably wouldn't have gone on, or gone on for as long, if churches hadn't behaved as a law unto themselves.
Church accountability for sexual abuse is a brilliant example of the Church not being a power completely unto itself.
What else can you think of that the secular world might be able to teach the Church or the Christian faith?
I think the creation/evolution debate and the homosexual debate and the ordination of women are givens on this Ship (i.e. Dead Horses ) and I don't wish to go there.
Can you think of any others?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
I don't know if churches being held account for sexual abuse is a case of "learning from secular culture". More just a case of the church being properly subjected to the same strictures as anyone else operating under the rule of law.
If a priest gets a ticket for jaywalking, I wouldn't describe it as the policeman teaching the priest something about his proper role in society. I'd describe it as a policeman giving a jaywalker a ticket.
I suppose that, depending on his background, somewhere along the way the priest might have had to get it beaten into his head that, no, he can't jaywalk just because he's a priest. And mabye the traffic ticket can be part of that lesson. But I don't think that's the main thing going on there.
[ 07. August 2012, 15:00: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Two ideas come to mind here quickly.
One is the historical movement for the abolition of slavery. Many people on either side of the debate tried to find scripture to support their positions, but it really had very little to do with any kind of Bible-based religion, as everyone in the Bible lived in a world where slavery was commonplace. Abolition is a post-Biblical idea. Nonetheless, modern Christian churches tend to condemn slavery.
The other point is the modern standard position that government derives its legitimacy from the informed consent of the governed. This is also post-Biblical; it would shock Moses, Samuel, Solomon, Daniel and Paul. Still, my guess would be that most modern Christian churches would at least pay lip service to it.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know if churches being held account for sexual abuse is a case of "learning from secular culture". More just a case of the church being properly subjected to the same strictures as anyone else operating under the rule of law.
If a priest gets a ticket for jaywalking, I wouldn't describe it as the policeman teaching the priest something about his proper role in society. I'd describe it as a policeman giving a jaywalker a ticket.
That's probably because very few religious organizations have systems in place that range somewhere between "accessory after the fact" to "obstruction of justice" to help jaywalking priests get out of tickets. We might see it differently if that were the case.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What else can you think of that the secular world might be able to teach the Church or the Christian faith?
When the world shows the Church that the Church could be better than it is, then it should come as a surprise. If it doesn't come as a surprise, then the Church knew all along that it could be better, but didn't get around to it, and that's shameful.
One of the Church's jobs is to preach the gospel fresh and new to each generation. One of the world's jobs is to say, on occasion, "You know that gospel of yours? It might not actually say what you thought it did."
One of the most important things that the Church can learn from the world is that the Holy Spirit, being, as she is, profoundly annoying and frustrating, is leading the world into all truth at the same time she's leading the Church into all truth.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know if churches being held account for sexual abuse is a case of "learning from secular culture". More just a case of the church being properly subjected to the same strictures as anyone else operating under the rule of law.
If a priest gets a ticket for jaywalking, I wouldn't describe it as the policeman teaching the priest something about his proper role in society. I'd describe it as a policeman giving a jaywalker a ticket.
That's probably because very few religious organizations have systems in place that range somewhere between "accessory after the fact" to "obstruction of justice" to help jaywalking priests get out of tickets. We might see it differently if that were the case.
I see what you mean. But even in a case where the law has to break down an existing culture of enablement, I still have a hard time framing that as the church "learning" from secular culture. It's just the church being deterred from further acts of lawbreaking.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But that would imply the church recognising that secular law also applies to the church. The people of the church, including the hierarchy, have to accept at leat most of the strictures of civil law, since most of those strictures are applicationa of the Second Great Commandment. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" shouldn't have to be preached back at the church.
Unfortunately, many examples of the church not wanting to realise the consequences of their actions confound the preaching of any commandment involving love.
For instance, state-directed schools are paradigms of a Christian-type environment: everyone is equally required to attend, regardless of colour, race or gender, in order for everyone to have an equal opportunity for an education.
But many Christians want their children kept in separate schools so they won't be exposed to those "other" people, and the thinking/realisation process that this entails.
Apparently many Christians can't accept that the children living with gay/lesbian parents, or the coloured kids, or the Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/aboriginal kids are actually people, just as the GLBTs, the coloured adults and the other-religion adults are actually people.
And, in a parallel instance, the churches have often asked for exemptions from the laws governing hiring and working conditions, on "religious" grounds - which often means that the churches want to treat their employees worse than what the government requires - the fuss in the contraceptive-coverage issue in the US being a prime example (The RC church wants to have their concept of lack of coverage to apply to people who are not members of their church!)
Secular people, and many religionists, have dealt with the idea that contraceptives exist and are used for valid medical purposes. Some churches have not. Another case would be the treatment of GLBTs, which has changed as the secular world improves communication, while the church would rather mistreat GLBTs because of traditional attitudes, even though such mistreatment goes totally against the teachings of Jesus.
Just like big corporations (and small ones), the church sometimes must be shocked by the controls of laws which promote equality and fair treament.
Pity the churches aren't as progressive as some governments.
You can easily see what a theocracy would do to our notions of "proper" civil society.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The other point is the modern standard position that government derives its legitimacy from the informed consent of the governed. This is also post-Biblical; it would shock Moses, Samuel, Solomon, Daniel and Paul. Still, my guess would be that most modern Christian churches would at least pay lip service to it.
Yes, most Christians today probably hold that "standard position". But I for one much prefer Romans 13 to the Declaration of Independence.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That it, Christianity, is fully, completely, 100% cultural. At least.
[ 07. August 2012, 17:44: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I recently re-read a book from the 1950s, "A Man Called Peter, which in one late chapter says he sternly preached that a woman must not have a job but must stay at home. The Episcopal church I grew up in taught the same thing -- woman's place is wife and mother. Some churches are still actively teaching that. *I* don't think that's consistent with Jesus example or the revealed word of God in any sense. Churches in the 50s were following culture instead of God.
In the 70s/80s when businesses and cities were rapidly making buildings and services more accessible to (some kinds of) disabled people, churches resisted. "Too expensive; ruins the appearance of the building." Culture was way ahead of (many) churches.
What is it now? Many church secretaries and other church employees (except for mainline preachers in USA) are paid far less than comparable secular jobs; have churches adopted the cultural "pay the staff as little as we can get away with, asnd pay the bosses a lot more" cultural ethos instead of deciding on their own with God's guidance what God might think is a fair wage for any position?
Aren't churches supposed to be tuned into a different *culture,* a different set of guidelines that will sometimes be consistent with culture and sometimes not, and the church really not care because what culture thinks is not the issue?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The other point is the modern standard position that government derives its legitimacy from the informed consent of the governed. This is also post-Biblical; it would shock Moses, Samuel, Solomon, Daniel and Paul. Still, my guess would be that most modern Christian churches would at least pay lip service to it.
Yes, most Christians today probably hold that "standard position". But I for one much prefer Romans 13 to the Declaration of Independence.
How unfortunate.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I think that, in general, the standards of confidentiality held by secular professions, such as the Law and Medicine, are more stringent in practice than those held to by the church. There are notable exceptions, but there are certainly things that have been imparted to me by ordained people that should have been kept in strictest confidence. But, of course, there is a culture of gossip thinly disguised as spiritual concern, which runs through many churches at all levels.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
A renewed appreciation of "good for goodness' sake," detached from eternal reward/damnation. Not that goodness for goodness' sake doesn't have a solid biblical and theological foundation; but for a variety of reasons, in at least a few neighborhoods in Christendom, the average layperson, if questioned, is likely to agree with the concept of doing good/avoiding evil as a kind of legal transaction with God.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The other point is the modern standard position that government derives its legitimacy from the informed consent of the governed. This is also post-Biblical; it would shock Moses, Samuel, Solomon, Daniel and Paul. Still, my guess would be that most modern Christian churches would at least pay lip service to it.
Yes, most Christians today probably hold that "standard position". But I for one much prefer Romans 13 to the Declaration of Independence.
How unfortunate.
No kidding. Romans 13 is one of the passages in the Bible that makes me a thorough-going cafeterialist. It's one of the biggest pieces of bullshit in there.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Dude, I've read the whole book. I stand by my post.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think the creation/evolution debate and the homosexual debate and the ordination of women are givens on this Ship (i.e. Dead Horses ) and I don't wish to go there.
They are not givens at all - we haven't reached a consensus, and it doesn't look as if we will (at least with any ease) - that is why they are dead horses.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Read it again! You refer to Rom 13 as 'a passage' - but the 'passage' starts at Romans 12.
Don't even try to instruct me on how to read the Bible.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Don't insult me.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
When I wrote my earlier post, I certainly did not intend to stir up animosity on the Ship. I was trying to offer a couple of examples in which the modern Christian church has "kept up with the times". I was not making any claim as to whether abolitionism and democracy are consistent with scripture or not.
Other examples could be considered: the rise in "animals' rights" and the growth of environmental awareness. Some might also think of the shift from a conscript to a volunteer military.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Don't insult me.
So what bit of Romans 12 don 't you like?
Go to Hell.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
All right kids, knock it off or I'll turn this thread around...
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think that, in general, the standards of confidentiality held by secular professions, such as the Law and Medicine, are more stringent in practice than those held to by the church. There are notable exceptions, but there are certainly things that have been imparted to me by ordained people that should have been kept in strictest confidence. But, of course, there is a culture of gossip thinly disguised as spiritual concern, which runs through many churches at all levels.
Yes - it's certainly true of the CofE. The church could learn a lot from secular professions about how professional standards are maintained. A culture of gossip destroys trust and spiritual trust goes very deep.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Romans 13:10 quote:
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Please explain to me, a mere wanderer on the Way, how the Church has shown any love to GLBTs, to the women held in subjugation to "The Head" to the underpaid workers of the Church, to the people of "the wrong colour" or the "wrong race".....let alone to anyone who has had the temerity to question a statement made by someone in the hierarchy of the Church.
Yes, it is only one line out of Romans 12 and 13, but knock off the snide little innuendoes about "not having read the whole thing".
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Romans 13:10 quote:
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Please explain to me, a mere wanderer on the Way, how the Church has shown any love to GLBTs, to the women held in subjugation to "The Head" to the underpaid workers of the Church, to the people of "the wrong colour" or the "wrong race".....let alone to anyone who has had the temerity to question a statement made by someone in the hierarchy of the Church.
Yes, it is only one line out of Romans 12 and 13, but knock off the snide little innuendoes about "not having read the whole thing".
Do you mean the church as an institution or the church as the Body of believers worldwide? Because whilst you are partly right with regards to the church as an institution (although the idea that there are no modern-day churches who welcome LGBTQ people, non-submissive women or people of colour is frankly ridiculous and you need to do a little research), the church is simply all those who are Believers, including LGBTQs/women/people of colour. That's a very diverse group - you couldn't accuse a very ethnically-diverse church in London or Birmingham of being racist, for instance.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Jade, you're new enough around here that you may not realize that the flounce is the Ship's equivalent of an Olympic sport, and most of us are serious medal contenders in it... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--Tom Clune
[ 10. August 2012, 16:40: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
@ Ruth
Well, after spotting the Hell thread, and seeing the exchange between Ruth & leo above, I'm now genuinely interested - I really don't see anything too objectionable about Rom 13 (or 12 & 13 ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) ) so I truly would like to know what you find so bad as to turn you into a cafaterialist! (love that term, BTW. Aren't we all, to some extent!)
Best,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Jade C.:
Yes, I realise that there are individual churches that exhibit all the good things about being the Body of Christ.
But I also know, as you obviously do, that there are many individual churches that exhibit just about all the things that exhibit how NOT to be the Body of Christ.
The RC church includes a very significant part of the Christian experience. Individual priests, brothers and nuns have shown every possible good thing there is to know about following Christ. But The RC Church has often failed in that respect - the present hoo-ha about the nuns of the US indicates that the management doesn't get it, let alone the other issues that bedevil that mangement. The C of E recently showed that it, as represented by the spokespersons, doesn't understand the changed view of society re GLBTs or women or the legal implications of substandard hiring practices, whatever the views of individual priests may be.
The American evangelical fascination with having to be associated with the Republican Party isn't exactly biblical - and that isn't a hierarchical church situation, BTW. Individual churches, whether the kind of start-up that some self-declared preacher engineers, or the more generic congregational churches (e.g. Baptist) have an appalling record on misogyny, gay-bashing, hiring/firing practices, or whatever "the hell with you" thing may amuse them.
We have two Baptist churches in my village: one, the larger, has gradually moved into about 1960, with the addition of praise songs - no woman can enter the preaching space, the word "gay" is not to be spoken, etc., while the other routinely fires their minister on a two-year cycle, while bringing in Creationist self-defined professors to speak. The second was formed in a schism from the first about 130 years ago, and they have not communicated since.
The United C of C gang are so busy being nice that they haven't had a thought beyond fund-raising for a generation. Meanwhile, they have actively kept anyone is visible need from being part of their congo (so it depends on what you mean by "nice", I guess)
The local Anglican gang is more progressive than most of the priests in the area - we can actually say the words "woman priest" and "gay person", for instance - but there's only about two dozen of us in an area about 60 km. long along the coast, so we're barely noticeable. And a significant part of one ACC shack in the nearby city jumped to the ACNA on the gay issue when given the opportunity.
All of the above is totally mystifying to the unchurched, especially those who have some knowledge of Christianity, since they cannot see how being a Christian can be reconciled with the above attitudes.
Maybe I pay too much attention, so I should go and hide in a city and be unnoticeable - then unchurched.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Jade, you're new enough around here that you may not realize that the flounce is the Ship's equivalent of an Olympic sport, and most of us are serious medal contenders in it...
--Tom Clune
Sorry, I don't understand? I wasn't flouncing, and since Horseman Bree replied I assume he isn't either.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Jade C.:
Yes, I realise that there are individual churches that exhibit all the good things about being the Body of Christ.
But I also know, as you obviously do, that there are many individual churches that exhibit just about all the things that exhibit how NOT to be the Body of Christ.
The RC church includes a very significant part of the Christian experience. Individual priests, brothers and nuns have shown every possible good thing there is to know about following Christ. But The RC Church has often failed in that respect - the present hoo-ha about the nuns of the US indicates that the management doesn't get it, let alone the other issues that bedevil that mangement. The C of E recently showed that it, as represented by the spokespersons, doesn't understand the changed view of society re GLBTs or women or the legal implications of substandard hiring practices, whatever the views of individual priests may be.
The American evangelical fascination with having to be associated with the Republican Party isn't exactly biblical - and that isn't a hierarchical church situation, BTW. Individual churches, whether the kind of start-up that some self-declared preacher engineers, or the more generic congregational churches (e.g. Baptist) have an appalling record on misogyny, gay-bashing, hiring/firing practices, or whatever "the hell with you" thing may amuse them.
We have two Baptist churches in my village: one, the larger, has gradually moved into about 1960, with the addition of praise songs - no woman can enter the preaching space, the word "gay" is not to be spoken, etc., while the other routinely fires their minister on a two-year cycle, while bringing in Creationist self-defined professors to speak. The second was formed in a schism from the first about 130 years ago, and they have not communicated since.
The United C of C gang are so busy being nice that they haven't had a thought beyond fund-raising for a generation. Meanwhile, they have actively kept anyone is visible need from being part of their congo (so it depends on what you mean by "nice", I guess)
The local Anglican gang is more progressive than most of the priests in the area - we can actually say the words "woman priest" and "gay person", for instance - but there's only about two dozen of us in an area about 60 km. long along the coast, so we're barely noticeable. And a significant part of one ACC shack in the nearby city jumped to the ACNA on the gay issue when given the opportunity.
All of the above is totally mystifying to the unchurched, especially those who have some knowledge of Christianity, since they cannot see how being a Christian can be reconciled with the above attitudes.
Maybe I pay too much attention, so I should go and hide in a city and be unnoticeable - then unchurched.
Which side of the pond do you live? Because I think experiences vary wildly depending on local culture. For me anyway, that's kind of the point - all those failures you mention are the failure of people and culture, not the failure of the love of God. People not showing love doesn't mean God's love doesn't win in the end.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I'm not entirely sure what the link is between Romans 12 and Romans 13. As for Romans 13, it seems reasonable advice for those living under non-tyrannical regimes. ISTM that by and large obedience to the law is a good idea, even obedience to those laws with which one disagrees. (Obedience does not preclude seeking to change the law). By and large the general good is better served by obedience to lawfully constituted rulers than not, and even obedience to unlawfully constituted rulers might be prudentially preferable to the alternative. As Hobbes recognised, the state of nature is a "war of everyman against everyman" in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Paul was also keen to emphasise to Christians that they should not be a law unto themselves, nor assume that non-Christian rulers were illegitimate in God's eyes.
The weakness of Romans 13, however, is the assumption that all authorities are "of God". (Clearly, he was much influenced by a benign view of Roman Rule, which had rescued him from the theocratic threat of the Jewish authorities). Many German Christians were spooked by this text when faced with the Nazis. There are times when authorities are diabolical and should be resisted.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Jade C.:
Yes, I realise that there are individual churches that exhibit all the good things about being the Body of Christ.
But I also know, as you obviously do, that there are many individual churches that exhibit just about all the things that exhibit how NOT to be the Body of Christ.
[...]
All of the above is totally mystifying to the unchurched, especially those who have some knowledge of Christianity, since they cannot see how being a Christian can be reconciled with the above attitudes.
If they're unchurched, then what do they know about what being a Christian involves anyway? They're bound to be confused if they're picking up information second hand, via the media and the odd cultural remnant handed down from distant ancestors and mixed in with a little folk spirituality, a dash of Buddhism, etc. Most people tolerate contradictions in their own worldview, so they should be honest with themselves and realise that there's contradiction and complexity elsewhere too. We live in a pluralistic, postmodern age, and there's no chance of creating a world where all Christians agree on everything.
My feeling is that liberal Christian Protestantism needs to be much more astute, more knowing, more sensitive to the zeitgeist than it is now. In many ways, evangelicalism seems more able to learn from popular 'secular culture' than the churches that see themselves as relatively liberal and inclusive. The latter often come across as elitist, patronising and cerebral, which contradicts their message of inclusivity. I think this partly explains why apparently less sophisticated and less inclusive organisations often appear to have more life in them (paradoxically).
Liberal Protestants can work on making their churches even more tolerant and inclusive, but unless they address some of these deeper cultural and sociological issues then they are going to continue to have difficulties attracting new people.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If they're unchurched, then what do they know about what being a Christian involves anyway?
I don't think one should be too surprised if even the most unchurched person in the English-speaking world knows that Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
[ 10. August 2012, 22:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm not entirely sure what the link is between Romans 12 and Romans 13....
Let me explain. The chapter divisions weren't in the original. They were added later to make the Bible easier to read.
Despite the way some people preach from him, with Paul, one needs to look at the whole book, and not pluck sections out as though they were freestanding chunks.
He spends several chapters, 2:17 to the end of 11, setting out his theology. If you like, though this is an inadequate over-simplification, 'what must we do to be saved?' Chapter 11 ends with a doxology. "How deep .. is the wisdom.. of God".
Chapter 12 starts off "So", "therefore", 'in light of what I've just said' i.e. 'all that Christ has done'.
He then gives two key commands, our response, 'Present your bodies as a living sacrifice' and ''do not be conformed ... but be transformed'.
He spends the rest of the book, until he turns to the personal greetings section at the end, giving practical instructions how to do this, what some of the implications are.
Part of that is recognising your gifts and seeing how those fit in with the gifts your brothers and sister have (12:3-10). Another is keeping your head down in a state that may not always look all that benevolent (13:1-7). A third is not having rows about who is laxer or stricter (14:1-21). etc etc.
Is that any help?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
..... Liberal Protestants can work on making their churches even more tolerant and inclusive, but unless they address some of these deeper cultural and sociological issues then they are going to continue to have difficulties attracting new people.
They can, but they need to be something that it is worth getting out of bed for on a Sunday morning.
Since most people already think they are tolerant and inclusive, is there any reason why they should go several miles to meet with some relative strangers just so they can be tolerant and inclusive together?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
..... Liberal Protestants can work on making their churches even more tolerant and inclusive, but unless they address some of these deeper cultural and sociological issues then they are going to continue to have difficulties attracting new people.
They can, but they need to be something that it is worth getting out of bed for on a Sunday morning.
Since most people already think they are tolerant and inclusive, is there any reason why they should go several miles to meet with some relative strangers just so they can be tolerant and inclusive together?
I agree. Obviously churches shouldn't be opposed to tolerance and inclusivity, but I think intolerance of evil should be more of a defining characteristic of church.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm not entirely sure what the link is between Romans 12 and Romans 13. As for Romans 13, it seems reasonable advice for those living under non-tyrannical regimes. ISTM that by and large obedience to the law is a good idea, even obedience to those laws with which one disagrees. (Obedience does not preclude seeking to change the law). By and large the general good is better served by obedience to lawfully constituted rulers than not, and even obedience to unlawfully constituted rulers might be prudentially preferable to the alternative. As Hobbes recognised, the state of nature is a "war of everyman against everyman" in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Paul was also keen to emphasise to Christians that they should not be a law unto themselves, nor assume that non-Christian rulers were illegitimate in God's eyes.
The weakness of Romans 13, however, is the assumption that all authorities are "of God". (Clearly, he was much influenced by a benign view of Roman Rule, which had rescued him from the theocratic threat of the Jewish authorities). Many German Christians were spooked by this text when faced with the Nazis. There are times when authorities are diabolical and should be resisted.
The confessing church did a lot of soul searching about Romans 13, which is why I mentioned Revelation 13, where the state is an agent of evil. People should not single out one section of scripture and treat it as some sort of oracle.
Also, the context - Romans 12 - has things to say about nonviolent resistance to evil, overcoming it with love/good, accepting persecution rather than compromising with the persecutor, sharing in times of hardship, trusting that God will avenge - eventually, hanging on in there.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
Posted by Ruth
quote:
No kidding. Romans 13 is one of the passages in the Bible that makes me a thorough-going cafeterialist. It's one of the biggest pieces of bullshit in there.
My bible has a pencilled note at the top of Romans 13: "Politically naive" Sums it up quite well.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
My bible has a pencilled note at the top of Romans 13: "Politically naive" Sums it up quite well.
GG
I regret it is the pencil, not Paul, that is being naive there. I do not think it is sufficiently aware of the world Paul, the Romans and the other early Christians lived in, or what he is saying.
He is not saying 'support the Roman Empire'. He's saying 'Keep your head down. Keep out of trouble. You're a tiny minority in a threatening society, and there are more important things for you to bother about than changing Roman society. Anyway, you are too insignificant at the moment to think of trying. It has power. You don't. Don't stir that pot'.
Crusading to change the world is something people can only do if they have some prospect of being able to access power. People always forget that it's no message for those who know that they will always be at the receiving end of the boot rather than wearing it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
He is not saying 'support the Roman Empire'. He's saying 'Keep your head down. Keep out of trouble. You're a tiny minority in a threatening society, and there are more important things for you to bother about than changing Roman society. Anyway, you are too insignificant at the moment to think of trying. It has power. You don't. Don't stir that pot'.
That might have been a quite sensible thing to say - but I don't think it's a fair characterization of this (particularly the bold part):
quote:
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is not just helpful practical tips to a tiny minority at risk in a hostile society; it's pretty much the doctrine of the divine right of kings. I think that, as a one-sentence summary, "Support the Roman Empire" is substantially more accurate than "Keep your head down."
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave W. quote:
I think that, as a one-sentence summary, "Support the Roman Empire" is substantially more accurate than "Keep your head down."
I agree... but given how at odds with the rest of the letter that sentiment is, can't help feeling that something interesting must be going on. Is Paul selling out? But why only here? Is he being ironic? But he still advocated subjection to the authorities. Is he emphasising that everyone is subjected to the authorities, including those who had thought themselves free, or powerful (the authorities have been "put in their place" rather than "instituted")? Is he simply worried about the threat of anarchy and advocating submission as a sort of Hobbesian least bad option? Is he suggesting that willingly embracing one's subjection re-establishes one's agency rather than simply being passively oppressed?
None of that is quite satisfactory...
And probably has nothing to do with what Christianity can learn from secular culture... Sorry!
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
..... Liberal Protestants can work on making their churches even more tolerant and inclusive, but unless they address some of these deeper cultural and sociological issues then they are going to continue to have difficulties attracting new people.
They can, but they need to be something that it is worth getting out of bed for on a Sunday morning.
Since most people already think they are tolerant and inclusive, is there any reason why they should go several miles to meet with some relative strangers just so they can be tolerant and inclusive together?
You're right. My point was that these churches need to develop a way of reaching out to people that goes beyond simply claiming to be tolerant and inclusive.
Whether this is possible is another matter. Tolerant and inclusive churches should be leading the way in diversity, creativity and innovation, because these things create a buzz, they create connections with the wider world. But for some reason that I don't really understand, it often seems to be the evangelical churches that have more of the pioneering spirit.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
..... Liberal Protestants can work on making their churches even more tolerant and inclusive, but unless they address some of these deeper cultural and sociological issues then they are going to continue to have difficulties attracting new people.
They can, but they need to be something that it is worth getting out of bed for on a Sunday morning.
Since most people already think they are tolerant and inclusive, is there any reason why they should go several miles to meet with some relative strangers just so they can be tolerant and inclusive together?
You're right. My point was that these churches need to develop a way of reaching out to people that goes beyond simply claiming to be tolerant and inclusive.
Whether this is possible is another matter. Tolerant and inclusive churches should be leading the way in diversity, creativity and innovation, because these things create a buzz, they create connections with the wider world. But for some reason that I don't really understand, it often seems to be the evangelical churches that have more of the pioneering spirit.
Evangelical-ness is unrelated to whether a church is inclusive or not (I myself shy away from praising people and institutions for being 'tolerant' as to me it's not the same as being welcoming). An evangelical church will obviously be more mission-focused, but that doesn't mean they can't be inclusive too. On the contrary, evangelical churches that see inclusiveness as a good thing will surely do better out of missions than churches that eschew inclusivity.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jade
You'll notice that in my earlier post, I was focusing on liberal churches: 'Liberal Protestants can work on making their churches even more tolerant and inclusive....' I wasn't talking about evangelicals at all. They may or may not try to project an inclusive image.
Of course, most churches would like to 'include' as many people as possible, and enjoy thronging pews. The issue is what those people would have to do or believe to fit in. Some churches create too many hurdles, and simply put too many people off. Other churches probably create too few hurdles, and fail to make enough of a distinction between those who belong and those who don't, which means there's little incentive to participate. One would hope that there's another way!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
Further to Dave W's post about Romans 13:
quote:
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
This too - I've lost count of the times I've read the phrase, "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". It's not true now, and I very much doubt it was true in Paul's time.
And I fail to see how Romans 12 modifies this appalling stuff in any way.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Inger said quote:
I fail to see how Romans 12 modifies this appalling stuff in any way.
My guess is that the appeal was to Rom. 12:2 "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world", and to the echoes of, e.g., Matt.5:38-42 in Rom.12:14-21.
I agree that that's not enough to redeem Rom.13:1-7, but it may lead us back into trying to understand a text written to a people who, surely, must be looking at the world around them and seeing precious little sign of the rule of God they'd been promised... Has God abandoned God's people? "By no means!" (Rom.11.1) But in that case, how to hold on to faith in a situation where "rulers hold no terror for those who do right" could only be met with hollow laughter and in which the entire imperial apparatus was constructing a public history of the end of history in the inevitable rise of Rome...?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
