|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lay knowledge of the CofE?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know a lot about Asperger's Syndrome and could easily get myself into hot water on that account ... I have done so here in the past.
hosting/
So please don't again. Interacting with posters' views is fine. Speculating on the personal circumstances that may have led them to have those views or express them in a particular way is not. As ever, please engage with the issue, not the person.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks Eutychus, but I am comfortable about being 'aspergic' or I wouldn't have mentioned it myself. Gamaliel does have a point and has made fair comment. I would respond that I didn't get the well-known maths genius version of Asperger but more of a hyperlexic version, and fluent reading from an early age means I'm pretty good with irony and nuance and other figures of speech - and also that my comments here are based on a lot of reading and thinking. I also have the 'absent-minded-professory' ability to spot things other people haven't and to come at things from fresh or unusual angles, or make unusual connections. I hope people will bear that in mind when reading my comments here.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Having dealt with the point about me having Asperger's...
Over Christmas/New Year my already limited web access will virtually disappear so basically I'm going to drop out of this thread. A few parting shots...
Jade Constable; no, I won't be joining the Roman Catholic Church (I assume that's what you mean by RCC?). said RCC may not be 'established' here in England but actually by becoming the established church in the Roman Empire they were the original 'established church', and of course that led to Holy War, the Inquisition etc. Anglicanism is just one form of the general idea of establishment, and none of the other forms are biblical either!!
Gamaliel; There is a distinction to be drawn here between churches which are established and those which aren't but would like to be. For example, since Calvin's Geneva the Presbyterians are a 'would-be' establishment and actually are established in Scotland and I believe a few other places. Thus the general principle of 'establishment' is very relevant to Ulster, while Anabaptist-style free churches would not threaten violence. While few Anglicans are terrorists I note that one of the major stand-offs a few years ago involved an Orange March to an Anglican Church.
Anglicanism played a considerable role in creating the situation in Ulster; though many other Puritans took advantage, the 'plantation' of Protestants in Ulster was an idea of Anglican monarch James I/VI. The main current relevance of Anglicanism is simply that their legal status in England (and that of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland)makes us the 'Protestant country' to which 'Loyalists' are loyal and 'Unionists' want to be united with. Simply by continuing to be 'established' the CoE sets a bad example which in the fraught Ulster situation leads to problems.
To everybody; The NT doesn't teach establishment as the Christian way to relate to the surrounding world - so after centuries of warfare and persecution, isn't it about time we gave that idea up - not just in the CoE but for all Christians.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve Langton - myself and others here are very familiar with church history and don't need essays from you on your erroneous versions. Established has a particular legal meaning and the RCC was never Established in the UK in the way the CoE is in England - Ireland is still RC but it's not the Established church there. Also - paragraphs help with readability a lot.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Jade Constable; I'm still just about around. Your comment on 'establishment' is just playing with words, surely? As you might have realised from my putting 'quotes' around 'establishment' my point is that since sometime in the 4th Century there have been churches allied to the state in various ways, starting with the 'Catholic' Church, later splitting into the western Roman and eastern Orthodox branches, and in the west further splitting at the time of the Reformation.
It doesn't matter what exact phrase you use, these are state churches in varying degrees and the issue is whether these are a legitimate extension of the biblical teaching on the church's place in the world, or whether they are a contradiction of the New Testament teaching.
One text which is fairly definitive is when Jesus tells Pilate that 'My kingdom is not of this world' - the point being that if Jesus had threatened to set up any kind of 'Christian state' (including an Anglican style 'establishment') this would have constituted a military threat to the Empire and Pilate could not have found Jesus innocent.
It is because Pilate accepted that Jesus proposed a different kind of kingdom that Pilate was able to find Jesus innocent - though as we know, he was then manoeuvred into crucifying Jesus anyway. This is important not only about state and church but also about the atonement itself; if Jesus had been guilty in Pilate's eyes, that would have somewhat compromised His innocent sacrifice.
To want a state church is to contradict Jesus about the nature of his church. Are you sure you want to do that.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Steve Langton, in the hope you're still around: your posts are systematically appearing twice. This may be some bug in the Ship's workings, but so far it only appears to occur with your posts (in Purgatory at least).
I suggest that after hitting "add reply" you return to the thread (e.g. by opening a new tab on your browser) and see if your post has appeared. If in doubt, take time to practise on the UBB thread in the Styx or PM me or one of the other hosts for help. Thank you!
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
In fairness to Steve Langton there is a good chance that this post will appear twice. It often happens when I post from this machine and I do not know why.
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks Eutychus, but I am comfortable about being 'aspergic' or I wouldn't have mentioned it myself. Gamaliel does have a point and has made fair comment. I would respond that I didn't get the well-known maths genius version of Asperger but more of a hyperlexic version, and fluent reading from an early age means I'm pretty good with irony and nuance and other figures of speech - and also that my comments here are based on a lot of reading and thinking. I also have the 'absent-minded-professory' ability to spot things other people haven't and to come at things from fresh or unusual angles, or make unusual connections. I hope people will bear that in mind when reading my comments here.
Goodness. So knowledgeable and clever, and so modest with it too!
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If you're still around, Steven, I apologise for my reference to your Asperger's, even though you weren't offended by it. I should not have raised the issue and take Eutychus's Hostly warning on board.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
On the Establishment thing - yes, the rest of us are aware of church history and issues to do with Establishment and so on. I keep saying that I'm no fan of Establishment nor Erastianism.
I can see what you're getting at with the Ulster thing, but I think you are putting 2 + 2 together and making 5 to a certain extent.
I suspect that Establishment will disappear sooner or later - although I don't see any appetite at CofE synod level nor in Government to bring that about anytime soon.
What I don't see is how Anabaptist style 'free churches' in and of themselves are any more or any less likely to have an impact on UK society - unless they started living and practicing what they preach instead of acting like holy huddles.
Talking about Presbyterians and so on back in the day - I've often thought that Richard Baxter made a lot of sense in his autobiography when he castigates all the Christian groups of his day for their besetting sins. The 'Papists' effectively 'damned' everyone else who wasn't of their party, the Anglican establishment had its own sins and short-comings and so did the Presbyterians ... when it came to the Anabaptists, his view was that they could be somewhat smug and 'holier than thou.'
Fair points all ways round, I reckon.
And yes, you do sound somewhat smug and immodest at times and I make no apologies for pointing that out.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hampstonian
Apprentice
# 17912
|
Posted
I'm new on here! But here is an outsider perspective...
As a Muslim imam, I think I probably go to church more regularly than most Anglicans, and am honoured to have been welcomed into a small and friendly congregation in a poor CofE church in the London Borough of Hackney.
I am deeply proud of "my" community, and the Christian solidarity of my vicar, and the largely non-white African-Caribbean congregation.
This "church of England" seems a world away from the other "Church of England" I got to know previously in its Lambeth Palace ecclesiastical politicians, and various other clergy for whom the language of Church-by-Law-Established seemed to provide a licence for the acquisition of unelected political power and financial reward for themselves - with concurrently corrupting effect.
We have enough problems with the appalling consequences of political Islam and Islamism - and the emergence in the UK of unelected so-called Muslim representatives for whom a religious label and the seductive public discourse of "faith in the public square", have similarly provided a go-ahead for the Great British interfaith power-grab -- a disaster for the dissenting Muslim voices, and disaster the role of faith as a truth-speaking prophetic voice challenging (not colluding) with establishment power.
In my little Anglican church community, I find in a powerless community the powerful presence of God in ordinary people, a very different place indeed, barely recognisable to those loci of Anglican power politics and inter-religious hypocrisy described above.
I got badly burned by my prior experience of the power structures of the Church of England, but am now very proud of the Christian brothers and sisters I now have the privilege of sharing with.
--------------------
Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine
Twitter: @MYAlHussaini YouTube: Muhammad Al-Hussaini
Posts: 6 | From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Welcome, Hampstonian!
It sounds as if you will have plenty to contribute to our discussions here, which is great.
If you haven't already done so, please take the time to read the Ship's 10 Commandments and board posting guidelines to ensure everything stays shipshape.
I'm not sure where this is written down, but we also have a four-line limit on signatures, and yours currently exceeds this. You can solve this by using the board's UBB code to put your links behind text (like this). There is a practice thread for this kind of thing on the Styx board. If you need any help, please PM one of the hosts - and welcome once again!
Eutychus
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure where this is written down, but we also have a four-line limit on signatures, and yours currently exceeds this.
It's written down right next to the text box in which you enter your signature while creating/changing it:
quote:
Signature:
Signatures appear at the bottom of your posts. You can use UBB code in your signature, but not HTML. Please limit your signature to no more than four lines. Long signatures make the Baby Jesus cry. Images are OFF.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hampstonian
Apprentice
# 17912
|
Posted
Thank you very much, guys, for your kind welcome and advice on UBB, which is much appreciated. I look forward to reading and contributing to your interesting discussions. Thanks again, Muhammad
--------------------
Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine
Twitter: @MYAlHussaini YouTube: Muhammad Al-Hussaini
Posts: 6 | From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Hampstonian
Welcome! You certainly have a very distinctive experience and it'll be interesting to hear more about it as time goes by.
As the default religious institution in England the CofE has to work with a lot of paradoxes, and several of them are implied in your post. Fascinating.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm intrigued by your experience of Lambeth. I don't want to press you too closely on it though for fear of litigation!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the mechanisms around the top-level institutional dimension were murky. That said, I've always been a big fan of Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury - he came across a genuine and humble bloke.
These guys are paid reasonably well, but not on a level with that of CEOs in industry or officials in government and so on ... so I'm not sure what opportunities there would be for financial aggrandisment - but I suppose it's all relative.
I think the Archbishop of Canterbury's salary was £67,790 back in 2008 - according to The Sun - and there were the benefits of Lambeth Palace and a chauffeur driven car as well as a generous final pension package.
I'd imagine there's a fair bit of bureaucracy and muddle but I don't quite see these guys as renaissance-style Medici's sat on fat fortunes.
The US-style televangelists types are a heck of a lot worse.
That doesn't mean that there isn't room for rationalisation and reform.
It's an obvious point, but anyone's experience of the CofE, whether as a participant or an 'outsider' is going to vary according to where one finds itself ... the experience in a rural parish in the Chilterns, for instance, is going to be a heck of a lot different to that of a largely Afro-Caribbean parish in inner-city London.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hampstonian
Apprentice
# 17912
|
Posted
Thanks, guys. You're all very kind. Please excuse delays in my responses, with workload, etc.
My engagement with going to a local Anglican church has been part of slowly healing a very painful and unexpected engagement with CofE ecclesiastical politics, which I unwittingly stumbled into through inter-religious work. Shenanigans I could never have imagined - Florentine politics, financial fraud, bullying, career-destroying smear and exploitation...just staggering...
Inevitably, we tend to see things through the prism of our own heritage and experience, and personal outlook. I'm naturally rather straight-talking, crude and rude with laddish anger management issues, and I never learned to speak Anglican, with its mellifluous subtlety and fine nuances. This language is also the lingua franca of interfaith dialogical work in the UK, which political speak I am finding most difficult to square with a Christ-ian commitment to truth-speaking and justice.
I therefore recognise my personal limitations and total lack of fitness to engage what appears to me the very worldly game of religious/inter-religious politics. I am frequently told about "realpolitik" and the need to find "the Common Good" through a process of fudging and manoeuvring and necessary not-always-meaning-what-you-say, even the period white lie - what I am told is called "The Anglican Way". Apparently.
I struggle to understand this, and struggle to see the presence of Christ in this, when I witness Anglican interfaith leaders and Lambeth Palace bureaucrats going on five star jollies to meet with Gulf princes and senior Muslim clerics, and in their nice conferences with these powerful and rather ugly Muslim leaders turn a blind eye to the iniquity of Christian persecution in the Muslim world, and collude with the abuses by Islamists of other Muslims (women, sectarian Muslim minorities).
I said a few rude things in broadcast about "the Church of Pontius Pilate", so I'm hardly flavour of the month with that CofE establishment. I will try and behave while I'm on here...and curb my temper...but these things do get me rather cross...mea culpa, etc.
In the idolatrous aspiration for the worldly power of religious leaders and brutal political Islam, I see my Muslim co-religionists having lost all monotheistic fear of the sovereignty of the One God. This religionism they have built is to my mind pure idolatry and God will judge them for the violence with which they have pursued power for themselves.
Today, I just got back from supporting a peer friend in relation to a private members Bill she is advancing in respect of the power abuses by so-called shari'a courts in the UK.
It was personally disappointing to me to see this replicated in sister traditions, where the context of a declining liberal Anglican congregation, a clergyman looking for relevance and meaning in his work by finding places to feel important, and the constant discourse about "faith in the public square" - all this has colluded in the accelerated post 9/11 phenomenon of unelected religious leaders seeking unelected political influence for themselves an increasing enmeshment with political power (quite often these days, our clergyman needs an interfaith guy in a turban alongside him to give him credibility).
Anyhow, I am ignorant, probably don't know what I'm spouting on about, and am trying to understand these issues. As an academic, I'm a medievalist in Islamic Studies and have sparse to no knowledge of modern Christian theology, but spent the summer reading everything Bonhoeffer I could lay my hands on, and am still confused and struggling with these questions. Joining this message board is part of searching for some healthy debate and ways forward with answers. Cheers.
--------------------
Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine
Twitter: @MYAlHussaini YouTube: Muhammad Al-Hussaini
Posts: 6 | From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hampstonian
Apprentice
# 17912
|
Posted
PS. Just clarify, I think Rowan is a good and godly guy (I don't know much about Justin), so none of the critique about Lambeth Palace pertains to him personally.
--------------------
Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine
Twitter: @MYAlHussaini YouTube: Muhammad Al-Hussaini
Posts: 6 | From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, I'm not an Anglican, but I do have some experience of interacting with the top of church hierarchies and with interfaith initiatives.
My experience of these has a lot to do with why I prefer being involved at a grassroots level. I'm realistic enough to realise that national religious institutions fulfil important functions in terms of representativity and so on - I could not do what I do locally were it not for a national body - but the kind of people that often gravitate to senior management positions in them often don't seem to be qualified in terms of godliness for the post.
I'd like to think that's because a lot of the godlier people have eschewed positions of power in favour of servanthood ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This observation also applies to the muslim cleric I work the most closely with, who seems to do a lot of good on the ground but who is despised by the relevant religious institution in my country, set up at the behest of the state.
At the end of the day God is not interested in our job titles but with what we do with the sphere of responsibility we were entrusted with, whether great or small in the eyes of the world.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Great post Eutychus. Can I print out the last paragraph?
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Attribution is always nice, but feel free
[ETA alternatively, print out 2 Cor 10:12-17. I think the apostle Paul got there before me...]
[ 05. December 2013, 08:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
/authority tangent
Spiritual abuse is, regrettably, commonplace. Like all abuses of power.
There is such a thing as lust for power, and I guess we can see it at work (wolves amongst sheep) in lots of places and all faiths, in places of work and communal recreation, in families.
Anyone who has ever encountered it, been some kind of a victim someone else's lust for power, is made generally less trusting, less confident about membership and joining. At least for a while.
I've been on the receiving end myself, which probably puts me in the same boat as most of our members. And have also held positions of power and influence, so I know the temptations. Always tried my very best to resist them; but only others can judge how well we do that. It's easy to be deluded about how fair we are.
I like the kicker line in the story of David and Nathan in 2 Samuel 12 v7. "You are the man!" So used to power, David did not even recognise clearly his own abuse of it.
When we pray "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil", we pray as both potential or actual abusers of power, and potential or actual victims of it. If we are wise, we do. Very few of us have no power and influence at all, and very few have not felt the bite of others on our lives.
/end authority tangent
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Elbowing for power can't be done with love in our hearts. It's been endemic in every organisation I've encountered, including all denominations of church. Interestingly, I knew someone who seemed to be trying to gain recognition through servanthood, waiting on people hand and foot, and that didn't come across with love either.
I wonder whether it must be the case that those who have status in the world are the least in the kingdom of God, as they will inevitably conform to the power structure they find themselves a part of? If only 'us and them' were a thing of the past, and we really could work side by side in service to God with generous love, and tie in our elbows.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The problem with thinking only in those terms is that you end up despising all authority structures and leading figures.
This is tempting, but as I pointed out above, I've come to think that authority structures are a necessary evil. Or to put it in a more nuanced fashion, social organisations are fallen entities; the desire for organisation reflects the image of God, but organisations are corrupted by evil.
In addition, in today's world I think even the most independent-minded or servant-hearted of us are usually dependent on the existence of these authority structures (be they churches, governments, or whatever) to enjoy the luxury of engaging in pursuits the way we want to.
Put another way again, it takes all sorts. After all, somebody needs those official spokespersons and bureaucrats to sign authorisations. Maybe God has all the pompous power-hungry Pharisees tied up in these time-wasting management posts so they can't do any greater damage elsewhere...
[ 05. December 2013, 09:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The problem with thinking only in those terms is that you end up despising all authority structures and leading figures.
This is tempting, but as I pointed out above, I've come to think that authority structures are a necessary evil. Or to put it in a more nuanced fashion, social organisations are fallen entities; the desire for organisation reflects the image of God, but organisations are corrupted by evil.
In addition, in today's world I think even the most independent-minded or servant-hearted of us are usually dependent on the existence of these authority structures (be they churches, governments, or whatever) to enjoy the luxury of engaging in pursuits the way we want to.
Put another way again, it takes all sorts. After all, somebody needs those official spokespersons and bureaucrats to sign authorisations. Maybe God has all the pompous power-hungry Pharisees tied up in these time-wasting management posts so they can't do any greater damage elsewhere...
Rather than despise them, we might love them all the more for taking up the responsibilities the status gives them, particularly as it leads them into greater temptation, and be sure to pray for them: whether we are lay or not, and in the C of E or not.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A lot of common sense posted here.
I agree. Quite rare.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry Eutychus; the double-posting has been a consequence of my limited web access. I keep getting attacked by that ‘flood control’ thing just as I’m trying to pack up and leave wherever I am. Faced with apparent choice of double posting or losing the post I’ve done the obvious. This should be cured in about a couple of months. Unfortunately I didn’t get the computer genius version of Asperger.
Albertus; you sound a bit … er … smug at my expense. You don’t have to put up with the downsides of Asperger which can be not just modest but excruciatingly embarrassing. I’m afraid one of these downsides is a difficulty with the convoluted verbal hoops you regular guys jump through in order to, for example, appear modest – I just say what’s on my mind. Sorry!
Everybody else; I’ll keep track of the argument when I can but I don’t think I’ll be back actively participating in this thread. As I understand it, in the concerns I raised we have reached roughly the following….
First, we do seem agreed that the NT doesn’t positively teach establishment or the other varieties of state church/Christian state, etc. Some of you seem to think that such ideas may still be valid, that the NT is ‘indifferent’ or similar.
Second, I take the view that the NT actually positively teaches a particular way for Christians, individually or as the body of the church, to be related to the surrounding world (and for starters, not just a particular country). As I read it this teaching precludes/rejects in various ways the idea that a state church or similar could be legitimate. The basic gospel also puts state churches in question; as one example, you get to be a Christian by being ‘born again’, not just by being born in a ‘Christian country’. If I tried spelling the whole of this out here it would just about sink the poor Ship. Can I invite you to look at my ideas on my blog; Google up stevesfreechurchblog, just like that, all one word. Feel free to comment there but bear in mind it may now be mid-January before I can reply to the comments.
Third, as with other religions (even Buddhism!), entanglement with the state, or ‘would-be’ ditto, has resulted in a tragic history of Christian involvement in wars, persecutions, inquisitions, oppression, etc., far too much of which is still going on, and which whatever their other faults, which I don’t deny, the anti-establishment people won’t be doing. While quite a bit of it is different ‘established’ Christianities fighting each other (bad in itself of course), it’s also all too often violence in the name of Jesus at the expense of non-Christians or of those Christians who are trying sincerely to follow that NT teaching. And all too often the ‘established’ are snug and cosy in the protection of the state while others suffer…. I don’t apologise for trying to do something about this, and persuade the ‘established’ to not only repent the past but also give up the unbiblical idea which enabled Christians to get involved in these terrible things.
Thanks for putting up with me despite my Aspie tactlessness.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve - do you honestly think that members of established churches aren't 'born again'/real Christians?
It's not just tactlessness but you also come across as incredibly patronising. None of what you say is brand new information.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
No, Jade, I don't consider that members of 'established churches' aren't real born again Christians. Clearly many are, and many of my Christian 'heroes' like JI Packer and CS Lewis are/were Anglicans. The point is rather that having an established church confuses the issue - as per the bishop who told Wesley that his preaching wasn't needed because England had been a 'Christian country' for centuries. Wesley's response, looking at the decidedly irreligious England of that time, could fairly be paraphrased as 'you must be joking'. I said what I meant, you've drawn a consequence I didn't and wouldn't.
You still aren't dealing with the key point of whether 'established churches' 'Christian countries' etc are a legitimate extension of the NT teaching, or whether all that kind of thing is an error. I just caught your comment and am unlikely to be posting in this thread again. If you want to carry on having a go at me take up the invite to look at my blog.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
No offence Steve but as, like me, you have aspergers, maybe it might be an idea to take the hint that you have misjudged your tone and are coming off as patronising.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, Jade, I don't consider that members of 'established churches' aren't real born again Christians. Clearly many are, and many of my Christian 'heroes' like JI Packer and CS Lewis are/were Anglicans. The point is rather that having an established church confuses the issue - as per the bishop who told Wesley that his preaching wasn't needed because England had been a 'Christian country' for centuries. Wesley's response, looking at the decidedly irreligious England of that time, could fairly be paraphrased as 'you must be joking'. I said what I meant, you've drawn a consequence I didn't and wouldn't.
You still aren't dealing with the key point of whether 'established churches' 'Christian countries' etc are a legitimate extension of the NT teaching, or whether all that kind of thing is an error. I just caught your comment and am unlikely to be posting in this thread again. If you want to carry on having a go at me take up the invite to look at my blog.
I'm not having a go at you! You're the one coming on here and saying 'who cares about the CoE because it shouldn't exist anyway'. And I've already dealt with your point - I would prefer disestablishment but it's such a legal pain in the arse that I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, and I don't mind that. It's not worth creating a stink about and there are far more important things for the CoE to be dealing with. Given that I don't think NT teaching on church structure is the final authority on church structure (and I don't regard Scripture as my final authority anyway) whether the CoE is in line with NT teaching is not massively relevant to me. It's not either/or anyway - something can be not in line with NT teaching and also not be an error. I don't think establishment is ideal (quite different from the notion of 'Christian countries' as the US teaches us) but it's also not the end of the world. I am deeply uncomfortable with Christian nationalism but that's a whole different subject. I'm not really sure why you equate members of an Established church with people who think being born into a 'Christian country' makes one a Christian - plenty of people in the US think that, and the US is most decidedly not an officially Christian country!
Also - given the love and respect Wesley is given in the modern Anglican church, what your 17th century example has to do with the current CoE I have no idea. The situations are totally different.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Why is everyone being so defensive about what "Stephen Langton" wrote when its blatantly obviously mostly right? There is no conceivable Biblical warrant for an Established Church. Any more than there is for a Roman-style monarchical episcopacy. It's hard to imagine how anyone could pretend there was.
Every denomination has its faults and besetting sins, and establishment is one of ours.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
It's not ideal but it's not a sin as such I wouldn't have thought? It doesn't harm anyone. There may not be any Biblical warrant but there's no Biblical prohibition.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I didn’t get the computer genius version of Asperger.
hosting/
The Purgatory guidelines say quote:
If you find it necessary to share things of a personal nature then remember you have a large audience looking in
They also say quote:
Please do not wander off into unrelated issues
Steve Langton, you've clearly stated that you suffer from Aspergers. The above guidelines are clear both about the risks of sharing personal information and the importance of sticking to the point. Please bear these two points in mind. In particular, this thread is not the place to discuss Aspergers: it is not relevant to the topic in hand and introduces a personal issue where it is unhelpful to do so.
Just as a reminder to everybody else, if you want to turn this discussion into a personal argument, take the issue in question to Hell.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think we are being 'defensive' over what Stephen Langton wrote, ken. Most of us here aren't big Establishment fans and that applies to many of the Anglicans here too.
It was the tone that we objected to - as well, perhaps, as the over-glamourised view of so-called 'pure' or gathered churches.
My own view is that whatever church we're involved with, then the ideal is for it to 'intentional' - be that in a kind of 'born-again'/evangelical way or a more sacramental way.
I won't side-track the discussion by a tangent on what we mean by being 'born-again' ... nor by pointing out to Steven that whatever else C S Lewis might have been he certainly wasn't evangelical nor is evangelical synonymous with Christian ... there are plenty of Christians around who aren't evangelical in the way he understands things.
The issue in the OP, of course, was about the level of lay knowledge and participation with the machinations and mechanisms of the way the CofE is run and organised ... and how that differs to Methodism and other Free Churches.
Interesting thread, mind.
But I can't help but detect an almost Puritanical 'guilt-by-association' thing going on. Some 18th century bishop had a pop at John Wesley (well, several of them did as it happened) ergo the CofE Establishment must be wrong ...
How does that work?
It'd be like saying that because the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa supported apartheid then a Dutch Reformed Christian in the Netherlands must somehow be implicated ...
This is what I'm objecting to ... it's a kind of pietistic guilt-by-association approach that many evangelicals - of whatever stripe - all to easily indulge in. Why? Because it makes them feel better.
I know. I used to do it myself.
'I thank God that I'm not some ungodly Establishment Anglican like that person over there but a genuine born-again believer in a gathered church run on more New Testament lines ...'
It can run to Pharisaisism.
That's what Baxter was warning about back in the 17th century.
As for the 18th century bishops and Wesley, it wasn't so much his preaching they objected to as his 'enthusiasm' - we're talking the period of the Enlightenment here - and the irregularity of some of his methods. And with good reason. Wesley did some terrific stuff but not everything about the mid-18th Great Awakening was squeaky clean any more than any other movement has been - whether the Oxford Movement, the Pentecostal movement or whatever else.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's not ideal but it's not a sin as such I wouldn't have thought? It doesn't harm anyone. There may not be any Biblical warrant but there's no Biblical prohibition.
It has certainly harmed many in the past. If it doesn't nowadays that's probably because it has mostly slowly faded away leaving little but some pretty ceremonies and an odd set of by-laws.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's not ideal but it's not a sin as such I wouldn't have thought? It doesn't harm anyone. There may not be any Biblical warrant but there's no Biblical prohibition.
It has certainly harmed many in the past. If it doesn't nowadays that's probably because it has mostly slowly faded away leaving little but some pretty ceremonies and an odd set of by-laws.
Trying to follow an idealised version of the set up of the church in the New Testament has harmed a lot of people in the past, and still does to this day. The problem tends to be the people doing it rather than the idea itself.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... It'd be like saying that because the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa supported apartheid then a Dutch Reformed Christian in the Netherlands must somehow be implicated ...
This is what I'm objecting to ... it's a kind of pietistic guilt-by-association approach that many evangelicals - of whatever stripe - all to easily indulge in. Why? Because it makes them feel better.
...
I don't think this is exclusively an evangelical failing, or even a particularly evangelical or even Christian one. It's widespread right across the board, from fanatical US Republicans to snide Grauniad journalists.
Perhaps it comes with being human.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've come to think that authority structures are a necessary evil. Or to put it in a more nuanced fashion, social organisations are fallen entities; the desire for organisation reflects the image of God, but organisations are corrupted by evil.
In addition, in today's world I think even the most independent-minded or servant-hearted of us are usually dependent on the existence of these authority structures (be they churches, governments, or whatever) to enjoy the luxury of engaging in pursuits the way we want to.
Put another way again, it takes all sorts. After all, somebody needs those official spokespersons and bureaucrats to sign authorisations. Maybe God has all the pompous power-hungry Pharisees tied up in these time-wasting management posts so they can't do any greater damage elsewhere...
I've tried mostly to keep out of this part of the discussion because I already know that most folk here are committed to ecclesiastical hierarchies, and I don't think there's much point in arguing about this any more.
But there's a certain irony, surely, in the notion that although power corrupts (or simply indulges questionable behaviour in) church leaders, we must maintain the structures as they are, because otherwise there would be no church. It's almost as if some must be condemned in order for others to be saved. It's like a weird Judas thing. Or maybe it's more like the Divine Right of Kings, where the appalling behaviour of monarchs must be tolerated even though in the long run their behaviour puts the monarchy itself, the nation and religion at risk.
The response will be that this is just the way things are and must be, and that jumped-up little people with different ideas will never really beat the system; the system will always reabsorb them sooner or later. Maybe so. In which case, the sensible ordinary person keeps quiet, puts their name down on a church rota and stops thinking about hierarchies, unless it's their special calling to help maintain them.
I'm reminded of that song 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've come to think that authority structures are a necessary evil. Or to put it in a more nuanced fashion, social organisations are fallen entities; the desire for organisation reflects the image of God, but organisations are corrupted by evil.
If the best we can hope for from the church is that it's just like local government, then couldn't we just cut to the chase?
[clarified attribution]
[ 06. December 2013, 20:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
There are of course differences. But in my experience, when the Church starts forgetting that it is still made up of fallen humans as well as being the body of Christ, it is capable of doing far more damage than most local government organisations.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, SvitlanaV2, but I'm no more committed to 'ecclesiastical heirarchies' than you are.
It's simply that I'm a realist.
There are issues and problems with the CofE. There are issues and problems with non-CofE churches. I'm not saying that any of these systems are 'right' or 'wrong', simply different.
But there's this idealised thing going on with some people who seem to fondly imagine that they can somehow return to a vision or a pure NT church ... and that there's something intrinsically rotten about everyone else's heirarchies but not their own.
I'm quite happy to argue about ecclesiastical heirarchies and systems if that's what we want to discuss ... but I'm not prepared to argue at cross-purposes and that's what I think is happening.
Why is there an assumption that if we replace existing structures the ones we'll introduce will somehow be purer and less compromised than the ones we've replaced?
It reminds me of a Anglican vicar I know who sat in on the Methodist conference one year when they were - once again - debating the feasibility of episcopal structures and/or union with the Anglicans.
One delegate got up and said that whilst they wouldn't be averse to some kind of Methodist episcopate they certainly didn't want to submit to an Anglican one where they'd have all these bishops bossing them around and telling them what to do.
'Why,' she wondered, 'Was there an assumption that their own bishops, should they appoint them, would not behave in the same way that they imagined Anglican bishops to behave? Who was to say that Methodist bishops would be less inclined to boss people around?'
If there's irony here it's pointing in your direction.
It's got bugger all to do with the Divine Right of Kings and indulging questionable behaviour in church leaders.
Neither has it got anything to do with fear of 'jumped up little people getting their own ideas.' For Pete's sake, loads of people have left the CofE over the years to set up their own churches - The Independents (Congregationalists), Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Plymouth Brethren ...
I'm not saying that's right or wrong. Simply that in and of itself such a move doesn't necessarily solve the perceived problem. It may solve some, but at the same time it creates all manner of new problems.
That's not to say that it should never be done nor ever attempted but history has shown that splits, schisms and so on can certainly add some oomph and gets things done ... but they don't, in and of themselves, offer some kind of Nirvana.
I'd have thought that would be obvious by now.
Particularly when you see the Methodist Church effectively choking itself to death with committees.
All you get when you get rid of one heirarchy is replace it with another. Fine, if that's what you want to do. But don't go complaining when that one turns out not to perfect either.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Also, I am not an expert in how the CoE is tied up in the law, but I would have thought that the government and the Queen would have to agree to disestablishment. Given the sheer amount of work the government would have to do, and how seriously the Queen takes her role as both head of state and supreme governor of the CoE, I would think it unlikely that either would agree. Even if Charles did agree once King, disestablishment would be a lot of work for something a tiny number of people care about, and I doubt any government would think it would be worth their time. In that case, what do all the people who think Establishment is contrary to NT teaching expect Anglicans to do? The laity do not control Establishment status, we can't do anything about it.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All you get when you get rid of one heirarchy is replace it with another. Fine, if that's what you want to do. But don't go complaining when that one turns out not to perfect either.
I included this very thought I my post, Gamaliel. I even said that it might be correct, that perhaps there's no way out of 'the system'. I'm not sure how this makes me out to be a champion of 'the perfect church'! I think I just appreciate people who want to tackle some of the difficulties and contradictions, even if there's no ultimate solution this side of heaven.
Should I ever start a church plant and have problems, I promise that I won't ever come complaining to you! That would probably make me feel even worse!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
BTW, the 'realist' in me feels that the main problem with any groups breaking away from the CofE is that once the big donations stop they end up with no money. You can't do institutional church very well with no money.
The 'realist' in me also suspects that, relatively speaking, the CofE is often the best option for an elderly person simply because the CofE has enough money to be able to keep its local churches open when others would have to close (and there isn't always a suitable alternative nearby). It's not always the case, but the stats suggest that there's some truth in this observation.
The 'realist' in me is one of the reasons why I'm contemplating 'joining' the CofE at all, certainly in the very long term. I could well be one of the names on that rota, trying not to think about structures!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
I don’t know which part of the CofE you are living with but there are no big donations form anybody in my CofE church, the only money we have comes from the people in the church itself.
The CofE gave us the building, but to be quite honest it costs us an arm and a leg to keep going.
It provides the vicar but we have to pay for them, in our parish share over £2000 a month before we pay our other bills.
So there would be no point any one joining us thinking it will save them money as we need to congregations contribution or we will not be able to keep open.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Another one chiming in to ask what large donations in the CofE?
This weekend is when the local church holds its big fundraising event trying to raise funds for both other charities and to rebuild the temporary church hall, put up over a century ago to house the church community when the current building was built.
CofE congregations have to find the money within themselves to pay:
- the Parish Share - the cost of the ministers, their training and pensions and the support structures at the Diocese,
- clergy expenses - journeys to visit parishioners, attend meetings, other work costs;
- the running costs of the church buildings - heating, lighting,
- the costs of services - paying the organist, music, copyright licences, service books and
- keeping the Grade II* listed building in good condition. Currently for the local church that includes replacing the lead stolen from the roof, planning to replace the plastic stone blocks used as repairs to stonework in the 1970s and a number of other repairs that are due according to the quinquennial report.
Now the same is true of other churches, although they may not be dealing with English Heritage, the Victorian Society and Grade II* listing to complicate the costs of maintenance, and neither do those churches have to deal with this pervasive belief that the state funds the CofE.
[ 07. December 2013, 08:26: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
All I can say Curiosity is that you do not know the half of it. We not only have to deal with them, we have to deal with the Charity Commissioners as well. Remember that Victorian age was the high point of Non-Conformity.
You may not like this, but the CofE has to go through less regulatory bodies than your average Non-conformist to do the same work on a listed building.
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
