 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I like the following from Tyndale, which is also a useful quote because it's pre-Darwin and you can't be accused of just fiddling things as an after the fact response to the science controversy;
quote:
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”
What the hell does that mean? He wants to eat his cake and have it. It's both literal, and not literal, because everything is literal, but everything isn't to be taken literally. Huh?
I read it a saying that there's a difference between identifying the use of allegory in scripture and and interpreting the whole of scripture allegorically, and that the same holds true for other literary devices and genres in scripture.
In other words, poetry conveys spiritual truth differently than narrative conveys spiritual truth, but the various types of literature in scripture and literary devices don't make contradictory or incompatible truth claims. They communicate the same truth in different ways.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I pretty much go along with what Lamb Chop said above.
k-mann; two things, I think
quote:
To base the authoritativeness of Scripture on the apostles’s, and base their authority on the fact that Scripture says so, would be circular.
Actually I base the authority of the Apostles on the fact that Jesus appointed them. Sure, the historical evidence of that is in the Scriptures as well as with the fact that they exercised that authority in the early years before the NT was written - but hey, the historical evidence had to be somewhere and an unwritten record simply does not reliably survive in the way the NT has.
You seem to be trying to argue for the position that the Scriptures depend on 'Tradition' rather than the other way round, and presumably from that to the proposition that the RC Church is the bearer of that Tradition in a way that,in effect, 'trumps'Scripture. Precisely because there ain't the written evidence of it, however, the Tradition is not easy to establish; it's just the assertion of a modern body that it somehow carries that special authority.
And that, for me, poses an argument slightly worse than circular. I assume you agree with StevHep that
quote:
“The Magisterium of the Church does not contradict the Scriptures”
Now if this means anything real and not just a bit of Orwellian 'New-speak', that means I should be able to see that the Magisterium indeed does not contradict the Scriptures.
It would be really nice to have a Magisterium that could be trusted to resolve Scriptural difficulties authoritatively. As StevHep pointed out, the Scriptures don't always explain themselves fully.
However, take I Peter; a letter from the supposed first Pope (and note I'm not challenging Peter's authority, only the modern claim to have succeeded to or inherited that authority), written to Christians about to suffer persecution and needing guidance in that situation, and needing to be, at least mostly, clear and self-explanatory - it wouldn't be much use if it wasn't!
It has one obscure passage - about Jesus preaching to 'spirits in prison' from the days of Noah. I don't really know what that means, though I can grasp that it seems to have something to do with a Jewish belief recorded in a book outside the Scriptures called I Enoch, and presumably is based on something the resurrected Jesus told Peter. I would LOVE to have an authoritative interpretation of that passage,and superficially it seems absolutely ideal that there is an institution, the RC Church, that claims to be in direct succession to Peter and so to have his authority.
BUT - I then look at the rest of the epistle, which is actually quite a favourite text among Anabaptists because it says so much that we agree with (and which is also supported elsewhere in the NT. The rest of the epistle is far from obscure, and not only gives practical advice on how to face persecution, but also outlines a theology or doctrine of the place of the Church in the world as a foundation for that advice. And it seems rather plainly stated (in ch 1, particularly v7) that Peter expects that theology/doctrine to be valid until Jesus comes. He certainly does not prophesy any expected change.
When I read this theology and the advice based on it, I am in a world where Christians live as 'resident aliens' (parepidemois) who are 'subject to' the earthly authorities, who copy Jesus' example of willingness to suffer unjustly, who are not 'allotriepiskopoi' or 'self-appointed managers of other people's business', and so on.
I look to the RC Church between Constantine and - well, too recently for comfort - and I see a church living in a totally different way, lording it over others, persecuting and warring against those who disagree with it; and indeed with a very different attitude to that expressed by Peter.
In short, I see an institution which, despite its claim of 'Petrine' authority, can't get it right in interpreting and living by the bits of Peter's epistle which are clear and straightforward. As a result, that institution has caused massive unnecessary past grief in the world and problems indeed which trouble us to this day - the Muslim perception of the 'Christendom' nations as 'Crusaders' for example.
So if I want an interpretation of the obscure bit of I Peter, am I really going to trust a body that evidently can't correctly interpret, but very much contradicts, the plain and self-explanatory bits of the epistle, and in a way that has had a huge cost in human life and other mayhem? Look back at Gower's poem in my previous post
quote:
that was nevere Christes lore.
That it was the Catholic Church's lore not just briefly but for centuries must surely pose a major challenge to any idea that the Church has worthwhile special authority.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You seem to be trying to argue for the position that the Scriptures depend on 'Tradition' rather than the other way round, and presumably from that to the proposition that the RC Church is the bearer of that Tradition in a way that,in effect, 'trumps'Scripture.
Where have I mentioned the Roman Catholic Church? I am Lutheran, a member of (and soon priest in) the Church of Norway, and Lutherans have traditionally held Tradition as the context of Scripture, as we see in the Augsburg Confession. The confession states, after its doctrinal part, articles 1-21, that in this summation of doctrine “there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers.”
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Precisely because there ain't the written evidence of it, however, the Tradition is not easy to establish; it's just the assertion of a modern body that it somehow carries that special authority.
Who says there isn’t any written evidence? We have plenty. We have the liturgies, we have the decisions of councils, we have the writings of the Church Fathers and other authors, we have the many sermons, we have the customs, etc. They are the ‘natural habitat’ of Scripture.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
We have the liturgies, we have the decisions of councils, we have the writings of the Church Fathers and other authors, we have the many sermons, we have the customs, etc. They are the ‘natural habitat’ of Scripture.
I like this metaphor. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
OOPS! Sorry, k-mann. I fear I was misled by the 'Katolikken' title of your website, which I did look at but simply didn't have time to render into English to follow further. You didn't I fear, put anything else in your postings quite explicit enough to give the clue otherwise. I will have to rethink my approach to what you've said a bit. I think my comments are nevertheless still valid in an RC context where a claim of a very specific kind of authoritative Tradition is made which then doesn't really live up to its claims, as I suggested. I do note, however, that like StevHep from the RC position, it does not seem that your version of 'Tradition' is supposed to contradict Scripture either, and while you talk of lots of evidence for the Tradition isn't it also the case that these older writings can be very inconsistent - how except by comparing with the certainty of Scripture do you decide which traditions are good and which bad? That's a serious question asking for info, not just a sound-bite debating point.
Haven't time to go further for now. I was proposing (and will still attempt later) to answer a query from Gamaliel about why I think the State and Church issue such a 'deal-breaker'. This is probably also relevant to Lutheranism which at least in Scandinavia seems to mostly come in State Church form similar to Anglicanism.
Again, sorry, k-mann.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Came back to Purgatory to find no one else posted since teatime. Wonder if that means you’ve all given up on the thread or that you’re waiting for my promised effort on why I find the church-and-state thing a ‘deal-breaker’? At risk of wasting my time, I’ll post anyway….
My text for tonight is John 18 – the bit where Jesus is on trial before Pilate and he speaks words I’ve already quoted a few times on the Ship’s boards.
“My Kingdom is not of this world”.
And as usual, it’s not just those particular words; it’s also the context, both other things Jesus said, and Pilate’s response, which helps to expound and explain what Jesus means.
I’m going to make my point in a few questions, and then make comments. Question 1; In the most important set of legal proceedings in the history of the world, was the Son of God just making a vague airy-fairy fluffy ‘spiritual’ comment about his kingdom? Or was he making a very important statement about the nature of his kingdom, a statement of direct relevance to the legal proceedings and important to what Pilate would decide? Which of those do you think more likely?
Question 2; Pilate did in fact declare Jesus innocent and tried to find ways of releasing him. In the end, he decided that he couldn’t take the political risk, went against his verdict and ordered Jesus crucified anyway. But – What would it take for any Roman Governor to even consider finding innocent a Messianic King of the Jews claimant? Extraordinary enough for any such Governor – from what we know from elsewhere about Pilate, in his case we’d be asking “What would make Pilate OF ALL PEOPLE consider such a verdict? This is extraordinary and there is really only one answer – and it doesn’t involve Jesus teaching the idea of ‘Christian countries/Christendom’; such a concept would be exactly the kind of potential military/political threat that Pilate was supposed to guard against by executing Messiahs with that kind of idea….
Question 3; How does anybody who wants to maintain the idea of a Christian country get round that simple situation? (And bear in mind that there are lots of other reasons for rejecting the Christian state; this is just a rather clear biblical one) As far as I can see, there are only two options, neither of which is very good for all kinds of reasons.
Option 1; Jesus really meant it when he rejected the idea of a ‘kingdom of this world’ – but of course, we know better…. Good luck explaining at the Last Judgement how you know better than the son of God… or….
Option 2; Jesus always intended us to set up Christian states – but he lied about his intentions to Pilate, to get a nominal verdict of innocence that he didn’t really deserve…. Good luck explaining come Judgement Day that you have persistently called the Son of God a liar….
There isn’t a realistic option of contradicting the verdict of innocence. At a purely practical level, that verdict was immensely important to the early Christians. That Jesus was unjustly executed when in fact innocent would be a major defence against charges of treason and rebellion against Rome. At a more spiritual level, the verdict of innocence is needed for Jesus to be an innocent sacrifice for our sins. On the one hand if Jesus was truly guilty in Pilate’s terms, because he was preaching the idea of a Christian state, that at the very least muddies the waters of that innocence; but worse still, if you’ve adopted the above ‘Option 2’ where Jesus lied to Pilate, how can he be a sinless sacrifice – or indeed much of a moral teacher at all?
I submit that just on the basis of this one episode, Christian states are out; the idea attacks the fundamental Christian faith itself in far too many ways. And I suggest I’ve also got a bit of a conundrum for k-mann here. His version of ‘Tradition’ as I understand it, is also not meant to contradict Scripture; but if John 18 teaches against Christian states, and Lutheran tradition seems to teach in favour – where did the tradition go wrong? And how do I judge right from wrong tradition except by Scripture?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Question 3; How does anybody who wants to maintain the idea of a Christian country get round that simple situation? (And bear in mind that there are lots of other reasons for rejecting the Christian state; this is just a rather clear biblical one) As far as I can see, there are only two options, neither of which is very good for all kinds of reasons.
Option 1; Jesus really meant it when he rejected the idea of a ‘kingdom of this world’ – but of course, we know better…. Good luck explaining at the Last Judgement how you know better than the son of God… or….
Option 2; Jesus always intended us to set up Christian states – but he lied about his intentions to Pilate, to get a nominal verdict of innocence that he didn’t really deserve…. Good luck explaining come Judgement Day that you have persistently called the Son of God a liar….
Or maybe we just don't equate our Christian countries with the Kingdom of God. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. Granted. That doesn't mean there aren't kingdoms in this world, and it doesn't mean they can't be run by Christians. You're making a category error between earthly kingdoms and the eternal kingdom.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Lutheran tradition does almost the opposite, in fact; two kingdom theory says that God rules the state through properly appointed or chosen officials, and the Church through properly called pastors etc, but that neither ought to meddle in the other kingdom's business. The fact that this has happened nonetheless is mainly due to historical accident--when so many churches made the move to Lutheranism while their hierarchies chose to stay with Rome. Local princes etc stepped in to fill the vacuum on an emergency basis, but didn't ever withdraw later... the official state church thing has been a stumblingblock for Lutherans ever since.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or maybe we just don't equate our Christian countries with the Kingdom of God. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. Granted. That doesn't mean there aren't kingdoms in this world, and it doesn't mean they can't be run by Christians. You're making a category error between earthly kingdoms and the eternal kingdom.
You've drawn an equivalence here, mousethief, which I (and Steve Langton too, I suspect) think is an error - an earthly kingdom being run by (mostly / entirely) Christians doesn't make it a 'Christian country'.
IMO there is simply no such thing as a Christian country. Because of the fallen nature of humanity, there has to be the threat of force and violence behind all human nations in order to keep anarchy at bay, but this 'rule of the sword' is utterly at odds with how it should be among Christians (and indeed with how Christians should relate to non-Christians in a personal capacity). The way of the kingdom of God is self-sacrifice, serving others, asking and not forcing, putting others' needs before your own etc.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think you've misunderstood what Mousethief said, South Coast Kevin. He said that there can be countries run by Christians. That's different to saying that there are 'Christian countries.'
Can you not see the difference?
He's saying that the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world aren't congruent ...
I don't read his comment as suggesting that a kingdom or country run by Christians is the same as the Kingdom of God - or that countries can be fully 'Christian' in the sense that everyone who lives there is necessarily a believer simply because Christianity may be the predominant religion there or because the leaders declare themselves to be Christians, etc
I think you've got the wrong end of Mousethief's stick.
If you read what he wrote carefully I think you'll find that he was saying something quite different to what you assumed he was saying.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This is what Mousethief wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or maybe we just don't equate our Christian countries with the Kingdom of God. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. Granted. That doesn't mean there aren't kingdoms in this world, and it doesn't mean they can't be run by Christians. You're making a category error between earthly kingdoms and the eternal kingdom.
There are kingdoms in this world. They aren't the same as the Kingdom of God. Some of these kingdoms can be run by Christians, some can be run by non-Christians.
That's all he's saying. He's suggesting that it's guys like Steven Langton and your good self who are conflating the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world and not the other way around.
How so?
I'll let Mousethief answer that ...
I will agree with you that there are people around who would consider themselves to be Christian simply because the UK has traditionally been considered a 'Christian country' - but I'm not sure that's the issue here ...
[code]
[ 10. March 2014, 10:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The problem with this thread is that people keep critiquing the imperfection of people's analogies under the misapprehension that this serves to refute the person's final point. However, ISTM, is that finding fault with someone's analogies 1) does not in fact negate the point they are making and 2) does precisely nothing to serve the advancement of civil conversation.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think you've misunderstood what Mousethief said, South Coast Kevin. He said that there can be countries run by Christians. That's different to saying that there are 'Christian countries.'
Can you not see the difference?
Of course I can see the difference. But mousethief used the phrase 'our Christian countries' without scare quotes or similar, making me think he believes countries can be Christian. Apologies to mousethief if I did misunderstand him.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He's suggesting that it's guys like Steven Langton and your good self who are conflating the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world and not the other way around.
How so?
I'll let Mousethief answer that ...
Well, I look forward to his answer because I have no idea of the way in which Steve or I are 'conflating the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world'. Do explain!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm second guessing, but I suspect what MT means is that you both appear - in a via negativa kind of way - to be projecting ultimate, fully realised eschatological Kingdom of God values - in terms of its ultimate fruition - onto secular states and to human behaviour in general.
He'll correct me if I'm wrong.
So, in a kind of reverse and roundabout way, you two are unconsciously reinforcing or supporting the idea of having a 'Christian state' by insisting on its opposite.
Those who do go in for the idea of states having Christian leaders are by no means suggesting that such a state is:
- Perfect.
- Incapable of improvement.
- Absolutely 100% correct in all its dealings and values.
However, you seem to be assuming that they are.
There's an odd kind of duality going on here - a kind of perfectionism ...
I'm not explaining it very well but it's along the lines of the essential 'duality' at the heart of the Anabaptist position - it's almost too otherworldly.
I've got a lot of time for Anabaptist ideals but can also see what the presbyterian Richard Baxter was getting at when he observed that Anabaptism could lead to a kind of holier-than-thou attitude.
We've been seeing it a lot on this thread.
RC Church = bad.
Anabaptists = good.
Countries which had an ostensibly Christian leadership or where Christianity has been regarded as the predominant or state religion = bad : because they blur the boundaries between Church and state or because people might think they're Christians simply because they are a citizen of that country etc etc.
All of which may well be legitimate concerns.
But what MT is suggesting - it seems to me - that as we live between the now and the not yet and because the Kingdom of God has yet to be really realised (it's here and yet still to come at one and the same time) then we can live with the messiness and reality of having countries/kingdoms led by Christians which may not be perfect in every respect.
Sure, you can take this in the direction of Caesaro-papism and so on ...
But to all intents and purposes, I don't see any quantifiable difference between Wales, say, where the Anglican Church is Disetablished - and England, where it is Established - and the levels of spirituality etc etc that are evident in either case.
It might make us all feel better if we hive off into perfectionist, pietistic groups - and certainly there are collective and individual benefits associated with such an approach - but I've yet to be convinced of the widespread societal benefits of that - unless there was some kind of critical mass in which case the various pietistic and Anabaptist style groups would then become like the 'historic' or Established churches with all the difficulties that this entails.
It's easy to point the finger and make pietistic noises when there are only a few of you meeting in a hall at the corner of the street ...
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I guess it depends on what Steve Langton means by "the idea of a Christian country." I myself don't believe countries can be Christian. But he seems not just against countries that call themselves Christian, but countries that are run by Christians, to judge from the place this little subargument plays in his overall argument. So we need him to explain.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I deliberately put my point in questions to make people think a bit. In plainer form....
At the crucial point of trial for his life we have the anomaly that Jesus actually frankly says to Pilate "I am the King of the Jews, I am the Messiah". Had he meant that in terms of setting up an ordinary earthly 'Christian country' in His name, such a country, or the attempt to establish it by worldly means such as rebellion, would be a potential military/political threat to Pilate's government and instead of all that havering and trying to let Jesus free and eventually 'washing his hands' of the affair, Pilate would have had a straightforward duty to execute this Messiah like all the others as a threat to Rome.
In fact Jesus was able (no doubt with some help from the Holy Spirit to overcome Pilate's normal roughness in such matters) to convince Pilate that although he was Messiah, he was not that kind of Messiah aiming to set up that kind of kingdom, and he was not that kind of military threat - thus in Pilate's terms He was innocent and his execution would be unjust.
As a quick 'thought experiment', imagine Jesus projecting on Pilate's wall images of the civil wars by which Constantine did, effectively, set up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus, and imagine that Jesus says "I approve of Constantine doing that in my name". If you were Pilate,would you still be happy with Jesus' innocence?
I would I think basically agree with South coast Kevins point that
quote:
IMO there is simply no such thing as a Christian country. Because of the fallen nature of humanity, there has to be the threat of force and violence behind all human nations in order to keep anarchy at bay, but this 'rule of the sword' is utterly at odds with how it should be among Christians (and indeed with how Christians should relate to non-Christians in a personal capacity). The way of the kingdom of God is self-sacrifice, serving others, asking and not forcing, putting others' needs before your own etc.
There is an incompatibility between the 'kingdom' Jesus actually set up, of those who 'hear' and follow him, 'born again' in personal faith, and the kind of kingdom the world offers with worldly power. The modern situation with democracies has produced issues about Church-and-State which weren't even possible in the days of the NT or for centuries since, and even among (all the various groups that can loosely be called) Anabaptists there is debate. Whereas a lot of American practice, particularly on the 'religious Right' tries to use the vote to produce a formally 'godly' government and an approximately 'Christian' state, Anabaptists tend to think any situation of Christians 'lording it over' others should be avoided.
That is a separate debate; I'm mainly concerned with getting the old-style Christian states disavowed and recognised as having been really unChristian and not serving Jesus as they thought. As I've said, one of the reasons I ended up where I am was the realisation of the 'toxic' effect of the 'Christian country' idea in the affairs of Northern Ireland - and again, I don't think Pilate would have been happy about a kingdom of Jesus that would lead to that kind of thing with Jesus' approval....
The Church needs to be separate from the State for all kinds of reasons. My particular point here was simply "If you try to set up a 'Christian state' or state church situation, how do you square that with the implications of Jesus' declaration to Pilate that He was aiming at a very different kind of kingdom?" I was also asking "Do you realise that if you contradict Jesus here you may be attacking the faith at its very roots, on the point of Jesus being unjustly killed and so a sinless sacrifice on behalf of others?"
Lamb Chopped (and my apologies for forgetting that final 'ped' in a recent post) I am aware of the Lutheran 'two kingdoms' kind of theology; I'm not totally sure how it currently works in modern states, eg in Scandinavia, but what I'm hearing doesn't seem very satisfactory - church taxes for example. Jesus' kingdom/church is international, Lutheran churches appear decidedly national in a problematic way....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
EDIT - in response to Gamaliel:
I'm fine with the idea that some countries have many Christian leaders, it's just that I feel terms like 'a Christian nation' are very unhelpful. IMO it's quite a short journey from language like that to the idea that our country has a special place in God's plan.
American Exceptionalism is a recent example and an interesting one, in that it shows there doesn't have to be a state church for a nation's people to consider themselves part of a Christian nation.
[ 10. March 2014, 12:17: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Have just seen Mousethief's latest which appeared while I was composing my effort. I think I've partially answered his point, but probably need to say a little more. Have to go shopping now, will mull it over and get back probably this evening sometime.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see what you're getting at, but it seems like a somewhat 'over-realised' eschatology to me.
Even that most inveterate and hubristic proponent of the Divine Right of Kings, Charles I, acknowledged the provisionality of his own kingdom and system in the light of the one which is to come ...
'I pass from a corruptible crown to an incorruptible,' and so on.
As for Constantine and his internecine civil wars and power games - that would have happened had he embraced Christianity or remained a pagan.
Whether we believe that his conversion was sincere or insincere, his adoption of Christianity was warmly greeted by the Christians of the time because it ended persecution and also helped to Christianise the institutions of the Empire. Of course, the corollary of that was always going to be increasing levels of nominalism and compromise.
But how else - at that time - could there have been the embedding and incorporation of Christian values into wider society without that kind of intervention?
It's like the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon monks and their conversion of pagan societies. They started at the top - with the king and the nobility - and worked their way down.
There was no other way of doing it in those days.
Sure, Christianity was a grass-roots movement - and a relatively egalitarian one by the standards of the ancient world - and it had permeated society by the 4th century. Which is one of the reasons why Constantine adopted it as the state religion - because it was universal across his Empire.
For better or for worse, the Constantinian thing happened. We are now in a post-Christendom society so in some ways were are naturally reverting to a kind of Pre-Constantinian situation.
The issue, then, it seems to me, is whether we want to express that in what might be considered a narrowly sectarian way - arguably the Anabaptist way - or else approach it in broader terms.
In and of itself, if combined with the kind of notions of Mere Christianity and Deep Church that Steve Langton has espoused here, I don't think that a 'sectarian' approach is, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing.
But sectarian Christianity can find itself cut off from the wider society. Perhaps that's as it should be, though ...
There's a difficult balance to maintain. Christianity is meant to be in opposition to the status quo, counter-cultural and so on and yes, having a pervasive 'national church' approach can militate against that. At the same time, it can safeguard and facilitate Christian influence in areas where it might not otherwise permeate or penetrate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At the crucial point of trial for his life we have the anomaly that Jesus actually frankly says to Pilate "I am the King of the Jews, I am the Messiah". Had he meant that in terms of setting up an ordinary earthly 'Christian country' in His name, such a country, or the attempt to establish it by worldly means such as rebellion, would be a potential military/political threat to Pilate's government and instead of all that havering and trying to let Jesus free and eventually 'washing his hands' of the affair, Pilate would have had a straightforward duty to execute this Messiah like all the others as a threat to Rome.
In fact Jesus was able (no doubt with some help from the Holy Spirit to overcome Pilate's normal roughness in such matters) to convince Pilate that although he was Messiah, he was not that kind of Messiah aiming to set up that kind of kingdom, and he was not that kind of military threat - thus in Pilate's terms He was innocent and his execution would be unjust.
Personally, I think the scenario is more subtle than that. I think Jesus forces Pilate to a position where Pilate has to make a decision himself. Jesus could have declared His Kingdom to be of the world, in which case it would be a direct threat to Rome and Pilate would be duty bound to execute Him. Jesus could have stated that Rome was the legitimate temporal authority, and Pilate the duly appointed local representative of that authority, in which case Pilate would have had to declare him loyal to Rome and therefore innocent of any charges he had authority to judge. Jesus did neither, and left Pilate no wiser after the conversation than before as to whether Jesus and his followers threatened Roman authority. Which makes the incident less relevant to the discussion of the realtionship between the church and state.
I wonder whether Pilate declared Jesus innocent of any capital crime (though, guilty of causing a disturbance and hence the flogging) because he considered being bullied by the Jewish leadership to be more of a threat to his authority than any potential threat Jesus might pose.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
EDIT - in response to Gamaliel:
I'm fine with the idea that some countries have many Christian leaders, it's just that I feel terms like 'a Christian nation' are very unhelpful. IMO it's quite a short journey from language like that to the idea that our country has a special place in God's plan.
American Exceptionalism is a recent example and an interesting one, in that it shows there doesn't have to be a state church for a nation's people to consider themselves part of a Christian nation.
Well, yes and I would share those concerns. Not only on American Exceptionalism - a concept that I take particular exception to and which I'm constantly carping at certain types of American about ... but also in terms of Holy Russia and so on and the way that the Greeks can think they've got a particular monopoly on being a 'Christian nation' in the Byzantine sense.
Heck, Ethiopia goes in for that too, at times.
I s'pose my take would be that regrettable though these concepts and developments might be, we're pretty much stuck with them until the Parousia - because wherever you get fallible human beings you get fallible human beings ...
That isn't to say that one shouldn't seek to challenge or reform these concepts - but it is to maintain a reality check. We live between the now and the not yet. The Kingdom is here and is also at hand ... but it is not ultimately realised.
Sure, the Church should be a forerunner and harbinger of the Kingdom and its principle agent - but it is not the only agent.
--------------------
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
My main problem with this thread is that many Anglicans, and certainly most evangelical Anglicans, including me, would agree with nearly everything Steven Langton is saying. But it doesn't stop us continuing to be members of our CofE churches.
So in a way there is no argument to have here because the points at which he attacks us are not the reasons why we are Anglican, so there is neither need nor substance to answer back....
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I can see that ken, unless you wanted to take a 'do you mean us?' approach.
The stance I'm taking isn't necessarily a pro-Anglican one or otherwise, but simply an acknowledgement:
- That we're in a fallen world.
- That not everything that happened within Christendom was bad, any more that not everything that happened within Christendom was fine and dandy.
- That we're in a Post-Christendom world and whilst Anabaptism can provide an alternative, it is not the only alternative ...
Arguably, many Welsh Anglicans continue to act as if they are Established even though they've been Dis-Established since the 1920s.
Who knew? Who cares?
The point is, it makes a flying fart of difference to people in Swansea, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Treorchy, Wrecsam or Pontardulais whether the Church in Wales is Established or not.
'Oarh, fancy, I jes' realised 'a' tha' church onna corner opp'sit' is Disestablished now isn't it? An' there wuz me thinkin' 't'was part of this wicked Christendom construct wazzen I? Constantine an' all. Der! Nows I knoars diffrunt I'll ge' down 'ere straight away ... now in a minute, like.'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As a quick 'thought experiment', imagine Jesus projecting on Pilate's wall images of the civil wars by which Constantine did, effectively, set up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus, and imagine that Jesus says "I approve of Constantine doing that in my name". If you were Pilate,would you still be happy with Jesus' innocence?
But given your own un-nuanced view of Constantine, why would Pilate be sorry that the Roman Empire branched out even more? Pilate was nothing if not a pragmatist.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That is a separate debate; I'm mainly concerned with getting the old-style Christian states disavowed and recognised as having been really unChristian and not serving Jesus as they thought.
But why, exactly? What would be your gain? Just pointing to those ‘heathens’ and boast yourself?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Church needs to be separate from the State for all kinds of reasons.
And I fail to see how this automatically leads to Anabaptism. Anabaptism is about more than just the relationship between Church and State. It is about a whole bunch of theological questions, including on the sacraments (which is precisely why I reject Anabaptism with all my strenght). As ken points out, Anabaptism doesn’t necessarily follow from your arguments on Church and State.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My particular point here was simply "If you try to set up a 'Christian state' or state church situation, how do you square that with the implications of Jesus' declaration to Pilate that He was aiming at a very different kind of kingdom?"
This would only be relevant of aimed at countries were the Church and State are actually the same, if that has really ever existed.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose my take would be that regrettable though these concepts and developments might be, we're pretty much stuck with them until the Parousia - because wherever you get fallible human beings you get fallible human beings ...
That isn't to say that one shouldn't seek to challenge or reform these concepts - but it is to maintain a reality check. We live between the now and the not yet. The Kingdom is here and is also at hand ... but it is not ultimately realised.
Unless I've misread you, this is a pretty epic piece of fence-sitting. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) Should we accept that we're stuck with the 'Christian nation' stuff, or should we believe things might be different (if not perfect, at least better) and work for that outcome?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Just got home; I am overwhelmed! I think I've just about got answers for all of these responses but it will definitely take a while because you've raised such diverse issues.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, it's not fence-sitting at all, South Coast Kevin.
We are entering a post-Christendom phase. We've entered it, I should say ... it's here already.
Christendom is in ruins. We are walking amongst the wreckage.
Does that mean that we should come along with a big wrecking ball and tear the lot down?
I quite like having the ruins of Fountains Abbey, Rievieulx and so on dotted about the landscape. The countryside would be the poorer without them.
Equally, I don't believe that the last vestiges of Christendom that are still around us are necessarily causing any harm. I'm ambivalent about much of it but part of me can see value - for instance - in having Bishops in the House of Lords (even though I'm not entirely convinced that we should have a House of Lords) ...
There is certainly a need - joking aside - for adequate catechesis, for small group interaction and base-communities, for grassroots initiatives and so on.
But I certainly don't believe that if Christendom or what you might consider to be outmoded forms of church were to fold up and fade away tomorrow that the world would be a better place.
I'd die a thousand deaths if churches like yours were the only ones available.
Why? Because you're operating with an over-realised eschatology with a highly perfectionist and idealised agenda that - however laid back it's presented - ultimately leads in modification or else disappointment, disillusionment and burn out.
We need the context and background of Christendom, even if we abandon its trappings. It isn't the Kingdom but aspects of it have served the purposes of the Kingdom. Elements and aspects of it may crumble and good riddance to some of it, I'm sure.
But I don't want to see a Pol Pot Year Zero thing as I don't think that's healthy nor is it attainable nor desirable.
So, no, I'm not sitting on the fence. I'm sifting through the ruins and collecting and storing what's useful for when the new Dark Age descends ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, it's not fence-sitting at all, South Coast Kevin.
I'm ambivalent about much of it...
So, no, I'm not sitting on the fence. I'm sifting through the ruins and collecting and storing what's useful for when the new Dark Age descends ...
"I'm not fence-sitting, just ambivalent."
And yes, I'm teasing ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
I'd say we're a post-Christian nation already, and since some pretty vibrant missionary groups sprang up in the original Dark Ages I'd say there's plenty of opportunities to start re-evangelising our generation in Western Europe in the same way churches are re-evangelising other societies around the world. Depends if you're looking at a mountain too high to climb or a target too big to miss.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd agree with the opportunities thing, Ramarius and no, I don't mind you teasing at all ... and good to 'see' you again by the way ...
But I'd suggest that we have to use the Dark Age analogy carefully - and yes, I know I was the one who introduced it.
I do think that we have entered a kind of post-Christendom phase which has some parallels with the pre-Christendom one - however, there are some important caveats.
The monks and missionaries of the pre-Christendom era operated in tribal societies and tended to evangelise from the top down ie. you converted the king or chief and his nobles and the rest of his people followed suit ...
We're not talking Billy Graham crusades.
I don't see the passing of Christendom as either the removal of a curse nor the creation of a great opportunity. It's what it is. Some good aspects will go, some bad, some indifferent.
Neither do I believe that there is any special, magic bullet or way of doing things that will usher in some golden age of non-Christendom Christianity.
You'll have some good stuff, bad stuff and indifferent stuff. Same as there's always been.
I don't buy into the romanticism nor do I issue a council of despair.
There'll certainly be scope and opportunities but I don't see things being any better or worse necessarily - simply different.
All this bollocks about 'If only we did away with the notion of a Christian country then we'd be able to do X, Y, Z ...' or 'If only we had this ...' 'If only we had that ...' 'If only we had more miracles ... tongues ... prayer ... fasting ... housegroups ... prophecies ... small groups, large groups ... no liturgy or clergy ... more liturgy or clergy ... yadda yadda yadda' is still going to remain bollocks.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Gamaliel, can't you be more succinct? I want to engage with you but since my 42 word post, you've posted 654 words either side of Ramarius' 75 words. Focus, man!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Church needs to be separate from the State for all kinds of reasons.
I wholly agree. But I don't think that makes the attempt to set up a Christian state (improperly so called) an oxymoron. The answer could still be, "We are setting up a temporal state for the optimal governance of the nation, and for the furtherance of the Gospel, and we do not confuse it with the eternal Kingdom, thank you very much." You seem to think that anybody who calls their state "Christian" has confused it with the eternal Kingdom. Which seems to be projecting your inability to distinguish on them.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wonder whether Pilate declared Jesus innocent of any capital crime (though, guilty of causing a disturbance and hence the flogging) because he considered being bullied by the Jewish leadership to be more of a threat to his authority than any potential threat Jesus might pose.
I think this is the real issue. Jesus had no visible army, and his followers scattered like cockroaches when he was arrested. I find it very difficult to think that Pilate felt any threat at all from Jesus. I think he was more bemused, and perhaps playing with Jesus as a cat plays with a mouse it's planning on eating anyway. But it's certainly the case, because we are told it is so point-blank, that he feared the temple authority types stirring up a riot. Clearly the Roman forces in the area were not sufficient to suppress a riot, at least well enough to ensure that Pilate survived. One pavingstone in the road that led to AD70 and Masada.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My particular point here was simply "If you try to set up a 'Christian state' or state church situation, how do you square that with the implications of Jesus' declaration to Pilate that He was aiming at a very different kind of kingdom?"
This would only be relevant of aimed at countries were the Church and State are actually the same, if that has really ever existed.
That could be argued of the Papal States pre-1870, perhaps.
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I'd say we're a post-Christian nation already...
I assume you're talking about the UK. The US has never had an established church (nationally; I think a couple of the states had an established church before the adoption of the current constitution). But we have been far more of a "Christian nation" than the UK has been in many generations, inasmuch as Christians still rule the roost. But their hold is slipping, and we're seeing in such phenomena as the Tea Party the last gasp of the old Christian guard as they find themselves incapable of coming to grips with the idea that they are losing the ability impose their religion and morality on the country as a whole. Inability to discriminate against (certain) others is seen as an attack on their civil rights; so completely do they equate having their way in all things with their "rights." The short version is they are losing their privilege (in the technical sense) and it's twisting their knickers into anchor cables.
I for one am quite against the "Christian nation" idea and reality in the United States, not least because many of those Christians who are in positions of power look with at least disdain upon my Church, if not outright regarding it as Not Really Christian At All. If they really gained enough power to wield their religious billy club, I and my family and my coreligionists could be the worse off for it. Vive le laïcité!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
While I’m trying to work out responses to all that lot that won’t sink the poor ship, I’ll address a few other ‘matters arising’….
First, Gamaliel; I’ve warned you about this before; I am Steve or Stephen, but not ‘Steven’, PLEASE! And by the way, which bit of Wales did that accent come from on your 13.56 post today?
Mousethief and StevHep asked variants of the same thing, I think; on the one hand, how do you handle being a king or other ruler who has become a Christian, or a Christian who ends up in a ruling position? And at the other end, what when the Church (in the broad sense) is so successful that it is the actual majority? The latter has to mean, I think, a majority of fairly serious Christians, not just the kind of nominal believers you get in the average Christian country who only believe because it’s such a state.
And the short answer is, I don’t entirely know. Whatever the answer is, it will have to be biblical, and it will have to respect the nature of the Christian faith as a faith, as a matter of being ‘born again’. But we have quite a few centuries of evidence of bad answers which don’t work. These bad answers start with the Imperial Roman Church of Constantine and Theodosius; at a secondary level, the Eastern Orthodox and western Roman Catholics into which that original church divided; and at tertiary level, all the varieties of church and state seen among ‘Christendom-minded’ Reformation churches which couldn’t quite bring themselves to give up the Christendom idea, right down to the way it affects Northern Ireland, and even the slightly absurd like David Silvester recently. And also the ‘Neo-Constantinianism’ seen in the USA and other places.
Gamaliel; the ‘holier than thou’ thing. Some of this is I think just a matter of perception. The basic idea of ‘holiness’ is separation, and the basic idea of Christendom is Islamic-like unity. Christians who try to put a biblical line between Christians and the world are bound to seem ‘holier than thou’ from a Christendom standpoint?
I also think this isn’t just a comparison of holiness. By which I mean that it’s not like rival Pharisees arguing that “You only tithe wheat – but we of super-heroic holiness tithe the mint and dill and cumin as well!” It’s more a case that the Christendom-minded have spent centuries being demonstrably and spectacularly not just 'less holy' but positively unholy in ways that are really important and injure the Church and unbelievers. In rejecting Christendom we are really only asking for basic holiness – as I’ve said, for ‘Mere Christianity’. Of course faced with the spectacular unholiness of Christendom we are under massive temptation to feel ‘holier than thou’ in the bad sense as well – it would help a lot if that temptation could be removed… but that’s not up to us….
You quoted Richard Baxter; wasn’t he a Parliamentary chaplain in the English Civil War? A wonderfully holy (?!) effort in which two Christendom factions fought a civil war which, not in absolute numbers but proportionately to the population, was the most destructive war Britain has ever seen? A war which Christians should not have been involved in to begin with, and which, courtesy of the Christendom idea, is in a way still rumbling on with people of Baxter’s mind in Ulster….
ken; what way are you ‘Anglicans’ unless you believe in the idea of establishment? The other stuff isn’t Anglicanism,because it has nowt to do with your relationship to the State of England.
Alan Cresswell; I think you may be being a bit over-subtle yourself. I’m with you that Jesus handled the matter so as to make Pilate think hard – but surely in the end, if Pilate didn’t interpret ‘kingdom not of this world’ and the rest of the context as meaning a non-violent kind of Messiah, how could he possibly go so far in declaring Jesus innocent, washing his hands of the affair, and so forth? Oh by the way – my original comment on this had some relevance to the basic scriptural authority theme of the original post; as Admin, can you advise whether we should perhaps be taking the tangent it has now become to a thread of its own? And if so, how do I do that?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
And while I was composing the above you all dumped an extra few thousand words on me! HELP!
At this time of night just a quick one;
quote:
originally by Gamaliel
quote:
The monks and missionaries of the pre-Christendom era operated in tribal societies and tended to evangelise from the top down ie. you converted the king or chief and his nobles and the rest of his people followed suit ...
No, Gamaliel, it was the monks and missionaries of the Christendom era, eg Augustine in the UK, who worked that top-down way. In pre-Christendom terms conversion by tribe didn't make sense.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Gamaliel; the ‘holier than thou’ thing. Some of this is I think just a matter of perception. The basic idea of ‘holiness’ is separation, and the basic idea of Christendom is Islamic-like unity. Christians who try to put a biblical line between Christians and the world are bound to seem ‘holier than thou’ from a Christendom standpoint?
Steve, I wholly agree with the general thrust of your arguments but I think you need to be careful to avoid implying that Christians should keep apart from the world. Holiness is about separation, I agree, but IMO that doesn't mean living in isolation from the heathen world, sending your kids to Christian-run schools, only doing business with Christians etc.
'In the world but not of the world', I'm sure you'd happily agree with, yes?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Yes,Kevin, I agree we are very much meant to be in the world, and I have problems with, for example, the 'Exclusive' form of the Brethren movement (ironically recently rebranded as 'Plymouth Brethren' when the Plymouth group were the original 'Open Brethren'!). I'm also unhappy,among traditional Anabaptists, with Amish exclusiveness, but feel able to be gentler about that because it comes at least partly from a history of being persecuted.
Having said that, the NT does include 'come out and be separate'; and part of the problem of the Christendom concept is "what are you coming out of when society is (supposedly) Christian?" and that excessive separation therefore is kind of encouraged by the Christendom thing as an overreaction. Getting the balance right is quite tricky when you're trying to balance not only against all kinds of unbelief but also against a definitely too worldly Church.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
originally by Mousethief
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wonder whether Pilate declared Jesus innocent of any capital crime (though, guilty of causing a disturbance and hence the flogging) because he considered being bullied by the Jewish leadership to be more of a threat to his authority than any potential threat Jesus might pose.
(MT's Response); I think this is the real issue. Jesus had no visible army, and his followers scattered like cockroaches when he was arrested. I find it very difficult to think that Pilate felt any threat at all from Jesus. I think he was more bemused, and perhaps playing with Jesus as a cat plays with a mouse it's planning on eating anyway. But it's certainly the case, because we are told it is so point-blank, that he feared the temple authority types stirring up a riot. Clearly the Roman forces in the area were not sufficient to suppress a riot, at least well enough to ensure that Pilate survived. One pavingstone in the road that led to AD70 and Masada.
I felt a bit uneasy with both Alan's and MT's responses here to my use of the Pilate episode, and wasn't sure why. Eventually the penny dropped. Look, guys, this account is part of JOHN'S GOSPEL, and one of the questions you need to ask is WHY John has included the episode. And I doubt he intended to convey vague stuff which if anything does discredit to Jesus. John is making a point, and his point is that despite Pilate's cynicism and ambivalence, Jesus at least is making here a statement about the nature of his kingdom/kingship and its relationship to the surrounding world starting with Pilate and Rome.
I think I may have missed a trick myself by using my usual wording 'Christian country' in my comments. This was a case where I would have made the point better with the translation "Messianic State". The point being that the Messiah is emphatically a king - he is the descendant of David reclaiming his ancestral kingdom. In normal thought of that period this meant a king who would first lead the Jews in throwing the Romans out,and then would further expand the rule of the Jewish kingdom over the Gentiles, the 'Nations', and in a very 'KINGDOM OF THIS WORLD' way.
So Jesus standing in front of Pilate and saying he is this Messiah, but not in that way is a really striking, extraordinary and important thing - and even Pilate seems to have realised that. And on the evidence, Jesus proposes a kingdom in which his disciples aren't a worldly army which fights, but a body of those who 'hear him' and personally recognise him as king, and as a result live in this 'kingdom not of this world' way.
And John's message to Christians and those who deal with them (confirmed by other passages in John and in the rest of the NT) is that Christians are this new kind of non-coercive kingdom of faith, that Jesus as Messiah will 'conquer' the Gentiles by seeking their faith, and that the kingdom so established is not a military type threat, the Christians are not dangerous rebels. Yes, Jesus was apparently executed as a rebel by a Roman governor - but this was an unjust judgement, the governor actually confirmed Jesus' innocence and was out-manoeuvred by Jesus' enemies.
And my point is just that - ANY supposed manifestation of Jesus' kingdom which contradicts that basic idea of a 'kingdom not of this world', whether it be QE1's Anglican Church or a bunch of NI thugs saying "We will march triumphally down your road and if we're refused we will riot", or the 'Religious Right' in the US, is a problem. And because Jesus made a point of this in his trial, he hasn't left us much option to be able to get round it and give him a kingdom of this world after all.
Gamaliel; "over-realised eschatology" - as I understand it, Christendom is over-realised eschatology; Constantine and Co sort of thought they were 'bringing in the Millennium' or some such in order to justify the changes they made....
[code: please avail yourself of the "preview post" function]
[ 11. March 2014, 10:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Bother! I thought I'd sorted that 'Quotes' thing out! Sorry guys...
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Preach it, brother.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, Steve, you are historically inaccurate once again. The Celtic missionaries like Aidan and Cuthbert operated in exactly the same way in the Kingdom of Northumbria as Augustine of Canterbury did with the pagan Saxons of Kent.
They went straight to the royal courts and centres of power.
Your mythological pre-Christendom = good : Christendom = bad dichotomy has blurred your understanding of the true state of affairs.
All those societies were tribal. All missionaries in these islands operated in that way at that time.
Besides, although the Celtic churches were operating outwith Rome until the Synod of Whitby, it doesn't mean that they weren't part of Christendom in the broader sense.
If you read St Patrick's account of his missionary journey to Ireland in the early 5th century it's clear from the language he uses that he regards himself as a 'citizen' in Roman terms (the Britons continued to use that kind of concept even after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West) and as part of the wider Christian movement - which included Rome.
You are being anachronistic. Whilst not formally assimilated into the structures of the rest of Western Christianity at that time, the Celtic Churches were operating both pre and post-Constantine. Three British Bishops attended a Christian council at Arles in 312 AD for instance.
You are allowing your particular hobby-horse to skew your vision and interpret history through a particular lens.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Meanwhile -
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Gamaliel; "over-realised eschatology" - as I understand it, Christendom is over-realised eschatology; Constantine and Co sort of thought they were 'bringing in the Millennium' or some such in order to justify the changes they made....
They may well have done. So what? That was then and this is now. Eusebius, that great historian of the early Church welcomed the conversion of Constantine and the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire because he saw it as an end of persecution and a sign that the Church had 'won' ... it had taken over the Empire, taken over the then known world ...
Of course, there was some naive triumphalism involved and he undoubtedly overlooked the downsides. But in the context of the time, one can understand why he might have adopted such a view. With the scale of the persecutions under Diocletian and so on and sporadic aggro against Christians, it's understandable that there was a collective sigh of relief and why some Christians might have thought that they now had the upper hand.
We can rail about that until we are blue in the face, but that's what they thought. We can't go back in a time-machine and persuade Eusebius differently.
'Actually, Eusebius, this Constantine thing ... it ain't quite as cosy as it looks you know ...'
I'm sorry, but at times I find your posts rather single-issue. Let's just kick this Christendom thing into touch and every thing will be wonderful. We'll have lovely churches full of nice, smiley born-again Christians and we'll all be pure and unspotted from the world.
As if.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Look, guys, this account is part of JOHN'S GOSPEL, and one of the questions you need to ask is WHY John has included the episode. And I doubt he intended to convey vague stuff which if anything does discredit to Jesus.
Not at all. He intended to convey that Jesus' crucifixion was the fault of the Jews, not the Romans. Pilate found Jesus innocent, and washed his hands of his blood. The Jews, egged on by the temple authorities, called down his blood on themselves and their offspring. That's why John included this episode in his Gospel. Making quasi-political points that Anabaptists could pick up 1500 years later and use to slam people attempting to be both Christians and rulers -- not so much.
quote:
Gamaliel; "over-realised eschatology" - as I understand it, Christendom is over-realised eschatology; Constantine and Co sort of thought they were 'bringing in the Millennium' or some such in order to justify the changes they made...
Evidence?
quote:
And my point is just that - ANY supposed manifestation of Jesus' kingdom which contradicts that basic idea of a 'kingdom not of this world', whether it be QE1's Anglican Church or a bunch of NI thugs saying "We will march triumphally down your road and if we're refused we will riot", or the 'Religious Right' in the US, is a problem. And because Jesus made a point of this in his trial, he hasn't left us much option to be able to get round it and give him a kingdom of this world after all.
Did Constantine claim his empire was a manifestation of Jesus' kingdom? Where?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, Steve, you are historically inaccurate once again. The Celtic missionaries like Aidan and Cuthbert operated in exactly the same way in the Kingdom of Northumbria as Augustine of Canterbury did with the pagan Saxons of Kent.
They went straight to the royal courts and centres of power.
And did…. what? In a tribal society you at least needed the acquiesce of the king/tribal leader if you wanted access to his people. Sure Patrick and co sought to convert leaders, but the ministry didn't stop there. If the leader converted they had an "in" to his village, and if not would ask for permission to set up camp nearby and get involved with the tribe from there. It wasn't a question of "convert leader, the tribe follows, job done, move on to next village." The real mission work took place over an extended period of weeks or months which sometimes resulted in a church being built, other times not. Tirechan mentions that Patrick and his crew established at least fifty-five churches in Ireland. 30-40 of Ireland's 150 odd tribes became "substantially Christian" in Patrick's lifetime.
How this might have differed from Augustine's approach is a different issue - might even be worthy of a thread of its own.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd suggest that it wasn't a million miles away from St Augustine's methods - albeit in a somewhat different cultural context.
Anglo-Saxon Kent wasn't urban in the way we'd understand it today, yet Canterbury represented a major seat of power. The account we have of how St Augustine set about his task comes from Bede and if I remember rightly includes ...
- The King's wife being Christian, thereby providing an 'in' ...
- The use of an icon which the missionaries brought from Rome.
- The securing of a formerly pagan place of worship and turning it into a Christian one.
The latter happened all over the Christian world at that time.
St Patrick was operating in a more nomadic society over in Ireland but I doubt if his methods differed a great deal from that of the later northern Celtic Saints - St Aidan, St Cuthbert - nor that of Augustine of Canterbury or later Anglo-Saxon missionaries such as Boniface.
The whole idea that the Celtic churches were somehow proto-Protestant and very different from Rome or - indeed - that they were really Orthodox only based over here rather than in the East - is pure moonshine.
The Orthodox and the RCs were One Church at that time for a kick-off and whilst there were clear Eastern Mediterranean influences on their monasticism and the date they used for Easter, they weren't substantially different from the Christianities you would have found anywhere else at that time - whether Spain, Romania, Italy, Gaul or Egypt and Syria.
Sure, there would have been local customs and flavours - just as there are with the Orthodox and with the RCs today - but doctrinally they were pretty much all on the same page. It's significant, I think, that the only big issues of contention at Whitby were the style of the tonsure and the date of Easter. Nothing on Christology, soteriology or similar weighty matters.
The whole idea that there was this wonderful, pre-Christendom Celtic Church flourishing in these islands before nasty old Rome snuffed out its zeal and impetus is complete bollocks.
Sure, Roman formalised things and over-legalised things - as she always does - but that was par for the course.
If you're relying on Banner of Truth or the various E H Broadbent style Brethren histories and projections for what the early church was like thn you are bound to get a view that is way adrift of the actual case on the ground.
But then, the whole restorationist impetus is a romantic one and it recreates the past in its own image.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
ken; what way are you ‘Anglicans’ unless you believe in the idea of establishment?
The other stuff isn’t Anglicanism,because it has nowt to do with your relationship to the State
Loads of Anglicans are against the establishment and want it ended. Including two bishops I' ve known personally.
Establishment has nothing to do at all with why I started going to a CofE church when I was converted, and nothing at all to do with why I carried on going to them later. If anything it was a mild negative, a reason to consider trying other churches.
But fundamentally I am a Christian and a member of a church. Not a denomination. Denominations are just a bit of bureaucracy, at best a support structure for churches.
Forms of church government have pretty much nothing to do with why I am a member of the church I am a member of. If I was indulging myself in that way I'd have probably looked for something vaguely Presbyterian.
As for establishement, the sooner it goes the better. (Or rather, as establishment is not one thing but many little interconnected things, the sooner most of the un-Christian and irrelevant aspects of it go, the better)
I think that the New Testament gives us a wide variety of examples of church government. None is prescribed to all churches in all places everywhere. There are wide bounds within which we can move as circumstances change. Some existing forms of church government are right on the edge of those bounds - I'd say the established Church of England is, as is complete independency - and would do better being moved further in. But that is reason to work for the reform of your church, not to leave it for another more to your taste.
Some forms of church government are beyond the bounds of New Testament teaching and Christians ought not to be associated with them. The most egregious these days are probably churches run as the private property of one "leader". That should never happen. (One clue is when something is called "X ministries" where "X" is the name of any living or recently dead person). The old mediaeval prince-bishoprics were another. That simply ought not to happen.
But the existing "national" churches of Northern Europe (which are of course not churches but connexions of churches) are a long way from being that bad. Whether Anglican, Lutheran, or Reformed.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Originally by Mousethief;
quote:
Not at all. He intended to convey that Jesus' crucifixion was the fault of the Jews, not the Romans. Pilate found Jesus innocent, and washed his hands of his blood. The Jews, egged on by the temple authorities, called down his blood on themselves and their offspring. That's why John included this episode in his Gospel. Making quasi-political points that Anabaptists could pick up 1500 years later and use to slam people attempting to be both Christians and rulers -- not so much.
So John, a Jew himself, is desperately keen to blame 'the Jews' and clear the Romans? Pilate finding Jesus innocent but crucifying him anyway is perfectly acceptable despite the obvious injustice?
Not at all a 'quasi-political point' to be picked up 1500 years later but a very current issue for Christians and Romans back in the 1st Century Empire, surely?
No, I'm not 'slamming people attempting to be both Christians and rulers' As I wrote back about midnight last night I don't fully know what the answer is to that particular question and it's a matter of discussion in modern Anabaptism. I'm simply saying that the answer to that is not to be found in the various practices that grew out of the Constantinian thing, including the 'neo-Constantinianism' of the US which I understand you disapprove of anyway. One reason the answer is not in those practices is because they contradict the Bible including the implications of John 18.
Gamaliel; 'Patrick and Co' is basically post-Constantine and is therefore 'Christendom'. I also think it's romantic to see the Celtic church as 'Proto-Protestants', but the modern 'Celtic Christianity' movement has interesting ideas which UK Anabaptists also use.
'Restorationism' as a return to a fabulous golden age is indeed romantic bollocks; but getting rid of a clearly problematic idea and doing a bit of re-assessing of the things that came into the church as a result strikes me as fairly practical and likely to be useful with many modern problems which aren't helped by doing an ostrich act over Christendom's problems, past and ongoing.
And incidentally I rely on a LOT more than BoT and I'm not sure I know who EH Broadbent is??
Sorry about the one subject aspect but that's the way things have gone here - if I try to answer all the stuff thrown at me in the last couple of days I'll be staying on the subject a lot longer. You'll note back up there somewhere I asked hostly guidance on perhaps transferring this to a separate thread because I'm also conscious of that problem.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
It's how the ship rolls Steve. You're being hazed with questions to which no-one really wants the answers, especially Mousethief. You'll either break under the strain and join the Orthodox/Liberal pact or you'll remain a pariah. The choice, friend, is entirely yours.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, ken's giving Steve Langton a run for his money, Daronmedway and the last time I looked he was neither Orthodox nor Liberal.
Hmmmm ... what is he?
Ah, yes, he's one of those evangelical Calvinists. You might have heard of them Daronmedway.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Come on, this us poor lickle Calvinists becoming pariahs thing doesn't stick ...
Besides, Steve can probably look after himself.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
originally by ken;
"But that is reason to work for the reform of your church, not to leave it for another more to your taste".
I basically agree with that and would point out that our Anabaptist study group includes people from many denominations, including Anglicans. I favour when possible going to a local church which will also be convenient to invite your local friends to,and in different circumstances would attend a local evangelical Anglican church, though not formally join it.
As things currently stand I think there will be major changes in the next few decades; I'm not a denominational recruiter, I'm trying to get the ideas out there so pepople are ready for the changes. I've mentioned before that I started my Christian life among Anglicans and have great respect for many Anglicans, just disagree with the system.
Thanks, daronmedway; even an Aspie pachyderm like me had kinda guessed at the hazing aspect, I'll nevertheless try and respond seriously to what I think are the most important points....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The only true evangelical left on the ship is me, Gam*. Truth be told. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
* I actually heard someone say this about themselves when I was at theological college.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - a few responses ...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Gamaliel; 'Patrick and Co' is basically post-Constantine and is therefore 'Christendom'. I also think it's romantic to see the Celtic church as 'Proto-Protestants', but the modern 'Celtic Christianity' movement has interesting ideas which UK Anabaptists also use.
'Restorationism' as a return to a fabulous golden age is indeed romantic bollocks; but getting rid of a clearly problematic idea and doing a bit of re-assessing of the things that came into the church as a result strikes me as fairly practical and likely to be useful with many modern problems which aren't helped by doing an ostrich act over Christendom's problems, past and ongoing.
And incidentally I rely on a LOT more than BoT and I'm not sure I know who EH Broadbent is??
Sure, Patrick and Co were post-Constantinian. But you'd implied that Augustine of Canterbury's approach was somehow substantially different to what had gone before - if I understood you correctly.
I'm suggesting that it wasn't necessarily any different in kind to how Christian missionaries had operated previously. Heck, if we did want to get all Orthodox about it - as Daronmedway suggests many of us are - then we'd be citing Eusebius's story of Jesus corresponding with King Abgar of Edessa and so on ...
I don't think any of us here are putting a fig-leaf over the nefarious effects that accompanied Christendom. Far from it. There were certainly bad things about it in many respects. No-one here seems to be claiming otherwise.
All I'm suggesting is that if we take a less single-issue view of it then it comes into perspective - some good, some bad, some indifferent.
If Christendom had never existed the same would be true for whatever form/s of Christianity had emerged and developed without it.
E H Broadbent wrote a book called The Pilgrim Church which was highly favoured by many Brethren and the UK Restorationists I knocked around with in the 1980s/90s.
He essentially argued that the early Church was like the Brethren and all the nasty RC/Orthodox and Christendom developments got in the way ... but ... ta-dahh!! - God always reserved a remnant, pilgrim people who kept the spark of true Christianity alive ...
The problem with his hypothesis, of course, is that he has to bend over backwards to include some pretty dodgy and heretical groups in his parallel apostolic succession of supposedly purer and more authentically New Testament style churches ...
The whole thing doesn't pass muster on an historical level.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
