 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
It does rather sound as if we've come to the end of this one. But I did quite a bit of work on my last two longer posts and if we do close it down I'd appreciate opinions on those posts before we go, especially Alan C's on the one where I tried to answer him.
I expected to go on from there with something on the lines of "I'm not trying to prescribe exactly how we should now relate to the state - but I believe something on Anabaptist lines may be better or at least clearer than the muddled post-Christendom situation.
But if you're all fed up of me, I'll understand....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm afraid I don't see how the various sins committed in the name of Orthodoxy invalidate either our beliefs or our spiritual practices. Yes, a lot more evil has been done (in terms of lives affected and/or taken) in the name of Orthodoxy than in the name of Anabaptism (which does NOT have clean hands). But as I said long ago on this thread, it's a difference in degree not in kind.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Not to mention length of time. People can pile on the sin given 2,000 years to work with.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's been a busy day, and I've only had time for some quick posts. But here's a go at responding to your thoughtful post earlier. That we've come full circle doesn't mean there isn't life in what is an interesting, if tangential, discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
AC: God was wanting to establish a political state where He is King.
SL: Not quite so agreed. This is not an ‘end-purpose’. God was ultimately setting up the circumstances of the crucifixion of Jesus which would both reveal and accomplish his saving purposes. Establishing Israel as a nation, with its laws and Temple rituals etc., was only a part of a long plan going back - well, before the foundation of the world in a sense, but certainly back to his covenant with Abraham, humanly speaking.
Yes, the old covenants were in part preparation for the New. Yes, the establishment of the nation of Israel was, in part, preparation for Jesus. But, IMO, is was only part. Despite being an evangelical, I don't think everything in the OT is just there to point to Jesus. I think it has value in itself.
There is a lot in the OT (and the New, of course) about justice, righteousness, love. In particular how those are demonstrated in community (indeed, it's difficult to see how they can mean anything apart from within a community). The nation of Israel was a community that was supposed to demonstrate those virtues - providing for widows and orphans, taking in the alien and the refugee, sale and purchase of property such that everyone had a source of income, the rich not exploiting the poor, etc. A whole load of laws governing the nation. And what those laws hung on? "love the Lord your God, and love your neighbour as yourself". As true today as then.
Jesus opened a new way for us to live in righteousness, a new way to empower us to love. But, we're still called to love our neighbours, act justly and right, and to do that in community. A nation state is a community, a rather large one, granted, but a community nonetheless. If we truly love those people within the communities we find ourselves, including our nations and international communities, then surely we would want to see them experience justice, peace, love, righteousness and all the other virtues that God called Israel to display?
quote:
Rather than ‘replacing’ Israel, the Church, a body of Jews and Gentiles reconciled in Christ, is IN CONTINUITY WITH the OT people of God, and becomes a new kind of kingdom.
Absolutely agree, continuity rather than replacement. So where is the continuity between a theocratic nation state and a gathered body of believers? I'm not actually arguing for a theocratic nation state, but I am arguing against an automatic assumption of a discontinuity. Just thinking aloud, it comes to mind that infact the Jewish nation state was already disappearing at the time of Christ - the political power of the Jewish leaders was extremely limited, Herod and his sons were barely Jewish at all (Herods claim to the Judean throne was mostly through his wife). The people of Israel were already dispersed throughout the Roman Empire, and beyond, with observance of ceremonial law and (where possible) attendance at the Temple festivals what tied them together as a people. So, maybe the discontinuity isn't as great as at first appears ...
quote:
The citizens of this kingdom are the ‘born again’, rather than those born just physically in an earthly kingdom, and therefore live on earth as ‘resident aliens’ (apologies that I keep repeating that on this thread, but it is the basic idea and Peter actually uses a word that has that root-meaning). Of course they still have responsibilities in their native land – Jeremiah outlines ideas for ‘Diaspora’ Jews which are quite relevant.
I'd agree about citizenship of the Kingdom of Christ being those who are 'born again' (without wanting to define closely what that means). I've touched on Diaspora Judaism above, as the way the Jewish people were heading by default as they spread throughout the Roman world. And, of course, the early church was founded largely from those small, dispersed Jewish communities and adopted many of the same practices as diaspora Judaism.
First and foremost, Christians are citizens of the Kingdom of Christ. First and foremost, we declare "Jesus is Lord". And citizenship we may feel we have in nation states has to be secondary to that. BUT, that citizenship of the Kingdom of Christ has to impact our citizenship of nations. If we declare "Jesus is Lord" then we can't also declare "Caesar is Lord", there is only one Lord. Many in the early church were persecuted and martyred because they could not declare Caesar to be Lord. Our nation states either hold authority in their own right, in which case Jesus is not Lord of all, or they hold authority under God - a view that Paul expounds on in Romans 13.
If political powers and nation states derive their authority to govern from God, should not the Body of Christ on earth also hold authority over them? I'm not saying the Church should, or if it should how that authority is demonstrated (probably very different from how the Church has tried to exert such authority in the past). But, it isn't immediately obvious from such arguments that the Church doesn't have such authority.
quote:
Sorry, but I don’t think the NT is ‘relatively silent’; I’d regard it as decidedly noisy!
Yes, the NT has a lot to say. It has a lot to say to how we relate to the political rulers. It has a lot to say about how Christians who have wealth (which in the Roman world often equated with political power) should exercise that. It is on the question of whether the Church should exercise political power where there isn't a lot said - mainly, IMO, because it was irrelevant to the original readership who were not in a position to take up such power or turn it down if offered. It wasn't a challenge to the Church for several centuries. Which is where we need to look not just at the Bible, but at how Christians interpreted those texts and the rest of the apostolic tradition when the Church started to be in a position with political clout. Which is something I am ill equipped to do but would find quite interesting. I strongly suspect that the "turn the whole Roman Empire into a Christian state with lots of money and political power in the hands of the bishops" route that was followed in the West, in various forms, was not universally accepted by the Church at the time. It's at that point in history we need to see the arguments made to assess things without the muddied water of 1600 years of Christendom (while also taking into account what those years have taught us).
quote:
I Peter is probably the clearest epistle in many ways, and is a favourite of Anabaptists – ironically, considering Peter’s later ‘makeover’ as the ‘first Pope’ of Christendomite Roman Catholicism. But it’s there all the way through, both subtly and quite explicitly.
One brief aside, I think we need to separate Church organisation from the Church-State relationship question. The episcopal structure was one of the systems of church government that developed in the early centuries following the death of the apostles, and had developed before Constantine. The Papacy is an evolution of that model of church structure. I see no reason why an episcopal structure couldn't have developed more or less as it did even if "Christendom" hadn't presented a conflation of Church and State.
I'm not sure what parts of 1 Peter you are thinking of. There are bits in 1 Peter 2 about being a "holy nation and priesthood", and also about submitting to human authorities. In some ways similar to what I'd mentioned earlier from Rom 13 and was making reference to last week. If we're a holy nation, does that automatically mean we can't be a physical nation? If we're to submit to human authorities does that automatically mean that we can't be those human authorities?
I know that hasn't addressed every point you raised. I don't have time just now for more, but I am interested in continuing the discussion.
Just to re-emphasise - I'm not arguing for any particular position, more raising questions because I don't think the position you are arguing for is as clearly supported in Scripture as you seem to think. Mostly I'm thinking aloud and inviting others to comment and question with me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Alan C; thanks - I think? I'll look at what you've said and I am grateful you're bothering.
Mousethief, I think you may have misunderstood my point. I know Anabaptists don't have clean hands by any means, indeed a major aspect of the modern Anabaptist experience has been repentance for the past faults of our communities too.
My concern was the specific one I originally got into the thread about; whether there is a positive authority over and above the Bible, a 'capital T' Tradition similar to the claimed 'magisterium' of the RC church. Anabaptists do not claim such a position; we don't reject all 'lower-case t' tradition, but we always regard it as open to biblical correction. Even Menno Simons was no Mennonite 'Pope'.
In assessing any claim to be such a tradition, I was asking about its credibility in that context. I struggle with the idea that a Church - initially just 'the Catholic Church', later the Western/Roman and Eastern/Orthodox derivatives, can have got church and state so wrong and still have a credible claim of such massive extra-biblical authority. As I said, Orthodoxy is not my field of expertise and I'd welcome info on what the situation is there compared to the RC which I know more about.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm a nice guy, so I will keep my claws velveted, but a friendly warning: don't call the Orthodox a "derivative" of the Catholics.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm a nice guy, so I will keep my claws velveted, but a friendly warning: don't call the Orthodox a "derivative" of the Catholics.
In fairness, he was clearly considering the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches to be equally derivative... Whether there's still an assumption that there was a church before the churches is another matter...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry, Mousethief; I really did not mean to offend. I probably phrased it wrong, but what I was trying to say was that there was ONE Imperial Church initially which later split into the Western and Eastern parts - with both, as usually the case with that kind of thing, claiming to be the original from which the other had split; which makes it difficult for those of us outside both groups. We do our best to be neutral and sometimes give offence unintentionally.
I had understood that before the split, whoever's fault it was, the original united church could properly be referred to by the Greek adjective 'Katholikos', without the 'Roman', and it was that original combined church I suggested the others were derived from. Hopefully you can see how I slipped.
I didn't know mice could do the velveted claws thing. You are clearly a remarkable rodent and thank you for your kindness.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We could be going round in circles and over old ground, but whilst I wouldn't subscribe to as large a T view of Tradition as the RCs and Orthodox, I can't see how their apparent position on the Constantinian thing somehow invalidates their position on Tradition in all its other aspects ...
It's not as if they are expecting Tradition to be binding on the rest of us unless we choose to see the error or our ways, as they'd see it, and submit to their authority. Sure, they might want that to happen but at the same time I'm sure they wouldn't want all of us on board - as Mousethief has said already, the Orthodox Church is encountering issues in absorbing converts from fundamentalist or evangelical Protestant backgrounds - and I've heard that the RCs are finding the same thing. That doesn't stop Rome capitalising on a few key converts though ... I've seen posters for various Protestant evangelists turned RC apologists ...
As I've said before, if we were to use this argument to dismiss the RC and Orthodox Churches - 'look what they've done in the past' - then we might as well apply the same thing to anyone else. 'Look what the Anabaptists did in Munster, look how the Anglicans have sometimes treated non-conformists, look how this, that or the other group has sinned, erred, gone astray ...'
Of course, in the case of the Mennonites they learned from their initial and early mistakes. But then, even Rome does that. Sure, it takes a bigger ship a lot longer to turn but RC attitudes on a whole range of things have changed dramatically over the years.
Sure, some would have them change even further and more radically ...
I can't help but get the impression that Steve Langton regards all forms of church as flawed or compromised in some way apart from the Anabaptist ones.
I don't have an issue with the principles he's espousing necessarily, but as for how things work out on the ground in any church or Church then surely we have to take things on their individual merits?
Of course some Churches remain overly Erastian. No-one's denying that.
Anyway ... old ground ...
--------------------
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
Gamaliel; I regard all forms of church as flawed - full stop. Anyone who thinks his own version (or his own self, for that matter) is un-flawed is doing that 'rosy glow' thing you keep going on about. The error of the 'state church/Christian country' is a particular problem not least because it has had really bad effects in the name of Jesus on people outside the church.
quote:
Originally by Gamaliel;
It's not as if they are expecting Tradition to be binding on the rest of us unless we choose to see the error or our ways, as they'd see it, and submit to their authority. Sure, they might want that to happen
One of the major problems of the error is precisely that a state church is all too liable to want their ideas to be binding on the rest of us and to use the power of the state to enforce that. As I pointed out somewhere on the last page of the thread, there are actually still people out there advocating rather serious "Christian confessional states" or similar. I didn't mention in the original quote but in that essay the guy seemed at one point to be contemplating bringing back a law from Deuteronomy about death penalties for certain unbelievers.
And as I've already said upthread, and elsewhere, so far as there is a religious aspect to the NI Troubles, it seems to have its roots in the 'Christian country' idea. This is not just about the past, it's a current life and death matter, not just a 'flaw'. And NI isn't the only practical problem affected by the issue - far from it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, of course all churches are flawed, just like all individuals are.
And yes, there are people calling for the adoption or even imposition of apparent Christian values and so on at a societal or even state level ... the US reconstructionists and Dominionists are just on example of that tendency.
I don't see the Anglicans and the RCs advocating anything of the kind, though. I can't speak for some of the national Orthodox Churches in the Balkans and elsewhere but Mousethief can fill us in with all of that. It does strike me that there's a lot of nationalism, phyletism and xenophobia involved over there. Unquestionably.
For instance, I saw one Orthodox poster on another website gleefully greeting developments in Crimea with, 'The Orthodox faith is now safe in the Crimea ...' as though it were somehow under threat in the rest of what was the Ukraine and as if the Russian state were the protector and champion of Orthodoxy.
I don't think anyone here is advocating positions like that.
--------------------
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
I don't see 'the Anglicans' or 'the RCs' advocating such things - here. I've already pointed to problems in some African branches of Anglicanism, and I know examples in other countries of very dodgy RC attitudes in the recent past (including in Pope Francis' home nation).
I'm hopeful of change (and not so foolish I haven't recognised it already) but we aren't there yet, or as close as I'd like.
If by 'here' you mean the UK rather than just the Ship, then yes, I know plenty here who are advocating a return to a very dubious form of Christian country practice, and others who may be advocating a comparatively mild version but it's still problematic and harms clear Christian witness to both atheists and Muslims. As I pointed out back upthread, the same kind of economic and national pride factors which led to Hitler in one situation and the growth of Islamic extremism in another could surprisingly quickly bring Christian extremism back here.
And NI is, of course, a very serious problem within our own country, and as Christians we have responsibility to our fellow-Christians there to help them clarify their ideas and take religion out of the violence. We may not all be able to help directly there, but getting it right where we are could help considerably indirectly.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
In assessing any claim to be such a tradition, I was asking about its credibility in that context. I struggle with the idea that a Church - initially just 'the Catholic Church', later the Western/Roman and Eastern/Orthodox derivatives, can have got church and state so wrong and still have a credible claim of such massive extra-biblical authority. As I said, Orthodoxy is not my field of expertise and I'd welcome info on what the situation is there compared to the RC which I know more about.
That's probably a version of my reason for not being Roman Catholic or Orthodox but to my mind it doesn't follow that disestablishment is the answer. The answer, to my mind, is falliblism. I had rather belong to the C of E and have Bishops in the House of Lords than belong to a church preaching the definitive interpretation of the Inerrant Word of God. (This is not a general principle, not a comment about Anabaptism about which I know comparatively little but that which I do know, is good.) On the occasions on which I have thought seriously about giving the C of E the old heave-ho it was the unpleasant dogmatism of some of its members rather than having to swear allegiance to Her Majesty. Clearly YMMV but I don't think any of the churches historically associated with Christendom are much involved in the ideological legitimation industry.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I'd go along with what Gildas has said - although I'd certainly not oppose disestablishment if it ever arose as a serious option in England - as it did in Wales back in 1920.
I do think that there's a case to answer in terms of Orthodox antics in various countries and RC and Anglican antics in others.
The NI issue doesn't have a great deal to do with apparent Anglican Erastianism it seems to me - although Anglican church buildings have featured in some of the more controversial marches and rallies.
I'd certainly agree that all parties and all sides of the religious and sectarian and political divides in NI could do a lot more than they have done to resolve some of the tensions.
I'm not sure what we as individuals could do, though, to show 'a more excellent way' to those hell-bent on maintaining destructive divisions or looking to impose some kind of theocratic solution.
I can see what you're saying, though. On occasion the BNP and the EDL have tried to play the religion card - but that seems to have dropped off to a certain extent from what I can gather.
I'm not sure that Anglican disestablishment or no Bishops in the House of Lords - or even no House of Lords - would prevent those who want to make a big issue out of conflating religion and nationalism, though.
One could argue, of course, that churches like the Anglicans could demonstrate a 'more excellent way' by demonstrating that a 'state church' needn't be a focal point for extreme nationalist and xenophobic positions.
All the extreme positions I've seen - of one form or other - tend to occur outside the historic churches to a large extent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by me:
quote:
This is not a general principle
That should, of course, have read that is a general principle. As another general principle I try not to talk nonsense. Clearly in this instance I failed.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
originally by Gildas;
a church preaching the definitive interpretation of the Inerrant Word of God.
Combining a Church which thinks it has such a definitive interpretation with a belief that they are also supposed to be a national church with the power of the state can have pretty awful results.
Ideally Anabaptism at least doesn't claim any special authority to deliver 'definitive interpretations', but to let the Bible rule the church as the congregation reads it. As dissenters we know that we've got to convince people of our interpretation and its relevance - a 'look you can see it for yourself' attitude.
Reading the Bible does rather lead to a view of the church as voluntary, international, pacifist and not to be allied with the kind of power/influence/benefits/etc., that the state offers. Instead the Church itself is meant to be "God's holy nation" on earth, citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven living peaceably throughout the world.
disestablishing Anglicanism is about asserting that positive peaceable view rather than the confused signals generally given off by any of the various 'Christendom' churches.
Despite Gamaliel occasionally teasing me otherwise I'm well aware that Anabaptists are also flawed....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
originally by Gamaliel;
The NI issue doesn't have a great deal to do with apparent Anglican Erastianism it seems to me - although Anglican church buildings have featured in some of the more controversial marches and rallies.
NI exemplifies general 'Christendom' positions rather than specific Anglican 'Erastianism' (which, it should be pointed out, is technically a MORE extreme position than, say, Ian Paisley's - or the Pope's, for that matter). The big relevance of Anglicanism to NI is that it is our 'Protestant country' status which NI Loyalists and Unionists are loyal to and want to be united to. Thus a change made here on consciously biblical principles could have a considerable impact on NI; a change made on more secular/liberal principles would if anything tend to reinforce their extremism.
quote:
originally by Gamaliel;
I'm not sure that Anglican disestablishment or no Bishops in the House of Lords - or even no House of Lords - would prevent those who want to make a big issue out of conflating religion and nationalism, though.
Disestablishment in itself will do nothing much. A disestablishment in which lots of Christians firmly agreed, and demonstrated it with Christian and biblical reasons, that Christianity is not that kind of national religion would at least go some way to deprive the nationalists of the opportunity to exploit our faith.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, Steve, whilst I fully accept that the Anabaptists have largely got an impeccable record in terms of issues like peace and justice and so on, the fact remains that hereabouts if I wanted to hear a sermon about peace, justice, tolerance and so on and to find initiatives that aim to promote such things I'm more likely to find it among the historic or 'Christendom' churches rather than among the 'dissenters' ...
That's a fairly sweeping generalisation I know, but the work that's being done here on issues of that kind is largely being done by the 'liberal' churches - not the conservative independent or evangelical ones.
Sure, the evangelical parish here will sometimes reprint an article about peace, justice or ecological issues in its magazine that may have first appeared in the magazine of the liberal parish down the road ... and evangelicals of all stripes here are involved with some decent social initiatives and so on. They aren't just banging people over the head with Bibles and telling them to repent ...
But, by and large, in this country at least - and quite possibly in the USA and Australia, Canada etc - I'd suggest that you'd find a lot more scope for the kind of issues and values you're talking about among the historic Churches than among the 'dissenters'.
The mileage will vary of course. But I've heard far more anti-Establishment things said and preached at the liberal parish down the road rather than the evangelical one around the corner ...
--------------------
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
'White man speak with forked tongue'....
Sorry about that old stereotype, but a church doing all the peace and justice stuff and yet hanging on to the 'Christendom/establishment' idea or similar is doing a pretty good imitation of two-faced Janus. If they really want to do the peace and what-have-you business, why don't they give up their inconsistency.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Either because:
- They aren't aware of any inconsistency.
- They don't see it as inconsistent.
- They aren't binary and dualistic.
- You need to take the beam out of your own eye before attempting to take the speck out of theirs.
Or perhaps these inconsistencies are in the eye of the beholder?
--------------------
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
Gamaliel; 1 & 2 there more-or-less different ways of saying the same thing, aren't they. If after centuries of the problems caused by Christendom they're not aware or don't see the inconsistency, that speck in their eyes has clearly completely blinded them!
'binary and dualistic' is a common insult hurled at Anabaptists. Mainly because 'Christendom', in an inappropriate 'monism', unites church and world in an unbiblical way for unbiblical reasons and doesn't like that being challenged.
I think you'll find the NT is full of 'binary' stuff, though not, naturally, of dualism in the 'equal and opposite good and evil gods' sense. Light and Dark, World and Church....
(For more on 'dualism' see Leonard Verduin's classic "The Reformers and their Stepchildren")
Beams and Specks; OK but....
You know that thing where Paul establishes 'not by works but by faith', and then people start misusing it, and both Paul and James in different ways have to correct their 'antinomianism'...
Something similar has been happening with ideas like the 'beam and speck'; instead of being reminders to Christians to be non-judgemental, they all too often get used by the people with the biggest beams in their eyes to defend themselves from criticism.
It wasn't the beams and specks one, but I once found myself up against a pastor who was doing serious wrong (though in the end it was impossible to prove), and his response when I challenged him was "Never mind whether we're hurting you, you have to practice love and turn the other cheek or you're not a Christian anyway".
You see how that works; he doesn't apply it to himself, he turns it into a right he has so that people have to 'turn the other cheek' to him. That is serious misuse of the text. Same goes with the beams and specks one; these days it seems mainly to be used by people with the biggest beams in their eyes to divert criticism and make the good guys feel improperly guilty.
Or to put it another way, if you feel the need to throw that text at somebody, what might it imply about the real location of the beam...?
Slightly teasing, but it's perhaps more important to sort out the truth than keep comparing specks and beams. Bear in mind that if the Anabaptist case is right (which depends on what the Bible teaches rather than on the specks and beams in the eyes of either party) then being on the other side is seriously disobeying God.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, 1 and 2 were different ways of saying the same thing ... I wasn't paying enough attention.
I can see what you're getting at with the motes and beams thing, but rather think you've missed my point.
All I'm saying is that we should judge anything on its individual merits.
Otherwise, nothing is ever good enough.
Just imagine if there were a parish church somewhere that was doing terrific work of some kind - with the poor, the marginalised, the outsiders ... the sort of thing that all of us would applaud.
What should our response be?
'That's all very well and good but it's still operating within the established Church and some kind of Constantinian paradigm. Only when it jettisons that and operates by Anabaptist principles or what I take to be true biblical principles, will I sit up and take notice ...'
It's a bit like the - probably apocryphal - story of the very Puritanical church in New England where the minister kept upping the ante for conditions of church membership. People kept dropping out because they couldn't live up to the increasingly exacting standards.
Eventually, the church went from a large and vibrant community to just three members - two old ladies and the pastor himself ...
This is the sort of thing I'm getting at.
Good stuff is done by churches, individuals and communities who are outwith the established or historic Churches and good stuff is done within those same established or historic Churches.
The reverse is also true.
That's all I'm 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Gamaliel; Entirely with you on judging by individual merits, and I wouldn't want to hinder any good work that is being done by any church - even those pesky Anglicans - and indeed the church I'm currently with is one partner in a community cafe project in which the local Anglicans are among the partners, and I'm delighted to work with them. I will also be delighted later in the year to help out at a model railway event put on by another local Anglican Church, and I've been years involved with a model railway group that operates as a 'fellowship' within a local Methodist church (and doesn't even insist you be a Christian to join the group). And so on....
However I also think there is a serious possibility that NOW (give or take a few decades, it won't be instant!) is the time God wants his church to take a really good look at itself over the issues that started with Constantine/Theodosius, and clear them up and present ourselves to the world without all that baggage (while being careful not to throw babies out with the bath-water).
As we face challenges from Islam, rather militant Atheism, and nationalist wishes to exploit our faith, and a lot of other issues as well, I think we will be better equipped to face them not by lightly abandoning the fellowships in which God has placed us, but rather if we adopt formally, and for reasons of biblical faithfulness, the 'free church' status and understanding which is already pretty much the reality, and stop trying to go back to a dodgy past. The Anabaptists also have to do some self-examination, and they are, but mostly either in different areas, or in terms of recalling that we are meant to be IN the world a good deal more, even if we must still not be OF the world.
What I'm trying to do is not to recruit for Anabaptism as a denomination - and in UK there isn't really such a denomination anyway - but to help people do the necessary thinking now, in preparation, rather than after the world forces us to change like-it-or-not, which at the moment seems all too likely.
(incidentally I'm not sure I could have said that lot quite so clearly only a few months ago, which is a tribute to the efforts and fellowship of the Shipmates here. Thanks all!!)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Please don't misunderstand me, Steve. Like you, I am of the impression that we are entering - and have entered a post-Christendom phase and the kind of knee-jerk nationalisms and so on that you're citing as part of the death throes of the old order.
So we're not a million miles apart, I don't think. And I have been exaggerating somewhat in my responses to you - not to knock you off your perch but in the interests of prodding us all - myself included - to think these issues through.
That's my debating style and I can be a bit of a pain at times.
As far as the vestiges of Christendom go, then I am afraid that I'm of the opinion that there's a mixture of good, bad and indifferent ... which is why I've been arguing that these things aren't clear cut.
To use an analogy from an OT story - and I'm not applying this in a baldly literal sense - it's a bit like that bit where it says that Israel was only gradually able to occupy certain territories and that the Lord allowed them to remain occupied by Israel's enemies for a while lest the wild animals take over ... or words to that effect.
The residual remnants of Christendom can act both ways - as a preservative and a reminder of things that are good and noble and true - or, in a skewed way by nationalists and xenophobes.
I don't believe in some kind of ecclesiastical Year Zero. We have to work with what we've got and have inherited. That doesn't mean that we don't sift and filter out things that are harmful and unhelpful of course.
--------------------
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
Me neither on a total Year Zero. That's what gets the babies thrown out with the bathwater.
But, for example, keep the best of Anglican (small-t) tradition in a church which is no longer established and knows why it shouldn't have been, - why not?
What I want is that it happens voluntarily and thoughtfully, and clearly and willingly; An externally forced change just by circumstances could be disastrous, could even result in civil war.
And keep bearing in mind, as I do, that it isn't just about Anglicanism in the UK.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Who's we guys? Russia is idolizing itself like there's no tomorrow. Christendom is alive and well.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Hi Martin; welcome back to the thread, I don't think you've been here much since it went tangential.
I certainly know Christendom is well alive and possibly rather urgent. Gamaliel seems less sure on that. Any further comment from you?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Babylon, never goes away.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
A response to Alan Cresswell’s last long post back upthread…
One of the thoughts I considered, looking at both this and the previous contribution from Alan, was this;
Like most Aspies I’m no good at extended fiction (though friends have liked (or pretended to like) some Asimov-styled short stories I’ve written). But I think a good writer could string a lot of Alan’s suggestions together to make a pretty good story of people who start as nice peaceful Christians who just want to do good, and end up as Christian versions of either Bin Laden or Hitler, and still sure, even after being responsible for something akin to the Holocaust or 9/11, that they’re the good guys….
Or to put it another way, some of this is basically how Satan tempts the well-intentioned… or the good intentions with which the road to hell is paved….
To save space I’ve extracted what I see as ‘key’ bits of Alan’s post to comment on; the rest I either agree with or they are ‘neutral’, that is, could be interpreted differently according to your starting point, or I’ve answered them below anyway.
quote:
from AC;
AC: Our nation states either hold authority in their own right, in which case Jesus is not Lord of all, or they hold authority under God - a view that Paul expounds on in Romans 13.
SL: Clearly the nation states hold authority under God, and Jesus IS Lord over them, whether they consciously realise it or not. They are God’s current providential arrangement for those people at this time, for all kinds of reasons from maintaining law and order to carrying out God’s judgements to…. Even Hitler held authority under God; but Romans 13 doesn’t speak to Christians seeking such authority, but rather trusting God with what happens. Here is a version of Romans 13 I produced for preaching purposes – it’s not exact but it shows how Paul uses words connected by root to make his point, and provides a slightly changed perspective to reconsider the interpretation.
“Everybody must be subject to the state authorities, because there is no authority except under God, and those that do exist are part of God’s project. Whoever objects with violence to the existing authority opposes that divine project, and by opposing brings divine judgement upon himself.” (the '-ject' words are the common roots)
quote:
from AC;
AC: If political powers and nation states derive their authority to govern from God, should not the Body of Christ on earth also hold authority over them? I'm not saying the Church should, or if it should how that authority is demonstrated (probably very different from how the Church has tried to exert such authority in the past). But, it isn't immediately obvious from such arguments that the Church doesn't have such authority.
SL: I think the reality is that the Body of Christ on earth very much holds authority over political powers and nation states; but not in terms of worldly power. There are quite a few texts I could quote here, but for just one, Acts 4; 23-30. People who could pray like that don’t need the more direct kind of authority in the state. Perhaps we need more praying like that….
quote:
from AC;
AC: It is on the question of whether the Church should exercise political power where there isn't a lot said - mainly, IMO, because it was irrelevant to the original readership who were not in a position to take up such power or turn it down if offered
SL: I guess the question is, does the NT not say much merely because of the then impracticality – or does it not say much about that because it has put forward a positive alternative view of the Church’s place in the world, in which such power will always be irrelevant or at best marginal to the Church’s life?
quote:
from AC;
AC: I'm not sure what parts of 1 Peter you are thinking of.
SL: Parts?? Practically all of it, really. The whole ‘atmosphere’ of I Peter is simply living in a different world to the kind of thing the Constantinian states got up to. And would Peter, telling the persecuted minority Church not to get into trouble as ‘self-appointed managers of other people’s business’, really envisage the church taking power to be such ‘allotriepiskopoi’ on a national scale? Also Peter seems in early verses to envisage the current ‘resident alien’ status continuing till Jesus returns.
quote:
from AC;
AC: There are bits in 1 Peter 2 about being a "holy nation and priesthood", and also about submitting to human authorities. In some ways similar to what I'd mentioned earlier from Rom 13 and was making reference to last week. If we're a holy nation, does that automatically mean we can't be a physical nation? If we're to submit to human authorities does that automatically mean that we can't be those human authorities?
SL: One of the things preventing us from being a ‘physical nation’ is the doctrine that you must be ‘born again’ spiritually to become a Christian. Governments cannot legislate to make that happen, Christian English (for example) parents can be sure their children will be born English but cannot ensure those children will be born again spiritually as Christians. If such ‘rebirth’ is needed, any nation with a Christian presence is effectively ‘pluralist’, it can never be simply ‘Christian’.
Of course in a sense we are a very physical nation; we are there all round the world as real people committed to God. But that very internationalism also militates against being too involved in any one state or empire. We have in the last century realised that there were considerable problems in the way Christianity was brought by Western colonisers/conquerors and seen as ‘Western’ rather than ‘catholic/universal’ in the original sense.
quote:
from AC;
AC: I strongly suspect that the "turn the whole Roman Empire into a Christian state with lots of money and political power in the hands of the bishops" route that was followed in the West, in various forms, was not universally accepted by the Church at the time.
SL; there is some evidence of that, though I don’t have any of it exactly handy right now. The problem is that the entanglement of state and church happened quite slowly; it was around 70 years between the Church being initially tolerated by an emperor who was also disposed to rather favour it, and Christianity later being made effectively compulsory under Theodosius. Over that time a gradual slow entanglement occurred which involved the church being diluted at ‘lay’ level by people following the imperial lead superficially without real spiritual rebirth, and the leadership also being diluted by people who had realised that professing Christianity offered a new route to secular influence. Because it was slow people who might have protested a sudden elevation to power were lulled into a false sense of all being well, and by the time of Theodosius everyone was used to the empire being ‘Christian’.
One of the key events, arguably, was the Donatist issue. I don’t see the Donatists as perfect (apart from anything else, if Jesus had been a Donatist, Peter wouldn’t have been forgiven his denial!), but they did get it right when they belatedly asked “Quis est imperator cum ecclesiae?” – “Since when is the Church the Emperor’s business?”
The next put out of order because as Alan says, bit of an aside...
quote:
from AC;
AC: One brief aside, I think we need to separate Church organisation from the Church-State relationship question. The episcopal structure was one of the systems of church government that developed in the early centuries following the death of the apostles, and had developed before Constantine. The Papacy is an evolution of that model of church structure. I see no reason why an episcopal structure couldn't have developed more or less as it did even if "Christendom" hadn't presented a conflation of Church and State.
SL: I agree that the ‘church organisation’ is theoretically separate. Clearly the kind of ‘monarchical’ bishop we now know was already developing before Constantine, arguably even during the second century (the 100s CE). But the form of that development ended up suiting the state church in ways the NT model didn’t, so there is a connection.
As I see it, the doctrine of ‘apostolic succession’ originally developed as a practical proposition in early days when the Church in a whole province may have had fewer copies of the NT than I have on a shelf behind me right now. In such a situation it made sense to look to those who had been ‘apprenticed’ to the apostles or ‘ordained/approved’ by them, and to those who had ‘succeeded’ in eldership from them, and so on, as probably being fairly reliable both to pass on the tradition and to resolve fresh issues. In that practical form the idea had limitations, starting with the liability of such passing-on to eventually suffer from the ‘Chinese whispers’ thing, and perhaps also that it made some local elders ‘more equal than others’, leading eventually to the ‘sole bishop’, whereas in the NT ‘bishops’ and ‘elders’ are just different names for the same thing.
Once a solid version of apostolic teaching was available in the form of the NT, that alternative passing-on was less needed. Unfortunately by that time an element of ‘magic’ had entered into the idea of that succession, so that people were considered to carry that authority without having been through a significant apprenticeship but just by being successors – as in the concept of the papacy as ‘bishop of Rome’ where simply being a successor bishop was supposed/alleged/claimed to give that successor full Petrine authority.
We may practically need some ‘regional CEO’ types; but I don’t think we need ‘prince bishops’ – they must give more than lip service to being servants of the church.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Steve,
I'm not going to have time to address all the points in your post just now. Hopefully I can get back to the rest in the next few days. But, here's a start.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Clearly the nation states hold authority under God, and Jesus IS Lord over them, whether they consciously realise it or not. They are God’s current providential arrangement for those people at this time, for all kinds of reasons from maintaining law and order to carrying out God’s judgements to…. Even Hitler held authority under God; but Romans 13 doesn’t speak to Christians seeking such authority, but rather trusting God with what happens. Here is a version of Romans 13 I produced for preaching purposes – it’s not exact but it shows how Paul uses words connected by root to make his point, and provides a slightly changed perspective to reconsider the interpretation.
“Everybody must be subject to the state authorities, because there is no authority except under God, and those that do exist are part of God’s project. Whoever objects with violence to the existing authority opposes that divine project, and by opposing brings divine judgement upon himself.” (the '-ject' words are the common roots)
Your "preaching version" seems to fall short on a couple of points (which, of course, may have been very adequately covered in the sermon itself).
First, you put in "objects with violence". The question that raises is what about objecting without violence? Is there space in your understanding to object to what governments are doing without violence? Would that include signing petitions, writing to MPs (or equivalent representatives in government), marches, boycotts of goods, standing for election to government? Violence is use of physical force, if you are wealthy (and, most people reading this are wealthy in comparison to the majority of the world) and use that wealth to encourage certain government policies (eg: give to specific charities, choose not to buy certain goods) are you not using financial force? Is that fundamentally any different from physical force? Or, a different form of force, if you happen to be a celebrity are you not using your status to attempt to force government into an action if you make public statements on policy? I'm not sure the violent-nonviolent division is easy to define. I think we're talking about "using a position of power to object" - that position of power could be wealth, social status, physical force. If so, is there anyway we could object, which brings me to point two ...
If "there is no authority except under God, and those that do exist are part of God’s project" then surely objecting to state authority is objecting to God's project? The alternative is to accept that state authorities may deviate from being part of God's project. In which case surely our calling (or, part of it) is to discern whether or not state authorities are acting in accord with God's project, support them when they are and oppose them when they are not. That must, almost by definition, require significant involvement in politics, to be able to discern the way policies are forming and influence them to conform to God's project.
Which is why I think the option of completely opting out of politics and trying to influence the State fails. I also think that the attempt to totally convert the State into a part of the Church fails - because it fails to recognise the inability of the Church to get it right all the time, but possibly more importantly can squash the dissenting voices that need to be heard by state governments as part of the process of discerning the direction policies are going and objecting to those at odds with justice and peace.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Part 2 ...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The whole ‘atmosphere’ of I Peter is simply living in a different world to the kind of thing the Constantinian states got up to.
It might be obvious, but Peter was living in and writing to a church who were living in a different world to that of the 'Constantinian states'. So, it's hardly surprising that the atmosphere reflects that. I think it's a mistake to simply assume that that world was inherently better to what followed a few centuries later, it's equally a mistake to assume that what came later was better. But, it is important to remember that all of us are reading the text across a gap of two millenia during which the world has changed considerably, in particular where the Church has gained (and to a large extent lost again) political power. I know that that has affected how I read the Bible. Knowing that when given political influence the Church abused that, and also used that political influence for the benefit of many, gives me a predisposition towards the question of church and state. The difficulty with all Biblical studies is how do we step across that enormous barrier to read the Bible afresh in the 'atmosphere' of a very different world (and, indeed I suppose whether we should do so or simply read it in the light of subsequent history). And, having done so how to bring what we learn back across that gap so that it it relevant today.
quote:
And would Peter, telling the persecuted minority Church not to get into trouble as ‘self-appointed managers of other people’s business’, really envisage the church taking power to be such ‘allotriepiskopoi’ on a national scale? Also Peter seems in early verses to envisage the current ‘resident alien’ status continuing till Jesus returns.
In a few weeks I'll be preaching, and my epistle is part of the first chapter of 1 Peter. This includes reference to the 'resident alien' status. I'm finding this conversation is forcing me to think about that a bit more than I might have done otherwise (whether or not it'll seem right to include anything raised here in my sermon remains to be seen). So, yet more questions I'm asking myself as much as asking others.
It is generally assumed, at least as far as I understand it, that Peter was writing in the expectation that the return of Christ would happen relatively quickly. I think that is something that we need to remember. Should his readers exercise any rights they had as citizens of the Roman Empire? Should they partake in civic duty, debate issues of the day in the forum? Seek to influence the political system to act justly, to lift the poor from servitude, to be at peace? Peter may well have said "it's not important, the Lord is coming soon" - an argument often made even today. But, we live after almost two millenia without His return, and no reason not to expect the church will be waiting another two millenia. Does that not potentially change the answer? If Christ is not returning soon should we not do all that we can to work for justice, righteousness, peace?
Indeed, if Christ is coming to redeem the nations, to bring them into the present reality of His Kingdom, should we not be working to the same end today?
quote:
One of the things preventing us from being a ‘physical nation’ is the doctrine that you must be ‘born again’ spiritually to become a Christian. Governments cannot legislate to make that happen, Christian English (for example) parents can be sure their children will be born English but cannot ensure those children will be born again spiritually as Christians. If such ‘rebirth’ is needed, any nation with a Christian presence is effectively ‘pluralist’, it can never be simply ‘Christian’.
I can declare myself both a citizen of the European Union and a British subject. Can we not hold 'dual citizenship'? Are we not citizens of the nations of earth by parentage, citizens of Heaven by adoption? Does our citizenship of Heaven negate our citizenship of earthly nations?
I agree with you that a nation will always be pluralistic, and the great mistake of much of the history of Christendom has been that the Church and State has so often forgotten that. But, what I'm not sure about is whether because Christian nations have erred in the past (and, of that I've no doubt) does that mean that the concept of a Christian nation is wrong? How many marriages have been abusive and damaging? Does that make marriage wrong? We're called to a very much higher standard, is it also a completely different standard? Are we called to forego statehood, or to do statehood better?
I am fairly sure that the Church, collectively as well as the individual members, is called to bring the values of the Kingdom of God into the present reality. We are called to serve, to love, to forgive and to help others into the Kingdom that they too may serve, love and forgive. We are called to bring justice and righteousness. All of that, in my opinion, necessitates political activity. I don't believe we can be just 'resident aliens' with no voice to change society for the better. Yes, we need to lift our eyes towards the coming Kingdom of God and live in that Kingdom. But we also need to look around us, and bring the light of that Kingdom to those living in darkness. That means not separating ourselves from the nations of the world, but being citizens of the those nations until they are redeemed in Christ and brought into the greater Kingdom of God.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks for part 2, Alan C. I've just had a rather busy weekend and I'm only partway through my response to part 1!
I'll try and get that response up ASAP and carry on thinking about what you've now added.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Just a quick ‘immediate thoughts’ which may – or may not – help with your preaching…
First, 2 Peter is of course the place where we get “Jesus’ return could be thousands of years away”, but Peter doesn’t seem to think it changes his position.
Second, I think we are probably quite close in terms of ‘end product’ of what is legitimate; but rather a long way apart in terms of ‘starting point’. And I think it matters in the modern world whether we come over as (apparently) trying to hang on to the rags of the former ‘Constantinian’ dominance of the church in the state, even seeming to take it for granted that just because we believe in God we have a divine right to be bossy; or whether we come over as starting from a humbler ‘kingdom not of this world’ position.
Thirdly, in the present circumstances we need to face up to the harm done to the Christian image by the Constantinian past (and too much still present), and accept that we have quite a way to go in ‘re-earning’ credibility for our political interventions; and that if we don’t show significant signs of realising that, our interventions may misfire anyway.
Fourth, there are the problems presented by the all-too-similar religious state position taken by even moderate Muslims, let alone the extremists. Are we trying to do anything like them, or something decidedly contrasting on a rather different basis; and can we make it clear that we are different?
Fifthly, a lot of people who would strongly approve of a ‘Christian country’ message are people you probably wouldn’t approve of; extremist Protestants/Loyalists in Ulster, and groups like the EDL here on the mainland. Can you state your case in a way that doesn’t give comfort and apparent support to that kind of thing?
I think these points stand as at least ‘heavy cautions’ whichever of us is ultimately right??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Alan C; I've been trying to answer your last and the problem I'm having is that the issue has in a way got a bit diffuse and 'nit-picky' of each other's comments at this point. It threatens to end up as just ever longer critiques of each other's statements, which I suspect is not the most profitable use of our time.
I also suspect this thread has indeed finally died, though thank you for your efforts - you have had me thinking!
A few quick ones; your case seems just a bit short on scripture and a bit long on 'why not...?' questions that try to excuse going way beyond scripture. This I have registered as a common phenomenon in people making cases for the 'Christian country'.
Secondly, the reference to the Christian country idea almost in terms of a 'marriage' of church and state (quote; "does that mean that the concept of a Christian nation is wrong? How many marriages have been abusive and damaging? Does that make marriage wrong?") Some of us might be phrasing that on the lines of "Is that alliance marriage - or perhaps adultery by the church with the state?"
Third, I think you've focussed too closely on just our position in our state and lost a 'bigger picture' in which our 'Christian country' has effects elsewhere, including effects on our fellow-Christians in 'other-religious' states, and a whole raft of issues about our state's relations with, for example, Muslim states. The internationalism of Christianity is in many different ways one of the strongest arguments for the 'resident alien' status we should assume in any individual state.
Pro tem, Bye! Hope to engage with you again sometime.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
