 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Separatism, smugness and shit-storms
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
There was meant to be one elder or overseer per city - and these tended to act in an oversight capacity towards smaller churches in surrounding villages and hamlets.
Which is why Paul at Miletus met the 'elders' PLURAL of the church at Ephesus, who he also describes quite explicitly as 'overseers' PLURAL. The NT description of ministry always seems to describe the local congregation as having elders/overseers in the plural, and a wide range of gifted people helping them in 'ministry', rather than the single 'priest' we have become accustomed to.
As I understand it, it was also Jewish practice that a local synagogue was run by a group of elders, and with Jesus' sacrifice having made the Temple redundant, the early church followed synagogue style rather than Temple style....
by Gamaliel;
quote:
If you take the radical Anabaptist thing to its logical conclusion then everything had gone wrong before the ink was dry on the original NT epistles.
If you take the NT seriously lots of things were going wrong long before the ink was dry - indeed the things going wrong were the reason for the epistles. The case is not that all was perfect before Constantine/Theodosius, but that the change to a 'Christian state', and the confusion that entailed about the nature of the church, helped to ensure the adoption/fixation of some things that had 'gone wrong' in terms of the NT but which suited an 'established' religion.
again by G;
quote:
As for the Real Presence and so on ... I think you'll find that was a pretty early belief too.
Very probably; but you have to bear in mind that with such an idea there is a period when the belief is 'unclarified' if you like. Jesus is present among us in the communion, and the communion meal echoes the many OT sacrifices which became in part a meal for the worshippers; but it's quite a jump from that to saying "Jesus is present among us in the literal flesh and blood which were just bread and wine before we 'said the magic words over them'". The temptation to make that jump was present early; and again was a 'misstep' which became 'fixed' because a theology of the 'mass' as a renewed sacrifice of Jesus suited a state church better than the communion meal of a body of believers separate from the state.
chris stiles; you are probably quite significantly right about an era which had much more concept of family/household solidarity than we now know. But whether that necessarily included infants, and whether infants were at that time normally eligible for baptism would need to be determined on other grounds, not on an argument from a few incidents where the presence of infants isn't mentioned.
Various authors have explored this and I so far find the argument against infant baptism the more compelling. I was particularly interested in a book from, I think, the 1970s by a Lutheran called Kurt Aland; he concluded that infants were not in fact baptised in the early church even though he thought there was an argument for infant baptism.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, there were elders - plural - in Ephesus and yes, I'd agree that the ideal is for there to be plurality of leadership in the local church. To all practical intents and purposes there is in most churches I'm aware of - even those that have vicars and priests and clergy in the 'traditional' or more sacramental sense.
On the Real Presence thing - I'm not arguing for later, medieval Scholastic definitions such as Transubstantiation. All I'm saying is that the early Church does appear to have taken a rather 'higher' and more sacramental view if you like, than some would have us believe.
I don't believe that the early Church were all Zwinglian memorialists any more than I believe they were Ultramontane Catholics.
--------------------
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
'sacramental'; I'm perhaps trying to make a distinction between things which we see as truly supernatural - the presence of the risen Christ among his people, for example - and the trivially and sometimes almost comical 'magical' "the bread and wine are His literal body and blood".
Yes, it's good order that elders normally preside at communion - but communion doesn't require some 'magic power' of the elders to be perfectly valid and meaningful.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
With respect, I think you are somewhat missing the point with more sacramental understandings of the eucharist - although I can understand why you might do so given the way these things have so often been expressed - particularly by the RCC.
One of the problems I had with the Post-Christendom series wasn't because they weren't quite Anabaptist enough in terms of some of the practical examples they gave - although I can understand why that would be your concern and issue with them - but rather the almost complete absence of any sense of mystery and the numinous.
I'm exaggerating - but it was almost as if the church was reduced to the level of some kind of social club or self-help union - a trades union or some other body. Fine, there is an element of that of course - but surely it's far more than that?
There was something very 'self-conscious' about it in a bad way ... let's reinvent everything, let's scrutinise the guts out of everything we do to ensure we carry no hint of taint of evil, wicked, Constantinian Christendom ...
That's what I meant about the po-facedness of it all.
It was reductionist in the extreme.
I have a real problem with the Real Absence.
![[Razz]](tongue.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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was reductionist in the extreme.
Hmm. *Thinks for a bit*.
Yes. I reckon we should be strongly reductionist in terms of how we do our Christian practices. Here's what I mean. ISTM the New Testament is much stronger on the broad principles of how we should 'do' church than it is on the precise details. As has been said, in this thread, I think, there aren't clear instructions on how exactly we should do church leadership and so on.
So I think we should always be prepared to examine our customs and practices to see how closely they match up to those broad principles. Do they, for example, allow and indeed encourage everyone to grow in their spiritual gifts? Do they encourage increasing maturity of faith or do they in fact encourage infantilisation of the brethren?
Of course, when we address these questions, different people will come up with different answers. I'm fine with that, but what I'm not fine with is a reluctance to even ask these questions; so I'm thoroughly in favour of the 'post-Christendom' anabaptist deconstruction (as some would call it) of our faith practices.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'sacramental'; I'm perhaps trying to make a distinction between things which we see as truly supernatural - the presence of the risen Christ among his people, for example - and the trivially and sometimes almost comical 'magical' "the bread and wine are His literal body and blood".
Well, it appears that the early churches answer to 'what do we receive in communion' was 'we receive his body and blood'. This view appears to have developed relatively early, have a lot of resonances with the language of the new testament, and is at the bedrock of the beliefs of the various historic churches. It's only with the radical reformation that that really changes.
Of course the explanation of what that means and how it can be so generates a lot of different ideas.
Again a tangent though.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
SCK, I'd be strongly in favour of Anabaptist deconstruction of our faith practices IF it could be demonstrated that it would lead to something that redressed imbalances rather than replacing those imbalances with new and different ones.
I'd also be in favour of it if it maintained what it is vitally important to my mind - and that's a sense of the numinous and the transcendent.
I'll be honest, I don't particularly find that in those Anabaptist writings and arguments I've seen.
Don't get me wrong, I think that it is possible to experience the numinous and the transcendent in a Baptist church or in an Anabaptist one (although I've not had any direct experience of the latter, but plenty with the former).
However, the very act of sifting, assessing and recalibrating everything has the inevitable effect, I think, of throwing out babies with bathwater.
I'm still 'reformed' enough to believe that churches should constantly be re-evaluating themselves and checking things out - that's not the issue here.
I don't have a big issue with Anabaptists. I like Anabaptists. I'm glad they are around and can act like a ginger-group/gadfly for the rest of us. I would be more than happy to attend Anabaptist conferences and so on.
But in a way I'm finding it hard to explain, I do, however, for all my admiration of their principles and motives, find that the whole thing has a tendency to rip the sense of mystery out of things.
On one level I find the whole Zwinglian thing intensely boring. It reduces everything down to the barest minimum. It's like Ikea. It's practical but lacks character.
I'm sorry, but there it is.
--------------------
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
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I have a real problem with the Real Absence.
So do I; I emphatically believe that Jesus is present in the communion meal!! I'm not sure however that it is helpful - or even properly reverent - to 'pin that down' and make it concrete in the excessively literal way that the RCC theory of transubstantiation does, or as Zwingli did by perhaps going to the other extreme.
Actually I quite like an old Anglican formulation which I grew up with - "feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving" or words to that effect....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure.
It's not about 'experiences' as such but I often say to people - and I once told an RC priest the same - that the most 'numinous' sense I ever had about the weight and importance of communion came in a very unprepossessing Baptist chapel in South Wales. The sermon which preceded it was a very good one, but it was more than that - it was if the enormity of what we were about suddenly became apparent.
One of those 'thin places' if you like - no big fuss or razzamatazz but simply the sense that what we were doing and commemorating/celebrating - and yes, making 'present' - was all-encompassing and 'for' the whole world ...
I think the Zwinglian thing swung to the opposite extreme in reaction to an RC over-egging and over-defining of things - something our RC friends do have a tendency to do in spades, I'm afraid.
I can't cite examples but I have heard that early Anabaptism was actually quite mystical - which wouldn't surprise me as they effectively came out of late medieval Catholicism in the same way as the Magisterial Reformers had.
I suspect, though, that the mystical dimension has been overshadowed by other emphases - but I'd like to think it was still there to some degree.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
SCK, I'd be strongly in favour of Anabaptist deconstruction of our faith practices IF it could be demonstrated that it would lead to something that redressed imbalances rather than replacing those imbalances with new and different ones.
I think this is an impossible standard, to be honest. How could anyone say the deconstruction process will definitely (your phrase - 'would lead to') result in imbalances being redressed? There's bound to be a danger that existing imbalances will simply be replaced with new ones. By the same token, would you bemoan any theological work because it might simply replace current errors / misunderstandings with new ones? I don't think you would...
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd also be in favour of it if it maintained what it is vitally important to my mind - and that's a sense of the numinous and the transcendent.
This must be possible, I'd have thought. Surely it's not a necessary aspect of the anabaptist 'project' that it leads to a loss of the numinous and transcendent? It might be a common result, sure, but a necessary one? I don't see why.
--------------------
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
I missed your last-but-one while writing my own - a few reactions;
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'll be honest, I don't particularly find that in those Anabaptist writings and arguments I've seen.
Part of the problem here is that Anabaptists have to spend a lot of time on arguing their distinctive case and perhaps don't spend enough public time on how deep we can actually be in the 'Mere Christianity' matters. I've pointed this out about what I'm doing - I consider the common mere Christianity stuff, and what another writer has called 'deep church' to be far more ultimately important than the distinctive Anabaptist stuff.
Problem is that there's all this other stuff around that gets in the way of the mere Christianity, and in a lot of cases the Anabaptist distinctives seem to me to be the best answer to that stuff that gets in the way. And I think that even though you're reluctant about getting rid of it, you do ultimately agree with me that the 'state church' thing - and especially some of the historic horrors that have flowed from it - isn't really part of mere Christianity.
Therefore I feel a need to engage in putting the Anabaptist case. Not to destroy everything else, but to give the important baby some cleaner and healthier bathwater - does that make some kind of sense.
Going back for a moment to the recent 'real presence' thing, look at I Cor 13;29 -
"For whoever eats and drinks without due appreciation of the body (of Christ) eats and drinks to his own condemnation".
It's perhaps worth pointing out that to Anabaptists, a significant meaning of that is that it is about appreciating your fellow-Christians as the body of Christ . That interpretation is backed up I think by the context, in which Paul is criticising the Corinthians for having a communion meal which didn't show much fellowship. To me that is more meaningful than worrying about how bread and wine can be/represent the body. I stress that this is not the exclusive meaning for Anabaptists, but it's an emphasis often missed by others.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Getting sort of back to the main thread -
I think we are agreed, Gamaliel, that there is a bad kind and attitude of separatism - and also a bad kind of church/state link. To my mind the point we should be addressing here is that the NT actually does contain the instruction "Come out and be separate". It doesn't seem to me that that instruction can be seriously obeyed by ending up either running the state or being privileged in it. What is the proper, positive way to interpret that biblical concept of separation and to carry it through so that we are neither compromised by the state nor so separate that we aren't as much use to the surrounding world as God clearly intended the Body of Christ should be??
I believe a necessary starting point is to break the state links (not only Anglican establishment) and let the church seek unity for itself without the confusion of the state links.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, Steve Langton, I am aware of the Anabaptist emphasis on the 'recognising the body' part of that verse - it was certainly an emphasis in the charismatic restorationist 'house-churches' or 'new churches' with which I used to be involved. It's an emphasis I would still recognise as a sound one.
I suspect the 'new churches' derived this aspect from the Brethren - there were a lot of Brethren influences and former Brethren personnel involved. And as you've said, the Brethren were a kind of home-grown Anabaptist movement to a certain extent.
But I'd also suggest that they could veer off into oddness and eccentricity - as indeed can all separatist initiatives.
I believe, though, that it is possible to be in a 'sect' - in sociological terms - but not 'sectarian' - and this is an insight I owe to Andrew Walker the sociologist/theologian (Pentecostal turned agnostic turned Orthodox). He has cited Donald Gee the great Assemblies of God elder-statesman as an example of that. I would agree. I would also cite F F Bruce from the among the Brethren as another example - and I am sure there are Mennonite/Anabaptist examples too.
So, don't forget that I have been a 'separatist' myself for much of my own Christian walk - among the 'restorationists' and Baptists predominantly.
On the 'Deep Church' thing - yes, absolutely, I'm completely with you there and that whole Mere Christianity agenda is one I think we can all rally round - and will indeed need to rally round as Christendom continues to crumble.
I've said a few times on this thread that the rest of us are by necessity heading where you are 'at' - or where I've been - and I don't particularly have a huge problem with that.
My issue is how we can create viable, intentional communities without veering either into charismatic excess or into some kind of unhealthy, ghetto-ised form of Christianity.
Both these tendencies were apparent among the restorationists on the one hand and the Brethren on the other.
I suspect one of the solutions is debate and the kind of conferences and talks that you are describing - and the wider that kind of dialogue goes the better in my view.
@SCK - I'm being tentative and making suggestions to a large extent and also - inevitably - reflecting on my own experience of constant reinvention/reshuffling etc etc which was a feature of the 'restorationist' scene in the 1980s and '90s.
We used to joke that you needed to have a short memory to be involved with those fellowships for any length of time because God always seemed to be changing his mind ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
In terms of reflection on imbalances and errors - yes, bring it on. However, as you'll have noticed, what some of us might consider to be errors are considered to be anything but by others ...
There doesn't appear to be some commonly held yardstick as to what constitutes an imbalance or an error - and I'm thinking of practices here now rather than doctrinal issues or core, creedal agreements on what we might call the 'basics'.
--------------------
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
It might be fuel for a Kerygmania thread, but it may be pertinent to explore what 'come out from among them and be separate' means/refers to.
The context of 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 is that of a predominantly pagan society. I'm not sure it can function as a 'proof-text' about Establishment or Christian involvement in politics etc etc or whatever else we might wish to apply it to.
Sure, there are other arguments against Establishment and yes, let's hear them - as we have done so already.
But I'm not sure the verses cited here particularly have a bearing on that precise issue - which isn't a 'defence' of Establishment, simply an acknowledgement that we have to look at the context for this passage as with all passages.
--------------------
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
by Gamaliel;
quote:
My issue is how we can create viable, intentional communities without veering either into charismatic excess or into some kind of unhealthy, ghetto-ised form of Christianity.
My issue too. But perhaps I see as part of the problem that those temperamentally best for this job have gone and got themselves sidetracked by the different kind of unhealthy 'separatism' in state churches.
by Gamaliel;
quote:
The context of 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 is that of a predominantly pagan society. I'm not sure it can function as a 'proof-text' about Establishment or Christian involvement in politics etc etc or whatever else we might wish to apply it to.
Um, (sorry!) I had noticed that it is originally a text about predominantly pagan society. I'm not proposing to use it as a 'proof-text' about Establishment etc, but as a starting point about the place of Christians in society. And not in isolation but along with the other texts on the subject. I think, mind you, that a text that strong on separation doesn't fit very well with the underlying ideas of 'Christian states' and established or otherwise privileged churches.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I s'pose what I've been trying to say, albeit clumsily, is that being 'in the world but not of it' is a difficult thing to achieve.
I'd suggest that it is difficult - in different ways - for those who are involved with Established or State churches and for those who are in independent ones. Both bring their own distinct set of problems.
Being independent may solve some problems, but it brings with it a whole set of new ones. They might be preferable problems from an Anabaptist or independent perspective - but they are still problems.
I'll give you a for instance ...
I remember reading in a book about church meetings and services and so on that caused a bit of a stir about 12 years or so ago, an anecdote about a Russian student who came to Christ through evangelical witness here in the UK.
She returned to Russia and after attending a few evangelical churches over there she ended up in the Russian Orthodox Church.
The authors weren't particularly happy about her decision - they were quite Anabaptist in their approach - but they could understand why she had done this. The evangelical churches she had attended were very fundamentalist and fixated with issues like end-times debates and the licitness of wearing make-up and so on.
I know people who have worked with evangelical churches in Russia and they've found them very fundamentalist in the extreme.
In instances like that, it's hardly surprising that someone with a bit of nous about them is likely to find themselves either out on a limb or swimming in the broader waters of the 'established' Church - in this case, the Russian Orthodox.
That's the sort of thing I'm getting at.
I'm not sure whether I see any way around it.
--------------------
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
In a particular local situation I could find myself worshipping with evangelical Anglicans!! Though I'd be looking for a better alternative.... (and BTW, as I've mentioned our Baptist Church works with the local Anglicans quite a bit).
I think the Russian situation may be a bit skewed - religion there got caught up a bit in the cold war and I have an impression that much evangelicalism came from US influences? Had the person concerned been in a different area she might well have found a different manifestation of evangelical.... Speculation only, don't make a big issue of it.
We don't live in Russia; we have to deal with where we are, as a wise guy called Gamaliel frequently reminds me. Where we are, the reality looks like the established church is in a bad way as are others which have a similar idea of a 'Christian country'. The CofE is doing particularly badly on some Dead Horses issues precisely because it is established and can't claim to be having a merely private opinion - there's a thread in DH about that right now.
AS things currently stand the Mennonites and Anabaptists like myself are moving away from the worst kind of separatism/ghettoisation (which in some ways was an artefact of being persecuted). Instead of looking at that you should be looking at the more positive points; the positive view of relations between Christians and the state, the contribution to peace issues (the 'Christian Peacemaker Teams' you may have heard of are largely Anabaptist in position, whatever the formal denominational allegiance of individual members), and quite a few others.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, I'll take your ecumenical credentials more seriously, Steve Langton, the day I hear that you are worshipping with RCs, Orthodox and Anglo-Catholics as well as evangelical Anglicans ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
More seriously, yes, there are problems around DH issues that aren't particularly helped by Establishment. I'm not suggesting that Establishment is problem free. Far from it.
If I wanted to take a more 'Catholic' position, say, then I could rail against the way Parliament intervened when the 1928 Anglican Prayer Book was introduced. It's hardly ever used here in the UK - but is often used in the US from what I can gather - due to Parliamentary objections. Some saw it is as rather too Catholic ...
Sure, the issue was rather more complicated and nuanced than that but it could certainly be used as another instance where the State was interfering with issues that should really have been the internal preserve and business of the Church itself.
So, yes, whatever the rights and wrongs of that particular instance - and I don't personally have a beef about it nor any other interest in it save as a matter of historical interest - there are clearly problems when Establishment does lead to 'extra-ecclesial' interference in church affairs.
There's always going to be that tussle - and in our own time I suppose that this was exemplified to some extent over the spat between Maggie Thatcher and Archbishop Runcie over the Falklands War memorial service ...
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's hardly ever used here in the UK - but is often used in the US from what I can gather - due to Parliamentary objections. Some saw it is as rather too Catholic ...
Ironically AIUI the issue was the provision in the book for a reserved sacrament - and in this case at least I assume Steve Langton would be firmly on the side of Parliament ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Sure, the issue was rather more complicated and nuanced than that but it could certainly be used as another instance where the State was interfering with issues that should really have been the internal preserve and business of the Church itself.
Um, QED
by Gamaliel;
quote:
There's always going to be that tussle
...so long as the Church insists on being tangled with the state - again, QED!
The ecumenical point is just that evangelicals ARE largely united across denominations; other factions tend to have more difficulty in uniting because they have less in common and give more allegiance to the secondary matters on which they differ. Indeed the state and church issue is pretty much the only substantial disagreement among evangelicals.
chris stiles - agreed about the 'reserved sacrament' thing; but of course it should never have been Parliament's business. Jesus is King of the Church - letting a parliament decide things is not just an inconvenience but to some degree a denial of Jesus' kingship.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
chris stiles - agreed about the 'reserved sacrament' thing; but of course it should never have been Parliament's business. Jesus is King of the Church - letting a parliament decide things is not just an inconvenience but to some degree a denial of Jesus' kingship.
Actually, as a reluctant two-kingdoms person, I'd say that this is rather confused reasoning. After all, Jesus is King of both the Church and the World, and it's not a denial of his kingship of the World to have Kings/Parliaments etc.
I'd rather say that he rules both Kingdoms through means, and it is a denial of Kingship when those to whom he has entrusted the responsibility to rule do so in a manner unworthy of their calling.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
There is no quick 'soundbite' response to that one; but is my reasoning confused, or is your view of the place of the Church in the world confused?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose what I've been trying to say, albeit clumsily, is that being 'in the world but not of it' is a difficult thing to achieve.
I'd suggest that it is difficult - in different ways - for those who are involved with Established or State churches and for those who are in independent ones. Both bring their own distinct set of problems.
Being independent may solve some problems, but it brings with it a whole set of new ones. They might be preferable problems from an Anabaptist or independent perspective - but they are still problems.
I'll give you a for instance ...
I remember reading in a book about church meetings and services and so on that caused a bit of a stir about 12 years or so ago, an anecdote about a Russian student who came to Christ through evangelical witness here in the UK.
She returned to Russia and after attending a few evangelical churches over there she ended up in the Russian Orthodox Church.
The authors weren't particularly happy about her decision - they were quite Anabaptist in their approach - but they could understand why she had done this. The evangelical churches she had attended were very fundamentalist and fixated with issues like end-times debates and the licitness of wearing make-up and so on.
I know people who have worked with evangelical churches in Russia and they've found them very fundamentalist in the extreme.
In instances like that, it's hardly surprising that someone with a bit of nous about them is likely to find themselves either out on a limb or swimming in the broader waters of the 'established' Church - in this case, the Russian Orthodox.
That's the sort of thing I'm getting at.
I'm not sure whether I see any way around it.
The reason why evangelical/pentecostal Protestant groups in the former Soviet Union tend towards millenarian fundamentalism (in the original meaning of the word) is because they have tapped into a pre-existing strain of belief represented by the bespopovtsy ('priestless') Old Believer tradition.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is no quick 'soundbite' response to that one; but is my reasoning confused, or is your view of the place of the Church in the world confused?
No. I'm just saying that I agree with you that Parliament shouldn't be setting the agenda (or doctrine) for the church. It's just that your phrasing made it sound like your reasoning was that Jesus wasn't ruler of the World (which I'm sure is not what you meant).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd agree with you that there is a general consensus among evangelicals across all denominations, Steve Langton - but the apparent sense of evangelical unity is something of a chimera.
There is growing polarisation on some DH issues for instance. Then there's the perennial conservative evangelical/charismatic evangelical divide and also the long-standing Arminian/Calvinist debates.
So no, I don't think that evangelicalism is any more united than any of the more Catholic traditions nor the more liberal ones, come to that.
I think that the 'Deep Church' thing is where all of us can find common ground - whatever our churchmanship - but there's still a long way to go on all sides it seems to me.
The only thing that evangelicals appear united on is the need for conversion and a personal faith response to Christ - but that is by no means restricted to evangelicalism. Our nearest Orthodox Church claims that Orthodoxy is 'evangelical without being Protestant' for instance.
But I can't see them signing any statement of faith produced by the Evangelical Alliance, say.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
If I wanted to take a more 'Catholic' position, say, then I could rail against the way Parliament intervened when the 1928 Anglican Prayer Book was introduced. It's hardly ever used here in the UK - but is often used in the US from what I can gather -
AIUI the US 1928 Book of Common Prayer was produced separately from the English one. The American one was a revision of the American 1892 prayer book.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ah, right ... I was wrong again ... but thanks for that, Moo. I was assuming the 1928 Prayer Books were the same on each side of the Pond.
--------------------
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
chris stiles;
fair enough - your phrasing sounded to me a bit too far the other way. Jesus is King of the World - he has all authority in heaven and earth - but at the same time his kingdom in the sense of 'those who hear him' (John 18) is 'not of this world' (ditto) and being born again can't be arranged by human legislation, so Church and State can't and shouldn't be tangled - biblically a different relationship seems to be portrayed.
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
