|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Separatism, smugness and shit-storms
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Ad Orientem;
quote:
that still doesn't answer the question as to how the Church and the State should relate when the ruler and its subjects are Christians.
Maybe we'll get an answer if that ever happens - and think really really hard before dismissing that as an evasive answer.
(I am working on a longer answer - but don't hold your breath)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Well, why don't you try, eh? Should I expect an answer?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Right now I'm actually having rather a busy fortnight in areas of my life beyond the Ship; as I said earlier I've been asked the same question on another board, I realised then it's far from a two-minute job to answer in the necessary detail, I really want to do the job properly, it will take time and I need to get some other things out of my way first.
I've already dropped some brief but heavy hints that the question itself isn't as simple as you are implying - and as I pointed out, my last response is not evasive, but trying to get you to think a bit more deeply.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There are three options as far as I can see. The first is the Christians have nothing to do with the state; the second, that the ruler be complicit in acts which are contrary to the faith; the third, that the acts of the ruler are informed by the faith.
I assume you would choose option three, and I'd also be happy with that option, I think. But the thing is that many (if not all) so-called Christian nations through history have gone much further; for example by significantly favouring Christian practice over the practice of other faiths, or even by making other faiths illegal. Is this more or less inevitable when the idea begins to take shape that a certain nation is a 'Christian nation'? I think maybe it is.
I think Steve is also saying that in his opinion any wielding of force is contrary to the Christian faith, and therefore there's simply no way in which a Christian secular ruler could rule without being complicit in acts which are contrary to the faith. If one believes any and all acts of violence (or the authorisation of such) are 'contrary to the faith' then how on earth can one be the ruler of a nation?
--------------------
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 Ad Orientem:
the third, that the acts of the ruler are informed by the faith.
Well, the way you have things worded all 'reasonable' people would pick the third option. The question comes down to what we then think the 'acts of a ruler' should consist of, and whether selecting them gives an implicit nod to some of them and not to others.
Steven - given his Anabaptist beliefs - unsurprisingly takes the view that war itself was wrong, so then we have a question about what 'informed' means in that sentence.
quote:
posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think Steve is also saying that in his opinion any wielding of force is contrary to the Christian faith, and therefore there's simply no way in which a Christian secular ruler
It also depends on what weights you put on the various words in the phrase 'Christian' 'secular' 'ruler'.
[ 10. May 2014, 09:45: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I must admit, my first reaction when reading the account here of St Ambrose persuading the Emperor Theodosius to repent after committing a massacre and before receiving communion was, 'Well, why the heck did he commit the massacre in the first place? Is it alright for him to do so provided he repents afterwards?'
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
It strikes me though, that any ruler, Christian or otherwise, is going to find themselves facing uncomfortable decisions and compromises. Was Britain right to resist Hitler in 1939/40? Should we not have brokered a peace? Should we have allowed the Nazis to cross the Channel and enslave us all without lifting a finger to stop them?
These are highly complex areas. I've even heard of one or two Quakers who took up arms in 1940 because they felt the circumstances demanded it.
I'm not convinced that Ad Orientem's example does show Church and State working well together in that instance. One could argue that the proof that it was doing so would have been if Theodosius wasn't committing massacres in the first place.
That's the ideal, anyway.
But, we live in the real world and in the real world shit happens. Hitler happens.
Annoying as it may be, that's why I'm arguing for a moderate position on this one.
At one extreme you get an example like Ivan the Terrible. The guy was clearly deranged. In modern terms he'd be diagnosed as a psychopath. As a child he used to drop live puppies out of towers for kicks. As Tsar he ruled with extreme cruelty, putting entire cities to death if they rebelled against him.
There are even accounts of him and his nobles attending Divine Liturgy and immediately afterwards going out into the street and cutting people down. The guy was nuts.
And yet, in some quarters among the Russian Orthodox there are calls for him to be made a Saint because he defended Holy Russia against the Tartars ...
The last time I looked the Church authorities weren't up for canonising him - on the grounds that, like King David, he was not allowed to build the Temple, as it were, because of the blood on his hands ...
But when you get people lobbying for the canonisation of a complete psycho like Ivan or a complete charlatan like Rasputin - and yes, he has his supporters for canonisation too - it does make you wonder what the heck is going on ...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I've heard some of the more peaceful Austro-Hungarian emperors cited as exemplars of what a Christian ruler should look like - by RCs, of course. But then, some of these guys didn't have a brilliant track record either.
I don't believe that Christians should absent themselves from the political process nor the affairs of state. Which is why I'm suggesting that there is a balance somewhere between the extremes of Ivan the Terrible - or even the attempts at theocracy by the Puritans in New England - and an other-worldly disengagement and withdrawal from the world as exemplified by certain sects.
--------------------
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:
I don't believe that Christians should absent themselves from the political process nor the affairs of state. Which is why I'm suggesting that there is a balance somewhere between the extremes of Ivan the Terrible - or even the attempts at theocracy by the Puritans in New England - and an other-worldly disengagement and withdrawal from the world as exemplified by certain sects.
Most people would again agree with you. The problem I would have with some of the approaches suggested in this thread would be to what extent they end up baptising some action as the 'Christian' thing to do.
A better example than WWII of the murkiness that develops may actually be WWI, which Philip Jenkins has recently written about:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2014/01/from-angels-to-armageddon/
Whilst there is a certain amount to disagree with in his thesis, the rhetoric used by government leaders is instructive of the sorts of issues one runs into with this approach.
[ 10. May 2014, 11:47: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Oh yes, indeed Chris Stiles. Absolutely.
No question about that. It's all murky territory.
All I'm suggesting is that whilst involvement in politics and state machinations is decidedly murky, the alternatives can also be decidedly murky too.
Not so much in the lethal sense - although as Munster and Jonestown demonstrate there can be lethal consequences with a separatist model too.
On the Orthodox thing, I can see where Ad Orientem and other Orthodox I've discussed these things with are coming from ... Byzantium is often touted as an example of a thoroughly Christianised society with the Emperor and the Patriarch representing civil and spiritual authority and the Christian ethos permeating society to the extent that people were discussing the finer points of Trinitarian doctrine in barbershops and bath-houses ...
But one does wonder how deeply the Christian ethos ran when one reads about incidents like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
The same is true, of course, for medieval Western Europe or the Puritans in New England using texts from the Book of Joshua to justify the massacre of Native Americans during the Pequod Wars of the 1630s ...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
So, yes, I'm not completely opposed to Steve Langton's views.
All I was suggesting in the OP is that whilst there are cases to answer in instances of Established churches and close Church/State relations, it doesn't necessarily follow that to adopt a separatist model alleviates the problems. It may solve some, but it also creates others.
Anabaptist types and pietistic or revivalist types in their different ways often rail against nominalism and superficiality in so-called 'Christian countries' - and I can see why they do so. I would have done myself at one time - I still do at times.
However, one could argue very cogently, I believe, that if it hadn't been for the general social-awareness of Christianity in the UK at the time of the Billy Graham Crusades of the 1950s then those Crusades would have largely fallen on deaf ears.
One of the reasons they were so apparently successful was because there was a residual memory of Christian teachings, a familiarity with the hymns and so on.
I'm not saying that a State Church is necessary or essential to achieve that - but the fact is there has been one here for centuries and, for better or worse, it has formed part of the backdrop to the country we inhabit.
I do think we are all headed for a more 'sectarian' and 'faithful remnant' model but at the same time I would argue that, for all its faults, Christendom has kept and maintained an awareness of Christianity alive and embedded in society.
Indeed, groups like the Anabaptists could never have got off the ground in the first place if it hadn't been for the wider context of Christendom in the first place. The people who became Anabaptists in the 16th and 17th centuries had been other types of Christian beforehand - whether Protestant or Catholic.
--------------------
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:
All I'm suggesting is that whilst involvement in politics and state machinations is decidedly murky, the alternatives can also be decidedly murky too.
Well, you won't get me arguing for the separatist model.
But there is nonetheless a difference between the model of faithful presence, and cultural transformation (or attempted cultural transformation).
The latter has less chance to reflect badly on Christianity when - as inevitable - it all goes horribly wrong.
Apart from the obvious issue of attempting to immanetize the eschaton.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Steve Langton
From my point of view, the most interesting argument in favour of Constantinian Christianity (or 'Christendom') is that it's provided a diffusive Christian awareness out of which more intentional, gathered Christian communities and theologies have emerged. IOW, we should be grateful to the CofE because it's the granddaddy of all the evangelistic Protestant movements that have sprung up in the Anglophone world....
That was the past, of course. But if we look to the future it's likely that the CofE will become unable to perform its role as the purveyor of 'diffusive Christianity'. At that stage, arguments about the theology of Constantinianism will be academic, and an established church will simply be a hopeless anachronism.
However, this thread suggests to me that the CofE will cling to its identity as the provider of diffusive Christianity for as long as possible, and will be loathe to give up what it sees as its duty (or its right?), even when all the stats show that self-professed Christians are definitively in the minority. (The predictions vary, but let's say in about 20 years.) Once that becomes a hard fact, it'll be difficult for the CofE to make the claim that it's representative. Difficult without coming across as 'smug' or arrogant.
What do you think?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Steve can answer for himself, of course, but at the risk of butting in and saying what I think ...
I agree with your analysis, SvitlanaV2. Whether one sees the CofE's role as a kind of incubator of Protestant sects (if I can use that term) as a good thing or a bad thing depends on where you stand. RCs and Orthodox wouldn't necessarily see it as a good thing.
Also, I wouldn't necessarily see an acknowledgement of the CofE's historical role in creating conditions where the kind of diffusiveness you've alluded to as a 'defence' - simply an acknowledgement of what happened.
Without Christendom in its various forms across Europe - and later the US and other colonial settings in Africa and Asia - it's difficult to see how Christianity could have been maintained and flourished in the way that it did.
Sure, pre-Constantine there were churches all over the Roman Empire and had the Constantinian thing never happened then they would have undoubtedly have continued. Whether they could have maintained the kind of apparent 'purity' that Steve Langton advocates is a moot point.
When any religion reaches some kind of 'critical mass' then I would suggest that we are going to see a form of Constantinianism develop.
The only way to avoid that, it seems to me, is to consciously adopt a sectarian model and run the risk of that petering out or becoming increasingly irrelevant.
You couldn't have had the Anabaptists without the Christendom they were reacting against. You couldn't have had the Baptists, Independents, Presbyterians, Methodists, Brethren and so on without the Anglican Church as some kind of incubator for them.
I'm sure the future of the Anglican Church in this country could be that of a disestablished body. It may well happen by default one day.
Whether that is good, bad or indifferent depends on a whole range of factors and perspectives.
I'm not particularly arguing in favour of Establishment, simply saying that if we hadn't had it in the past we wouldn't have whatever we have now.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Also, I wouldn't necessarily see an acknowledgement of the CofE's historical role in creating conditions where the kind of diffusiveness you've alluded to as a 'defence' - simply an acknowledgement of what happened.
But you see this diffusiveness as a good thing, don't you? You may well be right, in which case it's a defensive argument for Establishment.
quote:
You couldn't have had the Anabaptists without the Christendom they were reacting against. You couldn't have had the Baptists, Independents, Presbyterians, Methodists, Brethren and so on without the Anglican Church as some kind of incubator for them.
So the CofE is guilty of facilitating separatism, then?? Tut-tut!
quote:
Sure, pre-Constantine there were churches all over the Roman Empire and had the Constantinian thing never happened then they would have undoubtedly have continued. Whether they could have maintained the kind of apparent 'purity' that Steve Langton advocates is a moot point.
One argument is that at least 'heresies' in loose informal churches could be contained locally, whereas institutional churches efficiently spread them over a wide area. Over time, though, and especially with modern communications, I suppose all heresies have the potential of spreading.
quote:
I'm not particularly arguing in favour of Establishment, simply saying that if we hadn't had it in the past we wouldn't have whatever we have now.
You're arguing that we should be grateful for Establishment because of what it's given us today. And some Christians will indeed look positively on what they have today. Others will be less enthusiastic.
Maybe it's a case of being thankful for certain aspects from the past, but sensing that those days are over. The wait could be a bit painful, though: do we have to hang on until the CofE has given up the ghost as a religious (as opposed to a heritage) institution, long after the number of self-professed Christians (let alone churchgoing Anglicans) has shrunk to embarrassing proportions? I'd have thought that the CofE would like to make a graceful exit before that point, but it seems not.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamaliel
That ignores completely the CofS. Let us be clear it at least has responsibility for most groups called Presbyterian (I will leave Welsh Presbyterians to their own devices). They do not trace their lineage through Canterbury not even in Augustine's day.
Actually a major thorn in any either/or dilemma is the Church of Scotland's relationship with the state. It is somewhere between CofE and church such as Methodist Church in Britain. Intriguigly its very association with Scottish identity has allowed it at times to fill the prophetic rather than the priestly role.
Jengie
[ 10. May 2014, 16:47: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair points, Jengie Jon. I had left the Church of Scotland out of the equation.
@SvitlanaV2 - you either haven't read what I wrote or have misunderstood it. I am prepared to accept the latter ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I didn't say that the CofE had deliberately 'incubated' the various groups that have split off from it over the years - simply that these groups did split off and that they wouldn't have even existed in the first place if there hadn't been a Church of England for them to split off from.
That's not to 'defend' anything. I'm simply stating a fact.
I also acknowledged that whether we considered this a good thing or a bad thing depended on where we stand. RCs and Orthodox, for instance, might regard it as simply more examples of nefarious Protestant schismaticism and fissaporousness.
Others would see these as positive developments.
You seem to be taking a rather haughty tone towards the CofE - it 'ought to do this, it ought to do that' - whilst almost relishing the prospect of its decline.
I'm not saying these things are right or wrong. I'm simply saying that this is where we are.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I didn't say that the CofE had deliberately 'incubated' the various groups that have split off from it over the years - simply that these groups did split off and that they wouldn't have even existed in the first place if there hadn't been a Church of England for them to split off from.
What I was hinting at is that the very existence of dominant, protected denominations creates groups that seek more freedom, which makes the disapproving cries of 'Separatism!' somewhat ironic.
quote:
You seem to be taking a rather haughty tone towards the CofE - it 'ought to do this, it ought to do that' - whilst almost relishing the prospect of its decline.
I'm not saying these things are right or wrong. I'm simply saying that this is where we are.
Is it haughty to want legal equality for different churches and religious groups? Maybe so. What the CofE does, or 'ought to do' is relevant to me to the extent that this influences the status of the other religious groups in society. But you're right that it's not the job of yours truly to determine any of that. At the end of the day, the 'haughtiness' that matters will be in the machinations of far more dominant and influential folks in society.
Maybe I read the wrong documents and attend the wrong churches in the wrong areas. Most likely. But yes, I do find the reality of church decline to be something of a drag. Do we really have to plough money and effort into churches that probably won't be there for us in 20-odd years' time? Your experience is very different. Your expectations of the church aren't the same as mine. But overall, things don't look good, and I'm not sure what virtue there is in dragging things out. It's like paying to patch up a shaky house that's due for demolition; why not just knock it down and start again with new architectural plans?
BTW, I admit that for me, 'this is where we are' is okay as a preamble, but unhelpful if it implies that we shouldn't move forward.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm obviously not making myself very clear.
All I'm saying is that the situation we have now is the result of a combination of factors and circumstances that includes what we know as 'Christendom' and what has included what we are calling Constantinianism here.
That's where we have all come from.
Arguably, without that kind of diffusiveness, there wouldn't be as many people as there are now who profess or practice the Christian faith.
Here, in the West, we've seen a proliferation of different churches and denominations. Elsewhere, such as the Orthodox East, we've not seen such a proliferation of 'home-grown' groups - although we do see tensions between RCs, Uniates and Eastern Catholics and so on and the various Orthodox jurisdictions. That's what's playing out in Ukraine at the moment, for instance.
Wherever we are, East or West, we are products of our history and heritage.
Unless we declare some kind of ecclesial Pol Pot Year Zero then we have to play the cards we are dealt.
Bulldozing it all down and starting again wouldn't solve the problem. It would only create different problems.
Don't forget that I've been involved with churches which believed they were starting from scratch, reinventing the wheel, divesting themselves of all this nasty tradition and so on ...
It didn't work. Or at least, it didn't work in the way we were expecting.
I really don't have that much of an issue with people who want to take a more 'separatist' route provided they are under no illusions about where that leads. Look at the original English Separatists, the Brownists. Robert Browne ended up back in the nasty old Church of England because the wonderful, pure as the driven snow separatists kept falling out among themselves. He became a vicar in Norfolk if I remember rightly.
As has been said several times on this thread, if the CofE were to become Disestablished this would have to done through Parliament. You or I might want to see the CofE disestablished tomorrow but it ain't going to happen unless there's the political will there within Parliament for that to take place.
It may well do. If and when it does then that's the time to work out what happens next.
Of course you're not reading the wrong documents nor attending churches in the 'wrong areas' - whatever and wherever they are. That's not the issue. You seem convinced that I'm defending some kind of privileged elite. I'm doing nothing of the kind.
Of course church decline is 'something of a drag'. But I can't for the life of me see how Disestablishment in and of itself can either hasten or delay that.
If the Welsh example is anything to go by it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference on whether churches thrive or whether they decline.
There are a whole range of factors involved with that and the legal status of the CofE doesn't appear to me to have a great deal of bearing on that - other than, perhaps, to contribute to the kind of diffusiveness that we've been talking about.
The CofE doesn't like closing churches, but it does close them. Sure, there are places where it might be better advised to close its own operation and merge with someone else who is doing things more effectively. I'd suggest there is plenty of scope for creative ecumenical partnerships and so on.
My experience may have been different than yours but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the very real issues we all face. I live in a town of 15,000 people. Perhaps somewhere between 500 and 750 or so are - I would estimate - regularly involved with church in some way. There are 250 active Anglicans spread across two parishes. That's quite good compared with many places but the average age is quite high. A lot of them won't be with us in 20 years time.
What I can do about that as an individual, I have no idea. Whether Establishment or Disestablishment would help or hinder is a moot point - but it ain't the big issue at the moment.
All I do know is that if we suddenly bulldozed it down to start again we'd simply end up with a pile of rubble.
Where are these architectural plans of which you speak? Show me them and tell me what they are and how they are any better than what we have at the moment and perhaps I'd take your musings more seriously.
--------------------
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
got back after a busy day; trying to catch up on where you've all gone in my absence. Will basically be very busy till after Monday 18th so haven't fully got my mind on this discussion.
A few points, though; first, I'm not in favour of separatism for its own sake - as I discussed in an earlier post, it's one of those things like loyalty which is not an absolute virtue but depends on what you are loyal-to/separating-from and why. Anabaptist separatism is about "If the church is as described in the NT, then the various established/state churches are not that church - if they won't change, what else can we do?" IN other words, not separatism as a value, but faithfulness to what Scripture says the church should be.
"Come out and be separate" was at first about separation from the surrounding paganism; but with a church tangled with the state and no longer acting on NT lines in all kinds of ways, it became "Come out and be separate from that tangle, in order to be like the NT church", with the tangle increasingly confusing even quite basic things about the nature of the church and the faith itself. Early Anabaptists tried to keep the wider church together but eventually felt they had to separate. After that much of their 'separation' was precisely because they were persecuted and driven underground, and yes, in the end many Anabaptist groups did go separatist in various not-so-good ways - which today they are mostly emerging from and changing.
I've been thinking that actually there are ways of stating the position whereby the Anglicans could be portrayed as a very separatist group themselves, just for starters as a decidedly national church whose global communion is essentially the churches of the British colonies....
Although the early Anabaptists were probably finding it hard to see any good in the assorted Constantinian churches which (usually) wanted to 'baptise them to death' rather than burn them at the stake, I think you'll find that most modern Anabaptists have a fairly robust understanding of divine providence and of God bringing about significant good through the Constantinian churches. Certainly the Manchester Anabaptist Group are very varied - and two of us have been cooperating on a forthcoming 'After Christendom' book in which they've been quoting with approval such RC icons as Augustine and Newman.
Fascinating as it is to do historic 'might-have-beens' it's probably better to go from where we are and seek the best we can from it; and I certainly don't think either maintaining the status quo or going back to a Christianity uncomfortably like extreme Islam would qualify as 'seeking the best'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, as I've said a number of times, I can see what you are getting at and have a lot of sympathy with the Anabaptist ethos ... I certainly don't believe that the early Anabaptists separated themselves for trivial reasons or simply because they woke up one morning and though it was a good idea ...
As you say, the early ones where putting themselves at considerable risk in taking the stance they did.
I don't think anyone here is questioning or challenging that.
Indeed, I once heard an Orthodox priest express the view that whilst some of the radical groups which emerged at the time of the Commonwealth in England - the Diggers and Ranters and so on - were pretty eccentric we clearly owe a great deal to their witness ... in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and assembly and so on.
So in many, many ways I do believe that the Anabaptist witness is an essential one and has a lot to teach the rest of us.
Where I might part company is with the view that by deliberately bulldozing things down - rather than allowing things to 'emerge' naturally - we are necessarily making that much difference.
If I look at the two Anglican parish churches in this town - both of them very different - then I see a mix of good, bad and indifferent.
If, say, they somehow decided to separate themselves from the CofE for some reason, I don't see how that, in and of itself, would contribute anything substantial to the spiritual capital of this area. What would it achieve?
Don't get me wrong, the Manchester Anabaptist group sounds very good and I'm sure there's some great stuff there and a decent quality of thinking.
We all have to follow our own lights and convictions and if that's led you and your friends into Anabaptism then that's great. There are a lot worse things you could be.
As I've said several times now, ultimately I think we are all headed towards a 'faithful remnant' position by default. Some groups may have a head-start with that because that's how they've always operated. We all need each other.
What I don't buy into is the idea that separatism in itself is the antidote to anything. I'm not suggesting that you believe that it is.
As far as the Anglicans go, well, they're obviously a mixed bag but I tend to judge things and their individual merits. Both parishes here have their strengths and weaknesses. That would be the case whether they were part of the Establishment or not part of the Establishment.
I'm not sure it 'does' to be all judgemental about these things - which is where Richard Baxter was coming from in all of this and which was where I started.
--------------------
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:
As you say, the early ones where putting themselves at considerable risk in taking the stance they did.
I don't think anyone here is questioning or challenging that.
Just to make sure the point doesn't get lost, I wasn't mentioning the persecution/risk-of-life thing just for sympathy - I was recognising that early Anabaptists probably did have a rather black-and-white view of the evils of the various 'Constantinian' groups, and saying this was understandable and it was hard for them to fully appreciate the good while trying to avoid being drowned for heresy.
I was also stressing that modern Anabaptists, while no less convinced of the basic wrongness of Constantinianism, are a great deal more able to recognise the providential good which God achieved despite that wrongness...
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
What you seem to be saying is that we should carry on as we are, and when there's nothing left then we should think up something else. I suppose I prefer the notion of making plans for the future. I don't claim that the sun will shine brighter as a result (which you keep on insisting is what I think!!!), but as I've said, a change is as good as a rest. Indeed, perhaps change is in the very nature of Christianity, in which case we have a duty to rebuild every few centuries, if only to prevent dying of boredom and frustration.
I can see the end of the line from where I'm standing, whereas from your vantage point, pootling along is perhaps just enough to get by for a generation or two. Fair enough. The CofE might become a regional affair, maintaining its traditional customs and extensive presence in certain places where these are most valued by people who don't go to church, (and by churchgoers who do) and retreating from the others.
None of this explains why Establishment will be necessary in twenty years' time. And you still haven't told me what this hugely urgent work is that the CofE is supposedly doing. Is it any more urgent than the work of any other church?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Steve Langton, sure, I understood the point you were making.
@SvitlanaV2
I think we are talking past each other to a large extent. I'm not saying that we shouldn't make plans or simply pootle along. If you remember I did say that there is plenty of scope, in my view, for creative ecumenical partnerships.
And no, I don't think that the CofE - or any other church - should simply maintain something somewhere for the sake of it or even if it is clearly not working.
I'm no more saying that any more than you are saying that the sun will shine brighter if the CofE was Disestablished.
Of course things change, of course things evolve. Steve Langton has given us some examples of how the Anabaptist position has shifted over the years - and he's also acknowledged how things have changed and developed within what he sees as the compromised 'Constantinian' churches.
I'm sure you are right about the end-of-the-line looming in some places. I don't wish to sound at all complacent about that. I'm not even claiming to carry a candle for the CofE. I don't know where you get this idea that I think it has more urgent work to do than any other church. What gave you that idea?
We're all in the decline spiral together, it seems to me - it's simply happening more quickly in some places rather than others.
You accuse me of suggesting that you hold to viewpoints and opinions that you don't actually hold, I could just as easily suggest the same thing in the way you put words and thoughts into my mouth.
In fact, that's a strong impression that I get from your posts. You might not even be aware of it but that's how they come across.
I'm not saying that Establishment will be 'necessary' or even desirable in 20 or 30 years time. I'm simply observing that's this is what we've had and it's a contributory factor to the spiritual landscape as it currently stands - for better or for worse.
That doesn't mean I'm defending it or justifying it. I'm simply observing is that is where we are. We might not continue to be but it's where we are now.
I don't recall ever alluding to any 'hugely urgent work' that the 'CofE is supposedly doing.' The CofE, like any other church, is doing what it does. It happens to have an extra factor or element in there that other churches don't have - ie. it's 'this Church of England by law Established.'
That's a mixed blessing, I would suggest.
But whether you or I or Steve Langton think it's good, bad or indifferent, that's the way it is at the moment. If it changes and the CofE is ever Disestablished then it'll have to adapt to a new set of circumstances.
If and when that happens then that's what'll happen. I haven't got a crystal-ball so I couldn't predict what the effects would be.
For whatever reason you seem convinced that I'm some kind of status quo loving Establishment freak. I'm not.
All I'm saying is that there are swings and roundabouts. There are strengths and weaknesses involved in being the Established Church and there are equal and opposite strengths and weaknesses involved in not being the Established Church.
If I got divorced and married someone else - not that I intend to - would that necessarily make me any happier?
I know that's not a close analogy but you get my drift.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think we're likely to continue talking past each other. We're obviously coming from fundamentally different places, spiritually, culturally, socially, etc. That in itself is very interesting to me (but probably not so much to you). It suggests that English Christians will find it hard to understand each other, let alone make common cause on this issue in the future. As a result, the discussion (when it does take place) is likely to be driven by non-Christians. So be it!
[ 10. May 2014, 21:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
All I'm saying is that there are swings and roundabouts. There are strengths and weaknesses involved in being the Established Church and there are equal and opposite strengths and weaknesses involved in not being the Established Church.
Given that nobody seems able to come up with the evidence that 'establishment' IS biblical, and that the biblical indications are much against it and much for the alternative; there is a big weakness there for the Established Church - and no equal and opposite for the view that does appear to be scriptural.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Given that nobody seems able to come up with the evidence that 'establishment' IS biblical, and that the biblical indications are much against it and much for the alternative; there is a big weakness there for the Established Church - and no equal and opposite for the view that does appear to be scriptural. [/QUOTE]
I suppose that depends on 2 things: how you define biblical and how you define establishment. To start with the second, it is hard to think of any nation/state that up until quite recent times did not have a religion to which everyone belonged, Rome, Greece, China, Japan, anywhere. Probably few if any had laws similar to those which establish the C of E, but think for a moment of the defining role of priests in ancient Egypt, the seamless function of what we would call religious and civil work there and in most other civilisations you care to name.
As to the first, I have always thought that Kings, Chronicles and Judges were part of the Bible and thus biblical. They set out a society which you have upthread and elsewhere called Constantinian.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Given that nobody seems able to come up with the evidence that 'establishment' IS biblical,...
New Testament, NT evidence.
One can hardly turn around in the Old Testament without bumping abruptly into the notion of the identity of church and state.
For most Christians, the idea that all evidence must be 'biblical' is a perversion of the Church and her Tradition. But, perhaps it is idle to repeat this fact.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I have always thought that Kings, Chronicles and Judges were part of the Bible and thus biblical. They set out a society which you have upthread and elsewhere called Constantinian.
Clearly in the time covered by the Old Testament, God revealed himself primarily through the nation of Israel. But it seems clear to me that in New Testament times God used a different method, and I would want strong evidence before having any thoughts of reverting back to the OT system.
Just like with the OT food laws, I think it's clear that the idea of 'baptising' a particular nation as a special route for God's revelation and blessing is obsolete.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Perhaps SL should have narrowed his comment then had that been his meaning.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@SvitlanaV2, I don't know enough about your background and circumstances to determine whether there are fundamental differences between us on these sort of issues.
If anything, I'm rather bolshy and non-conformist so the idea of Establishment doesn't sit very well with me at all. However, having been involved with churches which aren't Established by law and one that is, I honestly don't see Establishment as a deal-breaker when it comes to Christians being involved with churches which have some kind of state-recognition or sanction.
If I ever left the CofE for pastures new then it would be on the basis of other issues, not Establishment. Sure, I believe that it is possible to be Anglican and not Established. Of course it is. Eventually that may well be the case. For the moment, it isn't.
Meanwhile, all of us, whether we are involved in Free Churches or with the historic Churches, are facing similar issues in terms of decline, church closures and general indifference across the public at large.
To me, that's a bigger issue and one to which there are no simple solutions. One could argue that Establishment helps to maintain some form of diffusion from which we all benefit - whether or not we are part of the Established Church.
On the other hand, this brings it's own set of problems - which Steve Langton and others have articulated.
I'm not seeking to elide those problems nor am I seeking to defend Establishment. I'm simply saying that this is where things are and we have to work with the cards we've been dealt. If the CofE is ever Disestablished then there'll have been a reshuffling of the cards.
I really don't see what the issue is with the position I've articulated. There are aspects of the CofE that I'm not happy with. If I left it and became an Anabaptist, say, or RC or Orthodox or Presbyterian or whatever else there would be things I wasn't happy with in those settings too.
Meanwhile, looking for chapter and verse to justify Establishment is a rather futile exercise. No-one is stating that there are NT proof-texts for such a thing. Those who are proponents of Establishment would justify it on grounds other than there being a convenient text somewhere in the Gospels or epistles on which to base it all.
Of course, there is a difference between the OT and NT on these things - but as the early Church saw itself as some kind of continuation of Israel of old (the Church of the OT) then you can understand how, sooner or later, when Christianity had achieved some kind of critical mass in one part of the world or other then it would or could become linked with the governance of that region in some way.
Sure, we are to in the world and not of it and I don't think anyone here is suggesting that church/state Constantinian or Byzantine style relations were going to be sweetness and light.
I think we'd have all preferred to have seen the Church down the centuries exercising a prophetic role rather than a status-quo one. And you can see that tension between the prophetic and the 'kingly' if you like, even in the most theocratic of the OT books.
--------------------
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
@South Coast Kevin - yes, I would agree with you that the idea of God revealing himself through particular nations and so on is obsolete. It is also downright dangerous.
I'd be as Anabaptist as Steve Langton on that issue. It leads to the kind of US 'particularism' that one finds among some right-wing US fundamentalists and notions of Manifest Destiny and so on.
It also leads to concepts like 'Holy Russia' which I find equally problematic.
And yes, the Victorians and Edwardians indulged in that sort of thing too - 'God who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet ...'
Victorian Imperialists were convinced that God had raised up the British Empire to convert the heathen and spread divinely-sanctioned British values and trade etc etc throughout the world.
Having said that, we have an Incarnational faith and none of us would have any problem with the idea of God working through individuals or groups of people - if we did then none of us would be advocating any kind of church whatsoever ...
It's all about striking the right balance, I seems to me and it's a balance that's hard to achieve.
You can argue it both ways round it seems to me. One can argue for the 'diffusion' principle - Christian ethos and values remaining in the public domain as a result of Christian representation at state-level. Equally, one can argue that this is a bad thing - but that then runs the risk of complete withdrawal from the public domain.
There's a balance somewhere. 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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You can argue it both ways round it seems to me. One can argue for the 'diffusion' principle - Christian ethos and values remaining in the public domain as a result of Christian representation at state-level.
I think it comes down to what you actually mean by Christian representation, and whilst the 'middle way' is actually quite attractive I do actually think that all forms of Erastianism so-called are heretical. So the 'middle' doesn't actually represent a middle at all - apart from the two extremes being errors.
Contra you earlier view I think that the success of Graham's crusades were larger on the back of spiritual hunger that had been triggered during the war and it's aftermath. Left to it's own devices the Established church has actually been remarkably poor at maintaining knowledge of the faith amongst the majority of the people in the country (the working class and the poor).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'll meet you half way on that ...
I'd agree that some - but by no means all - of the Free Churches were 'better' at reaching the poor and the working class than the Established Church ever was - but on the English side of my family, my Grandad's mother and many, if not most, of his sisters (he was one of 12) adhered to what I'd call a form of 'folk Anglicanism' - almost to the point of impressive sanctity in some cases ...
Equally, I knew some very working class rural types from the Forest of Dean who were the same.
All I was suggesting was that the existence of an Established Church of some kind has, in many countries, diffused a more general awareness of Christianity than may otherwise have been the case.
That doesn't mean that everyone within those societies was necessarily engaged with the Christian faith in any deep or meaningful way.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
But it's a matter of note and observation that 'Catholic countries' and 'Lutheran countries' and 'Orthodox countries' and so on do have a generally widespread level of awareness of Christianity - even if it is at a fairly nominal level in terms of engagement with most people.
So, whilst I agree that the success of the Graham crusades was partly down to the spiritual hunger of which you speak, the fact remains that it wouldn't have happened in a vacuum. Graham was tapping in to a residual level of engagement with the Gospel.
The same applies to post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Of course, there's been an upsurge of interest there in New Age beliefs and wierd and wonderful philosophies - but for the most part people have been returning to one or other of the historic forms of Christianity - be it Orthodox, Uniate, RC or the various Protestant churches.
Whether this will continue as the tide of materialism and secularism rises remains to be seen. Romanian Orthodox people tell me that they foresee a falling-away as people become more prosperous or more 'westernised' and secularised.
--------------------
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:
All I was suggesting was that the existence of an Established Church of some kind has, in many countries, diffused a more general awareness of Christianity than may otherwise have been the case.
In some cases yes - though equally there was widespread ignorance of the faith in most of Western Europe at various points - and revivalism (for all it's faults) has been what has actually promoted the faith amongst the mass of people.
That doesn't mean that everyone within those societies was necessarily engaged with the Christian faith in any deep or meaningful way.
quote:
But it's a matter of note and observation that 'Catholic countries' and 'Lutheran countries' and 'Orthodox countries' and so on do
Well, it's worth pointing out that those Lutheran countries at least have tended to shed their Christianity and ended up largely secular and indifferent to Christianity. A number of those Catholic and Orthodox countries seem to be going down that road as they develop economically (and even in less developed places like South America it has again been the non conformist movements that have continued to reach the unreached).
quote:
The same applies to post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Of course, there's been an upsurge of interest there in New Age beliefs and wierd and wonderful philosophies - but for the most part people have been returning to one or other of the historic forms of Christianity - be it Orthodox, Uniate, RC or the various Protestant churches.
Actually, from what I can tell this actually took place in the opposite way around, in that to start with there was an incredibly interest in the various churches established and non-established in those areas - and whilst these still remain, the majority of people have moved on to more unorthodox forms of 'spiritual experience'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My point though, Chris, is that revivalism wouldn't have kicked off in the first place unless there was a general diffusion of awareness of the Christian faith in the first place.
In missiological terms there have been some 'People Movements' among previously unreached or unchurched groups - the Lisu people of Burma/Myanmar are the paradigm example.
But by and large revivalist movements have occurred as pietistic movements that draw on older or more 'established' traditions.
Hence the reason that there are so many Pentecostals in Latin America is because the region was at first intensely 'Catholicised' - sure, there was nominalism and low levels of engagement with the faith - but that's where revivalism kicks-in - that's what it feeds on.
In Protestant circles this has tended to lead to a proliferation of new churches and sects.
And revivalism is largely a Protestant phenomenon, of course, although one could argue that popular renewal movements in 13th century Italy, for instance, or in 18th century Greece through Fr Zosima ('the Greek John Wesley') were more Catholic or Orthodox parallels.
Why are there so many Jehovah's Witnesses in Poland? Because there were so many Catholics there in the first place so when someone comes along and says, 'We can actually teach you what the Bible really says ...' there is an audience and appetite for that.
In 18th century England, Methodism tended to flourish where the Anglican Church was stretched or weak - Cornwall, Yorkshire, the North East ...
But it didn't happen in a vacuum. There were plenty of 'religious societies' in London when Wesley set up his on Fetter Lane - at least 40 according to some historians.
Church attendance was more sporadic in remote and rural areas - such as Pennine Yorkshire but even there people were gathering in 'societies' to pray, read the Bible etc before the 'Evangelical Awakening' occurred.
None of these things happen in a vacuum.
I am not for a moment suggesting that everyone in the 18th century had a high level of awareness of Christian teachings - but these things were part of the atmosphere and the back-drop to their lives, however nominal they may have been.
Why do you think the Billy Graham Crusades of the 1950s and 1960s were deemed to be more successful than the Crusade of 1984?
Partly a result of post-war spiritual hunger, I would agree ... but also because the country was less secularised in the 1950s and 1960s even though that process was well underway.
These things are all symbiotic and interlinked.
So, as far as Eastern Europe goes, there has certainly been an upsurge of interest in Orthodoxy and a parallel interest in New Age-y stuff ...
It's a both/and not either/or thing once more I'm afraid ...
--------------------
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 strikes me that the 'blame game' can kick in here from all sides, when in fact the issues are less clear cut.
For instance, I've seen Orthodox websites which 'blame' Calvinism for the decline of religious observance in the West. Medieval Scholasticism led to Calvinism which in turn led to the Enlightenment, Deism, Infidelity and so on ... or - depending on which version of this 'take' one sees - it led to a massive reaction with people voting with their feet rather than face Calvinism's cold and monstrous Deity ...
I'd suggest that this is an overly simplistic view.
Just as I'd suggest that a full-on separatist model can veer towards over-simplification too.
--------------------
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 The Silent Acolyte;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Given that nobody seems able to come up with the evidence that 'establishment' IS biblical,...
New Testament, NT evidence.
One can hardly turn around in the Old Testament without bumping abruptly into the notion of the identity of church and state.
I'm not arguing with that; but simply by expanding the idea of "God's people" from the one nation of Israel to an international body of believers makes a huge difference. The NT argues that it is THE CHURCH which is in continuity with Israel as the people of God, through the application of the promised 'NEW COVENANT (Testament)'; and 'the state' is simply NOT identical with the Church. As already pointed out, to be a Christian requires a new birth based on faith, which can't be made to happen by such means as state legislation.
Could say MUCH more on that, will leave it there pro tem.
Also by The Silent Acolyte;
quote:
For most Christians, the idea that all evidence must be 'biblical' is a perversion of the Church and her Tradition. But, perhaps it is idle to repeat this fact.
Have I finally come across someone who believes that 'Tradition' CAN after all contradict the Bible? That would be a game-changer - but also one that would require a LOT of justification!!!
by Gee D;
quote:
Perhaps SL should have narrowed his comment then had that been his meaning.
Actually I have several times used the narrower version (that is, reference to the NT alone); but 'biblical' does of course refer to the whole Bible and includes the fact of an OT promise of change fulfilled in the NT. I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that the NT contradicts the OT (as opposed to 'fulfils it by legitimate and prophesied development').
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
you can understand how, sooner or later, when Christianity had achieved some kind of critical mass in one part of the world or other then it would or could become linked with the governance of that region in some way.
Yes, I can understand that. But I also understand that after 1600 years of evidence how things can go wrong, even with the mildest form of 'Christian state', and how links with the state compromise the very nature of the Church, I think it fair to say that it is precisely at that point that it becomes really important for the Church to insist on remaining separate and to be extremely careful how it uses even the influence of being a majority.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I agree with Steve - and surely it must be possible for the church and the state - as institutions - to remain thoroughly separate even when most people (either most people in the country as a whole, or most politicians / civil servants) are Christians. I realise that the two institutions do get intertwined but this doesn't strike me as inevitable; if most Christians thought the two should remain formally separate then surely that could be possible.
Mind you, this doesn't address the issue (e.g. in the USA) when there is formal separation of church and state but a very strong informal mixing of certain aspects of the church and certain aspects of the state.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This may sound counter-intuitive but I actually have more of an issue with the US model than I do with Establishment as far as the CofE goes ...
I haven't had any direct experience of Orthodoxy other than as a minority Church over here, but I think I would find the Erastianism it displays in Greece, Russia and the Balkans to be rather problematic.
I'm not denying that there are issues and big problems. Take the established churches in Scandinavia, for instance, they seem to operate as some form of spiritual NHS even more than the CofE does. I know an Anglican priest who lived in Sweden for some time and, I think, was actually ordained over there - the state-church in Sweden has some kind of sister-church arrangement with the Anglicans.
He says that because the whole thing is subsidised and effectively 'nationalised' as part of the State - at least that's how it explained it to me - then, refreshingly in his view, there is no onus on them to evangelise and proselytise ...
He's very liberal and tends to view evangelistic initiatives with some horror - he thinks it leads to manipulation and pressure.
Interestingly, his concern about independent or separatist Christian churches is that because they have to generate their own funds to pay their clergy and so on (yes, the CofE does too but in a different kind of way) then he feels there's a pressure there to compromise.
Take Joel Osteen, for example, the mega-church pastor in the USA. Osteen has apparently refused to come down off the fence on various issues as he knows that this might alienate some of his vast congregation - who, if they were disgruntled enough - would then decamp elsewhere taking away a major source of his funding.
So, this vicar argues that independence and separatism can easily lead to moral compromise. The leaders will keep schtum on various issues so as not to rock the boat and lose the paying punters who might otherwise piss off and go somewhere else.
That, put bluntly, is the inevitable consequence of having a 'market' - and what we have now is essentially a religious market-place where we pays our money and we makes our choice.
Next time I see him I'll question him on this idea as it sounds like he's arguing for some kind of state monopoly - because he feels that's actually the fairer option.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm not saying I agree with him, but it's an interesting point.
Plenty of people here are pointing the finger at established Churches and accusing them of compromise and much else.
But put yourself in the position, for a moment, of a minister/leader of an independent or separatist church. Just suppose you come to the conviction that same-sex marriage is permissible (say) and yet you know that if you actually preach that or perform a same-sex marriage then you'll either get booted out or your congregation will vote with their feet and clear off down the road to somewhere which takes a different line ...
What do you do then?
I'm not introducing a tangent nor venturing into Dead Horse territory, I'm simply using this example to make a point.
And that point is that moral dilemmas, compromise and clashes between convictions and pragmatism are going to rear their heads wherever one is - whether in an Established Church or an independent or separatist one.
--------------------
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:
But put yourself in the position, for a moment, of a minister/leader of an independent or separatist church. Just suppose you come to the conviction that same-sex marriage is permissible (say) and yet you know that if you actually preach that or perform a same-sex marriage then you'll either get booted out or your congregation will vote with their feet and clear off down the road to somewhere which takes a different line ...
A fair question, IMO, but I suppose you'd just have to have the courage of your convictions and say what you felt was right. (Which could be one way or the other on any given issue, or it could be that you consider it an issue of distinctly secondary importance and won't be speaking out in favour of any particular position.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, but whatever the case and whatever the stance there's still that danger of compromising one's own conscience - as indeed there is in any church - whether it is established or not.
I wouldn't expect Steve Langton ever to join a 'Constantinian' church as he would see it - nor would it be right for him to do so as it would bruise his conscience.
Nor do I have any problem with Baptists or Anabaptists come to that ... I've been involved with Baptist churches in the past and was a member of one for 6 years and they were good years. I have loads and loads of time for the Baptists - more than I have, to be honest, for groups like the Vineyard I'm afraid.
Not that I'd entirely write the Vineyard off, of course nor discourage anyone from getting involved with that side of things if that's where their inclinations lay ... but I may issue a few warnings and caveats ...
Just as there would be warnings and caveats over different issues elsewhere.
There are no easy answers.
But when someone's livelihood is wrapped up in a situation where a crisis of conscience could potentially have enormous implications ... it begins to get very scary.
Sure, Anglican clergy potentially face that just as other ministers/leaders do, but there is a safety net to some extent that Establishment provides. Whether that's a good or a 'fair' thing, of course, is another issue ...
--------------------
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:
My point though, Chris, is that revivalism wouldn't have kicked off in the first place unless there was a general diffusion of awareness of the Christian faith in the first place.
Yes .. but that does not presuppose the existence of an 'Established' church even in your model.
[Re Eastern Europe - it's a tangent, but I think attendance numbers tend to mitigate against a both and approach]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But when someone's livelihood is wrapped up in a situation where a crisis of conscience could potentially have enormous implications ... it begins to get very scary.
Sure, Anglican clergy potentially face that just as other ministers/leaders do, but there is a safety net to some extent that Establishment provides. Whether that's a good or a 'fair' thing, of course, is another issue ...
Definitely. But all that is no argument in favour of retaining an established church, they're just potential side-benefits for what is - IMO and in that of Steve Langton's - a very bad and unchristian idea.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Chris Stiles, well, maybe not an established church in the political sense - but at least a dominantly Christian paradigm within the society where the revival takes place.
In most instances that's been in the form of an established church of some kind - whether we are talking about Lutheranism in Scandinavia, Calvinism in the Low Countries or Anglicanism and its daughters in England or Presbyterianism in Scotland ...
@SCK - whether it's a good or a bad idea, it's what we've got. As I keep saying, we have to deal with the cards we're dealt. Sure, you can reshuffle and start again if you choose - but whether you end up with a more advantageous set of cards is a moot point.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All of us, whether we are involved in Free Churches or with the historic Churches, are facing similar issues in terms of decline, church closures and general indifference across the public at large.
To me, that's a bigger issue and one to which there are no simple solutions. One could argue that Establishment helps to maintain some form of diffusion from which we all benefit - whether or not we are part of the Established Church.
Our churches will continue to do what they can in terms of mission, but there's little sign of much change overall. I don't expect that the process of Disestablishment would somehow bring highly effective evangelistic work to a juddering halt. (Well, not unless the top evangelists are whisked away to sit on committees. I can't see why that would happen.)
My sense is that the extent of the decline we see is a sign that the benefits of Christian diffusion that Establishment brought in the past are now almost at an end. Establishment has done some good work, through the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't see what purpose it'll serve in the future.
quote:
I'm not seeking to elide those problems nor am I seeking to defend Establishment. I'm simply saying that this is where things are and we have to work with the cards we've been dealt. If the CofE is ever Disestablished then there'll have been a reshuffling of the cards.
I really don't see what the issue is with the position I've articulated.
This is indeed where things are. But I happen to think it's legitimate to reflect on why and how they might change in future. No, I'm not demanding Disestablishment by 12pm next Thursday!! As I said previously, it could be a few decades before our nation decides that this is what it wants. I've also agreed that I don't expect the process to lead to a revival. But for me, this latter point isn't really a argument for holding on to anachronistic structures, and I simply want to think ahead. Like you, 'I really don't see what the issue is with the position I've articulated.'
Fortunately, we can agree to disagree. Neither of us will be making the decisions, but free speech is still available to all.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Where have I ever implied that free speech isn't open to us all?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
FFS ... No-one is saying that you shouldn't have an issue with Establishment, no-one is saying that you can't belong to whatever religious body you wish or none - least of all the Church of England.
No-one is saying that Steve Langton can't be an Anabaptist nor that thee or me could set up the Church of Spotted Jellybaby Giraffe tomorrow should we so be inclined ...
Of course, 300 or 400 years ago that would have been more of a problem. But it isn't now.
--------------------
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
I also happen to believe that an evangelical aristocracy like the Mumfords is a bad idea, particularly when they've been shown to have told porkies from various revivalist meeting platforms over the years.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Sorry. I thought I was rounding off my post rather nicely by saying that even though we disagree, free speech is available to all.
I'll take that back if it offends you.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve Langton - I certainly believe that Tradition can and does (depending on the particular denomination) contradict Scripture. Not believing that either is infallible, it doesn't bother me.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
No, it doesn't 'offend' me, but I understood you to be saying that I was trying to restrict freedom of speech or defend positions that might lead to that.
Which certainly isn't a position I'm arguing for
If I got the wrong end of the stick, I apologise.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I was simply saying it was okay to agree to disagree, since we enjoy free speech. I was trying (and failing) to be conciliatory.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
