|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Separatism, smugness and shit-storms
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jade Constable;
quote:
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.
Fair enough; but I don't think The Silent Acolyte was putting that kind of position! Perhaps she could clarify?
Otherwise again I've been out for few hours and come back to tons of stuff to sift through and respond to, or not as the case may be. It may take while....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I was simply saying it was okay to agree to disagree, since we enjoy free speech. I was trying (and failing) to be conciliatory.
I understood you, for what it's worth!
--------------------
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
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Ok, sorry to have bitten your head off, SvitlanaV2. I accept the olive-branch. I will not tear off the leaves.
Apologies for being snappy.
--------------------
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
Ok, sorry to have bitten your head off, SvitlanaV2. I accept the olive-branch. I will not tear off the leaves.
Apologies for being snappy.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jade Constable;
quote:
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.
Fair enough; but I don't think The Silent Acolyte was putting that kind of position! Perhaps she could clarify?
I was only asserting that most Christians (at least Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox) can be persuaded by an argument from Tradition. And, that calling an argument unpersuasive merely because it fails to have a biblical component neglects to give due respect to the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The best arguments, of course, appeal to both.
To assert, as does Jade Constable, that Tradition can contradict scripture demonstrates an incoherent view of Tradition. quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...some UBB hash...
I was merely saying, in opposition to your statement, that it couldn't be the case that there was no biblical evidence, since the OT is littered with it. I wasn't speaking to how OT evidence might bear on your argument.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What Silent Acolyte said ...
Meanwhile, apologies to South Coast Kevin too for the pop I took at the Mumfords. I was feeling a bit snappy last night.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I do believe that the Mumfords and people like them have been guilty of what be called 'mission-inflation' and of passing on tall-tales from convention platforms and the like without first checking them out ... but that's not a feature that is restricted to independent, separatist or avowedly charismatic churches - it can and does happen elsewhere ...
I s'pose it simply illustrates the point, though, that I've been trying to make from the OP onwards, that there are inherent weaknesses (and strength) in all traditions and structures.
Having an established or 'Constantinian' church can and does lead to corruption, nominalism, the inappropriate application of force or coercion at times ...
All of which are great evils.
Conversely, independence and separatism bring with them a different set of dangers and problems.
That's all I've been suggesting.
So, revivalism will bring vigour and vitality, but it's concommitant shadow will be extremism, sensationalism and a tendency towards exaggeration.
I would suggest that all these weaknesses are present and unavoidable in all places and at all times.
That's not a council of despair. It's simply an acknowledgement of the fallen nature of things.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I think that Jade may have been blurring the line between Tradition in the Hooker sense of the 3rd leg (I know that the correctness of this attribution is disputed and tradition in the sense of this is how the Danish Ultra-Calvinists have always interpreted that passage.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Just a few further random thoughts ...
This might sound pernickety but SvitlanaV2's reference to evangelists and committees and so on made me wonder how effective 'evangelists' ie. those labelled as such, actually are ...
In my experience, and I have been involved with churches which have seen numbers of new converts, most evangelism isn't done by people wearing that title or badge but by gregarious individuals within congregations or through family and friends.
Sure, you get a few people who are converted and 'stay the course' as it were following more organised and explicit evangelistic initiatives - but not that many in my experience.
Anyhow, whatever the case, and whatever the rights, wrongs and goods, bads and indifferent-ses of 'established' churches I still think that whatever church or tradition we are involved with we still have to make uncomfortable accommodations.
If we're involved with established churches then there are downsides connected with that. If we are involved with independent groups then the downsides and difficulties are different. Swings and roundabouts.
You get shite preached from the pulpits and platforms of established churches and shite preached and promoted from the pulpits, platforms and front-rooms of independent ones.
I s'pose one could say of independent groups such as the Vineyard, just to pick one at random, that whilst there's all manner of crud and dubious 'theology' promoted from their platforms at least they don't have to put up with the problems associated with being an 'established' church ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'We have people spreading all kinds of unsubstantiated rumours and downright lies from our platforms, but at least we're not one of those nasty Constantinian churches ...'
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by The Silent Acolyte;
quote:
I was only asserting that most Christians (at least Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox) can be persuaded by an argument from Tradition. And, that calling an argument unpersuasive merely because it fails to have a biblical component neglects to give due respect to the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The best arguments, of course, appeal to both.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like the standard teaching in which 'Tradition' can supplement Scripture but isn't supposed to contradict it. This means to me that I do in fact respect 'tradition' myself, and the idea that tradition can indeed be the ongoing leading of the Spirit. But it seems to me that the traditions we develop need always to be monitored, if you like, in the light of Scripture, checked to see that they aren't going in dubious directions, and also checked that they're still performing a useful function and haven't become dead formalities. There, it seems to me, we could have fruitful discussion.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Having an established or 'Constantinian' church can and does lead to corruption, nominalism, the inappropriate application of force or coercion at times ...
All of which are great evils.
Conversely, independence and separatism bring with them a different set of dangers and problems.
That's all I've been suggesting.
OK, we get it; everybody's position has problems, in a natural. human sinful kind of way, and nobody's perfect. And we can go round that treadmill forever; indeed we pretty much have been recently! But while we're going round a treadmill, we ain't progressing. Some of us are trying to progress and not just stick in the mud of how things have been for hundreds of years. We'd like to get clear of some rather obvious problems; at least we'll get some new problems to bash at.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by The Silent Acolyte;
quote:
I was only asserting that most Christians (at least Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox) can be persuaded by an argument from Tradition. And, that calling an argument unpersuasive merely because it fails to have a biblical component neglects to give due respect to the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The best arguments, of course, appeal to both.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like the standard teaching in which 'Tradition' can supplement Scripture....
I think I have to stop you at this point to suggest that the ancient teaching of the Church has Scripture, in its Canonical and Deuterocanonical divisions, as a part of the Tradition. The part of Tradition by which all other parts are judged, but not something that stands outside the Spirit-Inspired Tradition.
Fr. Alkiviadis Calivas (Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology), perhaps citing some greater authority than himself, has described the Canon or Rule of Orthodoxy as being the entire Tradition of the Church: the Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers, the Councils, the Creed, the lectionaries, the Liturgy, the Calendar, the Service Books.
To suggest that the Word speaks to us through Scripture outside the richness of centuries of the divine liturgy, the prayers of the divine office, the prayers of the faithful, laity and religious, the cycles of reading Scripture, the chanting of the hymns, the contemplation of the mystics and hermits, the prayers of the living and the dead, is to say that, as individuals, we are able reliably to hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church today.
[ 12. May 2014, 23:46: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Like TSA, I do not accept that inspiration by the Holy Spirit ceased around 100AD. The work of the Spirit continues amongst us today.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough, Steve Langton. But things have moved on for all of us. Anglican establishment isn't what it was in the 18th century, for instance. It may very well cease to be the CofE position in the future. What Christendom has done - at least - is to create some kind of diffusion of awareness and various levels of engagement with the faith - from nominalism through to an intense engagement and all shades in between.
We may have to learn to live without that in future.
Harder to do, I submit, in a sectarian context but I think that's where we are all headed.
--------------------
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
Here's a quick thought on diffusion ...
Whatever the ins and outs and rights and wrongs of Christendom - and there were/are plenty ...
The market town of Sandbach is close to where I live. It's noted for its ancient Saxon crosses in the market place. They were knocked about after the Reformation but set up there again in the 19th century.
There are now some interesting information panels and an artist's impression of how they might have appeared in their heyday.
You can probably google for that.
What struck me this last time when I looked at them was that they apparently had some kind of metal or precious jewels cladding them at some point - the historians tell us that rivet marks indicate that they had some kind of metal embellishment at one time.
It struck me that there must have been an expectation at that time that these objects would have been so respected or venerated that nobody would come along and prize off the precious metal or jewels - if indeed that's what did adorn them.
Whatever our views on that, I think it says something about diffusion - or the extent to which it was expected in those days.
Of course, as the Staffordshire hoard indicates with the folded up cross that was found among the plunder, the Saxons themselves weren't averse to nicking other people's religious art - and of course the Norsemen would have carried this sort of thing off if they'd had the chance.
But it does indicate a society where these things were held sacred and expected to be respected or perhaps even miraculously preserved ...
You get a similar impression in places like Greece today where some people appear to expect churches and shrines to survive earthquakes and so on.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong - but clearly there is no special case for sacred sites remaining intact or inviolate - but it's an interesting worldview/impression I think ...
Can anyone see what I'm getting at?
--------------------
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:
Fair enough, Steve Langton. But things have moved on for all of us. Anglican establishment isn't what it was in the 18th century, for instance. It may very well cease to be the CofE position in the future. What Christendom has done - at least - is to create some kind of diffusion of awareness and various levels of engagement with the faith - from nominalism through to an intense engagement and all shades in between.
Call me idealistic, but if most self-identified Christians lived more godly, holy lives than they (than we; than I!) currently do, having more impact on our neighbourhoods, our families, our workplaces etc., then I don't think we'd remotely miss the 'diffusion of awareness and various levels of engagement with the faith' that Christendom has brought.
Seeking to be like Christ - being loving, kind, joyful, self-controlled; sharing our love of God in a relevant, powerful way - is what all Christians are called to, IMO, and in our churches we should (a) make that explicit, and (b) help, support and challenge one another to pursue it. I don't think we should be leaning on and fearing the potential loss of some diffuse benefit arising from Christianity's privileged place in UK society and history.
--------------------
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
by Gee D;
quote:
Like TSA, I do not accept that inspiration by the Holy Spirit ceased around 100AD. The work of the Spirit continues amongst us today.
I also believe that the work of the Holy Spirit continues among us today. Why wouldn't I? But the various post 100AD 'traditions' are just that - various!! So on what basis do I assess them when they vary? It seems to me that the Holy Spirit who got Scripture written isn't going to contradict himself in this subsequent guidance - ergo the claims of 'tradition' can and should be assessed relative to Scripture.
In fact the majority of 'traditions' say essentially that about themselves anyway, and/or base their claim of authority upon some link to the apostles who were responsible for the NT in the first place - and who, again, can hardly be expected to approve of later contradiction in the name of 'tradition'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Tradition does not contradict scripture because tradition is the work of the Holy Spirit too. The key to finding the tradition of apostles is to find the golden thread that leads back to them. That thread is visible, of course, otherwise we wouldn't be able to find it, so that leaves out all those sects which have reared their head in between. Continuity is also one of the signs of the Holy Spirit.
[ 13. May 2014, 17:35: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In my more idealistic moments, South Coast Kevin, I would agree.
However, I have no more faith in the ability of self-identified, 'gathered' communities of committed believers to have a widespread impact than I have of the ability of a diffuse Christendom to do so.
All I'm saying in the case of Christendom is that it seems to me that a diffusion of some form of awareness of Christianity is - generally speaking - a necessary condition for what's referred to as 'revival' ... you need to have something there in the first place in order for it to be 'revived'.
Revival in the evangelical and charismatic sense of the term should be distinguished from 'people movements' that sometimes occur in missionary settings - such as among the Lisu peoples of Myanmar when there was apparently a mass turning to Christ among the members of a particular tribe.
This can and does happen, but generally speaking, as with the 18th century Evangelical Awakening or more regional or localised revivals such as the Welsh Revival of 1904/05 or the Hebridean revivals of the 1950s, these things happen among communities that are already 'Christianised' to a certain extent - even if only at a nominal or superficial level.
The same applies, I would argue, to the Billy Graham Crusades of the 1950s. They were tapping into something that was already there - even if in a somnolent form.
I don't necessarily 'fear' the demise of Christendom - there's no point in fearing it because it is a process that is already well underway.
It's simply that I've yet to be convinced that independent groups and consciously non-Christendom churches are any more likely to make a widespread impact - and even if they did they would begin to re-create the kind of Constantinian conditions that such groups like to rail against.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the churches of the future will be more 'gathered' and intentional in style and modus-operandi - it's difficult to see how they would survive otherwise. We need 'plausibility structures' and a more 'sectarian' model in sociological terms does provide that.
What I don't see - other than on a limited and localised scale - are the activities of any of the more 'gathered' and intentional/voluntarist churches leading to 'revival' in any way - at least not here in the West.
--------------------
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
The thing is, Steve Langton, that your view presupposes one single and consensual agreement on what the pre-100 traditions and the scriptures actually teach.
Some folk would argue for a paedobaptist position, for instance, and still maintain that they were adopting a 'sola scriptura' position in doing so.
Others would disagree with them, and also claim to be 'sola scriptura'.
Of course, sola scriptura is different to 'solo scriptura' but you'd still have to demonstrate that your particular understanding of scripture was THE correct one when there were others who would also claim that scripture was authoritative and pre-eminent but reach different conclusions to your good self.
--------------------
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:
In my more idealistic moments, South Coast Kevin, I would agree.
However, I have no more faith in the ability of self-identified, 'gathered' communities of committed believers to have a widespread impact than I have of the ability of a diffuse Christendom to do so.
What about the spread of Christianity in the first 2-3 centuries AD and the survival (indeed flourishing) of the faith in Maoist China? There was no 'diffuse Christendom' in either of those situations and yet Christianity spread vigorously.
I remember you have concerns about the nature of some beliefs common among Christians in communist China but, nevertheless, the faith flourished in spite of the expectations of the developed-world workers who were all kicked out by Mao's government.
--------------------
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
by Gamaliel;
quote:
The thing is, Steve Langton, that your view presupposes one single and consensual agreement on what the pre-100 traditions and the scriptures actually teach.
Actually, no it doesn't presuppose a total agreement, just the concept that the Scriptures are the go-to place to assess all the differences that arose later. And by the way, I took the '100AD' limit in GeeD's post to basically mean 'Scripture' rather than other pre-100 traditions - that is, he was saying that the Holy Spirit didn't stop leading when the NT had been written....
On the other hand, I don't think it insignificant that groups which do base themselves on Scripture seem to come up with remarkably similar results, while those trying to defend other views seem to end up needing something outside the Scripture to uphold their position; both here and on my blog I'm still waiting, it seems, for a response to my challenge to actually disprove the basic Anabaptist position from Scripture....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I s'pose I would argue, South Coast Kevin, that the initial spread of Christianity didn't depend on the existence of an over-arching Christian paradigm - such a thing didn't exist within the Roman Empire until Christianity had achieved some kind of 'critical mass' - but that its maintenance did rely to a certain extent on such a thing.
Even in the very early Church, the accounts we read in Acts, the new Christian communities were fed directly from an existing paradigm - that of Judaism.
Where did the 3,000 converts on the day of Pentecost come from? They were Jews who converted to the new Way preached by the Apostles.
Ok, following the dispersion that happened with persecution and the Pauline and Petrine missionary journeys and so on, Christianity spread beyond Judaism - initially to the Samaritans and then the Gentiles.
Christianity was widespread throughout the Roman world by the end of the 2nd century and grew stronger in the 3rd, despite - or because of? - sporadic persecution.
Eusebius, the early Church historian was delighted when the Constantinian thing kicked in as he saw it as an end of persecution and evidence that Christianity had prevailed.
One could argue that he was naive, but that was the view at the time.
The survival of Christianity in Maoist China, I would submit, was partly due to the depth of the roots it had put down beforehand. There were plenty of Christians in China by the late 19th century despite persecutions and even bloody civil wars which were partly generated by resentment at their presence.
There was a lot of nominalism of course - 'rice Christians' - and there were some strange and syncretic flowerings right from the outset.
Loads of Christians perished during the Boxer Rebellion - and not just evangelical Protestants but RCs, Orthodox and all manner of other forms of Christianity imported from the West.
There was a sufficiently strong grass-roots Christianity within China by Mao's time for it to survive the Cultural Revolution. Sure, some of it became rather wierd and whacky due to isolation from the rest of the Christian scene - but from what I can gather, that process has slowed in more recent years as Chinese Christians have had renewed contact with the wider Christian world.
So, however you cut it, it seems to me, there is no way around the sense of an over-arching Christian paradigm or 'received tradition' - that exists. It is there. We all draw from it in one way or other.
Whether this means it has to be enshrined in law and sanctioned by the state is a different 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You'll be waiting a long time, Steve Langton, not because your view is more 'biblical' necessarily but because those who might wish to take issue with your Anabaptist position aren't coming at it from the same position.
They would argue that you have dislocated scripture from tradition. They would also argue that they haven't and that consequently scripture and tradition (or Tradition) work together in the context of the Church (as they understand it) and as two sides of the same coin or two brackets on the same hinge ...
So you're not even framing the question in a way that would make sense to anyone from a more Catholic or Orthodox tradition.
As to whether people need to refer to something outside of scripture ... well, that presupposes that scripture is somehow self-contained, completely self-authenticating and somehow hermetically sealed from the culture, conditions and processes in which it was both written and 'recognised' or ratified.
To someone coming at it from the angle of a higher view of tradition (or Tradition) that's not how the scriptures work ...
So in that respect your challenge will fall on deaf ears as that's not the way these things work - from a more 'catholic' perspective.
It's the wrong challenge to issue, if I can put it that way.
--------------------
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:
What struck me this last time when I looked at them was that they apparently had some kind of metal or precious jewels cladding them at some point - the historians tell us that rivet marks indicate that they had some kind of metal embellishment at one time.
Though the fact that they aren't there (and haven't been there in recent memory) also shows that at some point they were nicked?
Also, to what extent was their preservation due to fear or superstition? Or the inability to sell them in a much more stratified society?
quote:
Ok, following the dispersion that happened with persecution and the Pauline and Petrine missionary journeys and so on, Christianity spread beyond Judaism - initially to the Samaritans and then the Gentiles.
But this argument is basically "oh .. christianity always succeeded everywhere because of already existing diffuse belief .. except in all the places where it didn't".
The point is you were defending this diffuse Christianity based on it being created by Established churches of one form or another, whereas whilst we can debate cultural christianity of this sort, it's fairly clear that in the bulk of the cases identified it wasn't really formed by an Established church as such anyway.
And yes, two cheers for Constantine and the Treaty of Milan, I would join with those who think it was an act of providence, but on this earth these things aren't unalloyed acts of goodness. The religious liberty granted by the Treaty was good on both a civic and religious level - the establishment of an 'official religion' by Theodosius less so.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, where have I argued that Establishment is all sweetness and light? Everywhere and on each post I've expressed ambivalence about that ... it was always a mixed blessing.
Eusebius may have breathed a sigh of relief as he say it as an end to persecution - yet, as we've all agreed, the Constantinian settlement brought a whole raft of other problems with it.
All I'm saying is that whether it comes in an Established 'legal' form or whether it happens in a more organic, grass-roots kind of way, it is surely axiomatic that some form of 'cultural Christianity' is a necessary condition for 'revivals' and so on ... in the same way that the existence and prevalence of Judaism within 1st century Palestine was a necessary pre-requisite for the emergence of Christianity in the first place.
Of course, I'm not arguing that 'cultural Christianity' is adequate or desirable in and of itself - we need intentional communities of practising Christians.
I've never said otherwise.
On the Sandbach crosses thing - well of course these sort of things were nicked back in the those days - by Vikings, by pagans - even by other Christians if the evidence of the Staffordshire Hoard is anything to go by ... crosses crumpled up and taken for their jewellery value.
All I was musing on was the existence of an apparent assumption that these things could be displayed publicly without being pinched. There could, of course, be all sorts of reasons for that.
I'm certainly not defending Establishment or even Christendom or cultural Christianity per se ... I'm simply pointing out that these are generally the conditions that exist where and when Christianity acquires some form of critical mass.
Of course, there are concommitant problems. Just as there are if we maintain some kind of separatist and otherworldly stance.
--------------------
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:
All I'm saying is that whether it comes in an Established 'legal' form or whether it happens in a more organic, grass-roots kind of way, it is surely axiomatic that some form of 'cultural Christianity' is a necessary condition for 'revivals' and so on ... in the same way that the existence and prevalence of Judaism within 1st century Palestine was a necessary pre-requisite for the emergence of Christianity in the first place.
You're drawing a parallel, in terms of both being good 'seeding ground' for Christian revival, between 'diffuse Christendom' and 1st century Judaism. I need some convincing that this parallel is valid...
And as chris stiles has said, with your acknowledgement of the impact the missionary / apostolic journeys recorded in the New Testament, you do seem to be saying that such a 'seeding ground' is necessary, oh except in those cases where it isn't.
As for China, I'm pretty sure the accounts I've seen (from admittedly partisan sources!) indicate a significant growth in numbers of self-identifying Christians during the time in which developed-world leaders, missionaries etc. were excluded from the country. ISTM the Maoist China story is far more than one of the existing strength and numbers just being sustained.
--------------------
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
The key word I've used, Kevin is 'generally'.
I would posit that nine times out of 10 what we refer to as 'revival' happens within the context of a ground-base of diffuse cultural Christianity.
This is axiomatic.
This was the case with the 18th and 19th century Awakenings in Europe and the USA.
It was the case with the re-emergence of Orthodoxy in Russia despite Communist attempts to eradicate it.
It was the same in Maoist China. The fact that many, if not most, of the converts came in during the period when there was little or no missionary or Western influence doesn't elide the fact that there was a 'base' there to start with.
These things don't happen in a vacuum.
I'm not a specialist scholar but I've attended a scholarly conference on the subject and read sufficiently widely and broadly - and not just the usual partisan subjects - to be convinced that this is generally the case.
Those instances where it isn't - such as the example I've given more than once of the Lisu people in Burma - are so worthy of note that they stand out as a special category.
The onus is on you to demonstrate that the parallel between 1st century Judaism and a kind of diffuse cultural Christianity as the bedding or basis for Christian revival isn't there.
I suspect you can't. Because the evidence isn't there. I've looked. It just isn't. Full stop.
That isn't to say that the growth of Christianity in Maoist China was simply an issue of the current level of growth and activity being sustained - no, of course not. It was much more than that. I've never said otherwise.
All I'm saying is that that growth wouldn't have happened in the first place if there hadn't been any 'soil' for it to grow in. And that soil was laid down during the pre-Communist era in which - like it or not - there WAS a diffuse level of cultural Christianity in China.
Acknowledging this by no means diminishes the sense of divine agency.
The problem I have with revivalism per se is its tendency towards reductionism.
These are not reductionist points. These are issues that cannot be reduced to a single cause-and-effect black and white approach.
These are both/and not either/or issues.
--------------------
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:
It is surely axiomatic that some form of 'cultural Christianity' is a necessary condition for 'revivals'.
If so, then there's surely a declining likelihood of any revivals in England in the future. You can't 'revive' something unless it's already there, and what's still there is now disappearing rapidly.
Maybe it's possible for specialists to predict where the next revivals will be based on the current geographical buoyancy of 'cultural Christianity'. Forearmed with such knowledge, modern Christians will know to target their prayers on Tunbridge Wells, for example, rather than wasting them on Hull! The Holy Spirit needs fertile ground, not stones!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The key word I've used, Kevin is 'generally'.
I would posit that nine times out of 10 what we refer to as 'revival' happens within the context of a ground-base of diffuse cultural Christianity.
Sure. Cultural Christianity which is the result of a mostly Christian past tends to be a little bit easier to cope with on a civic level than the sort that is associated with an Established church though.
And yes, I do think there are enough negatives caused by the latter that it is worth doing away with the concept altogether, regardless of whether or not God may have worked through it in the past.
The issues in the US are interesting, but are arguably the result of a de-facto establishment of Christianity as a civic religion.
On a side note:
quote:
All I'm saying is that that growth wouldn't have happened in the first place if there hadn't been any 'soil' for it to grow in. And that soil was laid down during the pre-Communist era in which - like it or not - there WAS a diffuse level of cultural Christianity in China.
.. which happened to be created from scratch, unless you want to posit a turtles all the way down scenario
[ 14. May 2014, 13:09: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course it was started from scratch somewhere along the line ...
Of course there was a time when there were no Christians in China ... just as there was a time when there were no Christians anywhere ...
But even the early Church didn't spring from nowhere. It emerged from within Judaism as the prevailing paradigm in 1st century Palestine.
Doh!
@SvitlanaV2 - yes, I'm afraid I do believe that 'revival' is increasingly unlikely in the UK given current conditions. I would certainly expect there to be revival-like occurrences across particular groups and sectors in society - as happens from time to time - among marginalised or migrant communities and so on.
There have been some significant examples of these in recent times - the 'Gypsy Revival' across the Roma communities in France, Spain and other parts of Europe for instance.
But if we are looking for a 1904/05 style Welsh Revival, say, or a 1950s style Hebridean Revival ... then no, I don't think we'll see anything like that unless there was a radical reversal of current trends.
--------------------
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:
But even the early Church didn't spring from nowhere. It emerged from within Judaism as the prevailing paradigm in 1st century Palestine.
Which again then spread to contexts in which there wasn't a diffused religion that was so conducive to Christianity.
I'm in substantial agreement with you here - there are pros and cons to both, and benefits to the form of diffused religion.
However, where we differ is that I think that Establishment is a mistake in and of itself, and no amount of supposed benefits of it will easily persuade me otherwise.
It is possible to get diffused religion by means other than the king converting and telling all his men to jump in the river "in the name of the father and the son ..". Similarly, just because God was able to work in a context doesn't baptise it. So no, in that sense I don't think it's a both/and.
Furthermore, going back to my US point, while the Founding Fathers were a mixed bag, at the state level 'church state separation' generally came to be viewed in the context where one form of Christianity was the dominant civic form. So what follows is not all that surprising.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But if we are looking for a 1904/05 style Welsh Revival, say, or a 1950s style Hebridean Revival ... then no, I don't think we'll see anything like that unless there was a radical reversal of current trends.
Sorry for the drive-by post but isn't the very definition of religious revival that it's a radical reversal of current trends?!
--------------------
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
Yes, but it needs a certain amount of 'vival' to 're'.
I've read around the subject and attended a two-day conference on the subject and whilst that doesn't make me an expert, I've read enough to convince me that 'revivals' in the way they are popularly understood and preached about are by no means as apparently spontaneous as they appear.
Sure, that's not to deny the divine afflatus nor to suggest that they are deliberately choreographed in some way. Far from it.
But it is to acknowledge that they happen in particular places and at particular times and are grounded in particular circumstances.
The early Methodist accounts, for instance, tended to exaggerate the parlous state of religion in 18th century England in order to magnify their own achievements.
None of these things happen in a vacuum. There were 40 'religious societies' of one form or other when John Wesley started his on Fetter Lane.
Most of the people initially caught up in the Welsh Revival of 1904/05 were already church-goers - if nominal or sporadic ones.
It's also often overlooked that the Church of England (this was before Disestablishment of the Church in Wales) was one of the biggest - if not the biggest - single recipient in terms of the number of converts of the Welsh Revival.
My advice to anyone interested in the subject of revival is:
- Take them in context.
- Read the contemporary accounts (for and against).
- Read more widely than the popular hagiographies and charismatic evangelical paperbacks.
Having done that, go and be as revivalist as you like ...
If you still can ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Chris Stiles, my point is neither that Establishment was a 'mistake' nor that it was ever something to be welcomed. But it did happen.
Whether we like it or not.
As I keep saying, on a personal level I have loads of problems with the idea of Establishment. For better or worse, that's what we have here at the moment as far as the CofE goes.
The CofE isn't Established in Wales. But, it seems to me, that it makes not a happ'orth of difference there whether it is or not.
If the CofE is ever Disestablished, then so be it.
I'm neither arguing for it or against it. I'm simply saying that there are pros and cons all ways round.
--------------------
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:
If the CofE is ever Disestablished, then so be it.
I'm neither arguing for it or against it. I'm simply saying that there are pros and cons all ways round.
But you do seem to be saying that it's not something that Christians should actively seek.
One problem with this 'leave well alone' approach is that if Christians don't face the inevitable then the debate will, when it happens, be driven by non-Christians. I don't see how this will be helpful for the CofE.
Do you think the CofE's best chance for survival and mission is if non-Anglicans (both Christians and others) basically ignore it and hence forget about Dis/Establishment?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Disestablishment is, in anyone sensible's Eisenhower box, firmly in the 'important (in the sense that it would have very significant consequences, for better or for worse) but not urgent' quarter.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I'm not saying that Disestablishment is something Christians shouldn't seek, any more than I am saying that Establishment is something that should actively be sought if it didn't already exist.
I don't know enough about the process of Disestablishment in Wales, for instance, to determine how much it was as the result of some kind of groundswell from within or something imposed by politicians from 'without' as it were.
In the case of England and the CofE, it's more complex and more tangled.
I can't see there being much of an appetite for it at certain levels within the CofE heirarchy as they might see it as turkeys voting for Christmas ... and they'd probably argue that it would remove some kind of 'representation' of religion from the public arena.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered. If there were good grounds for it then fine, bring it on.
But it first has to be agreed whether there are good grounds for it and what the potential losses and gains would be.
On one level we could all cheer and say, 'Thank goodness, there goes that anachronism and we're creating a fairer and more equitable playing field for all Christians irrespective of affiliation ...'
But at the same time it could also be argued that a 'voice' of some kind is being removed from public affairs - and there are Establishment type Anglicans who would argue that they are representing 'faith' as a whole rather than a particular denominational constituency.
I'm not saying I agree with that necessarily, but it is a view.
If the CofE is ever Disestablished then of course Christians would be involved in the debate. Yes, it will inevitably be decided/implemented in the official sense by politicians but that's inevitable given that the CofE has been linked so closely with the State for the entirety of its existence.
I'd also want to disaggregate - if possible - the issue of Distestablishment from the issue of survival.
I think the latter is the more pressing concern. And based on what I do know of Disestablishment in Wales, I'm not convinced that Disestablishment would in any way improve or hinder the CofE's chances of survival.
There are bigger and wider issues than Disestablishment when it comes to the survival of the CofE.
So, I don't see how working towards Disestablishment would improve the CofE's chances of survival any more than leaving things as they are does.
That's not the issue.
One could argue that at least with the CofE being established it creates an impression among some of the public at large that it's somehow 'kosher' and not some kind of dodgy cult or sect.
I'm really struggling to think how the Establishment issue plays out with the average non-church goer around here. It'd have negative connotations for some and positive connotations for others.
For others it'd be a matter of complete indifference.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Gamaliel, you're still going round and round on the same old treadmill - I'm not prepared to join you. Or at any rate not till I've got a major weekend event out of the way.
On the 'diffuse' awareness of Christianity - well that's the trouble; state churches that don't do the unacceptable-even-to-Gamaliel persecution of heretics thing tend instead to produce a teaching which is diffuse in the sense of vague, confusing, compromised, weak, trivial... need I go on?
I've been saying for a long time that Billy Graham was probably the last major evangelist who could go around just waving a Bible and saying 'the Bible says...' and get a ready response from a culture which knew the Bible fairly well. To see revival now we will need to do a lot better; and I don't see that the established lot are going to help much precisely because of the compromise/vagueness/diffuseness at their heart.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve Langton - that really assumes that all Christians want revival in the way you do. I'm not sure I do, given that doubtless my faith is 'weak' or 'compromised' to you. I am certainly happy living in a secular society.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jade Constable;
quote:
Steve Langton - that really assumes that all Christians want revival in the way you do. I'm not sure I do, given that doubtless my faith is 'weak' or 'compromised' to you. I am certainly happy living in a secular society.
And what way are you assuming I want 'revival'?? As an Anabaptist I'm happy to live in a secular society myself....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The point is, Steve Langton, is that we all have to learn to 'work with the difficulty.'
I once saw an interview with the actor Michael Caine in which he remembered his years treading the boards in provincial 'rep'.
During one performance, a veteran actor stumbled over a chair on stage but quickly incorporated it into his 'act' so that it didn't appear to have been an accident but looked like part of the script.
When Caine congratulated him on this afterwards, the old hand said, 'You've got to learn to work with the difficulty ...'
So, it seems to me, one of the difficulties the CofE faces is being the Established Church. With all the baggage that this brings.
Conversely, one of the difficulties the Anabaptists or anyone else who isn't CofE face, is NOT being the Established Church and losing out on some of the opportunities this affords - as well as the commensurate difficulties.
That's the point I'm making. That there are inherent problems in Establishment and there are inherent problems - to some extent - in not being Established.
Establishment may well disappear. I suspect that's inevitable. But while it still exists then the CofE has to work with that for good or ill.
I must admit I resent the thing about persecution of heretics being 'unacceptable even to Gamaliel' - because there is no way I would ever condone such a thing and nor would the CofE in its current form.
If anything such a remark proves the point I was making in the OP that more 'sectarian' or separatist forms of Christianity CAN lead to a kind of holier-than-thou judgementalism.
Which is the point Baxter was making about the Anabaptists of his day.
And it's the same point I'm making now.
This illustrates my point admirably:
'On the 'diffuse' awareness of Christianity - well that's the trouble; state churches that don't do the unacceptable-even-to-Gamaliel persecution of heretics thing tend instead to produce a teaching which is diffuse in the sense of vague, confusing, compromised, weak, trivial... need I go on?'
Sure, there is always a danger of 'milk-and-water' Christianity as C S Lewis called it and a generally accepted conventional religion or cultural Christianity can encourage and embed that. No question.
So the 'difficulty' then, for those involved with such churches is to hone their prophetic edge and demonstrate a distinctive approach within that context. One could give plenty of examples of those who have - as well as plenty of those who haven't.
There is an equal and opposite danger and difficulty with those who chose to go down the more separatist route - and that's to become sour, sectarian and judgemental. There are plenty of examples of this, as well as heartening examples of people who have been involved in separatist and 'sectarian' churches without being themeselves sectarian ...
'In the sect but not of it,' as it were.
My own view, as I have articulated many times, is that we are all headed by default towards more intentional and 'gathered' or 'confessional' forms of church - and that's a good thing.
That presents opportunities but it also raises other difficulties that we have to work with - just a different set of opportunities and a different set of difficulties.
Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.
Besides, before railing at anyone else for their apparent compromise, diffuseness and vagueness, I think it behoves all of us to check the beams in our own eyes.
There'll be issues I compromise on which South Coast Kevin doesn't. South Coast Kevin may compromise on areas that SvitlanaV2 doesn't. Jade Constable may compromise on some areas that Steve Langton may deplore, yet in other aspects she may be the epitome of clarity and strength whereas it may be Steve 'Point-the-finger' Langton the holy Anabaptist who might be compromising in those areas.
That's the point I'm making. There are inherent difficulties all ways round.
We have to learn to work with them because they are never going to go away.
--------------------
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:
Establishment may well disappear. I suspect that's inevitable. But while it still exists then the CofE has to work with that for good or ill.
Gamaliel, this comment of yours nicely sums up my frustration with what you've been saying (at some length) on this thread. You seem to view (dis)establishment as something entirely external to the Church of England and indeed to all Christians; something that will or won't happen irrespective of what we do, like a meteor strike or a volcanic eruption.
But we (broad 'we' - probably not us personally very much!) have an influence over the establishment question. The C of E as an institution could come to the view that it no longer wished to be the established religion / church of England. Or it could decide to campaign vigorously for the retention of established status and even for an increase in its powers as such (e.g. more bishops in the House of Lords).
But you talk as if it's a completely external thing that we just have to 'roll with the punches' on, doing our best to avoid the worst of the problems and drawing what benefits we can from the status quo. I agree that most of us here as individuals probably have little power and influence over the establishment question, but do you take this laissez-faire approach to every issue and situation in life? I'm pretty sure you don't...
--------------------
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
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I must admit I resent the thing about persecution of heretics being 'unacceptable even to Gamaliel' - because there is no way I would ever condone such a thing and nor would the CofE in its current form.
Which is exactly what I said, isn't it? Stop being offended and try and understand the point. The original purpose of 'establishment' was national conformity for the benefit of royal authority under Henry VIII originally, then Lizzie I and the Stuarts; which is why persecutory measures like the 1662 Act of Uniformity and the 'Conventicles Act' and so on were passed.
Once such measures became unacceptable (partly due to the influence of non-conformists but also because of the obvious dissonance between such attitudes and the Bible which the CofE claimed as its major authority), it was logical that a church wanting to remain national would become broader and more diffuse - and did.
Non-conformists generally do not feel that kind of pressure (as they are not trying to serve divided goals between God and the state) and so were less likely to become compromised - and also didn't have the state behind them to artificially support them if they went unorthodox (eg, the Presbyterian Church in England which went largely Unitarian in the 18thC and declined massively as a result).
Drawing attention to this logic is not 'holier than thou' stuff - it's just realism, and secular/academic investigators frequently draw similar conclusions....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton
The original purpose of 'establishment' was national conformity for the benefit of royal authority under Henry VIII originally, then Lizzie I and the Stuarts; which is why persecutory measures like the 1662 Act of Uniformity and the 'Conventicles Act' and so on were passed.
I'm not so sure this is true. Rather, I think that the social and political climate of the time was unable to even envisage the sort of pluralist society which was eventually to supercede it. Gloriana went to some pains to divorce religious belief from political actions. Certainly, many Catholics were martyred by her authority, but, at least ostensibly, they were executed for political actions rather than religious adherence. Sure, it didn't make much difference to the priests who were subject to the full rigour of the treason laws, but it is evidence of the Queen's intent: that as long as people toe'd the line politically (ie, didn't call for, or conspire to effect, the overthrow of HMQ's political power), she wasn't really that interested.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jolly Jape;
quote:
that as long as people toe'd the line politically (ie, didn't call for, or conspire to effect, the overthrow of HMQ's political power), she wasn't really that interested.
The trouble is that 'toeing the line' involved an enforced religious conformity alien to original Christian teaching; Christianity should never have been a state religion and the NT teaches a completely different way for Christians to relate to the surrounding society.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To muddy the waters further, perhaps ...
My take on the original reasons for Establishment lie somewhere between Steve Langton's and Jolly Jape's. I'm not entirely convinced that Lizzie was 'not that bothered' ... of course, she wisely said that 'the Lord hath not given us windows into men's souls' - but at the same time she was pretty peeved by the scurrilous 'Martin Marprelate' anti-episcopacy tracts and any moves towards a more Puritan model.
The issue of 'separatism' as such hadn't arisen in England by that time ... although there had already been some Anabaptists arriving from the Continent.
Steve Langton can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but the earliest indigenous Baptist churches in the UK didn't emerge until the 1620s as far as I'm aware.
I completely understand what Steve Langton is driving at and I'll admit am playing Devil's Advocate to some extent ...
However, bolshie so-and-so that I am, I still come back to Baxter's point as referenced in the OP. That separatism can lead to a kind of principled but often unattractive holier-than-thou-ness.
That's not to exonerate the Establishment from evils committed in its name. Far from it.
On South Coast Kevin's point, yes, I can understand your frustration, Kevin and you are right, I don't take a laissez-faire approach on all issues.
I might not even take a laissez-faire issue on this one if:
- I felt there was a groundswell of opinion/appetite across the CofE and English (for this is an English as opposed to British issue) churches more generally for Distestablishment. I don't detect such a thing at the moment.
- I felt that Disestablishment per se would further the cause of the Gospel in this country. The jury's out on that one.
Of course, many of those who don't approve of Establishment have long since left the CofE and the CofE has spawned a plethora of Free/non-conformist churches. I suspect this was inevitable as the CofE was effectively a 'top-down' imposition in Tudor and Stuart times. No question about that.
But as Jolly Jape says, the idea of a pluralist society hadn't fully emerged at that point so it wasn't a feasible option at that time.
Which isn't to criticise the actions of the separatists - the Brownists, Baptists, Independents and so on ... one can readily understand why they felt the need to separate. I'm not making a value judgement on that score.
All I am saying is that there are concommitant dangers and risks inherent in either approach. Robert Browne the original English Separatist returned to the CofE and became a vicar precisely because he encountered the inherent difficulties of the separatist stance.
That doesn't mean that there weren't equal and opposite difficulties involved with his return to the Established Church. There were difficulties on both sides, just different difficulties.
If I were to decide, for instance, to leave the CofE and return to a new church or a Baptist setting then I'd get rid of one set of problems but probably also take onboard a different set.
The same would apply if I left the CofE and became RC or Orthodox or Coptic or whatever else.
I'm not saying that I think the Anglicans are the bees-knees or anything of the kind. Simply that what you gain on various roundabouts you lose on the swings.
I wouldn't resist the Distestablishment of the CofE - in many ways I would support it. But at the moment I think there are bigger issues.
--------------------
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
In the interests of historical accuracy, of course, I ought to point out that there had been separatists in pre-Tudor times - the Lollards.
There were some individual separatists at the time of Henry VIII but more organised congregational/independent separatism didn't fully emerge until early in the 1600s - although the seeds were certainly there long before that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jolly Jape;
quote:
that as long as people toe'd the line politically (ie, didn't call for, or conspire to effect, the overthrow of HMQ's political power), she wasn't really that interested.
The trouble is that 'toeing the line' involved an enforced religious conformity alien to original Christian teaching; Christianity should never have been a state religion and the NT teaches a completely different way for Christians to relate to the surrounding society.
Need I remind you, seeing as I've pointed it out to you at least two times? Nevermind, it seems I'm talking to a brick wall. I don't expect an answer.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
