|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Constantine responsible?
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Paternoster Press, originally a Brethren publishing house, publishes a lot of Anabaptist inspired stuff in the UK.
And is now owned by Koorong, a for-profit publishing company whose practices, in my experience, are thoroughly commercial.
An interesting question. What is worse, a church (or Christian publishing house) existing to make financial gain, or one vaguely associated with government?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Paternoster Press, originally a Brethren publishing house, publishes a lot of Anabaptist inspired stuff in the UK.
The 'Brethren' were a major home-grown UK Anabaptist style group; in recent years they've largely become regular independent evangelical churches. The Exclusive Brethren, recently I believe rebranded as the 'Plymouth Brethren', are a more Amish-like separatist group.
On this point: Paternoster Press was associated with the Open Brethren, which were never an Anabaptist group. In fact, it is pretty obvious from their theology that they have little in common with that stream of Christianity and are much closer to forms of strict Evangelicalism and are associated with various forms of Calvinism.
These have, it seems, nothing to do with the Church of the Brethren, the Brethren in Christ and other similar churches in the USA - which do have connections with a Wesleyan/Mennonite root.
On the point about a history of British Mennonites - I once lived in the English Midlands where there was a history of non-conformist anabaptists and radicals which have since died out.
According to some Mennonite historians I spoke to about this, they doubt whether these groups had much to do with continental forms of anabaptists - which led to the forms seen today in North America. They say that the British authorities labelled many groups as 'anabaptists' even when they lacked many of the fundamental characteristics of the 'true' anabaptists. Therefore, they say, these groups naturally mutated into forms of general baptist seen in England today and never went in the direction of the European Mennonites.
I think this might be an exaggeration, but I think it is true to say that almost all of the distinctive forms of anabaptists came from Eastern Europe via the USA, and these never really took hold in the UK. Those forms which remain in Western Europe are commonly quite different.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An interesting question. What is worse, a church (or Christian publishing house) existing to make financial gain, or one vaguely associated with government?
I think essentially that Christian publishing houses write books they think will sell. Their historic roots (usually under different ownership) seem to have little to do with anything.
It is certainly true that there has been enough interest in the anabaptists to sell a few books, but curiously this has not led to congregations of any significant number of Mennonites or anabaptists. I suspect most buy these books during an enquiring phase and think 'hmm, well that's interesting..' but then go on to do nothing about it.
On the specific point, selling books to a specific constituency which are dressed up as being radical whilst not offering or supporting structures which would actually enable a life to be lead is pretty dishonest marketing. But then I think the vast majority of Christian books are rubbish and only exist to make money for the publishers.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this point: Paternoster Press was associated with the Open Brethren, which were never an Anabaptist group. In fact, it is pretty obvious from their theology that they have little in common with that stream of Christianity and are much closer to forms of strict Evangelicalism and are associated with various forms of Calvinism.
The Open Brethren were not at all Calvinistic! Influences were more Moody&Sankey and dispensationalism. There are differences with anabaptists, but plenty of similarities too.
[ 24. March 2015, 07:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
My understanding is that Darby was a fairly severe Calvinist, and although there have been disagreements over time about it (not helped by the peculiar structures and associations used by the various kinds of Brethren), it is today existing as a form of Calvinistic Evangelicalism in the main.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I know quite a few Open Brethren and a number of them are best described as "free range Calvinists." I reckon the Opens have always been characterised by the phrase "independent-minded" and a few I've known have been pretty bloody-minded in their independence.
Don't know any practising Exclusives (though I do know a few escapees). I think their theological environment is more "battery" than "free range"!
I think Eutychus is right about the original roots of the movement, but its characteristic argumentativeness probably explains the variations.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, well anyway - as far as I know, and can find as sources, there is nothing to indicate that the Plymouth Brethren have any explicit association with the anabaptists. There is no mention of it in their own historical journals, there is nothing to suggest it in their published theologies etc.
I read that they (the Plymouth Brethren) do not vote, which might give some point of contact with this conversation. I doubt that the Open Brethren people I know take this view.
http://www.plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org/beliefs/doctrine/
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
My take is that the original Brethren and the 'Open Brethren' derived therefrom are a UK homegrown movement which is 'Anabaptist-like' and recognises that likeness itself, whence Paternoster's publishing of Anabaptist-related material. Essentially like the Continental Anabaptists they went 'back to the Bible'.
'Going back to the Bible' produced, of course, a non-Constantinian movement.
As regards the terminology, 'Anabaptist' simply means 're-baptisers'. Like 'Methodist' it is not the movement's own original name for itself. English Baptists like Bunyan were often called 'Anabaptists' by the (Constantinian/Anglican) English authorities.
Because English Baptists grew out of the Puritan movement of the Civil War they developed slightly differently to the Continental movement - even today English Baptists are a bit ambivalent about pacifism and not quite a strict on separation from the state. In the US, as you probably know, many 'Southern Baptists' are very American-patriotic and approve of war. In comparatively recent times the term 'Anabaptist' has for convenience become a generic term for the Continental tradition and those inspired by it. We'd probably prefer a different term but it's a bit late to change now.
Interesting how everybody's gone off on this nit-picking tangent about the Brethren and Paternoster and the term Anabaptist, and not picked up on the more serious practical argument I put forward in a post just before my one about the Brethren....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[QB] My take is that the original Brethren and the 'Open Brethren' derived therefrom are a UK homegrown movement which is 'Anabaptist-like' and recognises that likeness itself, whence Paternoster's publishing of Anabaptist-related material. Essentially like the Continental Anabaptists they went 'back to the Bible'.
Yeah, as shown above that's rubbish. The "Anabapist-related" material was not even published until the press was owned by someone else.
quote:
'Going back to the Bible' produced, of course, a non-Constantinian movement.
Oh yeah, because the anabaptists are 'back at the bible' whereas everyone else is some other place. Riiight.
quote:
As regards the terminology, 'Anabaptist' simply means 're-baptisers'. Like 'Methodist' it is not the movement's own original name for itself. English Baptists like Bunyan were often called 'Anabaptists' by the (Constantinian/Anglican) English authorities.
Because English Baptists grew out of the Puritan movement of the Civil War they developed slightly differently to the Continental movement - even today English Baptists are a bit ambivalent about pacifism and not quite a strict on separation from the state. In the US, as you probably know, many 'Southern Baptists' are very American-patriotic and approve of war. In comparatively recent times the term 'Anabaptist' has for convenience become a generic term for the Continental tradition and those inspired by it. We'd probably prefer a different term but it's a bit late to change now.
Well that part is true, but it seems that the Southern Baptists are not of the same root as the Mennonites. Not the same thing at all - although you are right that the British authorities used the label of anabaptist for anything out of the ordinary.
quote:
Interesting how everybody's gone off on this nit-picking tangent about the Brethren and Paternoster and the term Anabaptist, and not picked up on the more serious practical argument I put forward in a post just before my one about the Brethren....
It is a tangent which you made as a sweeping statement that turns out to be totally untrue.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
It is certainly true that there has been enough interest in the anabaptists to sell a few books, but curiously this has not led to congregations of any significant number of Mennonites or anabaptists.
It hasn't led to a lot of Mennonite congregations in the UK because as I pointed out earlier, Mennonites have preferred a strategy of sharing their ideas rather than setting up yet another separate denomination in the UK. Those ideas influence a wide range of UK congregations and groups who follow many of the ideas but don't shout about being 'anabaptist' - they just get on with it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It hasn't led to a lot of Mennonite congregations in the UK because as I pointed out earlier, Mennonites have preferred a strategy of sharing their ideas rather than setting up yet another separate denomination in the UK. Those ideas influence a wide range of UK congregations and groups who follow many of the ideas but don't shout about being 'anabaptist' - they just get on with it.
OK, come on then - tell me which anabaptist ideas have become widespread in other congregations.
I think that's utter rubbish.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Yeah, as shown above that's rubbish. The "Anabaptist-related" material was not even published until the press was owned by someone else.
"Totally untrue"!! Paternoster were publishing Anabaptist related material back in the 1960s, and their edition of Leonard Verduin's "The Reformers and their Stepchildren" was one of my earliest sources when I myself became interested after more-or-less independently finding 'anabaptism' in the Bible.
mr cheesy;
quote:
Oh yeah, because the anabaptists are 'back at the bible' whereas everyone else is some other place. Riiight.
Interesting how often consciously going 'back to the Bible' produces remarkable similarity to Anabaptist ideas.
mr cheesy;
quote:
it seems that the Southern Baptists are not of the same root as the Mennonites.
Which is precisely what I said - please pay attention.... (There was actually some limited influence from Continental Anabaptism in the earliest days of particularly the 'General Baptist' strain in the UK - the southern Baptists are a long way from that)
by mr cheesy;
quote:
It is a tangent which you made as a sweeping statement that turns out to be totally untrue.
I'll go back and check (I've not found it easy to check things on a previous page of a thread while actually in the middle of composing a reply) but I think my statement was basically true, just you've read something into it I didn't intend.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Have been back and checked. My original statement was
quote:
The 'Brethren' were a major home-grown UK Anabaptist style group; in recent years they've largely become regular independent evangelical churches.
I can't see any way in which that is "totally untrue". The Brethren were an independently derived group which ended up quite similar to the Anabaptists and recognised that fact. Now can we get back to the serious stuff - like my post at 19;34 yesterday which seems to have got overlooked by following this nit-picking tangent....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Totally untrue"!! Paternoster were publishing Anabaptist related material back in the 1960s, and their edition of Leonard Verduin's "The Reformers and their Stepchildren" was one of my earliest sources when I myself became interested after more-or-less independently finding 'anabaptism' in the Bible.
Right, although that looks to be about the general nature of non-conformists at the reformation rather than about anabaptists (positively) in particular - specifically re your comments on Constantine. I've not read it, so maybe it is.
A book speaking positively about the witness of early reformers may indeed be attractive to someone with a Brethren mindset without it meaning that they're open to anabaptist ideas.
quote:
Interesting how often consciously going 'back to the Bible' produces remarkable similarity to Anabaptist ideas.
Yeah, fascinating. More that you really think that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I can't see any way in which that is "totally untrue". The Brethren were an independently derived group which ended up quite similar to the Anabaptists and recognised that fact. Now can we get back to the serious stuff - like my post at 19;34 yesterday which seems to have got overlooked by following this nit-picking tangent....
Continuing to assert this does not make it true. In what sense did they end up 'similar to the anabaptists' and where did they 'recognise the fact'. Nothing I know of the Open Brethren nor the people I know who are Brethren nor anything I can find written by or about them suggests this is true. You made the statement, so give us a clue as to why you think it is true.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As with all of us, a phrase like 'Back to the Bible' is shorthand for 'Their interpretation agrees with mine.'
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
At any rate, I agree that an analysis of how 'Anabaptist-like' or otherwise groups like the Brethren were could detract from the main points at issue here - interesting though a discussion of the Brethren is in and of itself.
Like another poster, perhaps on the other 'Constantinian' thread, I'm confused at the reference to Mary Whitehouse in relation to 'Constantinianism'. Mary Whitehouse was acting in a self-appointed way on behalf of what she saw as the broad stream of Christian opinion - irrespective of whether it was 'Constantinian', Anglican, Free Church or whatever else.
As has been said elsewhere, she wasn't representing any 'official' group or position or party-line established by government in some way.
Bluntly, she wasn't representing, 'This Church of England by law established ...' or even any formally constituted church of any kind - be it Baptist, Moravian, Methodist or whatever else.
So how she can be accused of 'Constantinianism' I don't know.
There have been plenty of interfering religious busy-bodies who have had nothing to do with official 'Constantinian' forms of Christianity.
That's not to let 'Constantinianism' off the hook ... there is clearly a case to answer. But as I've said before, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything is going to look like a nail.
It seems we didn't just have 'Reds under the Bed' but 'Constantinians in the closet ...'
Some types of Christian see demons lurking under every carpet. Others seem to see Constantinians lurking everywhere ...
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
So if (as I read sometimes happens) Plymouth Brethren stand up for the values they believe in, are they acting like Mary Whitehouse (given, I assume, they'd probably agree on most things)?
What about when the Hutterite lobbied to have exceptions written into law about their right to stop schooling at (I think) 15?
What is so special about Mary Whitehouse that means she is Constantinian whereas if the same thing was done by a Mennonite or Amish bishop that'd be speaking the words of God?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've read Nigel Wright on this subject; I'm broadly with him on the desirability of a pluralist rather than simply secular style of government, but I've a horrible feeling it may be too late. The UK was hanging on to being a 'Christian country' well into my lifetime, not just superficially but to the point that about the time I was at Uni that Mary Whitehouse successfully had a 'Gay News' editor prosecuted for blasphemy. Secularism in reaction to that is on a bit of a roll and is likely to interpret Nigel's kind of position as "Oh dear we're no longer able to dominate but please preserve us a bit of our old power"
So how is your non-voting going to bring in a desirable secular government? You seem to be contradicting yourself: you want something but you are not prepared to dirty yourself in the process of actually achieving it.
quote:
Another problem is that our pluralism actually arose significantly from the almost unique Christian tradition. Other religions don't necessarily have the same ideas. And for believers, "God told us this" will always trump abstract ideas of general 'human rights'.
Hum. So the 'Constantinian' powers you don't agree with managed to somehow bring in good/secular ideals which you do. How does that work? And what kind of nonsense are you saying that suggests only Christians believe in pluralist ideals? And if they do, surely that is a reason for them being involved in the government.
quote:
In a religion where part of "what God told us" is that you're supposed to set up religious states for the religion, and so to use armies, police, etc to enforce it, then such a religion may well not listen to suggestions they should give that up to be pluralistic - I mean, why should they when God has told them to do otherwise...?
See 17c England. It once was like that, and then we all grew up. They should because authoritarian forms of religion are never sustainable in the long term.
quote:
In Christianity, it is indeed true that even Anabaptists will of course follow the idea "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5; 29). But it is also true that the NT teaches us to forswear violence and do this 'resident aliens' thing; and therefore when we must 'obey God rather than men' the result will not be a Christian rebellion but that the Christians suffer martyrdom.
But only when it is the Bishop that tells them what God is saying. Of course, otherwise they'd all be Quakers, wouldn't they.
quote:
But much of our expectation for pluralism does assume that other religions will see it that way - and that very much ain't necessarily so.
I don't actually believe that the power structures of Christianity - including those used by various forms of Mennonite, Amish and Hutterite - are much different to those in non-Christian religion. There is no real reason to suppose that Christians would be less authoritarian or other religions more-so. Mostly all things - including Christian things - tend towards authoritarianism.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
You made the statement, so give us a clue as to why you think it is true.
There is a significant clue in the fact I reported above about Paternoster publishing Anabaptist stuff way back.
References to the 'Plymouth Brethren' are somewhat confusing - are you referring to the modern recently rebranded 'Exclusives'? I don't think they would want to be associated with either the Amish or Mennonites so I guess they wouldn't admit to what connection there is.
What is supposed to be wrong with the basic summary statement that the Brethren were a home-grown UK group which ended up in many ways similar to Anabaptists and with a Brethren publisher publishing books like Verduin's clearly recognised that fact. It's not a fully detailed statement, but as far as it goes it's basically true.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
So how is your non-voting going to bring in a desirable secular government? You seem to be contradicting yourself: you want something but you are not prepared to dirty yourself in the process of actually achieving it.
I thought I'd said that I still vote so far - just I'm increasingly disillusioned by its effectiveness. As things currently stand I will probably be voting for a party that seems to stand for the pluralist values I think desirable.
It's not about 'dirtying' myself - it's about how what I do reflects on Jesus and whether I may make Jesus and the church look 'dirty'.
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Hum. So the 'Constantinian' powers you don't agree with managed to somehow bring in good/secular ideals which you do.
No, rather that because they purported to be 'Christian' and couldn't ultimately suppress the biblical teaching, the full Constantinianism of the Middle Ages was gradually eroded to produce the modern situation - there is still some further erosion needed....
by mr cheesy;
quote:
See 17c England. It once was like that, and then we all grew up. They should because authoritarian forms of religion are never sustainable in the long term.
Do you really think I haven't considered 17c England??? Problem one, far too many people still haven't 'grown up' enough yet. 'Authoritarian' in the sense of 'enforced by the state' can be sustainable for all too long. Christianity done according to the NT doesn't do that kind of authoritarianism.
by mr cheesy;
quote:
But only when it is the Bishop that tells them what God is saying.
Not quite clear which 'Bishop' you mean. Churches and groups I'm involved in don't 'do' Bishops.
Originally by me;
quote:
But much of our expectation for pluralism does assume that other religions will see it that way - and that very much ain't necessarily so.
Just for clarity I'm not referring there to any religion's internal authority structure. It's about whether a religion thinks it should also control the state. Anabaptist Christianity thinks not - other religions like Islam take a different view.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It depends which version of Islam we're talking about ... although I'd agree to an extent that it is harder for Islam to withdraw itself completely from the public arena in the way that certain forms of pietistic Christianity believe that they are able to ...
On the 'Bishop' thing, I'm sure the churches Steve is involved with don't have bishops with that particular title - but I'm pretty sure they'll have bishops ...
All churches have bishops - it's just that they don't all call them that ...
I'm using 'bishop' in the sense of 'overseer' or presbyter/elder here, of course ...
I don't think it's fair to say, as mr cheesy seems to assert, that all groups like the Hutterites, Mennonites and so on are likely to be dominated by groups of leading elders who claim to speak 'ex cathedra' on the part of the Almighty ...
That said, I'd certainly suggest that spiritual abuse and the abuse of spiritual authority is going to be more likely in some kind of close-knit, 'sectarian' group than it is within the CofE, say, or the Baptist Union end of the Baptist spectrum - although no particular church group is going to be completely immune from the dangers of spiritual abuse or authoritarian figures lording it over everyone else.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Not quite clear which 'Bishop' you mean. Churches and groups I'm involved in don't 'do' Bishops.
I have no idea which groups you are involved in, but most anabaptists of any vintage have bishops - and in consequence highly authoritarian structures - including the Amish, Old-order Mennonites and Hutterites.
The two things very often go together: denominations that are 'anti-Constantinian', against voting and the things you highlight have authoritarian structures.
Those who are without the structures tend not to have much of a thing about voting and standing in elections.
So which groups are you involved with which have no bishops but strong beliefs against voting?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think it's fair to say, as mr cheesy seems to assert, that all groups like the Hutterites, Mennonites and so on are likely to be dominated by groups of leading elders who claim to speak 'ex cathedra' on the part of the Almighty ...
There are many different types of Mennonites and Anabaptists, but the ones which have the theology which SL is propagating definitely do.
There are no liberal Hutterites in North America, they are all very conservative and structured. Some slightly less rigid Amish exist, but I think they all have bishops.
Mennonites vary, but the Old-Order types usually have Bishops and structures.
Those that do not are generally not 'in the world but not of it' types. It is, I believe, the authoritarian structures that enforces conformity to the internal theologies and ways of living which treats the nation states as evil.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy
quote:
So which groups are you involved with which have no bishops but strong beliefs against voting?
As I've already pointed out - MORE THAN ONCE - I don't myself have "strong beliefs against voting". It's a matter discussed in Anabaptist Network circles but there are as I understand it a mix of views.
On 'Bishops' I was trying to find out exactly what you refer to and in what sense you used the word 'Bishop' especially when you capitalised it. Apparently you are concerned with Anabaptist 'bishops'.
Again there's a variety of usage, and it never as far as I know means the kind of bishops found in Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican and similar churches. I believe bishops among Amish are very authoritative - but I'm not Amish. Here in UK we aren't greatly concerned with the detailed practices of different Anabaptist groups precisely because, again as pointed out earlier, UK Anabaptism doesn't set out to simply replicate the traditional practices of the traditional groups. The way Mennonites have chosen to operate in the UK involves that we are also in many ways re-exploring the traditions and re-assessing freshly in the light of the NT; and that is also significantly true of the most 'engaged' Mennonite communities in the USA themselves.
Current UK thinking would mostly follow the quite common NT interpretation that in fact 'bishop/episkopos' and 'presbyter/elder' are synonymous terms for the same office, so rather than there being a 'THE Bishop' there is in fact a group of elders, who usually are not actually referred to as 'bishops' to avoid confusion with the Anglican/RC variety.
In some American groups I understand there are single 'bishops' but their status is rather of a 'primus inter pares' elder than the very special and distinct level of clergy implied among Anglicans etc.
HOWEVER:
I'm not sure this is all that relevant on a thread primarily about 'Constantine' or at any rate the kind of state-church link associated with and at least begun by Constantine. In this tangent we are discussing the internal authority structures of churches, which mostly only apply to the members who basically voluntarily accept them.
'Constantinianism' is about the very different issue of the church being the official religion of a state or nation and therefore of its authority being applied to the state or nation. Whatever structures Anabaptists use, they don't want that place in the state because they believe it unbiblical.
So OK, you seem to have issues about 'authority' generally (and I'm not clear where you're generally coming from apart from that), but 'Constantinianism' is specifically about the concept of a 'Christian country' as applied in the medieval period, and too many rags of which still remain in the West and in countries which were evangelised by the 'Constantinian' churches/countries. On that topic, whatever internal structure Anabaptists use doesn't really matter as they won't be wanting to enforce it in the State. (One of our reasons for being at least cautious about voting is that we don't want to appear to have such intentions)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, we all know your views on Constantinianism and the vast majority of posters here - even those in churches you would consider 'Constantinian' would like to see a situation where Christianity was imposed as the official option when it came to religion.
The only poster I can think of who comes anywhere near what we might call classical Constantinianism is Ad Orientem - but even he can cite instances where Orthodoxy isn't always as Erastian as it might appear from the outside.
The fact is, that whilst not being 'Constantinian' in the broader, national sense, Anabaptists have, from time to time, found themselves establishing societies and communities - Amish, Hutterites etc etc - where they are in the majority - or indeed, where they are the only religious option available within that community.
I don't see how that is any better as a state of affairs than 'Constantinianism' is.
Ok, of course not all Mennonites and other Anabaptists hive off into close-knit communities where they grow beards and ride around in horse-drawn buggies ...
And yes, we need the voice of the Anabaptists because, at its best, it can be prophetic and highlights some key and crucial issues.
What I find myself unable to get away from though, based on what I've seen and from reading Stephen's posts, is the Richard Baxter observation about Anabaptism - that just as the besetting sins of the larger and historical churches was a tendency to dominate and to lay down the law, as it were - the besetting sin of the Anabaptists was a tendency towards judgementalism and a holier-than-thou kind of attitude.
'I thank God that I, as a pure and unsullied Anabaptist, am not like those nasty Constantinian Christians over there ...'
It can easily tip over into Pharisaisism.
How Anabaptism can guard against that tendency is one for the Anabaptists themselves to determine. The answer has to come from within their own tradition.
One suggestion - from someone here who is not unsympathetic - would be for them to engage positively with what is going on around them and show a 'more excellent way' by the way they live and conduct themselves - rather than hammering away at some residual aspects of 'Constantinianism' and pointing the finger at everyone else.
If they are doing that already, then great.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
'Constantinianism' is specifically about the concept of a 'Christian country' as applied in the medieval period, and too many rags of which still remain in the West and in countries which were evangelised by the 'Constantinian' churches/countries. On that topic, whatever internal structure Anabaptists use doesn't really matter as they won't be wanting to enforce it in the State. (One of our reasons for being at least cautious about voting is that we don't want to appear to have such intentions)
It's interesting that people here should disapprove of the (potential) authoritarianism of groups such as the Anabaptists, because, as you say, they don't try to impose their authority on other people, but only on willing members of the group.
Personally, I think it would be a more irritating state of affairs if the Anabaptists were busily telling the rest of the nation how to live and expecting everyone to listen!
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact is, that whilst not being 'Constantinian' in the broader, national sense, Anabaptists have, from time to time, found themselves establishing societies and communities - Amish, Hutterites etc etc - where they are in the majority - or indeed, where they are the only religious option available within that community.
I don't see how that is any better as a state of affairs than 'Constantinianism' is.
There are, of course, secular voices that criticise the concept of the nation state. For example, the nation state in Africa has been described by some as a colonial imposition that was mostly unhelpful. Other forms of community (rather than no community at all) would have been better, in some people's eyes.
The era of the nation state may well come to an end at some point, so perhaps it's wise that at least a few religious groups are not too wedded to it.
[ 25. March 2015, 16:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It depends how they do it, though, SvitlanaV2. There is no reason that I can see that makes Anabaptist groups any more or any less malign or benign than any other forms of church. I agree that post-Christendom or post nation state that 'gathered' or more 'sectarian' churches are where we are all headed. 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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The idea that nobody else should take a view on authoritarian religious movements who claim they alone speak for God is madness, surely.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
The idea that nobody else should take a view on authoritarian religious movements who claim they alone speak for God is madness, surely.
Essentially every religious movement makes that claim. But there's a considerable difference between the NT Christian version where you get a choice whether to accept the Christian claim, and there's an 'outside world' you can choose instead, and the 'Christendom' version of Christianity, and the versions in other religions like original Islam, where the state is dedicated to the religion and dissent gets you in trouble with the police or some equivalent of the Inquisition which doesn't recognise your right to choose....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Except that 'Constantinian' models of the kind you describe haven't existed in the UK for some considerable time and even their residual remains are nowhere near as authoritarian as certain forms of independent churches. The 17th century is no longer with us but authoritarian forms of independent church still 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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One suggestion - from someone here who is not unsympathetic - would be for them to engage positively with what is going on around them and show a 'more excellent way' by the way they live and conduct themselves - rather than hammering away at some residual aspects of 'Constantinianism' and pointing the finger at everyone else.
If they are doing that already, then great.
They are.
After the 2006 Amish school shooting by an outsider, they forgave the shooter and ministered to his family. ("Amish Community Response" section at that link.) I read elsewhere that they even stood between the shooter's widow and the TV cameras, to protect her.
And a young Anabaptist minister from Colorado has an organization, Raw Tools, that beats guns into garden tools, in response to various shootings.
I've never heard of the Amish pointing a finger at everyone else. Some of them may. But my understanding is that they just get on with their lives.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
All laudable instances, of course, Golden Key.
There are, however, instances of abuse within Amish communities and various problems associated with such close-knit set-ups.
There was an interesting TV programme about young Amish kids from the US staying with British families - and yes, those kids were certainly judgemental to an extent - but they gradually tempered their views as the series went along and grew more tolerant and understanding - if not exactly fully accepting - of other life-styles.
I'm not singling the Amish or Anabaptists out as intrinsically judgemental - I'm simply suggesting -as with Richard Baxter - that such a stance is a general corollary of that kind of approach or course of action.
In the same way as Baxter very even-handedly picked up downsides and flaws with all the other ways of 'doing church' that we could adopt.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
There are many reports of abuse (including sexual, physical and emotional) amongst exclusive groups like the Amish. The practice of shunning is well documented and has been described many times as abusive (see recent news regarding the Plymouth Brethren).
Of course, abuse happens in all communities, I don't think there is anything particularly unique about the Amish - however, the nature of an exclusive world-denying religious community is that things can go on without exposure.
There have been some reports of particularly selfless and honourable behaviours from some groups, of course there have. And one should not apply a different standard to (say) the Amish than would apply to anyone else.
But I still say that authoritarian self-organised and secretive religious communities are a bad thing.
[ 26. March 2015, 09:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure that the 'Constantinian-Theodosian Settlement-Establishment' made the State more inherently violent; it did however import the violence of the State into the Church...
There were cruelty and betrayal already established among the followers of "The Way" even among The Apostles …
Recall: Paul's deliberate arrogant public humiliation of Peter (Galatians 2:11ff) …
The problem of Christians behaving badly didn't begin under Constantine ...
Paul was holding Peter publicly accountable for hypocrisy; there was nothing arrogant about it.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
There are many reports of abuse (including sexual, physical and emotional) amongst exclusive groups like the Amish. The practice of shunning is well documented and has been described many times as abusive (see recent news regarding the Plymouth Brethren).
Again, I'm not Amish or Exclusive/Plymouth Brethren and would also be critical of them. As regards 'shunning' you should bear in mind that for a voluntary membership group of this kind 'shunning' is basically the worst thing they can do (and should be a last resort). In principle, it is the same thing as, say, being suspended from a football club or other organisation for persistent deliberate breach of the rules - it may not be pleasant for the person concerned but it's difficult to see it as 'abusive' in principle. Individual cases might be deemed to go too far, of course.
by mr cheesy;
quote:
But I still say that authoritarian self-organised and secretive religious communities are a bad thing.
But how can a religious community realistically be anything other than 'self-organised' just as are other voluntary membership organisations? (I'm preparing some separate comments on the implications of "We must obey God rather than men" and 'being subject to the authorities').
As regards 'secretive', most anabaptists and similar groups are not secretive and indeed ideally don't want to be - early Anabaptists tried to be very open indeed. Basically the secretiveness was originally the result of being persecuted and to a considerable extent is still the lingering result of that past persecution. And the persecution was on a scale completely outweighing your criticisms of the Anabaptists themselves. Weigh up, for example, "We will excommunicate you for not keeping our rules", in a situation where there is a surrounding society in which you can live, against "To show our disapproval of your wish for religious freedom we will put you to death by drowning - kind of 'you want baptism, we'll give you a baptism'".
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Again, I'm not Amish or Exclusive/Plymouth Brethren and would also be critical of them. As regards 'shunning' you should bear in mind that for a voluntary membership group of this kind 'shunning' is basically the worst thing they can do (and should be a last resort). In principle, it is the same thing as, say, being suspended from a football club or other organisation for persistent deliberate breach of the rules - it may not be pleasant for the person concerned but it's difficult to see it as 'abusive' in principle. Individual cases might be deemed to go too far, of course.
If you have been born into the Hutterite or Amish and everything you experience has been coloured by that experience, then 'shunning' has nothing to compare it with leaving a football club. it is the deliberate shutting out from your family and absolutely everything you know.
And, in fact, it happens quite a lot in such communities because they assume that a child needs to make a choice to stay in when they reach adulthood. Children who leave rarely are able to speak to their families and are thrust into the world with no understanding of how it works.
Understandably, such children regularly turn to drink or worse. Adults expelled from communities such as the Plymouth Brethren have been known to have mental breakdowns etc.
quote:
But how can a religious community realistically be anything other than 'self-organised' just as are other voluntary membership organisations? (I'm preparing some separate comments on the implications of "We must obey God rather than men" and 'being subject to the authorities').
As regards 'secretive', most anabaptists and similar groups are not secretive and indeed ideally don't want to be - early Anabaptists tried to be very open indeed. Basically the secretiveness was originally the result of being persecuted and to a considerable extent is still the lingering result of that past persecution. And the persecution was on a scale completely outweighing your criticisms of the Anabaptists themselves. Weigh up, for example, "We will excommunicate you for not keeping our rules", in a situation where there is a surrounding society in which you can live, against "To show our disapproval of your wish for religious freedom we will put you to death by drowning - kind of 'you want baptism, we'll give you a baptism'".
Not sure this has anything to do with anything.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It has everything to do with it, if, like Steve Langton you insist on applying what happened within State Churches 500 years ago to the residual 'Constantinianism' that persists today.
The last time the Church of England executed anyone for heresy was Richard Wightman in Lichfield in 1612.
To read Steve's posts you'd think that the CofE was champing at the bit waiting for the opportunity to do such things again ...
Meanwhile, here is an interesting article about a genuinely 'Constantinian' situation - the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Russian state:
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/727#
--------------------
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 Russian thing is interesting and complex - and it's one, I suspect, that few of us in the West actually understand.
There are some interesting observations in there about nation states and national soveriegnty and the moral and spiritual character of nations and how the Russian Orthodox Church views the State ...
It repays close reading, I think - wherever we stand on this particular issue.
Meanwhile, here in the UK, neither the CofE or any of the other historic churches are in the business of drowning or executing Anabaptists or any other non-conformists of whatever kind.
Whereas it's certainly the case that authoritarian forms of independent church such as the Exclusive Brethren still exist and still mess with people's heads.
Sure, spiritual abuse can happen anywhere - there will be instances from Anglican circles too. None of us are immune from such things.
It no more lets so-called 'Constantinian' churches off the hook to highlight instances of abusive and authoritarian practices in independent and more 'sectarian' churches than it acts as a complete endorsement of Anabaptism to cite instances of their persecution 500 years ago.
There is good, bad and indifferent in all religious systems and groups. Welcome to the real world.
--------------------
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 mr cheesy;
quote:
If you have been born into the Hutterite or Amish and everything you experience has been coloured by that experience, then 'shunning' has nothing to compare it with leaving a football club. it is the deliberate shutting out from your family and absolutely everything you know.
And, in fact, it happens quite a lot in such communities because they assume that a child needs to make a choice to stay in when they reach adulthood. Children who leave rarely are able to speak to their families and are thrust into the world with no understanding of how it works.
Understandably, such children regularly turn to drink or worse. Adults expelled from communities such as the Plymouth Brethren have been known to have mental breakdowns etc.
All of which is why I am critical of the way the Amish/Exclusive Brethren do things which in turn is not the actual NT teaching. Why the obsession with those groups?
As far as I'm concerned I'm not about 'blaming' or the opposite of any group or sect; I'm concerned with what the NT says about the subject. As I pointed out above, in mr cheesy's terms in an earlier post, I see the NT church as 'grown up' on these issues in its early centuries and unfortunately Constantine & Co's very authoritarian indeed church put things into reverse for too long. Post-Reformation there was a gradual recovery of the NT position and the groups we call 'Anabaptist' led in that from the C16 on - but were resisted by the really authoritarian state churches.
Some of the NT stuff is still neglected and shouldn't be.
And that's what I'm trying to discuss here. Not 'Anabaptism' but NT principles. Not a sect I happen to belong to, which because of the way things in the UK have developed is not exactly the case anyway, but the 'Mere Christianity' common principles. That is the way I think rather than a narrow denominationalism.
For a sense of proportion note that Evangelical Protestants all the way from Anglicans to Mennonites share a massive core of common belief with the 'Constantinian' issues as almost the only major area of disagreement. Unfortunately those issues affect the outside world as well as inside the church so it's rather important we get them right. A recent thread showed me agreeing with all but a few of the Anglican '39 Articles', and I probably partly agreed with even more of them.
Far from being grimly 'super-separatist' as Gamaliel keeps trying to paint me, my background is very 'interdenominational' via the old 'Crusaders' youth movement and the Uni 'Christian Union' and I'm involved in interdenominational work in my area. Slightly less seriously, the model railway club I'm in is based in a Methodist church and I've been involved in several charity shows for other churches.
It is my perception that even in the UK 'Constantinianism' is in various ways not quite as 'residual' and harmless as Gamaliel and others want to think. In the wider world the issue of state religion is a significant problem in a great deal of the world and a mega problem with IS/Boko Haram/and similar, and also even as a mostly past thing still presents a problem for atheists/agnostics so long as we remain unclear about it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think many, if not most of us here would be comfortable with the Mere Christianity principles, Steve Langton.
C S Lewis borrowed the quote from Richard Baxter, of course, and the very eirenic Baxter both praised and critiqued the various models of church prevalent in his own day.
He seemed to admire the Anabaptists to some extent - although he found them a bit too 'sectarian' and sometimes 'fanatical'. He certainly criticises the historic Churches - such as Roman Catholics and the Orthodox for considering themselves bigger and better than everyone else - and, in the case of the RCs at that time, for thinking they were the only ones who would be 'saved' ...
So he was fairly even-handed - or as even handed as he could be in his particular position.
I've tried to be even-handed too. I'm not singling the Anabaptists out for censure - anymore than groups like the Amish or the Hutterites. I could list a series of good, bad and indifferent points in each case had I a mind to do so.
Nor am I claiming that groups like the CofE are any better or any less prone to mess things up.
However, your eirenic sympathies and attempts at consensus only seem to extend so far - it seems to me.
As a Protestant Christian you are bound to emphasise the Reformation and to see it as part of some great recovery. I can understand and respect that view - but I don't think it's the full picture.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a great deal of room for Mystery and the more sacramental side of things in your approach. It's very much a post-16th/17th century form of Puritanism, it seems to me, expressed in a particular Anabaptist guise.
That's fine, as far as it goes, but from where I'm standing I'd suggest that there is rather more to it and more 'out there' than has been suggested in your posts.
Yours is a very 'Western' perspective, shaped by particular influences and traditions - but what you seem to ignore or elide is that it is based on traditions and interpretations just as any other Christian viewpoint is.
You seem to assume that there is only one way to interpret the NT and that's in the way that you have done.
I'm suggesting that it is nowhere near as simple as 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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Steve,
Give e half a dozen things that the Constantinist Churches ought to be doing differently. Preferably with some suggestions as how we can get from point A to point B.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you have been born into the Hutterite or Amish and everything you experience has been coloured by that experience, then 'shunning' has nothing to compare it with leaving a football club. it is the deliberate shutting out from your family and absolutely everything you know.
If I'm allowed to apply logic to the situation, it seems to me that shunning denies the central tenet of Anabaptism. Namely, that the Christian faith is something you actively, consciously, freely choose and not something you are born into - either because your parents are Christians, or because you live in a "Christian Country". To raise children immersed in your particular Christian sect, and to then present them with a choice where one option is to never see your family and friends ever again is, surely, to make a forced decision based on factors unrelated to whether or not you believe in Christ. By default you end up with members of the sect who are members of the sect because their parents are members, and when that sect is so isolated and insular that they ignore the world around them then they are a defacto "Christian state". Therefore, it seems to me, the exclusive and insular sects such as the Amish are more "Constantinian" than the CofE, or any other historic church, probably has ever been.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by
quote:
Give e half a dozen things that the Constantinist Churches ought to be doing differently. Preferably with some suggestions as how we can get from point A to point B.
1) Stop being Constantinian
2) Stop being Constantinian
3) Stop being Constantinian...
You get the general idea....
Studying the NT will tell you how and give you the understanding why.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Steve - you have laid out the paucity of your position in the baldest possible terms. You cannot show us steps from A to B. You have no manifesto beyond 'Stop being Constantinian'. Or 'understand the NT in the same way as me.' That isn't an argument is a non-argument. There are people here who can give you a run for your money in terms of the NT and much else besides. You argument is threadbare. You seem unable to articulate any credible alternative to so-called 'Constantinian' Christianity. I am surprised how you are apparently unable to express anything more substantial. What other tools do you have in your toolbox? I am not an Anabaptist nor am I a betting man but I bet I could articulate a better argument for Anabaptism than that. I have a lot of sympathy for the Anabaptist position and many of us here have given you opportunity after opportunity to articulate it. For whatever reason you are failing - in my view - to make a convincing case. Even when we present you with an open goal you kick the ball wide. You argument seems to boil down to simplistic generalisations which you expect everyone to take seriously. I'm disappointed. You can do better than that surely?
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Therefore, it seems to me, the exclusive and insular sects such as the Amish are more "Constantinian" than the CofE, or any other historic church, probably has ever been.
Strangely a lot of current Anabaptist thinking is along exactly those lines, and as a result changes are gradually occurring.
There are a few major differences however; for instance the Amish and Hutterites don't have an army to force their will on outsiders, for instance, or to fight wars in the name of what isn't quite a state.
The Amish and Hutterites don't involve whole countries in being perceived as 'Christian' and 'Crusading' by people of Muslim or other non-Christian beliefs, even long after they're no longer as Constantinian as they used to be. The Amish don't set the example of trying to take the state over by force....
and so on....
And it still remains significantly the case that a lot of the faults of the Amish are attributable to reaction to the persecution by the real 'Constantinians'....
'Constantinianism' is about involving the state in the faith and vice versa. I'm not saying the Amish are wonderful - or BTW that 'Amish' is these days a completely homogenous thing - but as I said, this is about what the NT says; the Amish need that too. They are not 'Constantinian' as such, they share some of the faults, the NT can help them and help us help them - but not, of course, if too many of us hang on to too many of the rags of the state religion stuff and therefore are not demonstrating the alternatives, which too many of us don't understand anyway.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
you have laid out the paucity of your position in the baldest possible terms.
Oddly, I was expecting that reaction - but think about this a minute - as you keep saying, there aren't many people shipboard who believe in state churches; the paucity of your position is that you can't coherently explain why in NT terms . Or if you can, let's hear it. Coherently!!
And I can't give you details of how to 'get from A to B' in all your different church situations - that's for you to work out when you finally realise the need.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I understand the alternatives. I ws involved in 'non-Constantinian' churches for a quarter of a century.
--------------------
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 thought the groups you were part of were just small evangelical sects. Did they particularly identify as non-Constantinian?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I understand the alternatives. I was involved in 'non-Constantinian' churches for a quarter of a century.
Ummm...!!
This is where my distinction comes in about churches which do the 'non-Constantinian' thing for reasons other than the biblical....reasons owing more to enlightenment and secular attitudes than to the NT.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
