|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kingdom not of this world?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm looking at Scripture, looking at how it says the church should be, and I'm seeing a line we're supposed not to cross.
Your mistake is to look at Scripture and try and discern lines. Look how well the Pharisees did at that game.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Steve Langton's definition of 'Constantinianism' seems to be just about broad enough to include everyone but himself, so I guess that by his lights, we all hold to it [Disappointed]
Actually my 'definition' is quite 'narrow'; I'm looking at Scripture, looking at how it says the church should be, and I'm seeing a line we're supposed not to cross.
And that line is what, exactly? Can you describe it succinctly and precisely, while avoiding formulations that are just more or less emphatic paraphrases of "READ THE NEW TESTAMENT: AND DO IT!!!!"?
(If not, or if you think you've already explained it as clearly as you can, feel free to ignore this request.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
One of the effects of establishment is that the church gets gradually conformed to the world which it has got entangled with; and by losing its distinctiveness also loses relevance because it isn't offering anything the world can't do for itself.
I agree with you that being conformed to the world is a real danger for Christians and the Church. However, I don't see how that's an effect of establishment (though it might be argued that establishment was a consequence of conforming too much to the world). After all, Paul told us not to conform to the world long before anyone in the Church had any thought about the Church being established, or Christians having any real political presence.
I know that the churches I've been directly involved in have conformed to the world probably too much - so much for so-called "non-conformist" churches! I expect the established churches have too, and even the Anabaptists. We walk a careful tightrope between not conforming to the world and being relevant to the world so that all may be saved - being, as Paul put it, "all things to all people" - and dare I say it if it would mean more people hearing the gospel would Paul even go so far as holding political office?
Conforming to the world isn't really about external appearances. You can be in the establishment and not hold the values of the establishment - how many politicians have been prophetic voices for something different than the values of the establishment? how many troublesome priests have been thorns in the side of the rich and powerful? You can be totally outside the establishment, living in some holy huddle cut off from the world, and still be conforming to the underlying values of the world.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think you've said it yourself, Steve ... your definition of almost anything and everything is 'quite narrow' it seems to me ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Arguably, your interpretation of scripture is quite narrow too.
But you don't appear to be able to tell the difference between scripture and your interpretation of scripture because the two seem to be commensurate as far as you are concerned.
Whatever the case, whether we consider the CofE to be on the 'wrong side of the line' or consider Establishment to be a major issue or an insignificant one that will resolve itself in the fullness of time, I do think that the issues are indeed broader that that ...
And also not as 'narrow' as you appear to believe.
One could, if one wanted, turn your argument around against you. I could easily take your assertions, alter them slightly and use them against you should I so be inclined.
Just as a hypothetical example, consider the following - which is based on some wording you might recognise:
'One of the effects of DIS-establishment is that the church gets gradually ISOLATED FROM the world which it has BECOME DISENGAGED FROM; and by losing its ENGAGEMENT also loses relevance because it isn't offering anything the world IS INTERESTED IN. One scenario is a church which has become like that and BECOMES INCREASINGLY INVISIBLE because it has become irrelevant.'
I'm not convinced that either establishment or disestablishment increases or decreases a church's 'relevance'. It seems to me that some disestablished churches can become 'irrelevant' because they potentially become 'holy huddles' that are invisible to almost everyone except their own members.
On the Dis-Establishment of the CofE - as has been pointed out on this thread many, many times, the current situation is that the CofE can't 'request' to be Disestablished even if it thinks or 'recognises' itself to have been 'wrong' (as you put it) in going along with Establishment in the first place.
It's a political decision. Like it or not.
This is where the inherent judgmentalism in your position becomes apparent. Current adherents of the CofE are to be judged and criticised on the basis of decisions made hundreds of years before they were born. Their decision to remain part of the CofE and not leave it in favour of some non-conformist group or Anabaptist sect is held against them and seen as reprehensible in some way. The quality of their Christian commitment and level of spirituality is thereby called into question.
Again, Baxter was spot-on with his observations three hundred and fifty years ago.
None of us are squeaky-clean, none of us offer a perfect witness to the world. That applies just as much to Anabaptists as it does to anyone else - of whatever churchmanship.
I don't think anyone here is ignoring what you are saying - it is a much wider issue than the CofE and its establishment or disestablishment.
All of us are in the same boat to some extent - we are all heading into an increasingly secularised, post-Christendom and indeed post-Christian future.
What all of us need are models to help us deal with that. An intentional, gathered or - in sociological rather than pejorative terms - 'sectarian' model is one model or 'plausibility' structure than can help us do that.
My own view is that this is where we are all headed. Indeed, I'd argue that most churches - of whatever stripe - are already there because that's the reality on the ground.
To that extent, Orthodox, RC and Anglican churches are becoming increasingly 'intentional' in a similar way that 'gathered' non-conformist churches have been for centuries. Indeed, outside of the Orthodox heartlands in Greece, Russia and the Balkans and the 'ethnic ghettoes' of the 'diaspora' that's been the default position for Orthodox churches in 'the West' for decades.
So, in one sense we are all becoming 'Anabaptist' in terms of intentionality ... if not baptismal polity and so on.
What I'm interested in - and you don't appear to be able to offer any constructive answers on this - is how we maintain our engagement in the world without losing our distinctiveness.
I am not interested in withdrawal from the world. Nor am I interested in forms of pietistic, judgmental religion that look down their noses on everyone else and which claim to be purer or less sullied because they don't get their hands dirty.
If Anabaptists are doing that then great, bring it on.
But all I'm seeing from you at the moment - as the Ship's main Anabaptist representative - is a whole set of 'don't do this, don't do that' and not a great deal by way of positive suggestions as to how we actually best position ourselves for a post-Christendom, post-Christian future.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It strikes me that if we are going to be concerned about 'rising levels of poverty, UKIP ... etc' as Laurelin (rightly, in my view) suggests, then we can't address these issues without engaging with them in some way ...
And, in our society, that involves politics. How can it not do so?
If I want to oppose the rise of UKIP how can I do that without either voting for alternative candidates or perhaps standing as a local council candidate myself? I am actually doing that - but not primarily to oppose UKIP, I hasten to add, I don't see them as a viable force around here ...
I know it's a different thing, but one may as well say that it's 'wrong' to get involved with one's local model railway club because people have been killed in railway accidents and because the coming of the railways caused disruption to farmers and robbed stage-coach companies of their livelihoods etc. Heck, the Nazis used the railways to transport their victims to concentration camps.
Therefore anything to do with railways or the glorification of them through making models in their image is wrong and something that good, true and honest Christians should not in all conscience engage with ...
How does 'love not the world ...' apply to one's local council but not to one's Hornby railway set?
Model railways are wicked and evil, they are blasphemous and idolatrous representations of things that must even be named among us ...
Flee, flee these things, abjure them completely ...
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But you don't appear to be able to tell the difference between scripture and your interpretation of scripture because the two seem to be commensurate as far as you are concerned.
This point keeps never getting addressed.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I want to oppose the rise of UKIP how can I do that without either voting for alternative candidates or perhaps standing as a local council candidate myself? I am actually doing that - but not primarily to oppose UKIP, I hasten to add, I don't see them as a viable force around here ...
And when you do so you will find yourself enmeshed in issues to which there is no distinctively Christian answer (should we have weekly or fortnightly rubbish collections?) and have to find answers via natural law and the good sense God has gifted you via common grace.
ISTM that the Anabaptist position is to renounce the office of magistrate as something unworthy of the Christian altogether, even as they don't - in the style of the monastics - renounce the benefits of society.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, absolutely Chris.
That's why I consider it to be an other-worldly and untenable position ... one which, taken to an extreme, plays down the kind of common grace (and common sense) issues you allude to and can lead to illuminism and unreality.
That's not to suggest that all Anabaptists are liable to go to those extremes - far from it.
From where I'm at now, I think there is a need/role for monastics and indeed neo-monastic or 'base-communities' with a focus on many of the issues that Anabaptists (rightly) advocate ... peace, social justice, integrity of creation (as some put it) ...
I'm happy to hear more about those positive aspects of the Anabaptist witness. I'm still waiting to hear about them from Steve.
Just as, along with Mousethief and others, I'm still waiting for him to explain how he knows that what scripture teaches and what he believes scripture to teach are necessarily commensurate.
I'd imagine I'll be waiting for some time ...
![[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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Therefore anything to do with railways or the glorification of them through making models in their image is wrong and something that good, true and honest Christians should not in all conscience engage with ...
Model railways are wicked and evil, they are blasphemous and idolatrous representations of things that must even be named among us ...
Even before you posted this I have been irresistibly reminded by this thread of the hapless Stenneth Flushpool's sinful passion ("in the natural") for balsa wood model aeroplanes as reprimanded by Mrs Flushpool in The Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
ISTM that the Anabaptist position is to renounce the office of magistrate as something unworthy of the Christian altogether, even as they don't - in the style of the monastics - renounce the benefits of society.
I don't know much about the Anabaptists, but presumably they each have to do a job of work and earn a living like everyone else. In that sense they're contributing to 'the benefits of society.' Some of them may even be employed in the public sector, in which case their contribution to society will be quite easy to track down.
It's perhaps a bit unfair to single the Anabaptists out for their criticisms of the political system (in which institutional religious structures are in various ways a part) when there are plenty of other people who are alienated from the political system as it currently stands. It could even be said that with the rise of someone like Russel Brand in the UK politically dissatisfied people are now having their moment in the sun. Their particular concerns may all be different, but their basic lack of enthusiasm for the status quo is something that could draw them together.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think anyone is singling the Anabaptists out for their criticisms of the political system. I'd criticise the political system. So would many other people - and not just the Russell Brand's of this world.
I'm not having a go at the Anabaptists for criticising politics or 'worldliness' (whatever that means in practice) per se.
What I'm trying to puncture is the rather sanctimonious way they can sometimes go about it - it all sounds rather 'holier than thou' - which is the main criticism Richard Baxter had of this particular position 350 years ago - and it's the main criticism I'd level at it today.
In doing so, I'm by no means suggesting that it's all bad, or all wrong or that Anabaptists have to stop being Anabaptists and become something else.
What I'm waiting for is an indication that there is more to the Anabaptist position than simply carping and railing about 'worldliness' in other people and that they actually have something positive and constructive to say and bring to the party.
So far, I've not seen a great deal of evidence of that from our main Anabaptist contributor.
Instead, all I've seen is carping and criticism of other people and other Christian movements.
I'm waiting for Steve Langton to define Anabaptism by what it is 'for' rather than what it is 'against' and to show us that there is more to it than simply criticising the CofE for remaining Established and banging on and on and on and on at inordinate length about the Inquisition, the evils of Rome and the wickedness of everyone else who doesn't happen to share the same views as him.
Ok, that's something of a caricature of his position and I'm sure that in real life there is a lot more positive about the Anabaptist stance than that.
But I'm still waiting for him to articulate it here - as well as demonstrate why his particular 'take' and understanding of the scriptures is the one we should all adopt if only we were as enlightened as he believes himself to be.
--------------------
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
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Not having followed this thread in detail I hesitate to comment, but the Quaker position is probably in the same ballpark and they've not been exactly politically uninvolved. (Although they've perhaps not shone in the actual governing stakes! (The history of Pennsylvania could, arguably, make Gamaliel's point for him...) It may represent a difference in origins: crudely, the Quakers rise from the collapse of the New Model Army, while the Anabaptists come from essentially powerless communities.
To take it further, the folks over on Ekklesia (sorry: on the tablet and struggling with links)aren't purely negative in their political views (whether you agree with them or not) and they, I think, would see themselves as inspired by the Anabaptists movements.
Next, a comment from a CofE bishop on being asked what he would do rather than bombing (I think) Kosovo: we could not bomb them. I'm all for a bit of yellow hat thinking, but do we have to have a positive alternative before we criticise the status quo?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I'm not suggesting that we always need a water-tight alternative manifesto of some kind before we criticise the status quo.
I don't think that's the issue at stake here.
But I would like at least some detail of what Steve Langton's alternative Anabaptist universe would look like.
I'm not the only one here who appears to have become rather jaded by carping comments about so-called 'Constantinian' churches and individuals without any corresponding sense of what the alternatives would actually look like.
All we've had so far are vague generalisations about 'doing what the NT says' and 'having faith' ...
Sure, we'd all agree with that ...
But other than pacifism and disestablishment - which may very well be good things in and of themselves, I'm not getting much of a 'sense' for Steve Langton is actually proposing.
Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against non-conformists or Anabaptists or anyone else - I was happily involved in a Baptist church for 6 years for goodness sake and whilst it certainly wasn't perfect I count it as one of my fonder ecclesial memories ...
It's simply that I'm not getting much of an impression of what it means in practice to be 'not of this world' ...
The only indications I'm getting at the moment is that it's all about being negative about this, that or the other, rather than actually being 'for' anything ...
--------------------
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 SvitlanaV2:
I don't know much about the Anabaptists, but presumably they each have to do a job of work and earn a living like everyone else. In that sense they're contributing to 'the benefits of society.' Some of them may even be employed in the public sector, in which case their contribution to society will be quite easy to track down.
Of course - and that is not the point I was making. Rather considering the 'magistrate' and the 'sword' referred to in Romans they benefit from these - but still consider them unworthy of a Christian.
But of course, if you want to consider the wider benefits of society as a whole they will - unless they go in the direction of the Amish - and probably even then to some degree.
I used to live in a town which had a small, rather self contained, Mennonite community. They believed that they should limit contact with technology, and so many of them worked as solicitors or lawyers of some form - as it's one of the few professions that could be conducted without making use of a computer. Of course - they'd still drive cars to the supermarket (leaving inside the thousands of lines of code that run inside any modern car ..)
Now - there isn't anything wrong with being selective in this way. The problem comes when you try and build up a theology on top of separation.
At the root of radical anabaptism is a denial that we live in two kingdoms, and as such tends to end up being a form of over-realized eschatology. I believe it is problematic to look at structures which God seems to bless - in a limited and temporal way - and decide that it is sinful to participate in them. Hence my comment about marriage above - it is also after all something that in classical christian thought is for this age only - yet on this point at least most Anabaptists are selective [of course historically there have been radical strains that have gone off in odd directions, the excesses of Munster not being much of a reach if you decide to push the idea to its limits]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Other than pacifism and disestablishment - which may very well be good things in and of themselves, I'm not getting much of a 'sense' for Steve Langton is actually proposing
Isn't that a fairly good start?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
Your mistake is to look at Scripture and try and discern lines. Look how well the Pharisees did at that game.
What I'm seeing on the church and world issue certainly implies a line not to be crossed; but the key element is the positive aspect, the positive definition of the church as "God's holy nation" in the world. The 'line' results from that. Not a legalistic rule, but a basic inconsistency between that NT image or presentation of the Church and the various attempts to have so-called 'Christian countries'.
It really isn't just about the CofE; though it still remains true that sorting that out will be a very major contribution to the situation, given that the CofE's establishment is theoretically at the extreme end of such things. I keep pointing out the international aspect - I spelled out one of those aspects in one of the posts I repeated to 'reboot' the thread earlier - and you insular self-centred lot keep ignoring that, though it's far more important and far more damaging to both church and world.....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, it's a fairly good start, Garasu ...
But look where it ends up ...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
- you insular self-centred lot ...
Judgmentalism, judgmentalism all the way.
I rest my case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
given that the CofE's establishment is theoretically at the extreme end of such things
My problem - it may be others' problem too - is when you say something like this, I simply don't recognise the church I belong to. Granted that Establishment is an anachronism, but there's a long list of things it is before it's anything like 'extreme'.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
More seriously, I'm happy to address the international aspect - and I'm sure others are too.
I think we all of us here agree that the Christian church is international in scope and reach and knows no political boundaries.
I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise.
It's another of these straw-men. This thread is strewn with them.
--------------------
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
To be fair, Doc Tor, Steve did say 'theoretically' ... I think what he's getting at isn't that the CofE is somehow 'extreme' theologically speaking but potentially 'extreme' in terms of the level of involvement/entanglement with the State.
I can see what he's driving at but still think he's tilting at windmills to a certain extent.
As far as the 'international' aspect of things go, all churches have a sense of that. Heck, I've just been watching that BBC2 programme about Canterbury Cathedral and whatever else we might say - positively or negatively - it was pretty clear that the CofE regards itself as part of an international communion ...
That might not be 'realised' to the extent that Steve Langton might wish ... but arguably - as Chris Stiles suggests, his view is based on an over-realised eschatology to a certain extent.
It reminds me in a lot of ways of the 'restorationist' milieu I was involved with in the '80s and '90s - that, too, had an over-realised eschatology.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm waiting for Steve Langton to define Anabaptism by what it is 'for' rather than what it is 'against'
I keep doing that, you know; why do you keep overlooking it?
As a starter, The Church as "God's holy nation" in the world - an international 'nation' with no geographic or ethnic homeland in this world. Work out some of the implications of that and you'll find it a pretty positive 'for'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm waiting for Steve Langton to define Anabaptism by what it is 'for' rather than what it is 'against'
I keep doing that, you know; why do you keep overlooking it?
As a starter, The Church as "God's holy nation" in the world - an international 'nation' with no geographic or ethnic homeland in this world. Work out some of the implications of that and you'll find it a pretty positive 'for'.
So, you're defining feature of Anabaptism is something shared by all other churches, that we're all part of a universal Church that is not bound to particular geographical regions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It might surprise you to hear, Steve Langton, that every single Christian church I'm aware of would make the claim to be part of something universal.
Take the term 'Catholic' for instance. What does that mean if it doesn't mean 'universal'?
Show me a church or Christian tradition that doesn't consider itself to have an international dimension nor consider itself to be part of something bigger and more international than its own particular patch.
There are more strawmen here than at the Annual Strawman Convention.
I know you've got stuff coming at you from all directions but there are plenty of issues that you haven't addressed or defined. We've asked you all sorts of questions about scriptural interpretation, for instance, but you've not addressed those either.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As a starter, The Church as "God's holy nation" in the world - an international 'nation' with no geographic or ethnic homeland in this world. Work out some of the implications of that and you'll find it a pretty positive 'for'.
Well, there's the Anglican Communion that covers the entire globe. The Roman Catholic Church likewise. Being an organisation that is both rooted in the local community and transcends national boundaries is something that we Anglicans do quite well, and probably better than the Anabaptists.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I used to live in a town which had a small, rather self contained, Mennonite community. They believed that they should limit contact with technology, and so many of them worked as solicitors or lawyers of some form - as it's one of the few professions that could be conducted without making use of a computer. Of course - they'd still drive cars to the supermarket (leaving inside the thousands of lines of code that run inside any modern car ..)
Now - there isn't anything wrong with being selective in this way. The problem comes when you try and build up a theology on top of separation.
Most of the modern western world doesn't have the means to facilitate the existence of many groups that are quite as separatist as the Amish. In the UK it would be impossible for the Anabaptists to turn their backs on society's rules and create a state within a state. Therefore, I suppose the only option they have is to express their frustration by criticising the entire 'system' under which we're all forced to live.
Despite how much we grumble about it, Westerners in general (including British Anabaptists) are loathe to physically abandon the capitalistic, democratic, post-industrial nation state (etc.)in which they're implicated. That being the case, one might say that the only way for any of us to avoid accusations of hypocrisy is to tone down the criticisms. But almost every one of us is a hypocrite, in the sense that we're all invested in the status quo to some extent, no matter what our objections are. Russell Brand hasn't escaped this accusation, but it could apply to most of his critics, I'm sure.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Church as "God's holy nation" in the world
Biblical support?
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know you've got stuff coming at you from all directions but there are plenty of issues that you haven't addressed or defined. We've asked you all sorts of questions about scriptural interpretation, for instance, but you've not addressed those either.
I'd happily set all the rest aside until this issue is dealt with. It's at the heart of the matter.
[ 20. December 2014, 00:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
I understand Steve Langton's thesis to be, in a nutshell:
"If the C of E would disestablish, that would stop ISIS."
'Nutshell' seems like the mot juste in this case.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the key element is the positive aspect, the positive definition of the church as "God's holy nation" in the world. The 'line' results from that. Not a legalistic rule, but a basic inconsistency between that NT image or presentation of the Church and the various attempts to have so-called 'Christian countries'.
You cannot draw a line, because as you yourself point out here, assuming the Church is God's holy nation, it is in the world even as it is 'not of' it.
Jesus prays that his disciples would not be removed from the world, and Paul says to the Corinthians that he is not asking them to stop having contact with wordly people because to do so, they would have to leave it.
Drawing a line as you seek to do means establishing a long list of what is "holy", behooving the members of a "holy nation", and what is not. That is legalism.
You might as well try to draw a line between body and soul.
What you describe as a "basic inconsistency" is what I would call the tension between the "now" and the "not yet" of the Kingdom of God. So long as we are in this age, there is tension, paradox, and inconsistency. That's not a basic inconsistency, that's life!
You are arguing as though it is possible to resolve this tension fully in the here and now (which is what I understand chris stiles to mean by an over-realised eschatology). That is the kind of mentality that takes you to Münster.
The way I see it, our various positions all represent various tradeoffs to achieve what we think is a best fit to the "in but not of" paradox. Historic established churches have a tradeoff which favours the "in" end of the scale; extreme anabaptists represent a tradeoff right at the "not of" end.
(My own, and of course perfectly balanced approach, right in the midle of this scale is to have a minimum-service church and emphasise the Kingdom of God, along with Alfred Loisy (see sig.), who seems to have got there before me).
As Gamaliel points out, this conversation would go a lot better if you could acknowledge that you might have something to learn from those who have put the "in/not of" cursor at a different place to you, just as we certainly have things to learn from the Anabaptists.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Absolutely.
The last few responses have been like the jackpot line-up on a 'fruit-machine' for me - all the lemons in a row (if that's not too 'worldly' an analogy).
Whatever other disagreements and differences we may have on other issues, I'm completely in agreement with everything that Doc Tor, SvitlanaV2, Mousethief, Leaf and Eutychus have said since I last posted here.
They are all talking common-sense.
As Chris Stiles has been doing from the outset too.
I've got to be honest, if I'd been drinking cocoa last night I'd have spluttered into it when I read Steve Langton's accusation of 'insularity' directed at the rest of us.
If anyone is arguing for an 'insular' position it's Steve Langton himself, despite all the pious rhetoric about the Church being a 'holy nation' that knows no national boundaries and so on.
I'm sure Eutychus wouldn't want to be held up as an exemplar, but here's a chap who has left his own country (this one) to live in another one (France) in the service of the Gospel. I don't see how Eutychus can in any way be accused of being 'insular'.
I also think that SvitlanaV2's point about us all being implicated, all being hypocrites, all being part and parcel of the globalised capitalist system we all rail against. How could we even be typing here on computers if we weren't?
It's all a question of degree - and yes, there's always going to be the tension between the 'now' and the not yet.
Meanwhile, to assist matters with this thread, I'm wondering whether it would be helpful to disaggregate some of the strands - particularly the unanswered question about the basis for biblical interpretation that both Mousethief and myself have been waiting for?
Would it help if there were a new thread on that? or has that issue become a Dead Horses one?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Despite how much we grumble about it, Westerners in general (including British Anabaptists) are loathe to physically abandon the capitalistic, democratic, post-industrial nation state (etc.)in which they're implicated.
The difference is that in the radical Anabaptist perspective (and from what I can tell, Steve's case falls into this category) the critique isn't cultural, or even moral, it's eschatalogical. It's not so much against the morality of the economic system, or even the extent to which we find ourselves culturally captive to it, but against being part of 'this present age'.
TBH, contra Gamaliel/Eutychus I don't believe we 'need' the Anabaptist perspective in this sense.
Historically - of course - groups like the Mennonites (as contrasted with the Amish and Hutterites) have moved their critique in a semi-monastic or cultural direction, and it's this cultural exegesis (where present) that we can learn from.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I rather think that's the element that Eutychus and I both have in mind, Chris Stiles - but I take your point of clarification here.
We don't need the over-realised eschatological aspect at all.
In fact, we need to resist and reject it as much as we need to resist full-on 'Constantinianism' in the sense that Steve defines and demonises it.
As Eutychus has said, there is wriggle-room between those twin, opposing poles.
Or have I missed the point you're making?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I rather think that's the element that Eutychus and I both have in mind, Chris Stiles - but I take your point of clarification here.
Yeah, understood. I guess I'm just slightly over-sensitive to the thesis/antithesis/synthesis style of things ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The point was that Steve was arguing from what seemed to be an eschatalogical perspective, so without clarification it seemed there was a danger of the point being misunderstood.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It might surprise you to hear, Steve Langton, that every single Christian church I'm aware of would make the claim to be part of something universal.
No, it would not surprise me at all; and could you please try thinking that I do know things like that, and I'm still saying what I did, and therefore just maybe I'm seeing an angle to the situation that you aren't, and that it might be a valid and even important angle?
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Take the term 'Catholic' for instance. What does that mean if it doesn't mean 'universal'?
As pointed out above, during most of the Christendom era it came to mean in practice something remarkably like 'totalitarian'....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
Drawing a line as you seek to do means establishing a long list of what is "holy", behooving the members of a "holy nation", and what is not. That is legalism.
Actually no; the particular line I'm seeking to draw - or rather draw attention to the fact that the NT draws it - tends if anything to free from the need of the long lists of legalistic stuff. We are to be - I think the word 'separate' has become a bit loaded in the context, so let's say 'distinct' - at one simple but crucial point, and then indeed live 'in the world' in a positive non-legalistic way.
In this kind of context it is less 'what behooves a holy nation', and more 'What witnesses to Jesus and his message'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Steve, I'm still not clear as to what you think the majority of non-established churches (and the people who comprise those churches) are doing wrong.
I get that you think having an official state church is not God's will. But for all those churches which are not state-sponsored or state-favoured; what are they doing wrong, would you say?
--------------------
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 Leaf;
quote:
I understand Steve Langton's thesis to be, in a nutshell:
quote:
"If the C of E would disestablish, that would stop ISIS."
'Nutshell' seems like the mot juste in this case.
No, nowhere near that simple - if only!!!!
And I do keep trying to point you all to the issue being far wider than the CofE - just that the CofE is the biggest local example if you live in the UK.
But surely it is obvious that the IS case is not going to be challenged much by any church that subscribes to essentially the same 'religious state' principle as IS (and indeed Islam generally, even if we might feel Muhammad would be horrified by some of the actions of IS).
Nor is it challenged much by a secular idea of separation of religion and state, to which they can simply respond "God in the Quran tells us otherwise".
Christians taking and demonstrating every different approach to 'religion and world', based on the teaching of the Muslim prophet Isa - that might at least give them pause, and a peaceable Christianity would not give them the excuse/provocation provided by the notion of supposed 'Christian countries' supposedly 'crusading' against Islam.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by South Coast Kevin;
quote:
I get that you think having an official state church is not God's will. But for all those churches which are not state-sponsored or state-favoured; what are they doing wrong, would you say?
That requires a longer answer which I hope I'll be able to do justice to. As a short version there are
a) a lot of non-established churches which aren't doing anything wrong at all, but also
b) a lot of such churches which may not be established right now, but have a theology of a 'Christian state' in one form or another rather than the kind of biblically based separation of church and state which I'm advocating - and they are doing wrong by holding such a position. As with many of the NI groups, they might not want their particular version of things to be formally established, but they still expect a basically formally Christian state - and the NI situation shows that such a position is still potentially troublesome.
c) And there are churches/groups which are just confused....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...they might not want their particular version of things to be formally established, but they still expect a basically formally Christian state...
Many thanks, Mr Langton. May I further ask what you think a 'basically formally Christian state' looks like? I'm guessing you mean in a legislative sense, with 'Christian' behaviour being favoured (e.g. through the tax system) or 'non-Christian' behaviour being outright illegal. Am I on the right lines?
I think for this argument to be fruitful, you need to be clearer regarding your terms and what you see as the goal for churches in these matters. You're being very critical of most churches / denominations but without enough clarity (ISTM) on what exactly they're all doing wrong. Concretely, what would you say needs to change?
--------------------
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
You obviously missed the tone of sarcasm here, Steve Langton ...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It might surprise you to hear, Steve Langton, that every single Christian church I'm aware of would make the claim to be part of something universal.
No, it would not surprise me at all; and could you please try thinking that I do know things like that, and I'm still saying what I did, and therefore just maybe I'm seeing an angle to the situation that you aren't, and that it might be a valid and even important angle?
I'm not sure what 'angle' I'm not seeing that you are - but seeing as you are clearly so much cleverer than I am - and everyone else on this thread beside yourself - and far more capable of interpreting the Bible correctly than the rest of us, then I will bow to your better judgement ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Like South Coast Kevin, I can understand your view that 'established churches' are severely compromised, but you seem to extend that to every other church - established or non-established - other than your own.
I can certainly see how a 'sub-Constantinian' epithet might fit certain Ulster Protestants and the US Religious Right - but I can't see how it could apply to South Coast Kevin's church - the Vineyard - for instance, nor to most Methodists, Baptists, URCs, Pentecostals or Brethren or any other non-conformist churches.
Heck, I don't even believe it applies to most CofE parishes these days ... for all your attempts to insist that it does.
It seems to me that you have seized on this single, 'catch-all', overly simplistic, black-and-white approach in order to differentiate your own over-realised eschatology from everyone else's way of doing things - whether good, bad or indifferent.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've 'called' you on this before, Steve, but for all its faults, the CofE does not insist on the same kind of religious state idea as IS does.
To insist that it does not only flies in the face of the fact but is deeply offensive.
I don't know any Anglicans who would insist on some kind of 'religious state' in the way that IS does.
It's no wonder so many of us find it difficult to take your arguments seriously when you are comparing apples with pears.
I'd argue the same way if I were a non-conformist too ... but I know that wouldn't be good enough for you either.
![[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 Gamaliel;
quote:
I've 'called' you on this before, Steve, but for all its faults, the CofE does not insist on the same kind of religious state idea as IS does.
Not in detail in the present day, perhaps - though the CofE's past is at times not as different to IS as you might wish it to be. And there is the obvious difference that whereas IS is fighting to establish a religious state, the CofE didn't have to fight for its initial position in the same way, it was already there, just the management changed from Pope to King. Even so there were wars and rebellions against Henry over the issue, brutally suppressed.
But in underlying principle, which concerns me more than the superficial actions, there isn't enough difference. Don't get me wrong here; I'm appalled by the violence of IS - though also by the CofE's past - but I'm seeing here the same principle at work, the result differing in degree, not in nature.
Because it is a difference in degree, the problem is that IS, and indeed many other Muslims in my experience, do in fact interpret the CofE in general as the same kind of thing they're doing, and see it as justification/encouragement of their own religious state position. They also tend to interpret the situation as "The UK is a Christian country and if their armies are fighting wars against Muslims, these are Crusaders fighting Islam". (This among other things threatens Christians around IS and in other Muslim states, who may be seen as 'allies' of the 'Crusaders'). I've known even moderate Muslims here in the UK who, because of the basic Muslim mindset about this, have trouble understanding the UK is different. To Muslims in far off lands with a past history on the receiving end of Crusades and/or later Western colonialism, and with Western armies currently in their countries or neighbouring lands, such understanding is even harder to come by.
Insofar as such Muslims do recognise the difference in the modern UK, they are not likely to see it as an improvement of the past but as a weakness and near-apostasy by the CofE in not working harder to enforce their faith in the land against secular/ungodly influences.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm not sure what 'angle' I'm not seeing that you are - but seeing as you are clearly so much cleverer than I am - and everyone else on this thread beside yourself - and far more capable of interpreting the Bible correctly than the rest of us, then I will bow to your better judgement ...
First off, yes, I noticed the sarcasm; us Aspies once aware of our condition can actually get rather good at spotting such things.
And clearly you haven't the slightest intention of 'bowing to (my) better judgement' - more sarcasm? - but seeing intractable problems from odd angles and getting a better analysis as a result is an Aspie trait (see inter alia Einstein, Turing...) - which just might be what's happening here.. Yes it looks a bit nutty - but like quantum theory, it may still be the answer. What's to lose by checking it out a bit?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The problem is that IS, and indeed many other Muslims in my experience, do in fact interpret the CofE in general as the same kind of thing they're doing, and see it as justification/encouragement of their own religious state position. They also tend to interpret the situation as "The UK is a Christian country and if their armies are fighting wars against Muslims, these are Crusaders fighting Islam". (This among other things threatens Christians around IS and in other Muslim states, who may be seen as 'allies' of the 'Crusaders'). I've known even moderate Muslims here in the UK who, because of the basic Muslim mindset about this, have trouble understanding the UK is different. To Muslims in far off lands with a past history on the receiving end of Crusades and/or later Western colonialism, and with Western armies currently in their countries or neighbouring lands, such understanding is even harder to come by.
Insofar as such Muslims do recognise the difference in the modern UK, they are not likely to see it as an improvement of the past but as a weakness and near-apostasy by the CofE in not working harder to enforce their faith in the land against secular/ungodly influences.
These are two interesting paragraphs, and IMO there's some truth in them. However, I think it might help your case a bit if you could post some links, or at least give some references to books or other relevant printed matter.
In particular, can you point to anything to substantiate your claim that (some) Muslims see an equivalence between the Muslim understanding of the nation and the position of the CofE in particular? Can you supply the names of any other commentators who believe that Muslims are currently influenced by the political or institutional status of Christianity or Christian churches in any Western nation? I'm fascinated to see who else is making such claims.
[ 20. December 2014, 17:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Souith Coast Kevin;
quote:
May I further ask what you think a 'basically formally Christian state' looks like?
One of the problems I have here is that those with such ideas have quite varied and diffuse views themselves. For details you might do better asking those concerned themselves; the US 'Religious Right', people who think like the late Ian Paisley, that David Silvester guy, the evangelical opponents of legalising SSM, and many more - they are 'Legion', and even I find them confusing....
There are also lots of nice moderate nostalgic people who in effect want the 1950s back, and phrase that in terms of 'England is a Christian country', but are quite vague themselves about the realities that might entail in our rather different world.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We are to be - I think the word 'separate' has become a bit loaded in the context, so let's say 'distinct' - at one simple but crucial point
So what is this point?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
seeing intractable problems from odd angles and getting a better analysis as a result is an Aspie trait (see inter alia Einstein, Turing...) - which just might be what's happening here..
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Whatever your condition and any brilliant insights you might feel it gives you by association with some brilliant company, the proof of the pudding here in Purgatory is not invoking that condition but your ability to explain those insights intelligibly and respond to objections and requests for clarification without descending into incoherence or plain rudeness. This, by and large, you are singularly failing to do by all accounts.
Unless you know any of the posters here in real life, you have absolutely no idea what abilities, disabilities, commitments, or qualifications anybody here has, largely because people don't blether on about them - neither to invoke them as a defence nor to wield them as a trump card.
Get by on the strength of your arguments, not by invoking special privilege, or expect a return to Hell.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry Svitlana2
I'm falling victim here to my own 'absent minded professory' side which is good at spotting these things but isn't all that good at collating information and making notes. It's a fault that right now I really wish I didn't have!
Quite a bit of what I'm reporting here is simple experience, talking to Muslims and to others who do. Much of it is things I've picked up from news and current affairs which by the nature of things aren't easy to document. There's not a lot I know of in neatly packaged books - not to say there's nothing, just I don't know of it or can't remember the detail reference.
But as one fairly well documented case showing relevant attitudes, take that raid on a desert oil plant a bit back, where the local native workers were reassured by the attackers that they were safe - "We've come to kill the Crusaders" - that is, the Europeans there, seen as representatives of 'Christian countries'. That general trend in Islamic extremism of interpreting Europeans as 'Crusaders' crops up a lot on the news and in Islamist propaganda. And so interpreting Europeans does depend on that 'Christian country' perception....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
And I repeat my suspicion that for you this is more about fear of Muslims, how they perceive the Church, and what they might do as a result, than anything else.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
So what is this point?
Back to John 18, I guess - there will be a pause while I work on that further.
As regards the other, I guess I'll have to stop responding to Gamaliel. As I pretty much said in my initial response to him, I am feeling in general that rather than constant automatic sarcasm, suggesting that I 'might be surprised to know...' whatever, people might try instead assuming that I do know the obvious and am saying something different because from an unusual angle. That might allow the discussion to get further faster.
When that suggestion just met further sarcasm I lost it a bit. I'll try not to do so again.
Please guys, even just politely asking "Have you taken account of...?" would help. The sarcasm doesn't.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
And I repeat my suspicion that for you this is more about fear of Muslims, how they perceive the Church, and what they might do as a result, than anything else.
My big fear is that a church which continues to disregard or fudge the NT teaching on church and world will have increasing problems one way or another. Not 'what the Muslims might do', but what the churches won't.
There is much in modern Islam to fear; but I was concerned about these issues when Islam did not seem a significant threat.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well stop fearing then!
Faith, promises and grace are much better starting points.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
