|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kingdom not of this world?
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
re response to Leaf earlier;
by SL:
quote:
Christians taking and demonstrating every different approach to 'religion and world',
Sorry, that should have been '... a very different approach...'
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What's to lose by checking it out a bit?
How do you know I haven't?
If I'm sarcastic, it's in response to your intransigence.
I spent 18 years in a full-on evangelical charismatic church which had a strong credo-baptist emphasis and which was as - if not more 'anti' the CofE or any idea of an 'established church' than anything you've outlined on these boards.
I spent a further 6 years - quite happily - in a Baptist church.
I know attend my nearest church, which happens to be an evangelical Anglican parish ... although I'm not particularly happy there - not because it happens to be Anglican or evangelical but because I find I'm rather broader in my sympathies these days ... and don't like simplistic, Janet and John solutions ...
It does some good work and even though it doesn't 'scratch where I itch', I'm supportive of that.
I've got friends and contacts across the broad spread of Christian traditions - from RC and Orthodox to independent evangelical ... and all stations in between.
So it's not as if I'm unfamiliar with the kind of arguments you're putting forward here. Nor am I unsympathetic towards some of your concerns.
To use a phrase that Eutychus doesn't like me using, I find your position rather 'over-egged' ... which is why I've been arguing for a more 'balanced' or nuanced line on these matters.
It's not that I haven't considered the issues you're raising. I have considered them. I've just reached different conclusions to the ones you have.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
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.
Time to stop living in the past, Steve.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
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
No this is no more obvious than your interpretation of Scripture. It's not just not obvious, it's not true of any existing churches, nor are there any existing churches that subscribe to essentially the same 'religious state' principle as IS. Although as has been said the ROC is veering in that direction, alas.
quote:
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
This is fairyland stuff here.
quote:
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.
But the question is what YOU, Steve Langton, think it looks like. Not anybody else.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I will certainly accept that there are parallels between the Islamic idea of a 'Caliphate' and the medieval idea of Christendom.
But the parallels are not exact matches.
Henry VIII was a particularly unpleasant Renaissance monarch and he certainly repressed rebellion and dissent with extreme violence.
What he didn't do, was to go round massacring ethnic minorities or deporting women and children as sex slaves - which is what IS are doing.
I've seen pictures of some of the atrocities IS have been committing against Kurds, Iraqi Christians and others. I wish I hadn't seen them. They are seared into my memory banks now ...
I'm sure I'd have the same reaction were I to see actual photos or footage of some of Henry VIII's executions.
No doubt about that.
But we are still not comparing like with like to the extent that you are suggesting.
That doesn't let Henry VIII off the hook.
But neither does it incriminate a contemporary Anglican church that would no more countenance the execution of rebels and dissenters than you would.
You persist in tarring contemporary Anglicans or RCs with the same brush as their historical forebears.
That'd be like blaming contemporary Germans for what their forebears did under Hitler, or contemporary Russians for some of Stalin's atrocities.
This is what I am objecting to, Steve. The kind of sweeping, broad-brush generalisations that apparently pass as argument or reasoned debate in your book.
Is it any wonder that I respond with sarcasm? Because that's no more than these sweeping generalisations deserve.
Sure, I take your point about the Muslims and their view of the West as 'Crusaders' and so on ... and yes, I'd broadly be in favour of CofE Disestablishment.
The difference is, that I don't see the latter as any cast-iron guarantee of 'progress' in some way nor do I see it as a panacea for the problems facing all Christian churches in an increasingly secularised post-Christendom, post-Christian environment.
Sure, I know you see it as part of the solution, not the solution itself or in its entirety ... which is fine, you are entitled to those views.
But you seem to keep putting 2 and 2 together and making 45 - taking things into an 'over-realised' direction - which is the issue that Chris Stiles has identified.
And you still haven't addressed the issue of why we should take your interpretation of scripture any more seriously than anyone else's.
--------------------
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
quote:
One of the problems I have here is that those with such ideas have quite varied and diffuse views themselves.
Is this because you want a single, cut-and-dried answer to all questions? Might it not be that a range of diffuse views on various issues is both acceptable and desirable?
You've previously cited some disagreements between Mousethief and Ad Orientem as evidence that their Tradition might not be all it's cracked up to be ... because, wonder of wonders, they've both ended up with different views on certain matters.
As if that's a bad thing ...
I would expect people to have a range of diffuse and varied views on what a 'Christian state' might look like, or whether such a thing is desirable.
I'd be more concerned if there weren't diffuse and varied views on an issue like this.
[fixed your code which is not of this world]
[ 20. December 2014, 20:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
Sorry in advance for the length of this post!
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
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!
Yes, it's a bit of a problem if you're on a 'crusade' to convince people of a rather unpopular stance! You're obviously passionate about this issue, so you owe it to yourself to become organised about it. Even 'absent minded professors' have to provide some evidence for their findings, sooner or later! Or else who will believe them? Who, indeed, will continue to employ them?
quote:
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.
News reports are often saved online nowadays. E.g. Youtube has plenty of news clips in which President G W Bush's references to a 'crusade' against Islamic extremists are taken to indicate a 'official' Christian war against Islam.
However, what I'm trying to get at is how you're moving from that situation to the argument that Muslims are highly sensitive to Christian institutionalisation. It's the latter that requires some proof. After all, the USA doesn't have a state church, and AFAIK few Muslims will be aware of the institutional status of Bush's own denomination (United Methodist). If you know Muslims who have specific ideas about institutionalisation you could document that.
The problem you may have (but research would add much clarity) at this point in history is that Christian institutionalisation, if this simply means national laws regulating Christian churches or believers, might have less to do with what Muslims (or others) think than a much hazier idea of a diffuse national Christian 'identity' that's potentially much harder to shift than any law about tax breaks for religious groups, or even Disestablishment....
The reason I say this is because AFAIK (more research needed again) the laws covering a registered mosque in the UK are probably very similar to the laws covering a registered Methodist Church. Both are institutional. So why shouldn't both groups seem themselves as equally participating in the story of British identity and religion? Why should the Methodists seem themselves as participating in the creation of the national religious identity (do they?) and Muslims not (don't they)? It's not that Methodists have numbers on their side! So in theory why should British Muslims feel less British - or English - than Methodists? If this is in fact how they do feel then institutionalised Christian institutions may not be the precise issue (although I agree that the CofE is a different case, as it has a distinct status) and other factors are more important.
Actually, the Daily Mail (horrors!) has published UK research suggesting that Muslims feel more British than Christians do; Christians feel much more English (so the numbers registering as Welsh/Scottish/N. Irish + Christian must be very small). Maybe there's something about Britishness that's somehow less threatening for people of other religions. Is it simply that it enables them to bypass the problem of Establishment in England? I suspect not (again, research needed).
In order for the discussion to become more grounded in realities, it would be useful to clarify the parameters of 'institutional Christianity'. Some of the sociologists would say that denominations are by definition institutions, and that there are several of signs that a Christian movement is becoming institutionalised/denominationalised. So in theory one could make a list of different known movements, churches and denominations and establish where they are in the process. Where would the Anabaptists fit in? They may not be the least institutional group.....
Finally, I wanted to respond to your fear that the CofE will become more Constantinian - by which you seem to mean that it'll move to the extreme right in a political and social sense. The sociologist Eric Kaufmann proposes that the future polarisation between secular and religious Europeans may mean that conservative Christians and Muslims may join forces with each other against secularisation. This is an option for the CofE simply because it's likely to continue declining, and Dis/Establishment may not interrupt that. Engaging with the much larger number of practising Muslims would boost the religious agenda. It might still be a right wing rapprochement, but in a new, exotic, less Islamophobic way....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that's a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post, SvitlanaV2.
As you rightly point out, hard and fast evidence in the scientific sense isn't easy to come by in cases like this ... but we should, of course base positions and conclusions as far as we can on the evidence around us - and not simply 'see what we want to see' ...
I can certainly see some kind of Christian/Muslim collaboration - if not coalition - on a pro-faith, anti-secularist agenda - but for the time being I think such a dialogue or co-operation would only be likely from those most committed to inter-faith conversations in the first place. So I don't see it as necessarily following a 'right-wing' agenda ...
At the moment, I think such dialogue is more likely to take place at the more moderate and 'liberal' end of the spectrum on each side.
But who knows?
Whatever the case, as I've said before, I do believe that we are all headed into similar post-Christendom, post-Christian territory - and we need models to steer our way through that.
The 'intentionality' found in the Anabaptist approach is one model - but it's not a model that is exclusive to Anabaptists.
Indeed - as Steve has noted - many of the issues that Anabaptists are concerned about are concerns elsewhere - and that's a good thing ... I'm glad that the Anabaptist Network exists and that it's serving as a forum for debate around these issues.
What doesn't help - to my mind - is an overly otherworldly and over-realised approach ... this doesn't help anyone - least of all the Anabaptists themselves.
--------------------
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
Steve Langton may well appreciate Giles Fraser's column in today's Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/dec/19/christmas-story-god-divesting-himself-power
There are plenty of digs there at what might be considered 'Constantinian' Christianity - as well as a dig at Constantine himself.
But oh ... look ... what's going on? Giles Fraser is a canon in that wickedly 'Constantian' church, the Church of England! Whatever next ... ?
I'm sure Steve would go along with some, at least, of the 'Loose canon's' views - but equally sure that Steve would find Giles Fraser overly liberal in terms of theology ...
--------------------
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 don't think this paragraph was very clear:
The problem you may have (but research would add much clarity) at this point in history is that Christian institutionalisation, if this simply means national laws regulating Christian churches or believers, might have less to do with what Muslims (or others) think than a much hazier idea of a diffuse national Christian 'identity' that's potentially much harder to shift than any law about tax breaks for religious groups, or even Disestablishment....
I meant that at this point in history it's possible that formal de-institutionalisation wouldn't do away with the rhetoric about a 'Christian nation'. Our attitudes about religious identity are possibly less wedded to official rules and regulations than we might think. They're likely to be hazier and much more irrational than that. Ancestral memory takes a while to shift.
We're in uncharted territory, but as I've said before, I think many more Christian groups should jump before they're pushed. The smaller denominations in the UK ironically seem to have more power over their own legal and politcal destiny than the CofE does.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
Well stop fearing then!
Faith, promises and grace are much better starting points.
Any snappy sound-bite answer to that would be asking for trouble....
I suspect a four-page sermon would also be unpopular....
BTW, stop fearing who?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We're in uncharted territory, but as I've said before, I think many more Christian groups should jump before they're pushed. The smaller denominations in the UK ironically seem to have more power over their own legal and politcal destiny than the CofE does.
Jump where and to what?
The 'smaller denominations' aren't Established anyway ... although there are certainly 'institutionalised'.
Are you suggesting that they 'de-institutionalise'?
If so, what does that mean in practice?
I don't believe that a completely 'de-institutionalised' Christianity is possible.
Even if you meet down Starbucks with South Coast Kevin and his pals, you're going to 'institutionalise' to some extent or other over time.
I remember all this rhetoric from my 'house-church' days ... and we became just as 'institutionalised' as anyone else.
It's all a chimera.
I don't disagree that we are ultimately heading into lighter-footed territory - but I don't see that lower-key or less formal forms of church are any less demanding in terms of time and resources as the most formally institutionalised ones.
There's a lot of fantasy-island going on here, I think.
--------------------
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 am quite interested in Eutychus's notion of a 'service-lite' but 'community-engagement-heavy' church, though ... and I think that's a model that could apply to any Christian tradition or churchmanship.
It might be worth starting a new thread on that issue ... then we might actually get some practical suggestions on how we might best engage with the world - and not simply run away from it or pick and choose what bits we'll 'take' and which aspects we reject according to some idiosyncracies of our own which we take to be 'what scripture teaches' ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But, of course, this will necessarily be an area where there are range of views on what is permissible and what isn't ... which is, of course, entirely healthy.
That's not to argue for 'situational ethics', but it is to acknowledge that we are between 'the now and the not yet' and have to live with the tensions that this involves.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Well stop fearing then!
Faith, promises and grace are much better starting points.
Any snappy sound-bite answer to that would be asking for trouble....
I suspect a four-page sermon would also be unpopular....
BTW, stop fearing who?
As I posted earlier, the words "concerned", "worried" and so on occur frequently in your posts, and frequently with respect to ISIS, Muslims, etc.
And my comment didn't require an answer. It was a suggestion. "Fear not" is all over the Bible, on this much I think we can agree.
--------------------
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
Svitlana2
I'm not really discussing 'institutionalisation' because as you point out, it's a wide enough term to include pretty much anything except that 'church of one' that Gamaliel keeps going on about.
Even a single local congregation is an 'institution' of sorts.
You're also right that there is a considerable if fuzzy idea of religious identity out there which won't shift easily; but at the same time, isn't actually very Christian.
That's why it is important that ideally (the now I think inevitable) disestablishment shouldn't be just a 'tidying up' or a negative thing; ideally it should involve the church embracing a more positive better way and strongly saying so.
I'm not suggesting that Muslims are 'highly sensitive' to the 'institutionalisation' of the CofE; just that it's a rather obvious fact which looks to them like the kind of 'religious state' that Islam also involves. The USA is different but also 'looks like' a 'Christian country' if anything, especially when Republicans were in power talking about godless Communism and similar rhetoric.
The church shouldn't be 'institutionalised' in the state - that's the negative. The church should be something else, not entangled in states which war against Islam, but having a critique of both Islam and the states that oppose Islam.
We're not meant to be 'unworldly' or so 'out of this world' that we are no use to it; but at the same time our one great use to the world is to be God's holy nation in distinction from the world and its values.
I said I'd get back to John 18 etc. And I've a couple of 'case studies' I'm working on to open up some other relevant discussion. I may be a while....
PS - liked the 'loose canon' - though yes he does seem a bit liberal; I hope the Anglicans and Parliament were listening. And I'm looking forward to meeting a certain recently promoted lady cleric too....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
She's going to be our bishop and due to visit our parish sometime in 2015.
I have met her once before, briefly.
I think you'd get on. You may find her a bit 'on the liberal side' I suspect ...
Giles Fraser is probably the most prominent mouth-piece the lib'rul Anglicans have at the moment ... and most of the liberals I know find him a tad embarrassing ... even if they agree with what he says.
Rather like those evangelicals who find Nicky Gumbel and HTB embarrassing even though they approve of, and use, the Alpha course ...
--------------------
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:
I am quite interested in Eutychus's notion of a 'service-lite' but 'community-engagement-heavy' church, though ... and I think that's a model that could apply to any Christian tradition or churchmanship.
A few brief thoughts here, some repeated.
I think church should be a service-station and not Disneyland: somewhere you stop off at but not somewhere that you want to stay at.
If churches grow they spawn management tiers that can easily become dominated by people more interested in (Christian) work creation and securing their own positions than in where the Spirit is leading, and become inward-looking. They create a sub-culture and you've lost your counter-cultural engagement right there.
The church I'm currently leading has just one mid-week meeting in addition to Sunday morning. If people want to go and do Christian stuff there are enough project-focused, parachurch organisations in town to get involved in. Others get involved in ecumenical associations, others again in, well, whatever everyone else in the World™ does. I think that's called being Salt and Light.
I see the functions of Sunday morning as corporate worship, teaching, and equipping people to realise their New Covenant identity by which the Spirit writes the law on their hears and gives them the ability to think for themselves and have their consciences educated by him.
Inasmuch as it exists, my long-term vision for the church is to have a whole bunch of people who could encourage others to realise the same thing, no matter where they are or what type of church they attend (or don't).
My philosophy of ministry ( ) is "God made it grow". That is all. I try and get on with applying Kingdom values as I see them in all walks of life. Most of this is by accident and necessity, not design, but I can honestly say it seems to work as well as any other approach I've tried.
--------------------
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
Gamaliel
I wasn't talking about the CofE on this occasion.
One sociologist predicts that on current form, the Methodists are due to de-construct as a separate denomination by about 2030. Not long ago I spoke to a CofE theologian who whispered to me in the loos after an ecumenical service that the URC was declining so much that it was destined to be absorbed by some other denomination before long.
You see, from my perspective, there's a point at which institutionalisation (as we know it, although perhaps it might be done differently and better?) seems to become a bit of a waste of time and money. I don't see the sense in dragging things on to the bitter end, by which time everyone might well be thoroughly miserable. Make changes while there's still time, and a modicum of energy left.
Sure, there are many denominations that are doing okay and will have some sort of future more or less as they are, as far as we can tell. Most of them are evangelical. But I'm not convinced that we all need to be spreading ourselves thinner and thinner and becoming less and less effective.
What I will say is that, as I implied in my post above, institutionalisation is a vague term, and so de-institutionalisation might look a bit different in different circumstances. Fair enough.
Anyway, I'm not sure why the de-institutionalisation of Non-conformist or new churches that you don't attend is such a difficult thing for you to contemplate. It's not as though I'm arguing that no British church group should ever own their own building or hire a paid and highly educated minister every again. As you say, that would be totally unrealistic. It's also unnecessary, I think.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As for hoping that 'the Anglicans and Parliament were listening ...' ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
You write as if the kind of views Giles Fraser is putting forward in The Guardian are somehow unusual or unexpected.
As if senior Anglican clerics or Parliamentarians would pick up today's Guardian and go, 'Blow me down! I never thought of that before! Let's Disestablish the Church of England forthwith!'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
There have been debates about Disestablishment since the early 19th century - hence the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland.
Plenty of posters here have attempted to explain how these things work and how, currently, there's no particular appetite for Disestablishment either within the CofE or within Parliament. It's not a priority issue - even though you believe it should be.
I wouldn't be surprised if it happens eventually - perhaps even within the reign of the next Monarch.
Meanwhile, we are where we are and we need to 'work with the difficulty' - just as, in a post-Establishment phase, the CofE would need to learn to work with whatever difficulties and opportunities that poses.
It's called real-life.
--------------------
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
@SvitlanaV2 and then @Eutychus ...
Sure, SvitlanaV2 - I'm interested because I've heard loads and loads of rhetoric about churches 'de-institutionalising'.
Back in the late '90s there was a move by some of the more artsy and 'trendy' of the 'new churches' to 'deconstruct' themselves ... they began to meet less frequently, to de-clutter themselves to a certain extent ...
It all sounded very well and good, but because these churches were predicated on close and regular fellowship they quickly disintegrated ... for the most part.
The model Eutychus is suggesting strikes me as more feasible. He still has a regular Sunday meeting and one mid-week one - so there's sufficient there to provide a framework but also flexibility and 'space' for people to get involved with other things.
More broadly, I'm interested because, as I've said, I believe we are all of us - RCs, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, non-conformist or 'new church' or whatever else ... headed into post-Christendom, post-Christian territory - so any models that any of us adopt which prove useful and sustainable, are likely to be of interest to us all.
@Eutychus ... I like the idea in principle and I wish you well with it. I have to say that I was surprised at some of the - to my mind - pietistic language which you deployed - but perhaps I'm simply a bit hyper-sensitive to that and it isn't as pietistic as I thought ... more practical.
I still think it might be helpful to have a thread on this topic ... to bounce ideas around.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The model Eutychus is suggesting strikes me as more feasible. He still has a regular Sunday meeting and one mid-week one - so there's sufficient there to provide a framework but also flexibility and 'space' for people to get involved with other things.
Well, if his congregation (or parish, or circuit, etc.) can fund everything they're doing and they have the people to do it, then that's all fine, IMO. If it ain't broke, why fix it? But there are a lot of broken churches around (and not all in the 'inner cities' either).
quote:
More broadly, I'm interested because, as I've said, I believe we are all of us - RCs, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, non-conformist or 'new church' or whatever else ... headed into post-Christendom, post-Christian territory - so any models that any of us adopt which prove useful and sustainable, are likely to be of interest to us all.
I don't think the exact same models will be suitable for all these churches, because they won't be able to de-construct themselves to the same extent. RCC congregations will never be free at HQ level, even if they have lots of low key gatherings run by nuns, or whatever. (However, I was interested to read somewhere that one bishop was willing to lose all the RC church buildings in his cash-starved parish, so long as the RC schools could be saved. I don't know to what extent RCs expect to worship in a 'proper' church building, but perhaps they're not necessarily all that bothered.)
quote:
Back in the late '90s there was a move by some of the more artsy and 'trendy' of the 'new churches' to 'deconstruct' themselves ... they began to meet less frequently, to de-clutter themselves to a certain extent ...
It all sounded very well and good, but because these churches were predicated on close and regular fellowship they quickly disintegrated ... for the most part.
Well, hey, that's great for us in the 2010s, 20s, 30s, 40s, because it means we can learn from the mistakes of the past! People like you can tell the rest of us exactly what went wrong back then and what we should do to avoid those problems!
[ 20. December 2014, 22:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
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.
.. and I've had similar conversations. And usually what's occurring is that they are projecting an idealised caliphate onto the actions of some state because of historical events.
So that being the case, I'm not sure there is *anything* we can in terms of disestablishment that would actually make a difference in terms of how we would be seen.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
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.
As mousethief has already said, the issue is what do *you* mean by a 'basically formally Christian state'? It was your phrase, you weren't quoting anyone; so, in your opinion, what does a 'basically formally Christian state' look like? And what do churches who want such a state look like, or have in their statements of faith, or mention in their sermons etc.?
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not really discussing 'institutionalisation' because as you point out, it's a wide enough term to include pretty much anything except that 'church of one' that Gamaliel keeps going on about.
Even a single local congregation is an 'institution' of sorts.
You're also right that there is a considerable if fuzzy idea of religious identity out there which won't shift easily; but at the same time, isn't actually very Christian.
That's why it is important that ideally (the now I think inevitable) disestablishment shouldn't be just a 'tidying up' or a negative thing; ideally it should involve the church embracing a more positive better way and strongly saying so.
But I think you need to define your terms somehow, or else what does 'embracing a more positive better way' actually mean? How can someone talk 'strongly' about something if they're not exactly sure what it is?
I suppose you're hoping that the model of church that you'd like to see will become apparent in the course of the discussion. E.g. your comments about
quote:
when Republicans were in power talking about godless Communism and similar rhetoric
suggests that a de-instituionalised 'concept' of religion would mean that Christian politicians shouldn't talk aggressively about the atheism embedded in a foreign political system. So it seems that for you, de-institutionalisation is as much a matter of presentation as of laws. And if the USA
quote:
looks like a Christian country
the problem is that their constitution doesn't even mention Christianity, so what you want them to do involves a change of culture rather than legalities.
However, some atheists online declare that the churches in the USA or the UK should have their tax breaks removed. Would you agree with that? It occurs to me that such a change would lead to the closure of a lot of churches. For some Christians this might galvanise them into organising themselves differently. For others, it would be just another reason to justify giving up on church. Doesn't the latter possibility worry you?
A British or English church survey conducted at some point in the future would do well to ask questions about the acceptability of de-institutionalisation to churchgoers. That would be very interesting.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, if his congregation (or parish, or circuit, etc.) can fund everything they're doing and they have the people to do it, then that's all fine, IMO.
For a warm-bodies-in-the-building Sunday attendance of 70-80, our monthly budget is around €2,500, almost all of which goes on the building and electricity, so I don't think the funding issue is what's going to kill us.
I'm not going to start a new thread about this, but if somebody does I'll probably contribute.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, hey, that's great for us in the 2010s, 20s, 30s, 40s, because it means we can learn from the mistakes of the past! People like you can tell the rest of us exactly what went wrong back then and what we should do to avoid those problems!
If these cash-starved congregations can find the wherewithal to pay me, then I'll do it ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
On the buildings thing - the RCs haven't always had their own buildings here in the UK or Ireland ... until the Catholic Emancipation Act they effectively met in private homes or - in Ireland, out in the fields and under hedges.
So, no, I don't think the RCs are as wedded to buildings as might appear at first sight. I can understand their emphasis on schools as that's currently where most of the catechesis takes place it seems to me.
As far as the Orthodox go, once a building has been consecrated for public worship - that's how it has to remain - in perpetuity. So they don't tend to sell off redundant buildings to be converted into flats.
Their buildings simply fall down in the end from what I can gather.
Time will tell with the 'convert parishes' here in the UK ... and with the older Greek, Russian and Serbian parishes etc. There are more of those around than one might think - and they're certainly experiencing the same issues that are facing the rest of us - young people leaving, or not becoming engaged with things, problems with maintaining 'plant' and so on.
[code]
[ 21. December 2014, 11:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We're not meant to be 'unworldly' or so 'out of this world' that we are no use to it; but at the same time our one great use to the world is to be God's holy nation in distinction from the world and its values.
I'm interested in exploring this, because - as with the issue about the interpretation of scripture - it can so easily hinge on subjective criteria.
What thee or me may consider 'distinct from the world and its values' may not appear so obviously the case to someone else.
We've seen that all the time on this thread. I know there are current debates within Anabaptism about voting and so on, but there seems to be an assumption that political engagement of whatever kind is somehow suspect - but that driving a car, buying things from supermarkets, getting involved with one's local model railway club or whatever else - somehow isn't as suspect.
We're all part of early 21st century late-capitalism whether we like it or not.
Sure, we can be selective about what we do or do not get involved with at a personal and individual level - but as far as the wider societal aspects go, we're all 'involved' to a greater or lesser extent. We have no choice about that - unless we go and sit on top of a pole somewhere.
Like South Coast Kevin, I'd appreciate some greater definition here.
What does it mean in practice to be 'distinctive from the world and its values'?
What 'values' do we have to reject? Which ones can we, in all conscience, share and embrace?
I'm not getting much impression here of a seriously thought-through position as to what this means 'on the ground', I'm afraid - neither at an individual level nor a 'congregational one.'
I'm struggling to understand and appreciate how an Anabaptist congregration may differ from - say - a paedobaptist Methodist one or an RC parish or a Salvation Army Corps, when it comes to living these things out practically on the ground.
All I've seen so far is a certain amount of railing against the 'Establishment' and vague calls for us to separate ourselves from particular activities - such as political involvement - that some Christians may actually believe to be part of their vocation.
That's why I've found the writings of Stuart Murray Williams so frustrating - because they seem to be more about what he's against than what he's actually proposing in its place.
No Scouts, no Guides, no flags, no war memorials ...
Ok, fine, you don't have to have those things - but what is he proposing in their place? I don't pick up a great deal of indication of what it actually is and what it might actually look like.
I've got a lot of time for the Quakers, but on the one occasion I visited a Quaker Meeting they had a it of a carping kerfuffle afterwards about the appropriateness of bring chocolate biscuits for the after-Meeting tea and coffee ...
I mean, I could have understood it if they'd devised a policy that only Fair Trade goods could be brought to the Meetings - or that they were only going to have fruit for health reasons ...
But as it was it simply seemed quirky, eccentric and trivial.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I find the problem with a very 'un-worldly' stance is that, aside from the issue with political action being seen as the ultimate worldly action but somehow consumerism not, it seems out of step with the whole point of the Incarnation. I realise this is a very high Anglican/RC viewpoint, but following the liturgical calendar ties you into the world but also removes you from it - marking Advent rather than Black Friday and a general Christmas for the whole of December is a very relevant aspect of this.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure - although 'intention' seems to me to be the main issue here. 'Man looks at the outward appearance, the Lord looks at the heart,' type of thing.
But I agree ... the whole thing about the Calendar is 'redeeming the time' ...
--------------------
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
Talking of which ...
I'm running out of road on things I have to do before Christmas so I won't be aboard Ship for a few days.
May I take this opportunity to wish all contributors to this and other threads a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Nadolig Llawen!
--------------------
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
I'll be working on this one further over Christmas and probably also won't be back till after. But here's a preliminary thought on the issue of church authority in biblical interpretation.
For a moment let's leave aside the generalisation 'Constantinianism' and go for a specific; the guy who said "If you're in my empire you're a Christian or else...." was in fact Theoodosius". We're talking 'Theodosian'.
From that point, in the Roman Empire, (and the same point logically applies to any other state/nation where Theodosius' example is followed), the very definitions of 'Christian' and 'Church' have been changed compared to what the NT teaches. Can this redefined Church realistically claim full authority in biblical interpretation?
Is it not rather the case that the kind of inherently worldly church which results cannot in fact be trusted? Is it not the case also that by being able to make such a wrong decision the church has demonstrated the general point that it should be the Scripture that rules the church, not the other way round.
Yet it is precisely the 'Theodosian' churches which have made, and even today continue to make, the strongest claims for a supposed church authority....
Think hard please... no hasty snappy sound-bite replies please, this is a serious issue.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
No, you don't even have to look post Constantine or post Theodosius to see the Church's authority regarding interpretation of scripture. All you have to do is look to the ante nicene Fathers to see the bishop's authority and the importance of that which has been received (tradition). But no doubt you will reject that.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Can this redefined Church realistically claim full authority in biblical interpretation?
This is a red herring. The argument upthread was a) whether the authority of Scripture could be established independently of the Church that helped define its boundaries b) what legitimacy you have to claim that your interpretation of Scripture is superior. Before leading us on a merry dance, perhaps you might like to tell us what you think about those two issues.
quote:
Think hard please... no hasty snappy sound-bite replies please, this is a serious issue.
You are not in a position to dictate how people answer you, all the more so in that you are not even polite enough to acknowledge, let alone address, many of the questions that have been put to you here.
This attitude does your cause more harm than I think you realise.
--------------------
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:
This is a red herring.
Not if you think it through. Whence my request....
by Eutychus;
quote:
You are not in a position to dictate how people answer you,
If I were 'dictating' I would not have used the magic word...
Questions are by the way being addressed - as I get round to them....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
This is a red herring.
Not if you think it through. Whence my request....
by Eutychus;
quote:
You are not in a position to dictate how people answer you,
If I were 'dictating' I would not have used the magic word...
Questions are by the way being addressed - as I get round to them....
This is an interesting debate, but straying off the substantive matter doesn't help. A large part of the problem is that there isn't much distance between you and, say, Eutychus, but maintaining these separations is the route to the multiplicity of denominations we see today - the joke in Newport is that there are more churches than Christians!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This isn't a debate at all. It's one person holding forth that they have a brilliant set of ideas, but refusing to say what they are, and a lot of other people trying to elucidate what they are and having side-conversations about their own opinions concerning what they THINK the topic is. But the only person who knows what the topic is won't say.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There's your answer. He don't know. Except in the 'Jungian' sense at best.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
This is an interesting debate, but straying off the substantive matter doesn't help.
Agreed and I'm trying to get back there....
by Mousethief;
quote:
It's one person holding forth that they have a brilliant set of ideas, but refusing to say what they are,
I have far from 'refused to say what (the ideas) are'; I've posted several items which are direct answers and quite a few more which are very relevant questions which nobody else seems to want to engage with. I've just posted (23 Dec 13;29) one particular point which I'll come back to in more detail later (I'm not now intending any more really substantial posts till after Winterval), which directly addresses your point about Scriptural authority and the alternatives - how about dealing with that instead of just making derogatory comments about me....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
This is an interesting debate, but straying off the substantive matter doesn't help.
Agreed and I'm trying to get back there....
by Mousethief;
quote:
It's one person holding forth that they have a brilliant set of ideas, but refusing to say what they are,
I have far from 'refused to say what (the ideas) are'; I've posted several items which are direct answers and quite a few more which are very relevant questions which nobody else seems to want to engage with. I've just posted (23 Dec 13;29) one particular point which I'll come back to in more detail later (I'm not now intending any more really substantial posts till after Winterval), which directly addresses your point about Scriptural authority and the alternatives - how about dealing with that instead of just making derogatory comments about me....
How could I have dealt with something I just now learned, until now? You might have spared us this go-around if you had just said, "I intend to talk about this" the first time the question was raised. By now it has been asked a total of 4 times. Forgive us if we begin to think you don't intend to answer it. It seems a natural conclusion.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've posted several items which are direct answers and quite a few more which are very relevant questions which nobody else seems to want to engage with.
I have little evidence of this, and I've been following the thread closely. Even here:
quote:
But here's a preliminary thought on the issue of church authority in biblical interpretation.
For a moment let's leave aside the generalisation 'Constantinianism' and go for a specific; the guy who said "If you're in my empire you're a Christian or else...." was in fact Theoodosius". We're talking 'Theodosian'.
From that point, in the Roman Empire, (and the same point logically applies to any other state/nation where Theodosius' example is followed), the very definitions of 'Christian' and 'Church' have been changed compared to what the NT teaches. Can this redefined Church realistically claim full authority in biblical interpretation?
The answer is patently, yes, insofar as any church can and probably more so than any of the later 'reformed' or 'restored' churches who seem insistent in ignoring 2000 years of interpretation before them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Steve, I'm still not clear what you think Christians and churches *should* do. You've given some of your thoughts about what is to be avoided - notably a state-supported church institution - but how do you think Christians should relate to the world, to nation states, political systems and so on? What, for you, are the signs that a church or an individual Christian is getting it right?
--------------------
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 Doc Tor;
quote:
The answer is patently, yes, insofar as any church can and probably more so than any of the later 'reformed' or 'restored' churches who seem insistent in ignoring 2000 years of interpretation before them.
Well exactly, 'insofar as any church can '. Which when they've rather drastically redefined both 'Christian' and 'Church' to suit a worldly state, is clearly not so far at all ....
I'd be with you on any church which totally ignored the previous 2000 years - but since clearly the church of those 2000 years has been far from infallible, why shouldn't they not ignore but re-assess that history in light of the Bible and make the effort to do the job properly according to the NT?
And I'd repeat - how reliable can the mixum-gatherum of a 'Theodosian' state church realistically be? You surely don't believe the church would be unaffected by that shift? If you do, 'naive' would surely be an understatement....
SCK - I'm kind of trying here to clarify some foundation ideas. To my mind success would be when churches are mostly building on biblical foundations and therefore asking themselves the right kind of questions about what to do.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Random observation: I'm just listening to some festive tunes and noticed one I assume Steve won't be singing this Christmastide. Good King Wenceslas. Who clear couldn't have been that good, otherwise he'd have abdicated and therefore wouldn't have led his page across the snow to deliver firewood and pizza (deep pan, crisp and even) to the poor.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Well exactly, 'insofar as any church can '. Which when they've rather drastically redefined both 'Christian' and 'Church' to suit a worldly state, is clearly not so far at all ....
I'd be with you on any church which totally ignored the previous 2000 years - but since clearly the church of those 2000 years has been far from infallible, why shouldn't they not ignore but re-assess that history in light of the Bible and make the effort to do the job properly according to the NT?
And I'd repeat - how reliable can the mixum-gatherum of a 'Theodosian' state church realistically be? You surely don't believe the church would be unaffected by that shift? If you do, 'naive' would surely be an understatement....
Of course the church is affected by that shift. The naivety is firstly, believing that the Anabaptists haven't, and are somehow free of error. And secondly, that all churches, whether they are 'state' churches or not, aren't continually reassessing their dogma and doctrine. Yours is, mine is.
It may be that the CofE decides that establishment was a wrong turning, and revises its opinion. It may decide that what was right in the past is no longer right, and revise its opinion. It may decide to reaffirm the correctness of establishment. It will do so with much prayer, debate, and theology.
It may be that Anabaptists decide it's okay now to vote. That doesn't mean the rest of us who have been voting all along ought to have been waiting for your permission.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
SCK - I'm kind of trying here to clarify some foundation ideas. To my mind success would be when churches are mostly building on biblical foundations and therefore asking themselves the right kind of questions about what to do.
Sorry, that leaves me no clearer. What do 'biblical foundations' look like, in your view? And what do you think are 'the right kind of questions about what to do'?
I share your view that these issues (how Christians should relate to the political world, what sort of influence and power should churches seek etc.) are tremendously important, but after all the posts on this thread I still don't get what you think is the right approach. I know something about what you think *shouldn't* be done, but very little about the positive. What do you think we *should* do, Steve?
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... But here's a preliminary thought on the issue of church authority in biblical interpretation. ... Think hard please... no hasty snappy sound-bite replies please, this is a serious issue.
The church assembled the Bible, not the other way around. That's not a snappy sound-bite, that's the actual history that even non-Christians know. And after 14 fucking pages, the suggestion that Shipmates are not thinking or taking the issue seriously comes across as rather patronizing. Maybe they have and your argument just sucks.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Of course the church is affected by that shift. The naivety is firstly, believing that the Anabaptists haven't, and are somehow free of error.
I am certainly not saying Anabaptists are free of error; but errors are a bit easier to correct when one only has to correct the error and not also, as seems to be the case with some, find a form of words to correct the error without admitting a fault in the capital-T Tradition mechanism that gives the church questionable authority.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The church doesn't have questionable authority; it is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Whereas Scripture is defined not as the ground of the truth but as "useful" (2 Tim 3:16)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I am certainly not saying Anabaptists are free of error; but errors are a bit easier to correct when one only has to correct the error and not also, as seems to be the case with some, find a form of words to correct the error without admitting a fault in the capital-T Tradition mechanism that gives the church questionable authority.
Well, the capital-T Tradition is simply folk sitting around, arguing about stuff, then coming to some sort of decision, hopefully based on prayer and scripture. Pretty much how Anabaptists get their tradition of not voting, hating zips and not fighting in wars. You have Tradition, no matter how hard you deny it.
And if they change their Tradition, they may well not admit fault, if they didn't think there was anything wrong with it for the past 16 centuries or so.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
