|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 'Resident aliens' - how does it work? What does it look like?
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Ambassadors are professional meddlers in the affairs of other nations.
Ambassadors are sent to influence others, Christians are 'ambassadors'. Fine.
So, how do we influence the government? In a representative democracy, the usual way of influencing government is assorted campaigns - writing to your MPs, signing petitions, joining marches etc - voting, being an active member of a political party, and even standing for election.
If we're ambassadors called to influence others then the strict anabaptist avoidance of political processes is counter productive. The non-existant 'Constantinian' approach is probably way off the other end of the spectrum. Somewhere in between the two extremes is where I believe Christians and the Church should be - and, by happy coincidence, the sort of representative democracy most of us live in provides straight forward means of being in that middle space.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Ambassadors are professional meddlers in the affairs of other nations.
Ambassadors are sent to influence others, Christians are 'ambassadors'. Fine.
This is why I prefer the translation "managers/overseers of other people's affairs".
Preaching the Gospel can look like 'meddling' - but is on an entirely different level to being an 'overseer/manager/bossy-boots'.
.. but we aren't talking about preaching the Gospel here. and I disagree somewhat with Alan's emphasis in the post preceeding my one here - I don't think that a 'middle ground' is a particularly helpful way of thinking of these things.
Let's go back to the example of Paul claiming his rights as a Roman Citizen and appealing to Caesar (another issue which you haven't addressed yet), it's more useful to see voting (as an example) as simply claiming our rights as citizens of the particular countries that God in his providence has chosen to place us.
Again, IF the NT authors wanted to make a point about the separate life, this would have been a perfect point at which to do so - yet once again they don't.
[ 24. March 2015, 12:32: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
It seems to be a truism that Christian political parties in the UK attract fruitcakes.
They attract 'Constantinians'.... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The solution to this would be for more non-'Constantinian' Christians to run for office.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
First, Albertus, yes I agree with Archbishop Fisher (who I seem to remember was once guest of honour at my school's prizegiving/Speech Day) on that point at least - and I'd want to point out that one of the problems of an established religion is a propensity to bring too many 'sins' under the criminal law.
by Gracie;
quote:
That's not entirely accurate. She brought a private prosecution not for blasphemy but for blasphemous libel. I didn’t know Mary Whitehouse personally, but it seems to me that she used what you call Constantinianism to further her agenda because that was what was available to her. If she had been in different situation she would have used other means. For her it was absolutely clear that she was acting as a private individual.
Sorry, I wasn't quite accurate; as some excuse, I'd just realised I was becoming late for somewhere else I was supposed to be, and made a few posts in haste (and because of that appointment this response is somewhat belated). But basically, the fact that there was a crime of 'blasphemous libel' for which a prosecution of any kind could be brought was a decidedly 'Constantinian' situation, and only an essentially 'Constantinian' Christian would want to bring such a prosecution.
As I understand it, Mrs Whitehouse wanted and sought a regular prosecution but in the increasingly liberal times, the authorities wouldn't do it.
A non-Constantinian would, while not approving, have defended the right of the journalist to blaspheme, not expecting the state to give Christians such a privileged protected status.
For what it's worth, a few years later I wrote to a local newspaper defending the recently released 'Life of Brian'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
For what it's worth, a few years later I wrote to a local newspaper defending the recently released 'Life of Brian'.
Good for you, although Mrs. Whitehouse would presumably have considered you to have been a Very Naughty Boy.
quote:
As I understand it, Mrs Whitehouse wanted and sought a regular prosecution but in the increasingly liberal times, the authorities wouldn't do it.
Yes, and I think she was genuinely surprised by that. You would say that society was becoming less anti-Constantinian or, at least, that it possessed less of a Christian consensus. It was also - I suggest - less hypocritical, no longer publicly espousing Christian values while not truly believing them; to me that represents positive progress, much as I disliked it at the time.
[ 24. March 2015, 19:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I understand it, Mrs Whitehouse wanted and sought a regular prosecution but in the increasingly liberal times, the authorities wouldn't do it.
I cannot find any evidence to suggest this is the case. My reading indicates that Mrs Whitehouse obtained a copy of the "offending poem" in November 1976 and immediately announced her intention to bring a private prosecution.
Interestingly enough one of the Law Lords who heard the appeal was of the opinion that blasphemy laws should cover all religions and not just Christianity. I believe this was a logical step on the way to the abolition of the blasphemy laws altogether in 2008, and a step away from Constantiniansim, so maybe you ought to be thanking Mrs Whitehouse for that.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
On what grounds, other than "that's the meaning that fits my narrative"?
First, as with my response to Gracie just above, sorry this is a long time after your post.
Basically that 'meddling' is a somewhat vague translation and potentially covers far too wide a field of possible Christian conduct. As I said, even preaching the Gospel generally would probably be regarded as 'meddling' by many non-Christian fellow-citizens, but can hardly be what Peter meant.
While I'm aware of the risks of translating a word simply by its roots, the fact is that 'allotriepiskopos', which Peter tells his readers NOT to be and get in trouble by being, is composed of the roots 'allotria/other people's business (allos='other)' and 'episkopos' a manager or overseer.
Even accepting a later post's mention of general human sinfulness, I still think that basically Peter shouldn't have needed to warn Christians against murder and theft (two of the Ten Commandments, in an assembly which will certainly have had some Jewish component even if I also believe it to have probably been largely Gentile at the time of writing).
The possible impending persecution, and the tensions in the Jewish community that led to the AD70 Jewish Revolt, provide a context in which it would be way above normal likely that Christians might respond with violence (like both the Zealots of Peter's time and the later paramilitaries in Ireland who wouldn't commit murder or theft in more ordinary circumstances, but feel justified in their politico-religious cause).
Again in the context of impending persecution, the Peter who stood up to the Sanhedrin with "We must obey God rather than men" and who says "don't be ashamed to suffer as a Christian " is probably referring to something fairly serious but also specific here that Christians must avoid. Being an 'allotriepiskopos' as actually being a bit bossy over other people's lives seems to me to fit.
And bear in mind that 'Constantinianism' rather explicitly involves a whole higher level of being a 'manager of other people's affairs'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Basically that 'meddling' is a somewhat vague translation and potentially covers far too wide a field of possible Christian conduct (...)
Woah. You don't like the choice of the first dozen or so translations I checked, so you pick an interpretation that suits your hermeneutic?
What are your qualifications for translating NT Greek (maybe you have some, but I note you read Greek in the interlinear...)? And can you point to any scholarship that takes the same line? (Maybe you can, but if so it would be a lot more convincing than simply marshalling more of your own arguments...)
--------------------
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 Gracie;
quote:
I cannot find any evidence to suggest this is the case. My reading indicates that Mrs Whitehouse obtained a copy of the "offending poem" in November 1976 and immediately announced her intention to bring a private prosecution.
Interestingly enough one of the Law Lords who heard the appeal was of the opinion that blasphemy laws should cover all religions and not just Christianity. I believe this was a logical step on the way to the abolition of the blasphemy laws altogether in 2008, and a step away from Constantiniansim, so maybe you ought to be thanking Mrs Whitehouse for that.
On the first para, fair enough; I won't make a big thing of it though something is ringing faint bells for me about previous cases where the authorities didn't act.
On the second, the judge may have expressed that opinion but at the time that wasn't the actual law; the law specifically defended Christianity - indeed my memory is that strictly the law defended specifically the Church Of England. Whatever way you look at it, the law at the time was 'Constantinian'.
Opinions like that judge's certainly prepared the way for the eventual abolition - but the fact that it took till 2008 rather supports my view of the matter, I think! (and BTW, defending 'all religions' against whatever they think is blasphemous is seriously impractical - imagine the use Scientologists could make of such a law!) Yes, Mary Whitehouse's efforts did indeed, contrary to her wishes I suspect, contribute to that eventual abolition - but in the process brought Christianity into disrepute in ways we're still barely recovering from. I want to be generous but I'm not sure that deserves actual 'thanks' from any Christians....
And as I say, only a basically 'Constantinian' Christian would have brought that prosecution even as a private citizen. And as I see it, such prosecutions are a great example of the 'meddling in other people's affairs' that Peter warned Christians against....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, it could well be that when he gets to heaven, Steve may find - along with many of us - that he has Constantine and many other 'Constantinians' to thank for his responding to the Gospel in the first place. Arguably, the reason the Gospel survived until modern times was partly the result of official patronage of various kinds - unpalatable as that may be for some to accept. For all its faults, Christendom did provide a framework and structure for the faith to be conveyed and for it to permeate society until relatively recently. Sure, there was nominalism, there was hypocrisy and, in times past, violence and coercion. Those things are lamentable and cannot be condoned. But the fact that we are living in societies where it has been possible to live according to the Christian faith is one legacy of Christendom. To suggest otherwise strikes me as the height of dualism and unreality.
It's been a warts and all thing - a bit like our individual lives.
In fairness, Steve has acknowledged the providential aspects. 'Constantinianism' is on the way out and has been for some time - at least in the West. It will run its course - these things generally do. We are all headed into post-Christendom. Some of that will be good, some bad, some indifferent - the same as everything that preceded it. As ee enter a new Dark Age some elements of Christendom will look strangely attractive, other aspects less so.
--------------------
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
Well, I've pulled out my venerable copy of Thayer's Greek-English lexicon and what do I find?
It's as I suspected, allotrioepiskopos is a hapax legomen, i.e. used only once in the entire NT. So not a good starting point for any sweeping doctrines.
Thayer's suggested definition is quote:
one who takes the supervision of affairs pertaining to others and in no wise to himself
If "resident alien" is a both/and, that doesn't exclude being involved in government to my mind.
Thayer does go on to suggest that Peter uses it to refer to quote:
those who, with holy but intemperate zeal, meddle with the affairs of the Gentiles - whether public or private, civil or sacred - in order to make them conform to the Christian standard
That almost reads like a description of Mary Whitehouse - but that last bit is a complete interpolation on his part, and apparently also on yours.
Finally, Thayer adds the only other occurrence of the word is in Dionysius Areopagus, used of "one who intrudes into another's office", which seems to support the standard translation of "meddling in others' affairs" pretty well to me.
[ 24. March 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
Woah. You don't like the choice of the first dozen or so translations I checked, so you pick an interpretation that suits your hermeneutic?
What are your qualifications for translating NT Greek (maybe you have some, but I note you read Greek in the interlinear...)? And can you point to any scholarship that takes the same line? (Maybe you can, but if so it would be a lot more convincing than simply marshalling more of your own arguments...)
Knowing you're a professional translator I almost saw that coming. No, I'm not claiming any great qualifications in Greek - just doing my best in an age when we don't all just treat the KJV as perfect! And when I can have things like an interlinear text available. Which BTW in the interlinear translates as "a pryer into other men's affairs", and in the main English text (RSV) gives 'mischief-maker' which I feel is a little stronger than mere 'meddler'.
I also have some suspicion that post-Constantine it's actually a case of 'suiting the hermeneutic' of people who by becoming the 'establishment' were now engaging in large-scale interference in others' business....
Having said that, the difference is not all that great; you'll note that in my immediate previous post (cross posted with yours so I hadn't read it) I was myself quite content to use the word 'meddler' in a reference to Mary Whitehouse. This particular point doesn't affect the main topic of the thread, so do we need to keep on and on at it?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the second, the judge may have expressed that opinion but at the time that wasn't the actual law; the law specifically defended Christianity - indeed my memory is that strictly the law defended specifically the Church Of England. Whatever way you look at it, the law at the time was 'Constantinian'.
Opinions like that judge's certainly prepared the way for the eventual abolition - but the fact that it took till 2008 rather supports my view of the matter, I think!
Actually I don’t think that in a democracy thirty years is all that long in terms of changing opinion to the point of repealing a law. So no, I don’t think that it supports your view of the matter. It shows that things are changing and that there is a definite move away from Constantinianism.
I don’t believe that Mrs Whitehouse brought Christianity as a whole into disrepute. I well remember the reactions of my friends and neighbours when she was active in the sixties and seventies. She may have brought the established church into disrepute, but the non-Conformist churches certainly didn’t suffer.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This particular point doesn't affect the main topic of the thread, so do we need to keep on and on at it?
You introduced your translation as "managers-of-other-people's-affairs" as, and I quote, "prima facie" evidence that the Kingdom of God is "VERY dissimilar to the Roman Empire", which as far as I can see is pretty much bang on the main topic.
A retraction of your "prima facie" evidence in this respect, after I've bothered to go and look it up, would be nice.
[ 24. March 2015, 21:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[Peter] is probably referring to something fairly serious but also specific here that Christians must avoid.
I think that's right. The problem is that whatever that was would have been clearly understood by his original audience, but it's entirely unclear to us. We can speculate, and I agree that a context of warning Christians from engaging in increasing rebelliousness in Judea (and those Christians from a Jewish or God-fearing Gentile background may have been strongly attracted to the cause of liberating the Jewish homeland from the Romans) makes sense. But, it's still speculation and even so while in that context it's easy to see why murder and theft are highlighted (it would seem likely that many of the armed rebel groups probably routinely sought food and other supplies in the villages of Judea, and if not given freely would have taken what they needed anyway ... it's been common practice for most rebel groups), what sort of "meddling" (however one translates that word) is meant is incredibly unclear. Even if we could be sure of the context.
Whatever, you are taking a verse, indeed a word in a verse, that isn't very clear and which you yourself describe as specific and use it as a major point of support for a doctrine with substantial implications for Christian life. Every part of my evangelical background, fed with countless "how to read the Bible" books and courses, screams out that that is something you do not do.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
I don’t believe that Mrs Whitehouse brought Christianity as a whole into disrepute. I well remember the reactions of my friends and neighbours when she was active in the sixties and seventies. She may have brought the established church into disrepute, but the non-Conformist churches certainly didn’t suffer.
The reactions of people I knew wouldn't even go so far as to say it brought the established church into disrepute. The majority reaction was that it brought Mary Whitehouse into disrepute. Attempts by clergy and others clearly identified with the church (and often beyond the CofE) to ban Life of Brian did far more to bring the church and Christians into disrepute.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
Yes, Alan, you may well be right that she only brought herself into disrepute. I was in a non-Conformist church and I know that the churches I was involved with did not suffer. I had very little knowledge of the Church of England at the time.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
After traipsing all the way back to page 1 of the thread I tracked down my original comment which provoked all this nit-picking from Eutychus; what I said, in answer to Alan C's point about how similar or dissimilar Jesus' kingdom is to the Roman Empire, was this...
quote:
A kingdom whose warfare is not with physical weapons, which is to be 'subject to the powers that be' and not rebel against them, and whose members are told things like not to be 'allotriepiskopoi/managers-of-other-people's-affairs' is surely prima facie VERY dissimilar to the Roman Empire.
This is not building a 'sweeping doctrine' on a single text - nor, as I've pointed out, is the way I use 'resident alien' - I simply quote it as one example, alongside two other specific examples, one of them Romans 13, of things about Christian behaviour which suggest the Christian kingdom is NOT meant to be like the earthly Roman one. And as I hinted, there are quite a few other texts which also carry that implication - much of I Peter, Jesus' 'kingdom not of this world' where similarity to the Roman Empire would have seriously compromised his claim to innocence - there's lots of it....
Yes, I used a literal rendering of the word you've been questioning, and that comes over a little stronger perhaps than the regular translations - is that so big a thing compared to the wider point I'm making which has far wider Scriptural support? And to refer to Mary Whitehouse bringing a private prosecution for blasphemous libel as 'meddling' - I think her victim would feel that that was letting her off rather lighhtly.
Look, you've repeatedly said you yourself don't accept 'Christian states' - and at the other extreme you are repeatedly implying I take a far more extreme position than is actually the case. My primary argument is simply for a really clear separation of church and state and a clear and emphatic disavowal of 'Constantinianism' and also of quasi-Constantinianisms which, as someone recently quoted from Greg Boyd, result in Christians still trying to be in a 'power-over' situation. As part of that Christians are to be 'subject to the authorities' (with some qualifications but for sure none that allow rebellion) and are to be 'sojourners/pilgrims/resident-aliens'. In a world where the literal kind of resident alien is more common than through most recent centuries, I'm one of many who use the rendering 'resident alien' NOT to found a sweeping doctrine but to make people take a fresh look, after centuries of 'Christian countries' at how Christians are really supposed to relate not just to the state but generally to the world around them.
I've not resolved all the details myself yet; up till now I have to some extent been dealing mainly with 'clearing the ground' and mulling over where we can go positively thereafter - and I recognise that the details will be different for different people/situations. I'm trying NOT to be too prescriptive but to get people, again, to take a fresh look at scripture and ask some questions outside the usual box.
Also as I see it the residue of 'Constantinianism' presents a problem that some things I might broadly approve of may at present be inadvisable because they will be interpreted by others as if we were still doing them from a Constantinian viewpoint. I feel we ALL need to do some creative thinking of a 'reculer pour mieux sauter' variety to maintain a positive Christian presence while we 'live down' Constantinianism and establish for others that we don't at all threaten similar behaviour in future.
After a heavy day I'm going to call a halt there.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Alan C
For some answers to your points see my last post.
As regards I Peter and 'allotriepiskpoi', again there's quite a bit in my last. I'm a bit concerned that your post here talks about Christians 'in Judea' and only relevant to the Jewish Revolt. Peter's original addressees are in Asia Minor, are at least probably mostly Gentile, and appear likely to face imminent persecution as Christians which could be a likely cause for them to respond violently, perhaps partly in imitation of Jewish Zealots, but also and probably mostly as a natural human reaction; and Peter is saying that's not how Christians are to respond and indeed says a lot more to that effect in the rest of the epistle.
Now I really am going to call it a day here, just check on another thread I've been involved in.....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry, just found this by Eutychus earlier;
quote:
You introduced your translation as "managers-of-other-people's-affairs" as, and I quote, "prima facie" evidence that the Kingdom of God is "VERY dissimilar to the Roman Empire", which as far as I can see is pretty much bang on the main topic.
A retraction of your "prima facie" evidence in this respect, after I've bothered to go and look it up, would be nice.
NO!! I quoted more than one text as that 'prima facie evidence' and by the phrase about the church being taught 'things like' that hinted there were others as indeed there are. And interpreting 'allotriepiskopos' that way isn't essential to my point - the translation you prefer does it just as well.
And Thayer didn't seem to be disagreeing with me much anyway....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm a bit concerned that your post here talks about Christians 'in Judea' and only relevant to the Jewish Revolt.
That was just, more or less, an impression I'd got from other posts as a possible example. Given the audience being mostly in Asia-Minor I was thinking more along the lines of the very small minority of young Muslim men and women going to Syria and Iraq to join IS - in the process bringing the whole Islamic faith into disrepute, even though the vast majority of Muslims are as appalled as the Mail is about that. A suggestion of sympathy for rebels in another part of the Roman Empire isn't going to help avoid persecution - Peter is quite clear, if you're going to be persecuted make sure that it's because of Christ not because of being an actual criminal (after all, being imprisoned for a crime isn't persecution - unless being a Christian itself is a crime, which it wasn't at that point in history).
I'm not going to claim the NIV is right in it's translation, but that translation does make sense. If you suffer, it shouldn't be for being a murder, thief or other criminal. Or even as a meddler. The implication of that translation is a difference between criminal acts and being a meddler. I'm sure we've all known people who always know best, who will constantly butt in to tell you how you should be doing things. Anyone ever felt tempted to punch such a person in the face? Don't be a criminal, don't even be one of those annoying gits that get everyone's back up.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, I used a literal rendering of the word you've been questioning, and that comes over a little stronger perhaps than the regular translations - is that so big a thing compared to the wider point I'm making which has far wider Scriptural support?
I see, no retraction. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Yes, it is so big a thing when you can't find a single scholar to back up your translation and use it as "prima facie" evidence (which you did, I never said it was the only evidence used) that Christians should not be "managing the affairs of others", i.e. engaged in government à la Roman Empire. That is what you want 1 P 4:15 to mean.
I gave you a fair and polite chance to assert your command of Greek or adduce scholarly support for your position. Rather than admit you had neither, your response is more "well, it's not that important, but it does mean that anyway". Not very credible in my view. quote:
My primary argument is simply for a really clear separation of church and state
Yes, and despite innumerable questions to this effect and multiple threads, many of us are still waiting for one single practical suggestion as to how this is to be achieved.
The only practical thing you've mentioned doing that I can recall is writing to a newspaper, once to diss Mary Whitehouse and once in favour of screening Life of Brian. How does this further your "primary argument"?
[ 25. March 2015, 05:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
Yes, and despite innumerable questions to this effect and multiple threads, many of us are still waiting for one single practical suggestion as to how this is to be achieved.
The only practical thing you've mentioned doing that I can recall is writing to a newspaper, once to diss Mary Whitehouse and once in favour of screening Life of Brian. How does this further your "primary argument"?
The first necessary and very practical thing in achieving the end of 'Constantinianism' is that Christians should at least mostly agree that it's a bad thing and understand the biblical reasons why, and explain those reasons to everybody else. Otherwise the 'practicalities' will likely end up as an increasingly secular state not only disestablishes the church but also goes a long way towards treating us like Muslim extremists.
At the moment we've got a lot of people in churches who do disagree with the state church and similar, but
1) their disagreement is not on the biblical grounds which they have not really thought of, let alone thought through, but is on an essentially Enlightenment modern secular basis.
Something like the post from mr cheesy, who referred back to the C17, and said something on the lines of "We've grown up since then". From where I'm standing the position is that the church of the first few centuries, following the NT, had already 'grown up', and unfortunately under Constantine & Co then regressed - not so much to infancy as to become almost a different species from an earlier stage of evolution.
We need to cure that internal regression and put ourselves back on the NT foundations even before we consider the practicalities of putting it right politically; and if we do get the church back on track it will considerably facilitate the necessary practicalities. In asking for too much detail now you're trying to run before you've even got back to being able to walk....
2) Failing to appreciate the biblical position Christians are often thrashing around confusedly trying to preserve influence and unhelpfully looking to outsiders as if they're simply trying to hang on to their past improper dominance.
As a guy who nit-picks everything I write, please tell me where I said I wrote to the press 'dissing' Mary Whitehouse? I wrote the one letter about 'Life of Brian' - and I don't know for certain what effects that had; though nothing more was heard of the previously vocal objections to the film in our area....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
I'm not going to claim the NIV is right in it's translation, but that translation does make sense. If you suffer, it shouldn't be for being a murder, thief or other criminal. Or even as a meddler. The implication of that translation is a difference between criminal acts and being a meddler. I'm sure we've all known people who always know best, who will constantly butt in to tell you how you should be doing things. Anyone ever felt tempted to punch such a person in the face? Don't be a criminal, don't even be one of those annoying gits that get everyone's back up.
Which is basically what I've been saying; and making the point that 'Constantinianism' and similar approaches more or less institutionalise being that kind of 'meddler', while Christians regarding themselves as 'resident aliens' should be a great deal less liable to that temptation.
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 Alan Cresswell;
quote:
I'm not going to claim the NIV is right in it's translation, but that translation does make sense. If you suffer, it shouldn't be for being a murder, thief or other criminal. Or even as a meddler. The implication of that translation is a difference between criminal acts and being a meddler. I'm sure we've all known people who always know best, who will constantly butt in to tell you how you should be doing things. Anyone ever felt tempted to punch such a person in the face? Don't be a criminal, don't even be one of those annoying gits that get everyone's back up.
Which is basically what I've been saying; and making the point that 'Constantinianism' and similar approaches more or less institutionalise being that kind of 'meddler', while Christians regarding themselves as 'resident aliens' should be a great deal less liable to that temptation.
I can see that the state can be seen as a "meddler", and quite a lot of what government does is disliked by a lot of people. That's not going to be any different if the Church was dis-established, or had never been established.
I don't see how not being established is going to make any difference to Christians being "meddlers" or not. Mostly it's down to personality rather than religion anyway. Would having political influence make any difference to those people who everytime you meet them in the street tell you that you're doing something wrong raising your children - "it's cold today, you should have put an extra pair of gloves on them", "why are you pushing that buggy, he's old enough to walk on his own", "is he eating his brocolli? well, I found that ... will always get them to eat their greens", ...
--------------------
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
FWIW I don't think Mary Whitehouse did any of us any favours and I've seen interviews with her son where he sounds actually quite bitter about his upbringing ...
Which is a sad state of affairs, whatever we think of Mary Whitehouse or even 'Constantinianism'.
The thing that bothers me most about this desire to point the finger and 'blame' this, that or the other - be it 'Constantinianism' or anything else for people's indifference or hostility to the Gospel is that it takes the onus away from ourselves and places the blame firmly on someone else. 'It's not my fault, guv ... it's all the fault of those Constantinians down the road ...'
Neither of my teenage daughters are particularly interested in engaging with the Christian faith.
Is that the 'fault' of my wife and I as parents? Is it the fault of the churches we've attended as they were growing up? Is it simply their own choice?
I'm not sure getting into the 'blame game' helps us out very much here. There will be a whole range of factors influencing their choices, some potentially within our 'control' as parents and others well outside of it.
'My name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,' is something that could apply to each and any of us at times.
It's one thing to point the finger at Mary Whitehouse (or anyone else) for bringing the churches and the Christian faith into apparent disrepute but what about me? What about the way I behave? Is there anything that I am doing or not doing that hinders the cause of the Gospel?
I once came across an intriguing quote/parable which had people of various churchmanships and traditions citing the basis for their claims to be making some kind of difference, when it came to the Anabaptist's turn, the reply was, 'Ask my neighbour ...'
This sounds great - and would be wonderful if demonstrably true in all instances - whether for Anabaptists or anyone else.
I don't want any of my comments here to come across as if I'm dismissing the Anabaptist contribution - far from it.
Nor do I intend my more 'moderate' stance to imply that I condone or justify religious violence or the use of coercion by state-churches - or by anyone else. Far from it.
What I am looking for, though, is for Steve to provide some positive and 'cataphatic' - rather than 'apophatic' examples of what he envisages Christians should be doing - rather than continually hammering away at forms of 'Constantinianism' that, by and large, no longer exist.
Sure, religious violence and coercion sucks. We're all agreed with that.
But forms of religious abuse can be found right across the board - they are by no means restricted to so-called 'Constantinian' outfits and I'd go so far as to suggest that certain avowedly 'non-Constantinian' groups are far more interfering, meddling and abusive than historically 'Constantinian' ones.
We have to assess each case on its own merits.
I'm still waiting for Steve to demonstrate that he has more tools in his tool box than a hammer with 'Use this end to bash Constantinian nails' inscribed on it.
--------------------
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:
Which is basically what I've been saying; and making the point that 'Constantinianism' and similar approaches more or less institutionalise being that kind of 'meddler', while Christians regarding themselves as 'resident aliens' should be a great deal less liable to that temptation.
But we always come around to the same point.
If Christians aren't to 'meddle' in the affairs of the State by enforcing its rules, serving as its agents, or choosing its officials, then how should we be governed? Especially in a state where the majority of the citizens are Christians - are you advocating a form of anarchy? Because if you're not (and you repeatedly refuse to tackle this point), what are you advocating?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As a guy who nit-picks everything I write, please tell me where I said I wrote to the press 'dissing' Mary Whitehouse? I wrote the one letter about 'Life of Brian'
I'll pass over the personal attack and apologise for mistakenly imagining you wrote about Whitehouse.
I'll maintain that apparently, you have zero actual practical suggestions for moving forward, and echo Doc Tor's request.
You must surely know that asking Christians to "leave their denominations" to shake off the CofE has already been tried, notably by Martyn Lloyd-Jones at the National Assembly of Evangelicals in 1966, and it backfired pretty spectacularly (cf NEAC, 1967).
Do you have any other suggestions?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I wonder if SL would advocate joining groups like the FIEC (which, incidentally, were strongly influenced by the Brethren during their early history and was IIRC chaired by LLoyd-Jones for a time).
My reading of this is that SL seems to be trying to suggest that there is widespread support for his views, whereas the reality when they are examined is that even those he claims are close to the anabaptist ideals would be so disagreeable that he would not be in fellowship with them.
Clearly other members of the Anabaptist Network do not think like this, otherwise they'd have left their Constantinian churches and made their own anabaptist churches.
So I suspect that SL is actually in a small minority approaching himself on this.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But we always come around to the same point.
If Christians aren't to 'meddle' in the affairs of the State by enforcing its rules, serving as its agents, or choosing its officials, then how should we be governed? Especially in a state where the majority of the citizens are Christians - are you advocating a form of anarchy? Because if you're not (and you repeatedly refuse to tackle this point), what are you advocating?
Some vocal Anabaptist/Mennonite-inspired radical Christians really are advocating a form of anarchy - see http://www.jesusradicals.com/
The problem is that it is almost impossible to get them to explain how this would work in real life. Freedom of expression and from the shackles of the oppressive Constantinian state sounds all very well - and then you get Jim Jones and the koolaid.
The fact is, however much romance there might be about it, those who actually believe the things that SL is advocating - including living as resident aliens separate from the fallen world - end up producing highly controlled, authoritarian and frequently abusive religious communities.
Of course, Stuart Murray Williams and his friends are advocating an anabaptist-lite version which would never get to these extremes, but one wonders still what they think they are gaining by an insistence on the so-called Anabaptist critique.
Stuart seems like a genuinely nice guy, but many others seem to just be on the 'Anabaptism is Real Christianity, you are all Apostates from the True Faith' bandwaggon. Personally, I find it pretty tiring.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think this is the nub of it:
'The problem is that it is almost impossible to get them to explain how this would work in real life.'
Hence the convolusions and length of the threads where this topic comes up.
We're all waiting for practical suggestions which never actually arrive.
I think there is a role for the gadfly and those who provoke and challenge - and to an extent I think the Anabaptist tradition does this pretty well.
What I suspect it's less good at is articulating its alternative to what it takes to be the status quo.
As it happens, while these posts have been darting back and forth, I've been thinking of some good examples of social engagement, protest and lobbying - both positively and negatively - and other initiatives that people I know with a broadly Anabaptist (or Anabaptist-lite) approach are engaged in.
I've hung fire on citing instances of these - and were I to do so, I think we'd pretty much all agree that they are worthy and admirable - because I've been waiting for Steve to cite some himself.
So far, he hasn't.
I could cite these instances myself - as someone who he would probably consider overly 'Constantinian' simply by virtue of my attendance/involvement with my local parish church ...
However, I've hung fire to give him time to cite instances himself.
So far, he has signally failed to do so.
From my perspective, he's been so busy saying what it shouldn't look like that he's been unable to demonstrate how it ought to look.
I don't think that's necessarily a reflection on Steve personally - I think it's something systemic, something intrinsic to the tradition as a whole. I'd like to think otherwise but nothing I've seen so far has convinced me that this is the case.
Stuart Murray Williams seems very good at saying how things shouldn't look - we shouldn't have this, we shouldn't have that, we shouldn't have the other - but I've searched his writings in vain for any positive suggestions as to how these things should work out in practice.
--------------------
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 Eutychus;
quote:
You must surely know that asking Christians to "leave their denominations" to shake off the CofE has already been tried, notably by Martyn Lloyd-Jones at the National Assembly of Evangelicals in 1966, and it backfired pretty spectacularly (cf NEAC, 1967).
I'm very aware of it; I've even blogged about it. Sometime tomorrow I'll try and make time to consult with some host in Styx to solve some problems I've had in the URL process so that I can give you links to the blog on that and a few other points.
My basic analysis is that Lloyd-Jones failed because he made his call on the basis of 'doctrinal purity' rather than on the basis of 'Constantinianism'. Although he certainly didn't believe in the CofE establishment, he was, as far as I can gather, somewhat of the Cromwellian kind of 'Independent' who believe in a 'Christian country' in general terms.
(Don't say it, Gamaliel! You don't need to, I can already hear your response to that one!)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Perhaps my response would be as predictable as your posts.
I am beginning to wonder who isn't too 'Constantinian' for you ...
Also, how are you so sure that an appeal on 'anti-Constantinian' grounds would have been more successful? Just because you would have preferred it wouldn't have guaranteed its success ...
--------------------
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:
Also, how are you so sure that an appeal on 'anti-Constantinian' grounds would have been more successful? Just because you would have preferred it wouldn't have guaranteed its success ...
The clue is in some of the things recorded of Lloyd-Jones himself subsequently - for example in the memoir by his grandson (I think) Christopher Catherwood in 'Five Evangelical Leaders' - where he nearly himself saw the flaw in the 'doctrinal purity' approach. 'Constantinianism' wasn't quite such a live issue back then. Apart from this one point I rarely find anything in M Ll-J to disagree with.
It is interesting to compare Lloyd-Jones with JI Packer in that controversy - again, hopefully I'll do you the blog link tomorrow.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Barnabas62;
quote:
Steve L may actually register specific agreement with Ryle.
Steve L would register a lot of agreement with Ryle. But he would point out that the one aspect of the world Ryle doesn't discuss is the worldliness of having an established Church. A quick look at other items about Ryle on the web shows him frustrated by all kinds of aspects of the Church which were essentially 'Constantinian'. I think he must have been just too busy to sit down and work out that aspect of the problems he had....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
However, I've hung fire to give him time to cite instances himself.
I have quoted a few - Christian Peacemaker Teams, for example. Actually I tend to be a bit shy of appearing to boast and am more at home dealing with the logic and principles.
If you know some of these things, feel free to tell everybody - your testimony about them is probably worth more than mine in the eyes of Shipmates....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
From Christian Peacemaker Teams website quote:
CPT places teams at the invitation of local peacemaking communities that are confronting situations of lethal conflict. These teams seek to follow God's Spirit as it works through local peacemakers who risk injury and death by waging nonviolent direct action to confront systems of violence and oppression
So, either they only confront "systems of violence and oppression" that are non-governmental, or they (and the local peacemaking communities) get down and dirty, directly involving themselves in politics.
Very admirable, for sure. But, not exactly exemplars of 'resident alien' non-involvement in politics.
--------------------
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 was thinking of some things that people I know of a broadly Anabaptist inclination do in terms of engagement with their communities, with the wider society and - yes, with politics.
I admire them.
The onus isn't on me to share these examples. What I was looking for in the OP was some examples from you of what these things might look like.
So far, apart from the very laudable peace initiatives you've mentioned, I don't see anything that is distinctively Anabaptist about the practical suggestions you've made. I know people from churches you'd consider 'Constantinian' who are involved in these things too - these things are not the province of any one particular Christian tradition.
As for Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J I Packer etc - yes, I'm very aware of their respective roles in that controversy - and also with John Stott's part in it all too.
I'm not sure rehearsing them here would be of any great value other than of general or historical interest.
I'm not convinced that 'Constantinianism' as you call it was any more or any less of a 'live-issue' then as it is now. If anything, the general sense of a largely 'Christianised' society was certainly prevalent back then - even if there was a lot of nominalism around ... as indeed I'd suggest there always and inevitably is once Christian churches and communities achieve 'critical mass' or grow beyond a certain size.
That isn't to condone or justify nominalism - it's simply an observation.
I also fail to see how 'Constantinianism' is such a live-issue today as it's been receding for generations here in the Western world.
Unless you insist on linking it to extreme jihadism and calls for caliphates within Islam then I don't see how 'Constantinianism' is as much of a threat - at least not in its Christian form.
That said, I think we are wise to be wary of certain theocratic tendencies among US fundamentalists and of nationalist and anti-Semitic tendencies among some of the Orthodox - but then, there are counter-balancing tendencies within both these traditions.
There may be some fruit-cake 'neo-Constantinian' or 'Cromwellian' style characters who aim to manipulate the political process for their own ends - but these are few and far between as far as I can see. I certainly don't see a groundswell of support for the whackier end of the Christian spectrum in political terms.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
But citing Christian Peacemaker Teams is not actually answering the question of how to live in the here and now, is it? For one thing, there is very little distinctively anabaptist about the CPT approach - first because members are not all anabaptist, and second because there there are plenty of other organisations which are not anabaptist which do the same things in the same kind of way. The Ecumenical Accompaniers in Palestine, for one and the Guatemala Human Rights Accompaniers for another.
Even if we are to argue that such people are somehow expressing some kind of anabaptist-like behaviour (which, as I've said, seems to me to be totally bogus and an attempt by SL to include everyone he likes and exclude all he doesn't on a more-or-less random basis), how exactly should we take the example of the CPTs in the UK (North America, Australia, etc)? What, actually, does this anabaptist critique look like outside of an oppressive war zone?
That, for me, is the question you are forced to address rather than just expressing a rather idiosyncratic religio-political manifesto.
[ 26. March 2015, 08:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Barnabas62;
quote:
Steve L may actually register specific agreement with Ryle.
Steve L would register a lot of agreement with Ryle. But he would point out that the one aspect of the world Ryle doesn't discuss is the worldliness of having an established Church. A quick look at other items about Ryle on the web shows him frustrated by all kinds of aspects of the Church which were essentially 'Constantinian'. I think he must have been just too busy to sit down and work out that aspect of the problems he had....
I think that is a reading back of your own views into someone else's history.
Ryle was an evangelical Anglican and also a Bishop. Unlike anything you have said so far, he seems to have given a lot of thought to the implications of "in the world, but not of it". And on the issue of involvement in government, he is quite specific.
quote:
A true Christian will strive to do his duty in whatever station or position he finds himself, and to do it well. Whether statesman, or merchant, or banker, or lawyer, or doctor, or tradesman, or farmer, he will try to do his work so that no one can find occasion for fault in him. But he will not allow it to get between him and Christ.
And there is much in his section II a)-f) along the same lines. Here is a further quote.
quote:
When St. Paul said, Come out and be separate, he did not mean that Christians ought to give up all callings, trades, professions, and worldly business. He did not forbid men to be soldiers, sailors, lawyers, doctors, merchants, bankers, shopkeepers, or tradesmen. There is not a word in the New Testament to justify such a line of conduct. Cornelius the centurion, Luke the physician, Zenas the lawyer, are examples to the contrary.
A Christian calling and a call to public service, in the military, or as a statesman, are specifically endorsed.
I'm not a betting man and I understand the temptations of that. I think Ryle was wrong about the theatre. But he made a systematic attempt to identify both a specific lifestyle and the guidelines for employment. He's thought deeply about it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Let me just apologise in advance for the following interesting tangent:
I don't know for a fact, but one assumes that having been at Eton and studying Literae Humaniores at Oxford (if wikipedia is right on that point, I have no idea) he would have been strongly influenced by classical educational and philosophy.
If that is true, it does not seem to me to be a stretch to assume his understanding of the position of work and politics was influenced by Aristotle - who taught that humans are by very nature "political animals" - and that one cannot be a full human unless one is engaged in political engagement.
Consciously or unconsciously, I think the prevalence of this kind of classical education amongst the upper classes on 18 and 19 century England led directly to the elevation of politics as a desirable lifestyle for the affluent young, the reinforcing of the idea of people "being in their place" and the curious lack of interest in the struggles of poor people, even when they are in close proximity.
I do like Aristotle, but it seems something of a bastardisation to use it to suggest that the English upper-classes are the "real humans" because they are involved in politics and everyone else is somehow sub-human and only good for servicing them.
I know nothing about J.C.Ryle other than the name, but it seems from many sources that upper-class clergy of the period were engaged in persuading lower-class Christians to put up with their lot, even where their lot did not amount to very much. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Again, apologies that this had little to do with the previous posts, I was just reading and thinking about this today.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think there's something in that, mr cheesy - but I think things were more complicated than that. You did have upper-class and aristocratic folk back then who did get involved and get their hands dirty - but one imagines in a fairly paternalistic way.
Only today, for instance, I noticed that Harriet Monsell is commemorated in the Anglican calendar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Monsell
Born into a genteel Irish family, Harriet Monsell - nee O'Brien - became involved with one of the first Anglican religious orders to be established after the Reformation and worked with prostitutes and destitute women.
I don't know what form this work took - whether it was patronising, moralistic or whatever else - but it will have been according to the social mores and conventions of the time. How could it have been otherwise?
I've long been intrigued by the fact that the chap who brought in perhaps the most far-reaching legislation that benefited the ordinary working man - a limitation on working hours - was the arch Tory and evangelical Anglican, Lord Shaftesbury. He wasn't motivated by 'socialist' principles in the slightest - he believed that by putting a limit on working hours in factories and mines then more people could be persuaded to attend church.
Whatever his motives, good came of it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There is some evidence of condescension and paternalism in "Victorian thought", but I wouldn't want to make too much of that. Seeking to "lift up the lowly" doesn't necessarily involve seeing the "lowly" as inferior in any way, or responsible for their poverty of circumstances. From that era, both evangelical Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics (e.g. Oxford movement) were involved in social reform as a good thing in itself.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I was intrigued to read that some of those involved in the slavery abolition were against the 1847 Factory Act that limited the exploitation of workers (including the limiting to 10 hours of labour).
In other trades, virtual slavery continued for many years in English industry.
I am not sure what my point is here - other than that telling people to stay in their place was a particularly unkind and unchristian thing to do when their place was in an industry where they frequently got sick and died.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In other trades, virtual slavery continued for many years in English industry.
Oh, there is undoubted truth in that assertion! To exploit may well be an irregular verb, but where exploitation is found, I just think it is an example of abuse of power. The Trade Union movement was founded on the principle that such injustices were commonplace and could only be reformed by collective action.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think it simply illustrates that all of us - whatever our religion, political stand-point or persuasion - are products and people of our own time.
Applying that to the 'resident aliens' thing, what might be an appropriate 'resident alien' stance in one century, may not be in another.
There are broad principles, of course, that apply in each and every era. Anabaptism in 1600 would look very different to Anabaptism in 1960, say, conversely 'Constantinian' behaviour in 1630 is going to look very different to how it would look in 1930 or 2015 or 2030 ...
Which is one of the reasons why I find Steve Langton's single-issue, single tool in the tool-box - a hammer - approach, very hard to swallow - because it doesn't appear to take those nuances and contextual aspects into account.
So, for instance, he'll hector the CofE for persecuting non-conformists in the 1660s even though the contemporary CofE doesn't behave in the same way its ancestors did in centuries past.
Then, when you point that out he turns around and says that its not good enough because their more pluralistic approach is based on humanistic and extra-biblical principles and not on the word of God itself - unlike his beloved Anabaptist position ...
I can't help but conclude that he's either making it up as he's going along or else my charge about him having only one tool in his tool-kit holds good.
He appears to have a one-size fits all approach whereby everything and everyone is 'Constantinian' apart from his own church and is therefore a nail which deserves to be struck with his single-issue hammer.
Consequently, he appears unable to provide positive role-models and examples of what it means to be a 'resident alien' but can only hammer away at an abstract concept of 'Constantinianism' as the 'other' that must be opposed at all costs.
It's a bit like the old story of the Welshman on the desert island who shows the sea-captain who rescues him around his island domain before the ship carries him home. He points out his runner-beans, his hut and his neat goat pens, the rugby pitch he's laid out carefully for himself ... then, impressed, the captain asks him to identify a building on the top of the hill.
'That? why that's my chapel ...'
The sea-captain is profoundly moved. 'You've been shipwrecked here on this desert island for 20 years and not only have you survived, you've found time to build a chapel to the glory of God. What's that other building over there?'
'That? oh that's the one I don't go to ...'
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
