|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Christianity intrinsically Communitarian?
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
Question in title. Some thoughts to get the discussion rolling;
There seem to have been a number of people, over the course of human history from a wide variety of denominational and cultural backgrounds - Roman-Catholic, Orthodox and protestant alike - who have lived in voluntary simplicity and community, often citing the Sermon on the Mount and especially the Beatitudes as their example.
I think of monasteries of course, but also the "Jesus People," the "Jesus Army," Taizé, the Jellicoe Community in London, "New Monasticism" and especially the project where +Justin Duckworth came from, the JVC, the Mennonites, the "Catholic Worker" project, Lee Abbey, the Tolstoyans, the Levellers, ...
Most of these either are made of people staying for short terms, or people who have opted for celibacy.
The Church has often been accused of wasting money, or being too opulent, because church buildings are very decorated or have professional choirs.
In lower-school, our chaplain - evangelical, if it's relevant - was always keen to stress that Paul announced "love of money" to be the root of all evil and not money itself. But to a certain extent, isn't the accumulation of luxuries a sort of "love of money"?
I knew someone in a church-choir who professed to be both Christian and Libertarian, and felt he could receive Communion in good conscience, and another former organist of ours - Roman Catholic, if it's relevant - who claimed more faith in individuals than institutions, and another former organist of ours - conservative-Evangelical, if it's relevant - who said that he received communion "by himself" - that is by eating bread and wine outside of the context of a Church-service. I'm not sure the extent to which these are compatible - isn't the whole point of Holy Communion - even rejecting anything to do with the real presence - that there is some community in the Church? Sure the church isn't "only" community, but isn't community an intrinsic and inseparable aspect of the Church.
Margaret Thatcher tried to reconcile her faith in individuals with her Christian faith in her so-called "Sermon on the Mound," that is, her address to the Church of Scotland General Assembly. Arguably the problem with Thatcher's argument is a false dichotomy between the state and individual that failed to recognize the manifestation of community outside the state - like in the church, for instance. Nevertheless, Thatcher did manage to say in good conscience that "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families," so it's entirely possible she wouldn't have recognized the third sector either.
I would be very interested in opinions from people outside Britain, where the political system may be different.
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I hope you don't mind responses from UK people too.
Christian community doesn't necessarily mean monastic living, or living in each other's houses. It does mean nurturing relationships outside of our close circle of family and friends. Sharing God's love with our neighbours doesn't have geographical boundaries. So yes, I think that Christianity is intrinsically communitarian. Holy Communion is symbolic of our all sharing in the love of Christ, the love which we in turn share with each other and with the world.
There is such a thing as society, and we're all members of more than one community. Individuals are important, but no more or less important than the communities they belong to.
If people give their talents and/or lovely ornaments to the Church as gifts to God, it's surely for the Church to be custodians of these for the inspiration of future generations.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, Christianity is intrinsically communitarian: it is perfectly clear that we have obligations to our neighbours that extend beyond mere non-interference with each individual's personal liberty or the duty to abide by the letter of contractual agreements which we have explicitly made with others.
Christianity also recognises and insists upon the individual value of each person, so I think that we can safely say that any communitarian system which subordinated the individual entirely to the collective would not be Christian.
Between the non-Christian extremes of absolute individualism and absolute subordination of the individual, there is quite a range of possible polities which are consistent with Christianity, but all of them are to some extent communitarian.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I hope you don't mind responses from UK people too.
No, not at all, and I'm sorry if it came over that way.
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
French response coming in.
I recently scored a few laughs in a symposium on restorative justice held at the French Senate by asking a Swiss French speaker who appeared to be extolling its virtues whether communautarianism was a good or a bad thing.
In France, communautarisme is unreservedly A Bad Thing™. In the media it usually comes alongside words like integriste, fondamentaliste and indeed terroriste.
More broadly, whether used in intellectual debate or in the media, it conjures up images of inward-looking, closed-off groups, possiby ethnically-based, probably subversive and very definitely not playing the game when it comes to conforming to the elusive Republican Ideal. Anyone championing it is suspected of nasty Anglo-Saxon libéralisme.
Perhaps I've been influenced by my many years' living here, but these days I think distinctively Christian communitarianism should be very much the exception than the rule. Most of the churches I know of all stripes are too busy trying to be not of the world, often by setting up parallel communities, that they're not in the world or its communities anywhere near enough.
[ 10. March 2013, 18:23: 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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Which is a very interesting example of how words differ in meaning in different languages. The French Republican ideal looks in many ways very much like something which we here might describe as communitarian, emphasising as it does notions of the common good and of society as a common enterprise (in that case, under the aegis of the Republic). Yet what you describe as the meaning of the French term is much closer to what might, I think, be described in English as communalism.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I have heard English as well as Swiss speakers use "communitarianism" [ETA which I cannot spell in English!] to refer to groups smaller than society as a whole. I'm thinking back to things like the "faith-based initiatives" talked about a decade or so ago. There is no room in French thinking for this. Similarly, France generally views any religious-based community experience (with the exception of Catholic monasteries) with suspicion. Even the non-religious post-1968 ones on the Larzac plateau are something of an oddity.
If I had to translate Margaret Thatcher's remarks, I wonder if I should say "there is no such thing as La République"?
[ 10. March 2013, 18:34: 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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Used in the English sense of an individuals connection to the community, Christianity cannot be other than communitarian. Not if one listens to that Jesus bloke.
[ 10. March 2013, 18:39: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If I had to translate Margaret Thatcher's remarks, I wonder if I should say "there is no such thing as La République"?
![[Smile]](smile.gif) Am I right in believing that expression of such a sentiment, by any French politician, would be unthinkable?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
A quick glance at Wikipedia offers up a fascinatingly different view of the term between English and French, along with a confusingly diverse range of definitions on the English side.
Wikipédia agrees with me that communautarisme is used almost exclusively negatively in France as detracting from equality before the law. The whole political theory in France is that our identity is founded on the Republican Ideal which is, I guess, purportedly based on the goddess Reason alone.
Confusingly, English-language Wikipedia explains how communitariansim was developed in part by the Catholic Worker movement and French Catholic philosopher Emmanuel Mounier. The Catholic Worker movement is one of the ideological stables of the (fiercely secular, I know it's confusing) local government elected officials where I live. This is not something they advertise but something I have discovered on interpreting assignments for them.
This confirms to me an idea I have long nurtured, which is that French secularism is predicated on a certain form of Christian ideology - quite possibly, as Albertus suggests, philosophical communitarianism.
I think that where Christianity in general, protestantism in particular and evangelical protestantism even more in particular gets it wrong in France is that it trips over the apparent secularism of La République and promptly becomes communautariste in the bad sense of the word, rather than discerning the underpinning, noble aspect of communitarianism that is actually hiding inside the fabric of the Republic.
[ETA Albertus: I think it would be treasonable!]
[ 10. March 2013, 18:54: 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
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
In English, communitarianism is usually contrasted with individualism, especially the kind of philosophical anthropology underlying classical liberalism (such as Locke's social contract theory). Communitarians generally object to the notion that social relations are fundamentally contractual, and would say that to be human is to be social--there's no choice there, and no escape from society.
Christianity probably is intrinsically communitarian, if only because 2000 years ago, individualism as we know it was pretty much unimaginable.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Anyone championing it is suspected of nasty Anglo-Saxon libéralisme.
How strange. Communitarianism and liberalism in English-language political philosophy are virtually opposites: liberalism predicated on individuals constituting themselves and creating their own lives, communitarianism on individuals being (in part or entirely) constituted by their communities.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I assure you it's the case though. It really is quite a linguistic/ideological triumph of somebody.
Perhaps another way of at least partly explaining it is with regard to the role of the state. Libéralisme in French roughly equates to "non-state", for instance in terms of unregulated markets. Inasmuch as communautarisme is a step away from the state-imposed 'community' of the Republican Ideal, it's libéral.
One good example of this in the field of religious belief was former president Sarkozy's assertion - in opposition to giving non-naturalised immigrants the vote in local elections - that what was needed to prevent communautarisme was an Islam en France i.e. subsumed within the Republic and its values as opposed to an Islam de France i.e. on the national territory but not integrated. You are supposed to be French first and then Christian, Muslim, whatever, second.
As explained, the dilemma for Christians is whether too much distinctiveness is lost by playing the 'Republican ideal' game. I tend to think not. I also think that Christianity's ability to become integrated into any prevailing culture (and hopefully to transform it from within) is a key distinction between Christianity and radical Islam, but then again I'm naturalised French so I would.
I hope that makes some kind of sense!
[ 12. March 2013, 06:17: 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
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
This is very interesting, thank you - it helps put much of the recent laïcité conflicts in context. Am I right in understanding, then, that the main French objection to non-state manifestations of community is that they are isolationist and inward looking and only care for their own members? Where do Trades-Unions fit into this? I have a vague idea that Strikes are somewhat more common in France than Britain.
Has France ever had something like community organizing or the London Citizens Movement? That is an organization of non-state communities, including churches, mosques, trade unions and so on that is non-state, but could hardly be called Isolationist.
I suppose this attitude that I remember a blogger expressing regret that it was very difficult to start an anti-racist campaigning organization in the Netherlands because such a thing would have to get funding from somewhere, and where would it get funding but from the government?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Similarly, France generally views any religious-based community experience (with the exception of Catholic monasteries) with suspicion. Even the non-religious post-1968 ones on the Larzac plateau are something of an oddity.
Where do Taizé and L'Arche fit into this? I suppose Taizé was founded by Francophone Swiss people, and proportionally few French people visit Taizé, other than Scout groups or the school groups Toussaint. In Taizé one even often hears - "We are not in France, we are in Taizé."
I suppose Switzerland has a very bottom-up mentality to government whereas the France has a very top-down one.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
A quick glance at Wikipedia offers up a fascinatingly different view of the term between English and French, along with a confusingly diverse range of definitions on the English side.
Wikipédia agrees with me that communautarisme is used almost exclusively negatively in France as detracting from equality before the law. The whole political theory in France is that our identity is founded on the Republican Ideal which is, I guess, purportedly based on the goddess Reason alone.
Confusingly, English-language Wikipedia explains how communitariansim was developed in part by the Catholic Worker movement and French Catholic philosopher Emmanuel Mounier. The Catholic Worker movement is one of the ideological stables of the (fiercely secular, I know it's confusing) local government elected officials where I live. This is not something they advertise but something I have discovered on interpreting assignments for them.
This is fascinating - I wasn't aware that the Catholic Worker Movement was active in Mainland Europe.
But... I thought the Catholic Worker Movement was essentially anarchist at heart and whilst not necessarily encouraging uprising against the state, deliberately ignored it, e.g. by refusing tax exemption.
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
So where was the Blessed Mrs Thatcher wrong? Society is a collection of individuals, all with their own loves, hates, desires and agenda’s.
Can you say “Society thinks this…”? No. Of course you can’t. You can’t even say that a subset of society – such as those who are in the AA – thinks that AA premiums are too expensive, as some AA members may not agree that they are too expensive.
She has been deliberately and wilfully misunderstood. All those who berate her know full well what she meant, that the world is full of individuals and whilst they may group together for specific purposes, that’s about as far as you can go.
But they don’t acknowledge this. They use the quote partially to vilify her, as though she was denying some tenet of faith.
As a member of the CofE, I am justified by faith alone. Therefore if I choose to not do anything for anyone else, ever, I am still justified. As long as I acknowledge Christ as Lord, I am a Christian, regardless of how many poor people I feed or prisoners I visit.
It won’t make me a “nice” person but it won’t “force” me to do anything for anyone if I choose not to. My conscience may well disagree but that’s the point of Mrs Thatcher’s quote. Society is nothing! It’s a chimera and can no more force me to help others than a puff of wind! It has to come from me, the individual.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not how it works. Ideology aside, one may argue the importance of an individual's role within society, but society still exists. If this Thatcherian view were accurate, civilisation would not be possible to the extent it exists. BTW, society isn't intrinsically force, though pressure may be part.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
Am I right in understanding, then, that the main French objection to non-state manifestations of community is that they are isolationist and inward looking and only care for their own members?
Nearly. They would object to them not placing La République and its mores on top. Minority language groups tend to fall foul of the communautariste label because they run counter to the égalité bit of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Equality under the law and all that. quote:
Where do Trades-Unions fit into this? I have a vague idea that Strikes are somewhat more common in France than Britain.
Strikes are sort of a hangover from the Revolution, according to which, and to misquote Clausewitz, "politics is a continuation of war by other means". We fight first and negotiate later (although this trend is declining).
But Trades Unions as a whole are an interesting example of a community that has brokered a sort of truce with La République. Trade Unions are jointly in charge, with the government, of state pension and invalidity funds (I'm not sure about all the details of this, but it's certainly something like that). While the strikes and such are a visible expression of dissent, in fact the unions also work within the system.
And indeed this is probably the prevailing model for most large non-profit groups such as the Red Cross and so on. There's a much closer relationship with the apparatus of the State - sounds a lot like your Dutch example. (In fact it occurs to me that this is one of the things Brits don't "get" about continental Europe).
quote:
Has France ever had something like community organizing or the London Citizens Movement? That is an organization of non-state communities, including churches, mosques, trade unions and so on that is non-state, but could hardly be called Isolationist.
No, that's all evil, libéral, and Anglo-Saxon. (I generalise wildly, but talk of such projects will simply be met by looks of Gallic incomprehension. There is no space in our mindset for such animals).
What the state tries to do is domesticate them by setting up a state-sponsored body: for instance the national muslim council, CNCM. This is a joke, ignored by your muslim-in-the-street and stuffed full of opportunistic muslim apparatchiks who are out of touch with the street.
Sarkozy did set up a big "Conférénce de la Laïcité" which I think was angling along the same lines as his CNCM but more broadly. As part of this, with my prison chaplain hat on, I was duly summonsed by the Préfet to a venue along with various other chaplains of different faiths. It was a bit like being in a travelling sideshow as we were questioned and inspected from all angles like some sort of alien. Two members of the Intelligence services sat in a corner and feverishly took notes, while the muslims from the CNCM tore in to the local muslim chaplain. Nothing more has come of it.
quote:
Where do Taizé and L'Arche fit into this?
They are perceived as ecumenical, but for ecumenical in France you have to read "Roman Catholics' idea of being ecumenical" so they are assimilated to catholicism in the public eye.
quote:
This is fascinating - I wasn't aware that the Catholic Worker Movement was active in Mainland Europe.
I could have made a mistake there. I was thinking of the Young Christian Workers, which sounds similar but perhaps not so radical.
In fact your mileage may vary wildly on all these statements which are anecdotal rather than substantiated, but that's my take.
[ 12. March 2013, 13:28: 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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As a member of the CofE, I am justified by faith alone. Therefore if I choose to not do anything for anyone else, ever, I am still justified.
I think St James might beg to disagree ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As a member of the CofE, I am justified by faith alone. Therefore if I choose to not do anything for anyone else, ever, I am still justified. As long as I acknowledge Christ as Lord, I am a Christian, regardless of how many poor people I feed or prisoners I visit.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) As a member of the CofE, I beg to disagree. Of course, if I was God I would probably be generous and forgiving and welcome you to heaven regardless (but maybe make you wait a bit), and I couldn't deny that you were Christian, albeit a bad one. But if faith means anything at all, it is much more than an intellectual assent. 'Even the devil believes in God.'
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Eutychus: what would be a French perspective on the C of E bishops' latest open letter against welfare cuts? ISTM that some of their Tory critics (suggesting that they don't even speak for church members) imply a French view of the church's role: a 'community' with its own self-interest. The idea of bishops speaking 'for the whole nation' doesn't seem to make much sense to them.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The Roman Catholic church as an institution tends to limit its pronouncements to sharper-end ethical issues such as homosexuality, euthanasia, and so on. There are iconic figures like Abbé Pierre who would speak out issues such as housing, but they would have a sort of "holy maverick" status. If there was any practical outcome, it would have to work in close collaboration with the state rather than as a wholly independent group.
On a much smaller scale, years ago the church I was leading at that time set up a social outreach programme. While our programme had some genuinely distinctive and useful features, we quickly realised that trying to reinvent a lot of what the welfare state was attempting to provide, albeit not very well, was impracticable and would get us tagged with the communautariste label. Instead, we worked to get some state funding for our programme and to work more with more established and institutional stakeholders. From my perspective this was a good way both of making us accountable and of gaining credibility in the eyes of the state - as well as of us seeing that they were not all simply evil agents of The World™.
Perhaps another way of looking at this, and one that feeds more into the OP, is to say that the French, who have a reputation for individualism, tend to do their religious belief privately. So rallying cries by the Abbé Pierre probably have as much effect by feeding into individual consciences of people working within the secular system as they do by causing special-interest faith-based groups to be set up (many of the more militant social action groups round here are theoretically secular but all staffed by retired catholics!).
Similarly, my local councillors are, on the face of it, mostly rabidly secular socialists, but when they are expounding their vision of our district, they seem to me to have a mindset that is very distinctly informed by Christian values; they just don't call them that.
All of which, to put a more theological stance on it, is to say that these days I see the Kingdom of God at work in the world far more broadly than many Christian "communities" might ever suspect.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Eutychus: what would be a French perspective on the C of E bishops' latest open letter against welfare cuts?
Not just an open letter. They are moving an amendment to the bill. This beign the lasd of the Church By Law Established, bishops get free seats in Parliament.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As a member of the CofE, I am justified by faith alone. Therefore if I choose to not do anything for anyone else, ever, I am still justified.
I think St James might beg to disagree ...
As indeed might Our Lord.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Indeed, I wonder if the bench of Bishops might do well to try to restore the Gospel According to Saint Matthew to the canon of Scripture from which it seems, unaccountably, to have been deleted.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Indeed, I wonder if the bench of Bishops might do well to try to restore the Gospel According to Saint Matthew to the canon of Scripture from which it seems, unaccountably, to have been deleted.
Go on?
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
She has been deliberately and wilfully misunderstood. All those who berate her know full well what she meant, that the world is full of individuals and whilst they may group together for specific purposes, that’s about as far as you can go.
I read the so-called Sermon on the Mound from start to finish and found much of it quite distasteful. I cannot in good conscience accept it. But I am inclined to think it is not Christianity - Thatcher may have been many things, but surely not a theologian or even a philosopher.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As a member of the CofE, I am justified by faith alone. Therefore if I choose to not do anything for anyone else, ever, I am still justified. As long as I acknowledge Christ as Lord, I am a Christian, regardless of how many poor people I feed or prisoners I visit.
It won’t make me a “nice” person but it won’t “force” me to do anything for anyone if I choose not to.
Hmm. But doesn't God have a desire for transformation, be it of individuals or communities? I don't think this is incompatible with a community as a collection of individuals, not that I'm entirely convinced of it. Doesn't relationship with God moving in a particular place necessarily involve transformation? Is the Christian calling not a call to holiness of living, to regular prayer, to reformation of character etc? In particular, aren't we supposed to see Christ in those around us - qv the parable of the sheep and the goats which someone already posted - and be the body of Christ in the world? (Maybe this is Arminianism?)
Under what you posit, is it meaningful to talk about "Christian Life" or "Christian Calling" whatsoever?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What the state tries to do is domesticate them by setting up a state-sponsored body: for instance the national muslim council, CNCM. This is a joke, ignored by your muslim-in-the-street and stuffed full of opportunistic muslim apparatchiks who are out of touch with the street.
Sarkozy did set up a big "Conférénce de la Laïcité" which I think was angling along the same lines as his CNCM but more broadly. As part of this, with my prison chaplain hat on, I was duly summonsed by the Préfet to a venue along with various other chaplains of different faiths. It was a bit like being in a travelling sideshow as we were questioned and inspected from all angles like some sort of alien. Two members of the Intelligence services sat in a corner and feverishly took notes, while the muslims from the CNCM tore in to the local muslim chaplain. Nothing more has come of it.
Sounds rather like the Chinese attitude towards religion and in particular the CPCA/TSPM/CCC.
I hear a lot of western complaints about the CPCA/TSPM/CCC but what you have discussed is rather unreported, presumably due to Christian Privilege and the conflation of "Christian" with "the social attitudes predominant in western liberal democracies."
One could argue it is rather like Anglicanism in its early days - set up to prop up the state and be under its control, back when the nation-state was a relatively new idea. Thankfully, as discussed up thread, the C of E has taken a more critical stance recently, at least since "Faith in the City."
[ 12. March 2013, 23:07: Message edited by: scuffleball ]
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
It's fascinating to me how pervasive social contract theory has become - that folks like deano can't even imagine otherwise! It seems to me to be patently false, though, unless you can show me an individual who has completely made him or her self without any input from others at all, apart from those s/he chose to contract with. The fact itself that those who believe in social contract theory tend to live in Western nations (particularly the US and UK, but others as well) ought to be proof enough of the reality of society and its influence on us.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It's funny, that. It is impossible to be completely self-made in a first-world nation. It is more possible in third world countries. The reason? Western nations provide a funded infrastructure which benefits everyone and without which most "self-mades" wouldn't be possible.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Absolutely. You want to have a go at being 'self-made'? Go to Somalia.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As a member of the CofE, I am justified by faith alone. Therefore if I choose to not do anything for anyone else, ever, I am still justified.
I think St James might beg to disagree ...
As indeed might Our Lord.
Well yes. Quite. Or indeed my own conscience may well wish me to do good things "just because".
But St. James, Christ-as-fully-man and myself are all individuals (there are also quite a few “induhviduals” around as well). Society has no say in it.
Again, I can do what I want, given the rule of law and my own personal character. Even the “rule of law” isn’t society, but rather the assumption by individual MP’s, from their contact with other individuals, that some things ought to be forbidden.
I don’t object to the use of “society” as a collective noun, but when that noun is anthropomorphised to give it, for example, a voice – “society tells us that….” – then that is quite wrong.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
...unless you can show me an individual who has completely made him or her self without any input from others at all, apart from those s/he chose to contract with.
That "apart from" is massively significant. If nothing else, it means the subsequent posters are quite wrong to go on about "self-made" individuals having to have achieved everything without any external input whatsoever.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, Ok, but even accepting your modification the point still stands. In any halfway civilised country, we rely on an awful lot of collectively provided goods (most basically, enforceable laws) which are not ones which we have chosen to contract into.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
This is merely the starting point. Few people are as "self" as they think. This is not at all to dismiss the value of individual initiative, but to keep in mind the value of the contribution of the collective.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The notion of the Individual™, of personhood as something that is wholly discrete, something that emerges from the isolated consciousness, and whose meaning and value resides within one's skin, is a very recent Western idea (invented in the Enlightenment). It's kind of taken over the world with Western imperialism, and seems self-evident now to most people of European descent or those educated in the European tradition. But it would not have been so a few centuries ago. In most societies, historically, to be a person was to be a node in a network of familial and social relationships.
Social contract theories (Locke, Rousseau, or Hobbes) are just silly. Can you really read Locke without imagining a bunch of English gentlemen in frock coats emerging from the jungle to call to order the organizational meeting of the Liberal Club? Our ancestors were social long before they could think of themselves as individuals; it is only because we are social creatures that we evolved the capacity to imagine ourselves as separate individuals. Individuals did not create society--the Individual™ is a social construction, and a recent one at that.
As for Christianity--Jesus's claim (if he made one) to be Messiah was not based on him being some Nietzschean (let alone Randian) superman. It was that he was of the line of David, he had a certain place in Jewish society and culture defined by centuries of tradition. Christianity has always been about a vision of how people live together--because together is how people live. The ethologist Wolfgang Koehler said "A solitary chimpanzee is not a chimpanzee." The same can be said of a human being.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The notion of the Individual™, of personhood as something that is wholly discrete, something that emerges from the isolated consciousness, and whose meaning and value resides within one's skin, is a very recent Western idea.
But I don't think this is what Marvin and deano are talking about. I think they are talking about individuals as having moral responsibility, rather than the wider issue of 'what makes me me'. Individual responsibility seems to me a fairly old idea with good Biblical roots.
quote:
Social contract theories (Locke, Rousseau, or Hobbes) are just silly. Can you really read Locke without imagining a bunch of English gentlemen in frock coats emerging from the jungle to call to order the organizational meeting of the Liberal Club?
I think that is a bit of a strawman, at least as far as Rousseau is concerned (I haven't read the other two). Rousseau, I think, is saying that the social contract exists whether people like it or not (you are, so to speak, born into it, and you can freely withdraw from it only insofar as you can freely choose to be starving and dead). The politician's task is to ensure the contract is as equitable as possible.
Likewise, as I understand Rousseau he is saying that though people may have existed as individuals in 'the state of nature', the state of nature no longer obtains, and that philosophies of humanity that start from 'the state of nature' as a premise are ipso facto flawed.
[ 15. March 2013, 07:52: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
In any halfway civilised country, we rely on an awful lot of collectively provided goods (most basically, enforceable laws) which are not ones which we have chosen to contract into.
We have contracted into them through the democratic process, and we can cancel them by the same means should we so decide.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
The Church has often been accused of wasting money, or being too opulent, because church buildings are very decorated or have professional choirs.
In lower-school, our chaplain - evangelical, if it's relevant - was always keen to stress that Paul announced "love of money" to be the root of all evil and not money itself. But to a certain extent, isn't the accumulation of luxuries a sort of "love of money"?
Anything can be carried to excess, but basically I wouldn't worry about opulence and art when they are gratefully and freely given by the faithful and used under conditions open to the public. The church is almost uniquely benevolent in this. Where else can someone just walk in from the street, perhaps several evenings a week, and hear a world-class choir singing so exquisitely as to bring tears to the eyes? Usually one must pay dearly for such an experience. It's the same with art, gems, and precious metals.
What would happen to them if the church decided to sell them? Most of them would be snatched up by very wealthy private individuals who would hoard them in their own mansions rather than sharing them with the world at all. Cui bono?
If such substances and objects are essentially part of God's good creation in the first place (which only a heretic might deny), then we must ask what the intended or ideal use of them should be. Of the possibilities, someone else will have to make a case for their ideally being elsewhere than in the custody of the church, to be enjoyed by all who care to respond to her invitation, while testifying to the glory and beauty of their creator. This is the best fate for them that I can imagine. Does anyone have a better idea?
quote:
I knew someone in a church-choir who professed to be both Christian and Libertarian, and felt he could receive Communion in good conscience,
I resemble that remark-- to some extent. Christ came to make us free. But I no longer swallow Libertarian ideology whole by any means. The true believers have made a religion out of it. You cannot serve God and Mammon.
quote:
another former organist of ours - Roman Catholic, if it's relevant - who claimed more faith in individuals than institutions,
Make that people (instead of "individuals") and I agree again. If God is faithful (trustworthy) and we're made in God's image, then we should be trustworthy. Madeleine L'Engle taught that we become trustworthy by being trusted, even when it's risky. Trusting one another is therefore part of helping one another to be godly. We cannot be so sanguine about any institution. History shows that they inevitably become untrustworthy slavedrivers desperate for self-preservation at all costs. The church as an institution is no exception; yet it's probably necessary for the church militant to be an institution. This is a paradox which we must keep well in mind.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Madeleine L'Engle taught that we become trustworthy by being trusted, even when it's risky. Trusting one another is therefore part of helping one another to be godly. We cannot be so sanguine about any institution. History shows that they inevitably become untrustworthy slavedrivers desperate for self-preservation at all costs. The church as an institution is no exception; yet it's probably necessary for the church militant to be an institution. This is a paradox which we must keep well in mind.
This is interesting - I would be interested in reading more of Madeleine L'Engle on this if you have references?
Reading back over the A Wrinkle in Time I realized quite how cringeworthy some of the assumed Classical-Liberalism in it was that I was probably more inured to as a child than I am now, but still found its imagery very beautiful.
I appreciate your concern that institutions and in particular the church as an institution can become selfish too - one of the dangers that I have seen, both in Italy and Poland, is that in times of secularization the church can feel the need to put up defences and attack everything around it rather than reaching out to people and caring for them.
It seems that in the United States different churches tend towards serving ethnic communities; the Lutheran church is for people of Scandinavian descent, the Episcopal church for those of English descent and so on. Furthermore I recall reading on this Chatroom that in the states even in the Roman Catholic church there are "polish parishes," "lithuanian parishes" etc.
Perhaps this inward looking behaviour is as much a reaction as a cause to the attempt to find state solutions for everything that Eutychus describes?
One of the advantages, I suppose, of the C of E parish system is that it gives a sense of a church serving a community of a neighbourhood/village and not simply its own congregants, although I suppose city-centre churches can sometimes fall into the trap of serving their own niche.
Is it possible to be selfless without institutions at all? Does selflessness require the construction of relationships? Does the construction of relationships require the creation of institutions?
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
It seems that in the United States different churches tend towards serving ethnic communities; the Lutheran church is for people of Scandinavian descent, the Episcopal church for those of English descent and so on. Furthermore I recall reading on this Chatroom that in the states even in the Roman Catholic church there are "polish parishes," "lithuanian parishes" etc.
[...]
One of the advantages, I suppose, of the C of E parish system is that it gives a sense of a church serving a community of a neighbourhood/village and not simply its own congregants, although I suppose city-centre churches can sometimes fall into the trap of serving their own niche.
Individual churches only need to 'serve the community' if there's a large population of non-churchgoers that aren't already being well served by some other church. It might be rather tiresome to have the Episcopalians, Lutherans and RCCs all desperately tying to 'serve' me if I identify as a Holiness Pentecostal, and don't feel the need to be assisted by everyone else!
In England fewer people go to church overall and most identify with the CofE, so it makes sense that the CofE (which also has more money than the others) plays this catch-all role here, along with extra resources and manpower provided by other denominations.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
