|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Constantine responsible?
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mousethief;
quote:
I don't see what kind of a political threat Christianity posed to Rome in 160 AD, roughly when Polycarp was martyred. So that argument clearly doesn't work. However you slice it, polytheism was hardly on its last legs in 160 AD, when it managed to last another 200-300 years. That's not what *I* call being nearly dead or however you want to put it. You're just wrong on this. Greco-Roman polytheism had a hell of a lot of mileage left in it in 160. The fact it held out for so long after that pretty much proves it.
I really don't want to have another cross-tempered argument with you over relatively trivial issues. My original 'somewhat' was intended to indicate that I was dealing, according to various sources, with an uncertain and fluid situation.
Even before 1CE, the original Romano-Greek polytheism, essentially the same basic religion under slightly different deity names (Zeus/Jupiter, Aphrodite/Venus etc) was already under some strain from contact with and trying to assimilate other less compatible polytheisms such as the Celtic and Germanic. (For example, Thor was assimilated as 'Jupiter' as a thunder deity, and Odin as 'Mercury'; yet in the Germanic mythology Odin is the chief god, not much comparable to the status of Mercury). Yet other again hard to just assimilate pantheons had come from Egypt and the east and simply wider knowledge of the world was challenging any simple view that the Roman pantheon was universal and could be THE religious truth. There were increasingly people following Greek philosophy which challenged the literal nature of the mythology, and quite large numbers opting for monotheism by becoming 'God-fearers' on the fringe of Judaism (a group which supplied many early Christians)
As I said, deifying emperors like Nero wasn't doing the gods much credit, nor was a product like Ovid's 'Metamorphoses' portraying Zeus as serial seducer of human women.
The old polytheism certainly didn't 'lie down' immediately - but as far as I can see from 1CE onwards it was taken less and less seriously and became increasingly formal and empty over the 300 years to Constantine; while the religions that retained some life were ones like Mithraism which couldn't easily be used as a state 'religio/binding-force'.
As the etymology of pagan suggests, polytheism lasted longer in the countryside than in the increasingly diverse cities and towns.
by mt;
quote:
I don't see what kind of a political threat Christianity posed to Rome in 160 AD, roughly when Polycarp was martyred.
Well at that point no military threat. But Jesus as a rival 'Lord' to the emperor would be some problem even though Christianity remained peaceable. Remember that while the Jewish religion remained pretty much attached to one ethnic group, anybody could become a Christian and you couldn't easily tell just by looking - the implied 'plural society' was itself a threat to imperial desire for a unified society.
This erosion of paganism was well under way by the time Christianity arrived; Constantine was positively looking for an alternative to an increasingly fragmented and nominal paganism - the failure of Julian's apostasy shows that there wasn't that much left by then. Summarising that complex shift as paganism being "somewhat 'dead on its feet" may have been a bit broad and simple - but wasn't so far off the mark either.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
In reply to Moo;
I've taken my time responding to this to try and get it right.
First, I know the settlement of English people in Ireland began before the Reformation, and obviously they were Catholics then and might well remain so after the Reformation. It has been my understanding from some sources (but I wouldn't be too surprised if this was disputed) that part (and I don't know how much) of the post-Reformation situation was that Anglo-Norman lords rebelling against the Tudors and early Stewarts would 'play the religion card' precisely because as incoming conquerors themselves they might not have been able to rely on their native Irish underlings for a purely secular revolt in their worldly interests.
The point I was making was that from Elizabeth on, after the Reformation, this 'planting' was deliberately of Protestants (and often of the more extreme ones who would be a destabilising force if they remained on the mainland). This had the effect of religiously dividing Ireland and identifying Protestantism with a suppressive colonial power and so of Catholicism with Irish nationalist resistance to the colonisation. It doesn't make much sense to regard this as irrelevant – the thugs in recent riots over parades talk about their 'Protestant culture'.
When I started paying attention in the late 1960s I was looking from England and for all kinds of reasons our media emphasised the religious side of things. I was not so very concerned about the wider Irish issues as precisely about the implications for my beliefs as a Christian. If Ian Paisley were right it seemed that I'd have to accept a decidedly illiberal and potentially warlike approach to how Christians fitted into society. Like many evangelical students in the UK in the 60s I'd recently been introduced to the Puritans most of whose theology I found really great but at the same time most of them, even 'Independents' like Cromwell, had views similar to Paisley and Co on church and state issues. If they were right, then my English liberal pluralist values might not be Christian at all but just secular and actually opposed to the will of God. That was my initial question, not the wider Irish issues as such.
My analysis led me in fact to a third view, in effect. As I said above, most of the theological issues between RC and Protestant could be just things you discussed, even if vehemently. The problems in this area came when people said “This is a Christian country” which was supposed to at least privilege Christianity and discriminate against other religions. Or of course, defend 'orthodoxy' against 'heresy'. And whether against non-Christian or variant-Christian, not just by persuasion in argument but by use of state power (and/or by rebelling against the current state power and try to replace it). That kind of approach led to the kind of problem seen in NI – and I also realised, would have mainland UK implications , in for instance, the kind of issues Mary Whitehouse had been raising via the NVALA since 1964.
The question then was, what did the Bible actually say? Did it agree with Ian Paisley and similar views, or did it imply different ways of being God's people in the world? Reading the Bible asking that question led me to what are substantially 'Anabaptist' views.
As regards Northern Ireland, on the one hand I recognise that there's a good bit more to it than just the religious issue. Though when you talk about 'civil rights' the main need for such rights was in the discrimination against Catholics by Protestants, and the resistance to the civil rights movement was largely by Protestants wanting to perpetuate their privileged 'Protestant country'. What I still think is that if Christians stepped aside from the 'Christian country' understanding then the religious issue would be clearly taken out of the situation, and instead of Christianity supplying much of the heat in the situation they might be able to be more neutral peacemakers at least.
So no, I'm not 'over-simplifying' the issue as a whole; but I am targetting, if you like, an issue on which a clear Christian stance on a clearly NT basis has the possibility to change things significantly if only by stopping people hiding behind Christianity as a justification for violence. Because of the way things are seen on much of the Protestant side, an answer based on merely liberal and secular attitudes isn't going to cut it; they need to be convinced of a biblical position, and of the flaws, for example, in the kind of interpretation seen in Ian Paisley's interpretation of Romans 13 in his commentary on my shelves.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Gee D
In among all these long posts you must have missed this one. I have added only the bit in italics....
by Steve Langton;
quote:
I know applying a label isn't the same thing as an argument; the label 'Constantinianism' in this case means the notion that there is supposed to be such a thing as a 'Christian country' in which, in early days Christianity was the only permitted religion and church and state effectively identified. Constantine started the process to that, which is why his name is generally used as a 'shorthand' for the overall concept. Since then the basic idea has taken varied forms, some less totalitarian than the original but still decidedly privileging the Christian religion in a state. (And there are also groups which may not be actually established but, in effect would want to be - still 'Constantinian' in intent). I think the label is basically coherent and rather more consistent than the implication that it's just anything I choose to so label.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
But, here's a question. If the authorities legitimately bear the sword, provide police and defence, who would you rather was in charge of those with the swords? Would you want someone who's aims are to seek worldly power and wealth for themselves, or someone who looks for peace and justice? Someone who seeks to win by killing the enemy, or someone who knows the best way to defeat an enemy is to make them your friend? If we truly believe that God has called us to be peacemakers, to be ambassadors for the Kingdom promoting values of justice and righteousness, should not we consider that people who share the values of the Kingdom would be best placed to wield the sword most effectively? - which would mean to keep it sheathed far more than would be the case for a kingdom of this world.
Sounds absolutely fabulous, Alan. So reasonable.
But then
1) How do you reconcile that with Jesus' command to Peter
quote:
"Put up your sword, for all who draw the sword shall be destroyed by the sword".
(Which I take to mean moral as well as physical destruction)
2) This is all very well in terms of our own country; but has it not occurred to you that if the sword here in the UK is held by Christians, that may look threatening to people in other non-Christian countries; and in turn have effects which threaten Christians in the other country?
3) And do we not believe that God IS in control of the sword even if it is not in Christian hands? And that whatever the result, "All things work together for good to those who love God". Don't you trust God about this? According to the NT, even the Crucifixion was far from beyond His will and control....
4) Christians staying outside the army in sufficient quantity can at least potentially restrain bad use of the sword - If all the professing Christians in Germany had been pacifists, Hitler would have had some difficulty raising an army.
5) And do you really not get it that having the power of the sword is a temptation especially to fallible human beings?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gee D;
quote:
He was not dealing with the centuries later conversion of the then Emperor in the manner you suggest. He was not dealing with church/State relationships.
As I said myself, he's not dealing specifically with the centuries later conversion of the emperor - but what he says applies to that situation. And as I also said, given the context of that trial before Pilate, what CAN this be about but "church/State relationships"?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
But, here's a question. If the authorities legitimately bear the sword, provide police and defence, who would you rather was in charge of those with the swords? Would you want someone who's aims are to seek worldly power and wealth for themselves, or someone who looks for peace and justice? Someone who seeks to win by killing the enemy, or someone who knows the best way to defeat an enemy is to make them your friend? If we truly believe that God has called us to be peacemakers, to be ambassadors for the Kingdom promoting values of justice and righteousness, should not we consider that people who share the values of the Kingdom would be best placed to wield the sword most effectively? - which would mean to keep it sheathed far more than would be the case for a kingdom of this world.
Sounds absolutely fabulous, Alan. So reasonable.
But then
1) How do you reconcile that with Jesus' command to Peter
quote:
"Put up your sword, for all who draw the sword shall be destroyed by the sword".
(Which I take to mean moral as well as physical destruction)
Okay - but go back to Alan's original comment:
quote:
Yet, the Centurions, tax collectors, jailers and assorted other people in various positions of authority were never told they needed to quit their jobs on becoming Christians.
There are plenty of us who wouldn't advocate the church in control of the sword - but who would see a place for individual Christians in positions of authority.
'Constantinianism' in this context is an easy target - why not Christian policemen, tax collectors, councillors and even soldiers - if you want a plain reading of scripture then every principle implied elsewhere is somewhat trumped by the very real examples in Acts.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
As I said, deifying emperors like Nero wasn't doing the gods much credit,
Nero wasn't deified. He was subjected to damnatio memoriae after his death, although he remained sufficiently popular in the east that a number of pretenders arose after his death.
Paganism was perfectly vital for much of Roman history - the fact that it looks absurd from a Christian point of view notwithstanding. From an Anabaptist POV, I would have thought that the objection (apart from the point that Jupiter is a false god and Jesus is not!) would be that it was entirely contingent on state and civic patronage and when this vanished it withered on the vine. Put not thy trust in Princes and all that jazz.
Remember we know lots about educated scepticism about pagan myths because the educated wrote their beliefs down and because the monks who preserved the heritage of classical antiquity were apt to not sagely when they came across a scroll claiming that the portrayal of the gods in Homer was unworthy of the divine. But for lots of people the claim that Jupiter shagged the mother of Hercules was no more an objection to belief in Jupiter among pagans who disapproved of adultery than the claim that God smote the first born of Egypt is among Christians who disapprove of infanticide.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I have some sympathy with the views you are expressing Steve, I come from a similar evangelical background.
But that's the point - your 'take' on things makes sense in that context and against that background.
There are lots of other possible ways of approaching these issues - and still remain within a Christian framework.
Your approach makes sense for someone exposed to late 1960s reformed tinged conservative evangelicalism. When faced by Paisleyite attitudes its hardly surprising that you looked for alternatives within a broadly evangelical framework - ie. Anabaptism (although Anabaptism predates evangelicalism and isn't at all 'evangelical' in the contemporary sense in many of its manifestations, but that aside ...)
If it's a binary choice between secularist humanism and Anabaptism, then I can understand why you plumped for the latter. I'm not saying that it's wrong to do so - simply that it's the obvious and understandable choice within the paradigm you are operating within.
But as I've said before, oranges are not the only fruit ...
There are problems with all of the available viewpoints - in fact, I'd suggest that things are so messy that whatever approach we take it has to be the lesser of several evils ...
I agree that Alan Cresswell's approach - that Christian authorities should be trusted 'with the sword' more than other forms is a naive one in many ways. I don't see any evidence to suggest that devoutly Christian or pious rulers are any less likely to wield the sword for ulterior motives.
Henry V was reputedly personally pious, in the way that was understood and outworked in late medieval Western Catholicism - but that didn't stop him invading France to fulfil his dynastic ambitions. Both sides would have said Mass on the morning before Agincourt.
Other than during the Crusades and during the colonial period, most violence meted out by Christianised states tended to be directed internally or against other Christianised countries - whether we think of the Wars of the Roses, the Hundred Years War and the later French Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years War ...
The point is, there's no guarantee that rulers who profess a Christian faith aren't going to go to war for all manner of daft or selfish reasons.
Just as there is no guarantee that by hiving ourselves off from involvement in the political process that we are going to somehow keep ourselves pure and immune from 'worldly' influences and ambition etc etc.
We can argue until we are blue in the face whether certain forms of church construct are more or less likely to go off the rails. It strikes me that we can find systemic problems everywhere.
That's not to say we should be complacent and sit back saying, 'Oh well, we can't do anything about it ...' but by the same token, as has been said, the whole broad-brush 'Constantinianism' thing is an easy target. It takes the spotlight off us and places it on someone else - those nasty 'Constantinians' down the road who, if only they adopted the same attitude as us, would be far more effective in work and witness for the Kingdom ...
Which is why I believe it's best to take each case on its own merits rather than applying broad-brush criticisms that deflect attention from ourselves and onto other people ...
That's the point Baxter was making, I think, with his contention that Anabaptism, for all its good points, was essentially a judgmental and holier-than-thou system.
--------------------
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:
It takes the spotlight off us and places it on someone else - those nasty 'Constantinians' down the road who, if only they adopted the same attitude as us, would be far more effective in work and witness for the Kingdom ...
Actually in some ways the problem is that the 'Constantinians' have put themselves in the spotlight by taking the position they do, and then they have let down not only themselves but their fellow-Christians by acting in an unChristian way - and for centuries....
I'm trying to get the spotlight off them and onto Jesus where any spotlight on Christianity belongs.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Which all sounds very pious and appropriate Steve, but we are still waiting for you to articulate what this actually means 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 Callan;
quote:
Nero wasn't deified. He was subjected to damnatio memoriae after his death, although he remained sufficiently popular in the east that a number of pretenders arose after his death.
Thanks for the correction,Callan - I must have misremembered I Claudius ! Nevertheless emperors were deified in the interest of 'binding together' the empire. No doubt there was some real pagan belief as well as that increasing scepticism.
Doesn't greatly alter the main point I made.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
It means what it's meant for centuries; sort out what's wrong and do things right. An awful lot of stuff doesn't need to change. And I'm NOT suggesting 'hiving off' out of society altogether;nor would many modern Mennonites. For me it is one of the problems of the Amish and Hutterites that they do little evangelism and that very few ever join them from outside - and that's far from the NT model.
Right now I'm rather sharing Golden Key's point - that after centuries of doing it wrong there's need to pull back a bit and instead of trying to salvage the rags of the old 'Constantinian' situation do some creative thinking on changing that image.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, Steve, how much evangelism are any of us doing?
I'm no Billy Graham, I'm not doing a great deal.
Which is why I don't go round pointing the finger at others who do.
So far, you have not offered any practical examples or models of how you think things should or could be 'done better' ... other than the usual pious platitudes about 'not being in the world' and the usual, easy-target criticisms of so-called 'Constantinian' Christians.
The point is, none of us are doing any of this very well - not the Anabaptists, not the 'Constantinians' - whoever they might be - nor anyone else.
That's the problem I'm having with your somewhat (to coin a term ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) dismissive attitude towards Christians other than those of your own brand - or imagined brand.
Because it fits with Baxter's perceptive analysis from the late 1600s - that Anabaptists tend towards holier-than-thou and judgmental attitudes.
I'm sorry, but I see that time and time and time again in the comments you're making on this thread - and yes, I probably sound like a stuck-record over it ... just as much as you can sound like that with your usual accusations against everyone who doesn't conform to your particular view of what churches should look like.
There have been Anabaptists around for four centuries now, and their influence and witness has generally been positive, I would maintain - but far from perfect - just as nobody else's has been either.
Things vary from place to place. In some places there isn't any Anabaptist or Baptistic type witness - does that mean that what Christian there is in such situations is inherently more imperfect?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It would be great if everything was as simple and clear cut as that. But it isn't.
--------------------
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:
The thing is, though, Steve, how much evangelism are any of us doing?
I wondered if you'd notice that; and you're right, not many of us are doing much evangelism at the present - though of course evangelism does mean a lot more than doing a Billy Graham! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) But I identify one of the reasons as being that there's been a loss of confidence because the old style of doing things, which assumed something like a 'Christian country' has become untenable and a liability and most Christians don't know a positive alternative. Anabaptists and others of like mind are currently 're-inventing' evangelism on a somewhat different basis.
I'm trying to sort out an answer to your constantly repeated Baxterian/holier-than-thou comments; making sure it can't be misunderstood is hard work - bear with me.
But one thing I definitely feel - it's not possible to have a much worse 'holier-than-thou' attitude than those who thought they were so much holier that they were entitled to persecute and fight wars for their over-self-confident holiness.... And I don't feel the CofE has sufficiently (or even much) lost that kind of attitude.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
That's the problem I'm having with your somewhat (to coin a term [Biased] ) dismissive attitude towards Christians other than those of your own brand - or imagined brand.
On thinking, some of your problem over this might be that you are conceiving my 'brand' as being a lot narrower than it actually is.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gee D;
quote:
He was not dealing with the centuries later conversion of the then Emperor in the manner you suggest. He was not dealing with church/State relationships.
As I said myself, he's not dealing specifically with the centuries later conversion of the emperor - but what he says applies to that situation. And as I also said, given the context of that trial before Pilate, what CAN this be about but "church/State relationships"?
As everyone other than you has repeatedly said, His statement has nothing at all to do with church/State relationships. He was comforting Pilate that there was no insurrection underway; and He was pointing out that God's kingdom is not one of those on earth. He was not considering the relationship of church and State then or in the future.
As to your post yesterday of 16.58, I had seen that but it is in no way a definition but rather a statement of position.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
FWIW I have you down as someone who is broadly eirenic operating from a context of independent rather Calvinistic evangelicalism. So I don't believe you restrict yourself to hob-nobbing with Anabaptists.
Indeed, were you to do so you'd find yourself pretty restricted.
There aren't many Anabaptists in the UK.
I am glad to hear that Anabaptists are exploring new models of evangelism. When you've succeeded come and tell the rest of us about it.
In the meantime your barbed and wholly inaccurate digs at the CofE do you no credit and only serve to give credence to Baxter's observations.
Nobody I have come across in the CofE wants to fight wars to impose the notion of a 'Christian country' - nor restrict the rights of non-Anglican churches or those of other faiths or none.
We are all headed into a post-Christian, post-Christianised culture and we will all need to adjust and adapt.
When and as we do so, I hope we can do so in a way that avoids the kind of hyper-critical lack of self-reflection and tendency to point the finger that Baxter identified as a feature of certain separatist and perfectionist sects.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In mitigation, if I'm sounding somewhat harsh, it seems to be axiomatic that any truth claim is going to bring the danger of, or accusations of, holier-than-thou-ness in its train.
If we claim to be Orthodox with a Big O then we are implying that everyone else is either orthodox with a small o, heterodox or even heretical ...
There's no way around that.
So, in the case of Anabaptism I'd suggest that it is similarly difficult for them to adopt the principled stance they've taken over the centuries without coming across as somewhat holier-than-thou ...
I s'pose in such cases the antidote to perceptions of holier-than-thou attitudes lies in actions, not words ...
The onus is on those who make these claims to demonstrate by their deeds that they have a 'more excellent way' ...
That's easier said than done, and it might be one of the reasons why we're still waiting for some kind of detailed manifesto from Steve as to what this actually means in practice - rather than the usual broad-brush condemnations of the CofE or other bodies he believes to have become compromised somewhere along the line.
Sooner or later, it seems to me, most - if not all groups - paint themselves into a corner ...
With the RCs it might be the notion of Papal Infallibility ... it's going to be difficult for them to step back from that one ...
The CofE, Anabaptists and probably every other group we can think of may well have sticking-points of their own ...
The difficulty, I think, is that in removing some of those apparent sticking-points all we can end up doing is creating new ones ...
If the Anabaptists can demonstrate a 'more excellent way', then let them do so. By actions not words.
From what I've seen so far, I don't see a great deal of evidence of the former, but a great deal of the latter. The reason I stopped reading Anabaptist material was because it struck me as carping and cribbing and more focussed on what it was against rather than what it was FOR ...
In the meantime, while the Anabaptists are trying to get their act together, we'll have to leave it to the Anglicans, Methodists, Catholics, URCs and Pentecostals here in my town to witness to Christ, carry out works of mercy and get involved with what's going on in the wider society.
Until such time as the Anabaptists arrive and demonstrate a workable manifesto as to how they can do things better than everyone else, that state of affairs will have to continue.
I suspect we'll be waiting a long time ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose in such cases the antidote to perceptions of holier-than-thou attitudes lies in actions, not words ...
...
That's easier said than done
And, it's particularly difficult to do within the context of a text-based discussion, where we only have words!
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You're right, not many of us are doing much evangelism at the present - though of course evangelism does mean a lot more than doing a Billy Graham! But I identify one of the reasons as being that there's been a loss of confidence because the old style of doing things, which assumed something like a 'Christian country' has become untenable and a liability and most Christians don't know a positive alternative.
I agree absolutely with the "loss of confidence" and agree that the old methods no longer "work".
But hang on, too:
1. The early Church managed to evangelise successfully in a multi-faith world where Christianity was not the default religion - and did it well, although it was possibly more successful initially in contexts where it could build on a pre-existing Jewish knowledge base.
2. Surely there are "plusses" and "minuses" of evangelising in a "Christian" society. On the one hand, the story is common currency and you don't have to explain what you mean by "God" (for instance). But, on the other hand, you have to battle with the "We're British so we must be Christian" syndrome - i.e. it is not easy to show people what is meant by a personal or "lively" faith.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gee D;
quote:
As everyone other than you has repeatedly said, His statement has nothing at all to do with church/State relationships. He was comforting Pilate that there was no insurrection underway; and He was pointing out that God's kingdom is not one of those on earth. He was not considering the relationship of church and State then or in the future.
This is bizarre. Do you not get it that the whole reason there is no insurrection underway for Pilate to fear is because Jesus is proposing a new way of being God's people in the world, completely different to the 'nation state' pattern of OT Israel? And that different way is absolutely about 'church-state relationships'.
It's not just that Pilate doesn't need to fear insurrection then; it's that Christians aren't ever meant to do that kind of thing. And that definitely comes into the category of 'Church/State' relations. It's not an exhaustive statement on the point - there's more elsewhere in the NT. But in the context of a life-and-death trial about the kind of king Jesus is, it's pretty definitive.
And talking of definitions, in what way is my description of 'Constantinianism' not a definition? That is what Constantinianism is - a particular way of relating church and state which started with that emperor, and has since varied in ways that are indeed not exactly the same but have sufficient in common to be described as manifestations of the same broad idea/attitude which is NOT what the NT teaches about church and state. In its basic form it is an identification of church and state such as followed from Theodosius' "Everyone in my Empire will be a Christian" edict. And similar situations are to be found in other religions, notably Islam.
What more do you need???
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, yes, you got me there, Alan ...
Meanwhile, on the evangelism thing, I think Baptist Trainfan raises some significant points.
I'd also suggest that the kind of revivals that evangelicals value and remember so fondly were only possible because they took place against a background of a Christianised society and culture.
If you read the contemporary accounts and testimonies - and I've read a fair few - it's obvious that the vast majority of the converts in the revivals associated with the Wesleys and Whitefield were nominal or indifferent Christians before their conversion. Of course, those who left written accounts tend to come from the more skilled artisan backgrounds or from the middle-classes, but by and large, the Wesleys and Whitefield were preaching to people who were broadly familiar with Christian doctrine and teaching.
There have certainly been 'people-movements' and revivals in societies where there hasn't been a pre-existing Christianised base - such as among the Lisu peoples of Burma/Myanmar from the mid-19th century onwards - but by and large the kind of evangelical awakenings that evangelicals talk about happened in largely Christianised societies.
We're getting to a point - or have passed the stage - where the 'old methods' have as much currency - and it's by no means clear what form evangelism will take in future as we enter a post-Christian, post-Christendom age.
To an extent - for all the negative connotations - I think it does serve us well to have vestigial reminders of the old ways ... church architecture can still inspire awe, the festivals and feasts can still, to some extent, provide a platform to preach from.
I remember an Orthodox priest who had been to post-Communist Albania saying that in some parts of the country the giving of Easter eggs (not chocolate ones but painted or decorated hen's eggs) was the only physical vestige of Christianity left - yet it was sufficient to give missionaries and priests something to 'work with' ...
I sometimes get the impression with Anabaptists that they would like to see complete and total secularism as some kind of sweep-clean fumigation of all that has gone before. As if that would somehow enable us to start with a clean sheet and 'get it right next time'.
That sounds like a pipe-dream to me.
In some ways, it is so unimaginable (not to say unfeasible) that I'm not surprised Steve is apparently having so much difficulty actually articulating what it would look like 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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
A fumigating pipe-dream, eh? Sounds most unhealthy, I'm sure Health & Safety would have something to say about it ... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Baptist Trainfan;
quote:
1. The early Church managed to evangelise successfully in a multi-faith world where Christianity was not the default religion - and did it well, although it was possibly more successful initially in contexts where it could build on a pre-existing Jewish knowledge base.
2. Surely there are "plusses" and "minuses" of evangelising in a "Christian" society. On the one hand, the story is common currency and you don't have to explain what you mean by "God" (for instance). But, on the other hand, you have to battle with the "We're British so we must be Christian" syndrome - i.e. it is not easy to show people what is meant by a personal or "lively" faith.
Yes the Church did evangelise successfully in a pluralist world; and we need to get back to doing it.
Unfortunately in my experience the story is no longer 'common currency' and much of what is known is distorted.
And it's not just the "We're British so we must be Christian" thing, though that is a considerable problem. 'Christendom' has left some dark shadows over our faith which people quite rightly find repellent - we have to live that down, and have a positively better way; and that way needs to be an integral part of our faith which we can show from the NT, not something that looks like a belated 'bolt-on' of modern liberal/enlightenment secular ideas.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But in the context of a life-and-death trial about the kind of king Jesus is, it's pretty definitive.
But, it's not a life-and-death trial. Jesus has submitted to the necessity of His sacrifice. Was He really trying to convince Pilate that He posed no threat to the Pax Romana and should be let free? Reading the passage it seems that Pilate had already decided that Jesus was innocent of any crime under Roman law. What else could he conclude when he asks the priests what the charges are and doesn't actually get an answer from them?
Pilate and Jesus both know that there's no danger of His disciples storming the palace to free Him. They both know the question is whether the priests can stir the crowds into a frenzy where releasing Jesus would start a riot. This isn't a trial, it's quite a friendly chat between two people who both know their hands are tied and what will have to happen. Which doesn't prevent Pilate giving a last throw of the dice by giving the crowd a choice between Jesus and Barabbas - if the priests hadn't got the crowds on their side then Pilate could safely release Jesus.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I sometimes get the impression with Anabaptists that they would like to see complete and total secularism as some kind of sweep-clean fumigation of all that has gone before. As if that would somehow enable us to start with a clean sheet and 'get it right next time'.
That sounds like a pipe-dream to me.
More a case of if the church doesn't clean up its act, either the secular world or other religions like Islam will be doing the clean-up rather more brutally and disastrously for everybody. And may I remind you that we're not proposing a clean sweep of the entire Christian faith; we all share the massive common area of Lewis' "Mere Christianity" (and yes I know as did Lewis, that Baxter originated the phrase), it's about clearing out a small thing in relation to that mass which is simply wrong but unfortunately has been allowed to become over-prominent.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
But, it's not a life-and-death trial. Jesus has submitted to the necessity of His sacrifice. Was He really trying to convince Pilate that He posed no threat to the Pax Romana and should be let free?
If it's not a life-and-death trial how did Jesus end up dead? Of course Jesus has submitted to the necessity of his sacrifice - but Pilate doesn't know anything about that side of it. No, Jesus isn't trying to be let free and he knows it's not going to happen.
But it is rather crucially important that he get an innocent verdict from Pilate. It's important to the concept that he is an innocent victim unjustly killed - otherwise it makes a bit of a mess of atonement theory. And it's important to future disciples in the Empire that they will be able to say that they are also innocent; that what Pilate did was unjust and that Jesus was not a rebel.
And the underlying implications for the relationship between the people of God and the various states they will live in will be important till the end of time.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But Pilate was never going to find Jesus guilty. At least, not on the basis of what the priests had to say. How could he? To paraphrase the conversation between Pilate and the priests.
Priests, "This man is a criminal"
Pilate, "What's his crime?"
Priests, "We told you, he's a criminal. Why else would we be here?"
Pilate, "What's his crime?"
Priests, "He's a criminal and deserves to die"
Pilate, "What's his crime?"
Priests, "He's committed crimes that deserve the death penalty, only you can issue that."
Pilate, "What's his crime?"
etc., until Pilate get's fed up and goes back into the palace. He wasn't going to find Jesus guilty when no one even said what crime He was accused of.
--------------------
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
The thing is, though, Steve, as you know as well as I do, people will give all sorts of reasons why they shouldn't believe ...
'I sang a dirge and you did not mourn, I played the pipe and you did not dance.'
Sure, there are long shadows from the lurid past, but even if we were shed light on all of them and dispel them we'd still end up casting shadows of our own.
'Men loved darkness because their deeds were evil,' comes from the same Bible where we read, 'My name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'
Both things are true at one and the same time.
I keep coming back to the cultural issues - rather than, or as well as, the political church-state issues that you have highlighted.
We can disentangle church-and-state by dis-Establishing the CofE or any other state church, but that, in and of itself, doesn't make the problems go away. We've only got to look at the USA to see that ...
This is why I keep pressing you to provide some kind of plan or manifesto for how we should go about achieving this - because it's a heck of a lot more complicated than simply dis-establishing state-churches.
Even if the CofE ceased to exist tomorrow or were to re-organise itself on Anabaptist lines, how would we then go about altering perceptions or combatting what you take to be everyone's inherent antipathy to 'Constinianism'?
I don't see people queueing up to join the Quakers, for instance, because their stance on peace and justice happens to accord with the zeitgeist.
I don't see people queueing up to join the Baptists, Anabaptists or any other non-state church Christian group.
I think the most we can claim is that the rate of decline has been less for more 'gathered' forms of church than it has been for those historic churches with a looser form of affiliation.
The question still remains as to what will you, what will I, what will any of us do to make a difference?
I know you're not advocating complete withdrawal from society - but how does someone becoming involved with a late 1960s IVP/UCCF style independent fellowship in and of itself make any more difference to re-evangelising the UK as, say, someone joining their local Anglo-Catholic parish or a middle-of-the-road Methodist or URC?
Nobody cares less what we get up to inside our church buildings - whether we listen to 40 minute expository sermons, swing incense around or bang tambourines.
They might sit up and take a bit more notice if we work out our faith in some way in the public sphere - by whatever means we feel it appropriate to do that.
There's no guarantee that they will, of course - but we have to start somewhere.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton
First, I know the settlement of English people in Ireland began before the Reformation, and obviously they were Catholics then and might well remain so after the Reformation.
They not only "might well have" remained Catholic, they did so and were a recognizable independent group during the fighting in the mid-seventeenth century. They sought what they considered their own self-interest, and allied themselves with other groups as they saw fit.
quote:
The point I was making was that from Elizabeth on, after the Reformation, this 'planting' was deliberately of Protestants (and often of the more extreme ones who would be a destabilising force if they remained on the mainland).
What is your source for the idea that extreme Protestants were chosen? I have read a lot of Irish history, and I have never heard it before.
quote:
If Ian Paisley were right it seemed that I'd have to accept a decidedly illiberal and potentially warlike approach to how Christians fitted into society.
Is it relevant to your argument that the great majority of Protestants did not support Paisley? In fact they deplored his speeches and actions.
quote:
As regards Northern Ireland, on the one hand I recognise that there's a good bit more to it than just the religious issue. Though when you talk about 'civil rights' the main need for such rights was in the discrimination against Catholics by Protestants, and the resistance to the civil rights movement was largely by Protestants wanting to perpetuate their privileged 'Protestant country'.
Discrimination against members of the other religion was practised not only by Protestants, but also by Catholics. It was far more widespread among Protestants than Catholics because in most areas, the Protestants held the power; however, there were some areas where Catholics held the power and discriminated against Protestants in housing and jobs. I also heard of a specific problem in the Glens of Antrim, either in Cushendall or Cushendun. The playing fields were reserved for those playing Gaelic football. All the Catholic boys knew how to play Gaelic football, but none of the Protestant boys did, and no one wanted to teach them. This meant, effectively, that the playing fields were barred to Protestants.
quote:
...an issue on which a clear Christian stance on a clearly NT basis has the possibility to change things significantly if only by stopping people hiding behind Christianity as a justification for violence.
The people most given to violence on both sides rarely darken the doors of a church.
I want to tell you a joke and a true story that illustrate the state of affairs. First the joke:
A student from India is walking down the street in Belfast, and someone stops him and asks, "Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He replies, "I'm Hindu." "But I just want to know if you're Catholic or Protestant." "I'm Hindu." All I'm asking you is whether you're Catholic or Protestant." "I'm Hindu." "Well, are you a Catholic Hindu or a Protestant Hindu?"
Now the true story:
One of my Belfast friends who was Catholic told me about a Protestant family that her family was good friends with. The son of this Protestant family not only converted to Catholicism, but became a Jesuit priest. The reaction of my friend's family was to feel deep sympathy for their Protestant friends whose son had deserted them. If the Catholic-Protestant conflict had really been about religion, my friend's family would have rejoiced that this young man had found the True Church.
It interested my that my friend appeared not to see anything odd about this story.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think this demonstrates the complexity of all these situations, Moo.
On Steve's 'take' on things, as with all our individual 'takes', I suspect a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
For instance, I've certainly heard that paganism was rather (or 'somewhat' ) on the wane by the time Christianity came into the ascendancy across the Roman Empire - but it certainly wasn't dead in the water. So, essentially, both Steve and Mousethief are 'right' in their views on this one - because it is another of these both/and rather than either/or situations ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You get the pattern?
Similarly, I'd suggest that Steve's understanding of the historical background to the Northern Irish Troubles is broadly accurate - but suffers in some of the detail - as in his assertion that Protestant extremists were deliberately planted in Ulster in order to reduce their impact on the mainland.
I've not heard this asserted anywhere - and to be frank, would be very surprised to find such a thing asserted in any reputable history of the period.
The most that can be said is that there was a deliberate policy of 'plantation' with Scottish and other Protestants - who happened to be quite full-on Calvinists - settling in Ulster and lording it over the indigenous Catholic population.
That was certainly the case, but it doesn't paint the full picture for the religious situation in Ireland in the 16th and 17th centuries - which was far more nuanced than that.
As far as Paisley goes, my experience has been that most people - churched or unchurched - were well aware that he represented a kind of extreme view and weren't particularly disposed to tar all churches with that particular brush.
I think that the contemporary situation is more complex than it was back in the late-60s ... with religion in general being popularly regarded as intolerant and narrow-minded.
Steve may wish to blame 'Constantinianism' for that but I've found it applies equally across the board. I've lost count of the number of times at poetry open-mics and so on that I've heard people come out with ill-informed rants against 'religion' in general ... even from people who have had no direct dealings or exposure to it in any significant sense.
I suspect this is part of a post 9/11 legacy - religious faith of any kind is popularly supposed to lead to bigotry, violence and intolerance.
I don't think anyone would be better disposed towards independent 'non-Constantinian' groups and churches than they are towards the historic Churches or the 'mainline denominations' etc ...
I don't think most people these days make those kind of distinctions.
Which is why I think it's a pipe-dream to suppose that if only we could shed ourselves of some nefarious guilt-by-association with 'Constantinianism' then somehow we'd be able to be more effective in our work and witness for the Kingdom.
It ain't as easy as that.
If I thought it was, I'd applaud Steve Langton's stance.
But I don't believe it is.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I sometimes get the impression with Anabaptists that they would like to see complete and total secularism as some kind of sweep-clean fumigation of all that has gone before. As if that would somehow enable us to start with a clean sheet and 'get it right next time'.
That sounds like a pipe-dream to me.
More a case of if the church doesn't clean up its act, either the secular world or other religions like Islam will be doing the clean-up rather more brutally and disastrously for everybody.
There's little sign that Christian churches in the West are about to undergo any kind of sweeping transformation in the near future, be it theological or structural. I think spiritual exhaustion here makes it unlikely that de-Constantinianism will be a deliberate church policy rather than the outcome of church decline.
Sadly, I also fear that a de-Constantinianising RCC would simply look like the RCC deciding to go out of business. Maybe their PR people could spin hard and create a different impression, but who knows if that would be successful.
It could be worth focusing a 'de-Constantinian campaign' on countries where Christianity is in a more confident, creative phase, rather than in the beleaguered churches of the West. Or there might be some mileage in appealing to non-churchgoing Western Christians, who are less invested in current church structures than lay churchgoers and church leaders are.
As for Islam, some people are apparently working towards a 'Muslim Reformation', which if successful might lessen the possibility of Islamic extremist violence. But Islam seems to be in the ascendant around the world, and I don't get the impression that Muslims are currently waiting to be influenced by what Christians do or don't do. Muslims who live in the West are surely aware by now that Christianity here is often more of a cultural heritage than a strong system of belief and practice, so the structural rearrangement of Western-led denominations that are clearly in decline might only generate indifference at best.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I think that the contemporary situation is more complex than it was back in the late-60s ... with religion in general being popularly regarded as intolerant and narrow-minded.
I think you're right. I was talking about the 1960s because that's when the latest round of violence started.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
as in his assertion that Protestant extremists were deliberately planted in Ulster in order to reduce their impact on the mainland.
I don't think I had in mind a totally deliberate policy of planting extremists; more that 'full-on Puritan' types who couldn't afford to do a 'Pilgrim Fathers' could go to Ireland and the mainland government was quite happy to see that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't think I had in mind a totally deliberate policy of planting extremists; more that 'full-on Puritan' types who couldn't afford to do a 'Pilgrim Fathers' could go to Ireland and the mainland government was quite happy to see that....
Here is what you posted earlier quote:
...this 'planting' was deliberately of Protestants (and often of the more extreme ones who would be a destabilising force if they remained on the mainland).
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
To try and put some perspective on this, I don't claim to be an expert on Irish history. I've tried to find some out, but one of the main things I've learned is that there is lots of disagreement - usually though not always on those 'tribal' lines, where at least I try to be even handed between RC and Protestant and don't have strong opinions on Unionism v Republicanism.
To me the point is that the extremism seen in Paisley enabled me to focus issues which on the one hand had not previously been 'foreground' in my thinking but which had been increasingly 'niggling at' me during the general loosening of society in the 60s. Those issues are biblical, independent of the exact details of Irish history.
That is, I might have misunderstood or been misinformed on Irish history, but it enabled me to have a fresh look at ideas in my own immediate context and come up with fruitful if not entirely conventional answers.
I would still maintain that in a society where the different versions of Christianity have been so identified with the politics, an understanding that both versions are more than a bit contradictory of the NT, and that the NT looks at the problems in a different way, is likely to be helpful.
Many of the violent may not do much church-going - they still seem quite happy to use phrases like 'our Protestant culture'....
Other Protestants disagreed with Paisley - not surprising at all; but how and why?
I mean 'liberal' Protestants would disagree in all kinds of ways with a fundamentalist like Paisley. Oddly 'liberals' tend to have a decidedly 'Christian country' view themselves. Some of the strongest suppporters of the CofE establishment are liberal in theology.
More evangelical Protestants might disagree with Paisley's tactics while agreeing with his theology. Paisley's interpretation of Romans 13 is actually quite ordinary and I find it in the majority of commentaries I've consulted. It sounds plausible because it tries to make an exception to the instruction not to rebel against governments - and people want an exception to that one.... At that level currently most evangelical Protestants worldwide probably agree with Paisley - especially in America. And for that matter so, probably, do most theological 'liberals'. Alternative interpretations are almost entirely Anabaptist or by those like-minded.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry, Moo. My original phrasing was indeed a bit over emphatic. I think we are agreed on the deliberate planting of Protestants - planting the extreme ones not so deliberate but often more as my later post implied; that the extremists could find more freedom in Ireland and that the mainland authorities were happy to have troublemakers being anti-Catholic over the water rather than anti-Anglican at home. The practical effect was still a lot of extreme Protestants/Puritans in Ulster.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
But Pilate was never going to find Jesus guilty. At least, not on the basis of what the priests had to say. How could he? To paraphrase the conversation between Pilate and the priests.
Priests, "This man is a criminal"
Pilate, "What's his crime?"
Priests, "We told you, he's a criminal. Why else would we be here?"
Pilate, "What's his crime?"
Priests, "He's a criminal and deserves to die"
Pilate, "What's his crime?"
Priests, "He's committed crimes that deserve the death penalty, only you can issue that."
Pilate, "What's his crime?"
etc., until Pilate get's fed up and goes back into the palace. He wasn't going to find Jesus guilty when no one even said what crime He was accused of.
Luke 23; 23
Then they (the Jewish leaders) got up in a body and conducted Him (Jesus) to Pilate, and they started to accuse Him, "We found this fellow perverting our nation and forbidding them to pay taxes to Caesar, claiming that he himself is Messiah King".
I don't pretend to resolve the discrepancy - though I have the beginnings of some ideas on it - but it seems clear that at some point the priests did accuse Jesus in such terms as Luke records. Even in John's account it seems implied by the simple fact that the first question Pilate asks Jesus is "Are you the king of the Jews?"
Once that question is asked, the scenario is as I said - a life-and-death trial over Jesus' Messianic claims, in which Pilate could only make that declaration of innocence if he was convinced Jesus did not intend to be a normal militaristic Messiah and that Christians were not meant to found that kind of kingdom.
Jesus gives a radically unique kind of answer which needs taking seriously (and I repeat, is anyway not an exhaustive statement of a wider coherent case stated elsewhere in the NT).
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Many of the violent may not do much church-going - they still seem quite happy to use phrases like 'our Protestant culture'....
I think you probably need to unpack what a NI Unionist would mean by "Protestant culture". Because, although it includes a word that also has a religious meaning I would expect that the religious is low down on the list of what identifies people in NI as 'protestant' which is exactly why the 'are you a Protestant or Catholic Hindu?' punchline in the joke works. Certainly when that phrase is pulled out it's usually because of some perceived threat to the culture of that part of NI society. And, that's never about which church people worship in - it's usually about what historic events are considered most significant, and more commonly how they are commemorated, it's about whether the local playing field is exclusively for Gaelic football ('Catholic') or whether soccer ('Protestant') can also be played there. I've known a few people from NI, although I'm not currently in touch with any so my information is a few years old, and to them 'Protestant culture' is mostly about what music is played in the pub, whether you drink bitter or stout, watching the Queens Speech at Christmas, whether if you leave Belfast for university whether you think about Dublin or Liverpool, in a Ireland v England rugby match which side you support. None of which have even the slightest connection to the Christian faith.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
Even in John's account it seems implied by the simple fact that the first question Pilate asks Jesus is "Are you the king of the Jews?"
Once that question is asked, the scenario is as I said - a life-and-death trial over Jesus' Messianic claims,
But, in none of the Gospels, even those where the Jewish leaders make specific claims of crimes against Rome, does His time before Pilate read like a trial. His accusers aren't there, there's no attempt to call witnesses, Johns account doesn't even read like an interogation, it's more like a philosophical discussion. I think the reason is quite simple, Pilate had already made up his mind that Jesus was innocent of any crime of subversion against Rome, that this was a purely internal Jewish religious affair. He says as much in Johns Gospel when he tells the priests to go and hold a trial themselves.
I'm pretty sure Pilate knew exactly what was going on. It was Passover, Jerusalem was packed with people, Pilate was there to oversee things and ensure law and order were maintained, at the point of Roman swords if necessary. If he didn't know about Jesus entering Jerusalem and cleansing the Temple, about what He'd been teaching all week, and that He had been arrested and a trial had been held overnight then he was incompetant. He'd probably got the message that the priests had concluded their trial and were on their way to see him practically before the priests had left their chamber - probably with a summary of the trial and the charges (and conflicting 'evidence').
What he was probably still unsure of was which way the crowd would go. He'd have known they had hailed Jesus as their Messiah and King a few days before. He also knew that a charge of blasphemy from the priests could result in a very rapid collection of stones being gathered. Pilate wouldn't have really been that interested in justice, just keeping the crowds happy so they didn't riot and in a few days go home with the tension defused until the next festival.
"Are you King of the Jews?" isn't really about what Jesus thought of Himself, it's really about the crowds. "Do those people who hailed you King a few days ago still think that? Am I going to have a riot if I let the priests execute you?" Jesus forces Pilate to make that decision himself, explicitely by asking "well, what do you think?" and then more vaguely "my Kingdom is not of this world". I can just imagine Pilate thinking "What does that mean? Fat lot of good I got from questioning this guy, I still don't know if that crowd gathering outside think of him as their king or a blasphemer deserving of death. I still don't know which way to go to ensure there isn't a riot".
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
I don't see what kind of a political threat Christianity posed to Rome in 160 AD, roughly when Polycarp was martyred.
Well at that point no military threat. But Jesus as a rival 'Lord' to the emperor would be some problem even though Christianity remained peaceable.
By 160, Jesus had been dead for 127 years. He posed no threat at all as "Lord" or whatever title you want to use.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, various Roman Emperors and governors did see that as something of a 'threat' - Christians refusing to acknowledge Caesar as Lord generally led to their persecution ... but this was fairly sporadic and intermittent.
You'll be able to cite instances more than I can, having all the Orthodox martyrologies and hagiographies, but my understanding is that the persecution of Christians was more intense at some times rather than others - depending on the extent to which the authorities wished to distract attention from other issues or how paranoid the Emperor happened to be.
If I remember rightly, the persecutions were more intense during the reigns of Nero and Diocletian. I'm not sure to what extent Julian the Apostate persecuted Christians, but I think he did purge the top-layers of government of Christian influence for a time.
I think the broader issue here is the extent to which Christians should act as some kind of prophetic corrective to prevailing ideologies and attitudes.
All Christian traditions embody that to some extent or other - be it by proposing alternative life-styles through monasticism or a voice for the poor and marginalised ...
I think we'd all agree that believers are meant to march to the rhythm of a different drum ... it's how that works out in practice that interests me and I still haven't had any answers to that in terms of how we engage with culture, how we 'use' or not use, traditional stories/symbols and so on, how we demonstrate our faith in the public sphere ...
As Barnabas62 has pointed out, here in the UK at least we have a pretty 'big state' approach to things ... we have an enormous public sector - health, local and regional government and infrastructure - and a significant proportion of those in employment work in that sector.
This certainly poses issues for those who object to certain aspects of policy on conscientious grounds - RCs and others opposed to abortion working in the health service and so on.
The issue is to what extent we can or should disentangle ourselves from all of this - or even if it's possible to do so.
We don't tend to have Waco-style fruitcakes wanting to arm themselves and hive off into the woods or desert - nor, generally, the kind of 'culture wars' rhetoric that is a marked feature of more mainstream politico-religious debate in the US.
But there are elements of that in pockets - such as in Ulster - note the current controversy there about the Christian baker who refused to decorate a cake for a gay wedding.
The aspect I'm unclear of from Steve Langton's perspective is where we are meant to draw the line?
He's adamant that Christians should have as little as possible to do with governance and government - yet he's not defined what he considers those areas of civil society where he believes it is licit and legitimate for Christians to engage.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He's adamant that Christians should have as little as possible to do with governance and government - yet he's not defined what he considers those areas of civil society where he believes it is licit and legitimate for Christians to engage.
.. and this to me is most frustrating, especially given steve's pronouncements on the original thread.
However he has yet to interact with that particular issue since page 2/3 onwards.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
Let me further state why I find it so frustrating. ISTM that if you are going to take a very anti institutional approach, then the really important questions are surely all in the individual realm.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm sure it's a bit of both ... there are certainly evils which are systemic and societal - perhaps environmental and spiritual too - 'principalities and powers' (although I don't understand this to imply demons and imps running things behind the scenes) ...
So it could be a both/and thing ... there is a need for both collective and individual action. So, if we take slavery as an instance, there was a broad movement for its abolition within society at large in the fullness of time, but initially there were only a few individuals and groups - such as the Quakers - who were challenging the status quo on this issue.
The problem I have with Steve's approach is that it is too neatly demarcated. It doesn't allow for grey areas nor for those areas of life where the boundaries between the collective and the individual may be porous, or where the links between governors and governed aren't so clearly demarcated as they would have been in Imperial Rome or in medieval societies.
I share your frustration, though. I'm still waiting for some kind of indication from Steve on his views on the broader cultural issues of being a 'Christianised' society - and not just the governmental or authority aspects which he keeps majoring on.
In fact, there are plenty of things Steve has yet to outline in terms of how we are supposed to relate to the state and to the wider society in general.
All I'm picking up is that we should all belong to independent evangelical churches with broadly the same theological approach to him and that if we all did that then we'd gradually be able to 'put things right ...'
Quite how that is supposed to happen or what it would look like remains unexplored and unstated.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re Steve's possible view of acceptable ways for Christians to engage in civil society
I would think that fire-fighting would be a reasonable endeavor for a Christian--whether it's in your own separatist community, or out in the wider world. It saves people, without any violence. Plus if you expect the local fire department to come help if your community's burning down, then it's reasonable to participate (professionally or as a volunteer)--especially if you're not paying taxes that would fund the fire department.
For an Anabaptist pacifist, police work might be more problematic.
I read once that Russian Orthodox hermits will come down out of their huts and help when there's an emergency in the wider community.
Teaching in a public/state school could be iffy--a separatist Anabaptist might disagree with a lot of the curriculum. (I don't mean evolution, though that might be an issue for some.) But societal attitudes in texts, for example, might be seen as unhealthy or wrong by an Anabaptist. (Though I think lots of teachers have issues with curriculum.)
Being a librarian might be similarly iffy.
[ 07. April 2015, 10:25: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton
To try and put some perspective on this, I don't claim to be an expert on Irish history. I've tried to find some out, but one of the main things I've learned is that there is lots of disagreement - usually though not always on those 'tribal' lines, where at least I try to be even handed between RC and Protestant and don't have strong opinions on Unionism v Republicanism.
If you don't know much about Irish history, which is an extremely complex topic, you should not use it as an underpinning for your theories.
In Belfast people discussing the problems always said that it wasn't about religion. I never heard anyone, Catholic or Protestant, say that it was about religion.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm still waiting for some kind of indication from Steve on his views on the broader cultural issues of being a 'Christianised' society - and not just the governmental or authority aspects which he keeps majoring on.
In fact, there are plenty of things Steve has yet to outline in terms of how we are supposed to relate to the state and to the wider society in general.
All I'm picking up is that we should all belong to independent evangelical churches with broadly the same theological approach to him and that if we all did that then we'd gradually be able to 'put things right ...'
Yes. And, to be quite honest, I've now lost the will to live, or at least to go on any further with this discussion. IMO we are getting nowhere.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Overnight, I've realised that I'd still left a lot of scope for misunderstanding about my position in relation to the NI issue. What follows is not a 'backtracking' but a clarification (insofar as that is possible in this area!). I've deliberately not yet read overnight posts so that this is NOT a response to them.
First point; 'Constantinianism' is a real problem which didn't originate in NI and which (along with parallel ideas in non-Christian religions) had and still has massive ramifications on a global scale. It would still be a problem even if Irish history had gone completely differently and Ireland, say, had remained an independent and religiously united country throughout – or indeed, even if Ireland simply didn't exist. Don't allow a concentration on NI to distract from that.
Second point; I fully realise/recognise/admit/etc that there is a lot more to the problems of Ireland than the religious issues. The main element would appear to be the initially Anglo-Norman colonisation of the island, and the subsequent 'planting' of mainland colonists which took place disproportionately in the north-east creating a large zone with a primary loyalty to mainland Britain and a position of privilege which they feared losing if Ireland became independent and they became a minority (while of course the rest of the island wanted to become independent and not be relatively unprivileged in their own land).
Third point; nevertheless it is clear that religion has played a major role in Irish affairs and still does. And that role of religion depends on it being one kind or another of 'Constantinian' Christianity – clearly an Anabaptist style of Christianity would have played a very different and I submit far less 'toxic' role. The underlying 'this world' factors are exacerbated when those involved believe they are acting in the name of God. And yes, the violent people in and since the 1960s were probably a minority – all the more reason to make clear that they shouldn't be able to claim Christianity as any part of their conduct.
The history of Ireland took place against a background of 'Christendom', a broadly united Christian Europe. Though I know this is somewhat disputed , it seems that an element in the original Anglo-Norman invasions was a desire by the Papacy to bring an over-independent Irish church into closer conformity with Rome. This seems to have been at least nominally successful. Religious division of a different kind came with the Reformation when the mainland UK went 'Protestant', a different variety of Christianity but retaining a Christian country/'Constantinian' approach. In conflicts between Ireland and the UK colonial power the religious difference played a part thereafter.
We appear to be agreed in the broad point that the 'planting' which created six counties of 'Ulster' as a 'loyalist' province involved the planting of Protestants because of their expected loyalty to the mainland authorities. This intractable situation led to Partition when Eire became independent in the 1920s. Back then there was still much religious discrimination in the world compared to post-war, and thus a genuine fear by Protestants that they would really suffer as a minority in a reunited Ireland. Whether true or not, stories such as those of Protestants in Spain spending most of their national military service on punishment duties for refusing to go to RC Masses did have an effect.
Having thought they had created a safe 'Protestant country' in the North as part of the UK, it was a bit of a shock for Loyalists suddenly to be faced by a 'civil rights' movement by what had become rather a large minority, and by the possibility that an increasingly pluralist UK might actually grant those civil rights. Relationships between Republican/Catholics and Loyalist/Protestants had not had the time without conflict to stabilise as on the mainland and loss of privilege even in a UK province seemed to some to be intolerable. Civil rights marches though peaceful met increasingly violent resistance and Republicans still hoping to violently reunite Ireland responded opportunistically and escalated the violence, provoking further 'Loyalist/Protestant' violence.
Ian Paisley may have been very extreme, but it can't realistically be claimed that religion played no part in this. And it played a part because it was 'Constantinian', and it continues to play a part. Sure, I didn't have much impression that the marching band involved in a recent major 'parades' dispute, and many of those who rioted in their support, had much personal faith ( A recent documentary showed that apparently 'Protestants' building bonfires to celebrate the 'Twelfth' have to guard not only against Republican sabotage but also against their fellow-Protestants stealing materials for their rival fires! Very Christian I don't think!). However, they were still talking sixteen to the dozen about preserving their 'Protestant culture'.
And that can't be countered by 'liberal' Christianity or even by evangelical Christianity offering peace which isn't based on a better interpretation of the NT, an interpretation which clearly rejects Constantinianism.
I'll repeat – whatever you make of that, Constantinianism and its offshoots are a problem regardless of what happened or happens in Ireland. It happens that, even if I was not too well-informed on the details of NI, what happened there caused me to re-examine the NT church-and-state teaching, and the results of that stand in their own right and are far more widely applicable.
And yes, Baptist Trainfan, I did catch your post as I logged on to enter this and I'm also beginning to wonder how we'll get anywhere with this if people keep ducking the main issue.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I've deliberately not yet read overnight posts so that this is NOT a response to them.
I've been out of this thread so long I think I can fairly moderate it.
I don't care what justifications you advance, this is an explicit admission on your part that you're not reading anything posted before charging in again yourself.
If you can't be bothered to take stock of what people have posted since you last did, and then post 920 words of more of the same on your part, you cannot fairly be said to be engaging in debate.
So that, for now, is enough.
Prior to you posting just now I had already mooted the idea backstage of putting a stop, temporary or otherwise, to the ongoing misery of this thread. Which I am now doing, subject to H&A review and without prejudice to any subsequent H&A rulings.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
