Church and State

[All4Christ]

Now THAT is putting words in my mouth. And I deny that "The Church" determined the canon. The local churches recognized the canon -- which was completed in the first century -- by a gradual consensual process.

The local churches and The Church were synonymous at the time.

 

[dzheremi]

Please look at the small part of your post that I put in bold and try to understand what I am saying: I am NOT "clinging" to RC and Protestant sources and claims. I have said that I think the EOC is closer to apostolic teaching than either RC or Protestant. I am very much opposed especially to the RCC and Magisterial Protestantism. When I relate what these Bodies believe, I am doing so for several purposes: to show how they differ from the EOC, to show what they base their claims on, to show why they feel that they are closest to apostolic teaching, or are the true church. As I have stated in several places, I feel the two Bodies who are closest to apostolic teaching are the EOC and the Anabaptists, and these two Bodies are actually close in their views of God, man, sin, salvation, atonement, even though they are different in other areas.

I feel like we might be discussing different things by this point. I have read your previous posts already about how you feel that the EO and the Anabaptists are closest to apostolic teaching, and that's fine as far as it goes. I don't agree, but why shouldn't you state your belief, same as anybody? My problem in comprehending where you're coming from is that there seems to be a reluctance to deal with particular sources in the context(s) in which they were written, and in the context in which you are presenting them which leads to a seeming (I'm bolding this so that I am not accused of saying that this is what you actually mean; this is only how it comes off to me) reliance on these sources in order to maintain a disbelief or unacceptance of what EO people here are telling you in this thread. And that's odd to me. It seems as if EO are saying "This is our faith; here are its apostolic foundations; here is how it differs from others who have wandered away from the faith in various ways", and your replies tend to be "But group X that you are saying has wandered away would say the same about you!" -- which does not address the actual evidence brought by EO posters at all. It merely says that others would disagree, which everyone here already knows. And when the sources of these other beliefs are brought to light, in the form of citations of RC cardinals or whomever, or the 16th century foundational documents of the Anglicans, or whatever else that is invariably much later than the sources that the EO are pointing to as foundational in their own faith, the alternative histories of these other groups are appealed to in order to gift them with some kind of apostolic origin that they clearly do not have (e.g., Landmark Baptists and other such philosophies that are clearly modern inventions), sometimes even despite your own admission that there is no direct line from, say, the Celtic Church to the modern Anglican Church, despite the tendency of some sympathetic to the Anglicans to conflate the establishment of the Church with the history of Christianity in the Isles in toto (to use the one example I can clearly remember that was written by you in response to one of my own posts).

I'm not saying you're stupid, and I'm not saying your beliefs are rooted in nothing, and I'm not saying you shouldn't express them as you please (in fact, I would prefer it if you continued to do so, but also remained open to the truth presented to you by EO posters here regarding their own faith and its roots), but I am saying that this is a highly strange conversation to be having again and again. If we cannot agree on what constitutes a source -- let alone an unbiased source (I think I've written enough on why this is an impossible standard) -- then what exactly are we discussing? That your belief that the Anabaptists somehow have a share in the apostolic faith together with the EO will remain despite all counter-evidence?

I suppose this is significantly my own fault (aiernovi, aiernovi), but I thought this thread was about Church and State? Or is this the Theotokos thread? Does it make a difference anymore? Hahaha.

 

[CelticRebel]

I feel like we might be discussing different things by this point. I have read your previous posts already about how you feel that the EO and the Anabaptists are closest to apostolic teaching, and that's fine as far as it goes. I don't agree, but why shouldn't you state your belief, same as anybody? My problem in comprehending where you're coming from is that there seems to be a reluctance to deal with particular sources in the context(s) in which they were written, and in the context in which you are presenting them which leads to a seeming (I'm bolding this so that I am not accused of saying that this is what you actually mean; this is only how it comes off to me) reliance on these sources in order to maintain a disbelief or unacceptance of what EO people here are telling you in this thread. And that's odd to me. It seems as if EO are saying "This is our faith; here are its apostolic foundations; here is how it differs from others who have wandered away from the faith in various ways", and your replies tend to be "But group X that you are saying has wandered away would say the same about you!" -- which does not address the actual evidence brought by EO posters at all. It merely says that others would disagree, which everyone here already knows. And when the sources of these other beliefs are brought to light, in the form of citations of RC cardinals or whomever, or the 16th century foundational documents of the Anglicans, or whatever else that is invariably much later than the sources that the EO are pointing to as foundational in their own faith, the alternative histories of these other groups are appealed to in order to gift them with some kind of apostolic origin that they clearly do not have (e.g., Landmark Baptists and other such philosophies that are clearly modern inventions), sometimes even despite your own admission that there is no direct line from, say, the Celtic Church to the modern Anglican Church, despite the tendency of some sympathetic to the Anglicans to conflate the establishment of the Church with the history of Christianity in the Isles in toto (to use the one example I can clearly remember that was written by you in response to one of my own posts).

I'm not saying you're stupid, and I'm not saying your beliefs are rooted in nothing, and I'm not saying you shouldn't express them as you please (in fact, I would prefer it if you continued to do so, but also remained open to the truth presented to you by EO posters here regarding their own faith and its roots), but I am saying that this is a highly strange conversation to be having again and again. If we cannot agree on what constitutes a source -- let alone an unbiased source (I think I've written enough on why this is an impossible standard) -- then what exactly are we discussing? That your belief that the Anabaptists somehow have a share in the apostolic faith together with the EO will remain despite all counter-evidence?

I suppose this is significantly my own fault (aiernovi, aiernovi), but I thought this thread was about Church and State? Or is this the Theotokos thread? Does it make a difference anymore? Hahaha.

Well, threads have a way of wondering, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

 

[CelticRebel]

The local churches and The Church were synonymous at the time.

Actually not. There was no such thing as "The Church", as an overarching institution. There were only local assemblies of believers, or churches, which made up the Body of Christ.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually not. There was no such thing as "The Church", as an overarching institution. There were only local assemblies of believers, or churches, which made up the Body of Christ.

actually, the earliest mention of Church is singular. Matthew 16 Christ says He will build His Church (not Churches). Acts says that the Church was added to. the pagans in Acts persecuted the Church. 1 Tim says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

so while you are correct that there are local assemblies/churches, since these local assemblies are one in faith and in communion with each other, you do the concept of the One Church. this stems from Christ.

 

[All4Christ]

Actually not. There was no such thing as "The Church", as an overarching institution. There were only local assemblies of believers, or churches, which made up the Body of Christ.

Even in the times of the apostles, there was a group of local churches in communion with each other, with common teachings, and there were those people outside of communion with the church. You can even see the beginnings of a council in Acts.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Gxg, people always bring up the Munster situation, but this was an aberrant event in Anabaptism. The Anabaptists were pacifists. Still are today.

Celtic, labeling Munster as an aberrant event already avoids where there were others besides the Munster situation who were problematic - and it also avoids the fact that one cannot be inconsistent when talking on the event as aberrant when the fact is that there were just as many abberant events within Orthodoxy or others advocating against seperation of Church and State (if assuming all cases were automatically violent). We cannot do equivocation on the issue.....for the he Münster Rebellion was a turning point for the Anabaptist movement but its earlier history was always rooted in the same violence that other Anabaptists try to claim is done only by the Reformers and Catholic camps. We also have other groups besides Munster such as the Batenburgers under Jan van Batenburg preserved the violent millennialist stream of Anabaptism seen at Münster/believed force was justified against anyone not in their sect - but after being suppressed, some went undercover pretending to be Catholics or Lutherans as necessary for their survival...but other Anabaptists who arose to oppose them became known as the Mennonites (after finding leaders in others such as Menno Simons ).....but one of the other prominent leaders of Anabaptists ( David Joris) ended up meeting with others underground (as it concerns divisions on polygamy and the use of violence) and noted that there needed to be restraint since the time had not yet arisen for them to resist.

So the Anabaptist name was never flawless overall in its history and had to be rehabilitated just as with others:

• Zürich: Seedbed of Radical Change

For a brief excerpt:

Modern efforts to reclaim Anabaptism as a valid tradition often highlight two early milestones of the movement: the first re-baptism of believers by radical reformers associated with Ulrich Zwingli at Zürich in 1525 and the Schleitheim Articles of 1527 (a brief Anabaptist statement of ecclesiological distinctives that helped shape the tradition for generations). Eager to find the good in sixteenth-century Anabaptism, some modern scholars point to these two expressions as normative for the early movement. The same interpreters dismiss millenarian or violent expressions of Anabaptism as aberrations.

An accurate picture of early Anabaptism must reflect complexities and abiguities of the movement. Recent interpreters of the Reformation era tend to emphasize that Anabaptism sprang from multiple roots and exhibited a wide variety of expressions. Instead of pointing to only one fountainhead of "authentic" early Anabaptism, historians now are likely to identify a range of radical reformers as belonging to a broad movement. The wider scope of Anabaptist studies now encompasses both pacifists and violent revolutionaries,5 free church and territorial church advocates.6 Historians now note that some early Anabaptists (especially the rebels at Munster) centred their faith and practice on Old Testament models, while others (such as the Zürich circle) were strongly Christocentric.

With such a broad spectrum of theological species early in the movement, it is impossible to state the Anabaptist view on almost any topic. Nor is it possible to tell the Anabaptist story. Because the early movement was often illegal and operated on a grassroots level, it did not develop a stable institutional or geographic base. In the heat of persecution, or in the fever of apocalyptic expectation, early leaders did not develop a comprehensive or systematic theology. Rather than finding one "original" expression of Anabaptism in the sixteenth century, the historian finds a plethora of radical movements that opponents all lumped together under the label "Anabaptist".​

• BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, The Siege of Munster

And even outside of that, we also have an extensive history of Anabaptist supporting many things in the 20th century which did do a great deal of harm to others. I can appreciate others pointing out the following:

"....historic Anabaptist streams have a complicated history as it relates to slavery and racism in America. On one hand, most Anabaptists did not participate in slavery, unlike almost every other Christian tradition and denomination. On the other hand, unlike the Quakers whom many eventually became great abolitionists, Mennonites did very little to actively confront and challenge slavery and later racist manifestations like Jim Crow, Lynching, the convict leasing system, etc. So, it definitely is important to have a formational community that produces people that can resist participating in things like slavery. But it is also important to produce people that are willing to head towards Jerusalem and accept the consequences that come from confronting a social order that does not align with God’s Kingdom"​

Some have argued for Mennonite activism in certain parts when it came to racism and systems like Jim Crow in the South - but there were many differing groups in the camp which allowed things to remain as they were.

And the debates have continued for some time. As another wisely noted in All Blog Posts[bless and do not curse]for January, 2015 | The Christian Century

Well it is precisely that neo-Anabaptists seem to be placing the current critiques of white homogeneity at the feet of the historic groups feet rather than by discussing their history, culture, and issues but have forgotten to do the same for their own formation. Believe it or not, neo-Anabaptists have not dropped out of a cultural and historical vacuum, in which they are the only ones who come untouched by history. They too have been socialized by something as well. More specifically, my engagement with the particular neo-Anabaptists making this particular argument are most often leaders that came from (and still are) deeply a part of the white evangelical community. Believe it or not, but white evangelicals also have a long history with race. Unfortunately, unlike Mennonite history which includes providing the very first petition against slavery in the colonies all the way back in 1688, and the overall rejection of the practice of slavery by their communities throughout American history (and no denominational splits over the issue), many neo-Anabaptists have a tradition deeply rooted in overwhelming turn towards endorsing slavery by the Church going into the 19th century. This was followed by the endorsement or accommodation of white evangelical communities in regards to black codes, Jim and Jane Crow, lynching, KKK and white citizens councils, neo-slavery convict leasing systems, and the ongoing refusal to acknowledge the image of God and dignity in black life even up until today.​

And as said earlier, I already have Anabaptist friends/family today I've been good with for years - but them being non-violent today doesn't change where extreme cases of violence also happened in Anabaptist history just as they did with others.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The local churches and The Church were synonymous at the time.

It's similar to saying the Ant Colonies (which are multiple) do things when the truth is that they are ONE colony spread out in differing terrains.

 

[prodromos]

Look, I have tried to have a civil conversation with you, even reaching out to you in order to do so, but this is difficult considering your continued offensive manner. You can insult and question my intelligence, but all that deos is cast doubt on your own.

I will state that I am certified to teach history at the 7-12 grade levels, in addition to my other educational qualifications that I wrote about elsewhere.

Its all well and good to wave your qualifications in the air as if it dismisses the points raised but it really doesn't do anything for the discussion. I asked you before what the subject of your doctoral thesis was because I was interested to see if it did in fact relate to the subjects at hand. You wouldn't expect a heart surgeon to be able to diagnose a digestive problem accurately, would you?

An objective history is just that -- a history based on fact and NOT on whether one personally agrees with it or not. I have always been interested in such and only such because I was interested in the truth, not someone's opinion, including yours. All of those Bodies that I mentioned would have as much disdain for you and your version of truth as you do for them and their version.

I have always wanted to and been able to look at these issues from an objective and unbiased position, as much as is possible for a human being, simply for one reason: I wanted to know the truth, wherever it lead me.

Your views on Constantine demonstrate that you have largely swallowed the anti-Catholic Protestant position which is anything but objective. I apologise if you take offense but I believe you are kidding yourself if you believe you have been able to view history objectively.

 

[buzuxi02]

This is an excerpt from the Antiochan archdiocese website. It demonstrates how symphonia avoids two extremes. That of the COE who for whatever reason has the king of Britain as its earthly head, (and strangely enough NOT the archbishop of Canterbury) and the american system of seperation of religion from state. Granted the american system is hippocritical. We have baptist ministers like Huckabee constantly running for president, we have baptist ministers like the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson entrenched in politics. And the interview of televangelist Hagee a few weeks ago on national radio where he says evangelicals and fundamentalists support Political Israel because the bible says so and that Netanyahoo is his personal friend, they have dinner together and then endorsed him for his reelection in Israel (i could you not). Anyway:

Symphonia—The Harmony of Faith and Politics

Constantine's support for the early Church laid the foundation for the doctrine of symphonia—the ideal of political and religious leaders working in harmony to realize God's will here on earth. This ideal is rooted in the Lord's Prayer: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Symphonia avoids two extremes: the separation of Church from State on the one hand, and the fusion of Church and State on the other. Despite his active participation in the Ecumenical Council, Constantine did not view himself as one of the bishops, but rather as "bishop of those outside." This ideal found concrete expression in the Byzantine Empire, which lasted for a thousand years. Under Constantine's rule began the transformation of Roman culture. Execution by crucifixion ceased, gladiatorial battles as punishment ended.

Symphonia has a number of important implications for Orthodox Christians. One is that the Church is called to pray for those in power, even if they are not Christians. For Orthodoxy, symphonia is the ideal situation, but not the only one. Christianity is not tied to any one particular political structure. Another implication is that there is no separation between the physical and the spiritual (belief in dualism is an early heresy). Orthodoxy is both a personal and a public faith. The Orthodox Church encourages good citizenship, public service along with philanthropy. Its preference for lay involvement in politics helps avoid the dangers of theocratic rule. It is expected that Orthodox Christians will bring the values of the Church into the political and social realms.
http://www.antiochian.org/constantine-great-roman-emperor-christian-saint-historys-turning-point

 

[buzuxi02]

On a side note I noticed a thread started on the baptist sects subforum about Constantine. These guys are some of the most delusional people ever, huh? Atleast they give me plenty of ammunition to rip them further. Never did I think of all things, that Constantine who died around 340 AD was the reason for the western europeans insatiable apetite for the inquisitions and protestant killing machines of the 1600's.

Who knows, maybe we can blame Alexander the Great for WW2 and King Nebuchadnezzer's policies for the rise of the Ayatollahs of Iran in 1979. And of course Jesus is to blame for Hitler. I think its time someone took away the baptistas sects' KJV and actually give them a passport so they can travel and become enlightened.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, Jesus...or Christianity in general. I've heard that one very often from secularists, particularly the ones who in their delusion see Islam as a poor, misunderstood, trodden-upon faith next to big, bad Christianity. "Well, what about Hitler! He was Christian!" About as effective as blaming the profession of clowning for the murders of John Wayne Gacy...but I digress...

 

[prodromos]

About as effective as blaming the profession of clowning for the murders of John Wayne Gacy...but I digress...

Clowns are evil, evil I tell you.

 

[rusmeister]

Actually not. There was no such thing as "The Church", as an overarching institution. There were only local assemblies of believers, or churches, which made up the Body of Christ.

This is manifestly not true. What on earth do you think Rome was persecuting in those first three centuries?

The best answer I can offer to your idea is from a Catholic - and so, he (logically enough) identifies the Church as the Catholic Church. But as this deals with the first millennium, it can equally be referred to as the Orthodox Church. So I replace the word "Catholic" with "Orthodox" and find no change in meaning.

The entire chapter (chapter 2) should be read for completeness of thought, but here is an excerpt that shows Belloc's razor-like mind and aptitude for history:

"A word as to the constitution of the Church. All men with an historical training know that the Church of the years 200-250 was what I have described it, an organized society under bishops, and, what is more, it is evident that there was a central primacy at Rome as well as local primacies in various other great cities. But what is not so generally emphasized is the way in which Christian society appears to have looked at itself at that time.

The conception which the Catholic Church had of itself in the early third century can, perhaps, best be approached by pointing out that if we use the word "Christianity" we are unhistorical. "Christianity" is a term in the mouth and upon the pen of the post-Reformation writer; it connotes an opinion or a theory; a point of view; an idea. The Christians of the time of which I speak had no such conception. Upon the contrary, they were attached to its very antithesis. They were attached to the conception of a thing: of an organized body instituted for a definite end, disciplined in a definite way, and remarkable for the possession of definite and concrete doctrine. One can talk, in speaking of the first three centuries, of stoic_ism_, or epicurean_ism_, or neoplaton_ism_; but one cannot talk of "Christian_ism_" or "Christ_ism_." Indeed, no one has been so ignorant or unhistorical as to attempt those phrases. But the current phrase "Christianity," used by moderns as identical with the Christian body in the third century, is intellectually the equivalent of "Christianism" or "Christism;" and, I repeat, it connotes a grossly unhistorical idea; it connotes something historically false; something that never existed.

Let me give an example of what I mean:

Four men will be sitting as guests of a fifth in a private house in Carthage in the year 225. They are all men of culture; all possessed of the two languages, Greek and Latin, well-read and interested in the problems and half-solutions of their skeptical time. One will profess himself Materialist, and will find another to agree with him; there is no personal God, certain moral duties must be recognized by men for such and such utilitarian reasons, and so forth. He finds support.

The host is not of that opinion; he has been profoundly influenced by certain "mysteries" into which he has been "initiated:" That is, symbolical plays showing the fate of the soul and performed in high seclusion before members of a society sworn to secrecy. He has come to feel a spiritual life as the natural life round him. He has curiously followed, and often paid at high expense, the services of necromancers; he believes that in an "initiation" which he experienced in his youth, and during the secret and most vivid drama or "mystery" in which he then took part, he actually came in contact with the spiritual world. Such men were not uncommon. The declining society of the time was already turning to influences of that type.

The host's conviction, his awed and reticent attitude towards such things, impress his guests. One of the guests, however, a simple, solid kind of man, not drawn to such vagaries, says that he has been reading with great interest the literature of the Christians. He is in admiration of the traditional figure of the Founder of their Church. He quotes certain phrases, especially from the four orthodox Gospels. They move him to eloquence, and their poignancy and illuminative power have an effect upon his friends. He ends by saying: "For my part, I have come to make it a sort of rule to act as this Man Christ would have had me act. He seems to me to have led the most perfect life I ever read of, and the practical maxims which are attached to His Name seem to me a sufficient guide to life. That," he will conclude simply, "is the groove into which I have fallen, and I do not think I shall ever leave it."

Let us call the man who has so spoken, Ferreolus. Would Ferreolus have been a Christian? Would the officials of the Roman Empire have called him a Christian? Would he have been in danger of unpopularity where Christians were unpopular? Would Christians have received him among themselves as part of their strict and still somewhat secret society? Would he have counted with any single man of the whole Empire as one of the Christian body?

The answer is most emphatically No.

No Christian in the first three centuries would have held such a man as coming within his view. No imperial officer in the most violent crisis of one of those spasmodic persecutions which the Church had to undergo would have troubled him with a single question. No Christian congregation would have regarded him as in any way connected with their body. Opinion of that sort, "Christism," had no relation to the Church. How far it existed we cannot tell, for it was unimportant. In so far as it existed it would have been on all fours with any one of the vague opinions which floated about the cultured Roman world.

Now it is evident that the term "Christianity" used as a point of view, a mere mental attitude, would include such a man, and it is equally evident that we have only to imagine him to see that he had nothing to do with the Christian religion of that day. For the Christian religion (then as now) was a thing, not a theory. It was expressed in what I have called an organism, and that organism was the Catholic Church."

http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Hilaire Belloc/Europe and the Faith (HTML).htm

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Xerxes caused the Vietnam War, Queen Dido of Carthage caused the Korean War, and Philip II of Macedon really precipitated the conflicts in the Sudan.

On a side note I noticed a thread started on the baptist sects subforum about Constantine. These guys are some of the most delusional people ever, huh? Atleast they give me plenty of ammunition to rip them further. Never did I think of all things, that Constantine who died around 340 AD was the reason for the western europeans insatiable apetite for the inquisitions and protestant killing machines of the 1600's.

Who knows, maybe we can blame Alexander the Great for WW2 and King Nebuchadnezzer's policies for the rise of the Ayatollahs of Iran in 1979. And of course Jesus is to blame for Hitler. I think its time someone took away the baptistas sects' KJV and actually give them a passport so they can travel and become enlightened.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Xerxes caused the Vietnam War, Queen Dido of Carthage caused the Korean War, and Philip II of Macedon really precipitated the conflicts in the Sudan.

I thought it was all George W Bush's fault

 

[rusmeister]

No, really, guys, read the Belloc bit about the four men. If you read the whole chapter (discounting Belloc's insistent connection to the modern Catholic Church) you can see how all Protestant claims, from a standpoint of any historical thinking, must be nonsense. Belloc was totally awesome - he had one blind spot: the Eastern Church. He speaks as if it didn't exist. Just reinterpret pre-schism remarks of "Catholic" as "Orthodox" and you're both historically accurate and in business.

 

[CelticRebel]

actually, the earliest mention of Church is singular. Matthew 16 Christ says He will build His Church (not Churches). Acts says that the Church was added to. the pagans in Acts persecuted the Church. 1 Tim says the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

so while you are correct that there are local assemblies/churches, since these local assemblies are one in faith and in communion with each other, you do the concept of the One Church. this stems from Christ.

But that church which Jesus spoke of was not and is not an outward hierarchical institution; rather, it is his universal Body, composed of all true believers who ever lived and are living now.

 

[CelticRebel]

Its all well and good to wave your qualifications in the air as if it dismisses the points raised but it really doesn't do anything for the discussion. I asked you before what the subject of your doctoral thesis was because I was interested to see if it did in fact relate to the subjects at hand. You wouldn't expect a heart surgeon to be able to diagnose a digestive problem accurately, would you?

Your views on Constantine demonstrate that you have largely swallowed the anti-Catholic Protestant position which is anything but objective. I apologise if you take offense but I believe you are kidding yourself if you believe you have been able to view history objectively.

I take issue with and resent your phrasing, that I wave my qualifications in the air. I only brought them up after I was challenged in an unseemly way. I don't care what the Protestant or Catholic positions are on Constantine; I was and am only interested in the facts. And what I have stated are the incontrovertible facts. Whoever agrees with the objective facts is right; whoever disagrees is wrong.

 

[CelticRebel]

This is an excerpt from the Antiochan archdiocese website. It demonstrates how symphonia avoids two extremes. That of the COE who for whatever reason has the king of Britain as its earthly head, (and strangely enough NOT the archbishop of Canterbury) and the american system of seperation of religion from state. Granted the american system is hippocritical. We have baptist ministers like Huckabee constantly running for president, we have baptist ministers like the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson entrenched in politics. And the interview of televangelist Hagee a few weeks ago on national radio where he says evangelicals and fundamentalists support Political Israel because the bible says so and that Netanyahoo is his personal friend, they have dinner together and then endorsed him for his reelection in Israel (i could you not). Anyway:

Religious people being involved in politics is a different issue entirely from a union of state and church in which religious liberty is non-existent or limited. Surely you know that.