When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

Not necessarily. What if the person refuses to be excommunicated or hasn't consented to it? Then what?

It doesn't work like that. By becoming part of the church, you have consented to the church's forms of governance and discipline. You might not always like how that works out (and I see plenty of decisions I disagree with or dislike), but you don't get to say you want to be part of this community but then pick and choose which bits of that apply to you. If you no longer want any of it, of course, you're always free to leave.

Nor are you obligated to accept the status quo of said society and can seek to change it to something which benefits you.

Within the processes open in the democracy I live in, sure. But I'm not free to try to overturn our governing structures.

A Christian ethic of power cannot ignore the reality of power itself.

Just as well, then, that that's not what I'm suggesting.

A Christian who seeks power is not automatically bad.

No, not automatically. But a Christian who seeks power must remember always that power is given in order to serve.

The Anglican Church is a dying Church, there is nothing healthy about it.

We're not going to agree on this, so let's not descend to inflammatory critiques of one another's churches.

But, while my church has plenty of problems, I maintain that our synodical form of governance is absolutely one of the better things about it.

Power may dominate but it doesn't necessarily dehumanize others.

My point was that we have, historically, been deeply engaged in dehumanising behaviours, though. And in many ways and places continue to be. This is something we need to recognise and repent of, not celebrate as some sort of Christian ascendancy.

Are Christians specially culpable for being bad or something or misusing power?

Yes. We who are the body of Christ are especially culpable when we sin, for we ought to know better. We cannot plead ignorance.

Didn't you support locking down the Churches during Covid?

During the early part of the pandemic, to help prevent mass death, absolutely I did. I will admit, in hindsight, that I underestimated how long it would go on, and I underestimated how severe the impact would be. If we had a chance to do things again, knowing what I know now, I would take a different view now of what would be ideal.

However, given what we knew at the time, I think lockdowns were a reasonable course of action. I think they saved many thousands, if not millions, of lives. And while they were done imperfectly, I think they were far preferable to letting the virus rip through our communities unprepared. That was a valid exercise of government power.

 

[stevevw]

I think secularism has gained ground in recent years. I don't blame social media because the decline in religion long predates the internet.

I agree and I think that decline began around the 50s and 60s with the cultural revolutions which have evolved into what we have today. You could say it really began Post Enlightenment when people began to dispute the Churches authority in secular matters.

But I think social media has been a revolution in itself which has changed society fundementally. The power of individuals and groups has increased tremenediously which now influences what is truth. Fake facts and personal opinion flood the market and this has blurred the line between what is real or what matters or not morally.

But it is not a war between left and right.

Your right its more than just the Left and Right of politics. I highlighted this because I think ultimately political parties are pushing more extreme left and Right policies that seem to be dividing society along ethical lines. In the past I think politics was more middle ground because all parties were more inline with Christain values. But now there seems to be clear and extreme differences which cut at these values one way or the other.

Conservative Christains mostly support Prolife, traditional marriage and support the Biblical meaning of male aned female. Its the Left who are mostly promoting aned supporting abortion, SSM and Trans aned Gender ideology. Though I agree that not everyone has political leanings aned have a position on this and that some on either side of the politics support the opposite of their own parties position. But generally it is the extreme position that seems to influence policy and society as a whole.

The moral framework of secularism - certainly in the UK, anyway, is not that different. I have worked with observant Christians and radical atheists, often in the same work teams. If there had been issues between colleagues it would have been obvious and projects would have suffered. That has never been my experience.

I think work situations are different and people are their to do a job regardless of personal beliefs and views. It depends on what the job is as well. I don't think you will see many Christains working at an abortion clinic so people may choose like minded work.

But there will also be many who just button their lip if they disagree and go along because their job may be on the line. I think this highlights how politics and religion has infiltrated into all areas of life and now people can lose their job for their personal beliefs.

Most of the atheists I know have been brought up in the Christian traditions. In my experience atheists possess an understanding of moral good and wickedness in exactly the same measure as their religious colleagues.

I agree everyone with a right mind knows right and wrong. But in a modern worled which impresses its authority onto everyone theres comes a point where belief will conflict with what society thinks is moral and what Christains think is moral. As atheism has no moral reason outside self as to what is right and wrong then the question is what is the moral basis.

Is there more athiests who go along with secular moral norms. I don't think a person can believe in the Christain God and support say abortion. So I think yes atheists can happen to have similar values as Christains in these matters but Christains cannot have similar views to atheists and that is what I think matters and is causing the conflict. As time goes by people are being put in positions where they have to defened their beliefs.

I think this has been the fundemental change. In the past it was non Christains who had to defend themselves and now its Christains. So mainstream secular society is doing a backflip. Christains will become another minority group. But I wonder if they will get the same leeway and privileges as other minority groups which society seems to be tripping over themselves to accommoedate.

 

[ralliann]

I didn't say we have to let go of all power and authority; but that we need to not be driven by (theologies of) power, control and authority. The key word there is probably control.

As long as people of faith seek to domineer those around us, we harm our witness to the Christ who emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, and humbled himself even to the point of death on a cross, for the sake of love. We cannot credibly preach that Christ while attempting to use whatever power we have to control others.

It seems you are much more concerned about those outside the Church, than those in Christ. I would like to attend a liturgical Church. All you have done is told me I am unwelcome. Forcing me to either Orthodoxy, or Catholic. This has also divided your own, to make the world feel loved.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It doesn't work like that. By becoming part of the church, you have consented to the church's forms of governance and discipline. You might not always like how that works out (and I see plenty of decisions I disagree with or dislike), but you don't get to say you want to be part of this community but then pick and choose which bits of that apply to you. If you no longer want any of it, of course, you're always free to leave.

Except it never works like that whenever there is disagreement in an organisation. Consent is when both parties agree on an action. If one party considers the others action illegitimate, then there isn't consent. There is however the use of force to expel a dissident, which I fully approve of.

Within the processes open in the democracy I live in, sure. But I'm not free to try to overturn our governing structures.

Actually you are. Anyone is free to overturn an authority, it's just a matter of how you do it and if you can do it.

Just as well, then, that that's not what I'm suggesting.

It kind of is because you are suggesting that when using power the consent of someone else matters. It really doesn't. Power in order for it to be enforced needs to be done without consent.

No, not automatically. But a Christian who seeks power must remember always that power is given in order to serve.

Indeed, yet we must also remember the limited nature of power and that not everyone's interests can be satisfied.

But, while my church has plenty of problems, I maintain that our synodical form of governance is absolutely one of the better things about it.

Still doesn't improve or help it in the long run.

My point was that we have, historically, been deeply engaged in dehumanising behaviours, though. And in many ways and places continue to be. This is something we need to recognise and repent of, not celebrate as some sort of Christian ascendancy.

Dehumanizing behaviors such as what exactly?

Yes. We who are the body of Christ are especially culpable when we sin, for we ought to know better. We cannot plead ignorance.

So we are then unique in our unworthiness of having power?

During the early part of the pandemic, to help prevent mass death, absolutely I did. I will admit, in hindsight, that I underestimated how long it would go on, and I underestimated how severe the impact would be. If we had a chance to do things again, knowing what I know now, I would take a different view now of what would be ideal.

However, given what we knew at the time, I think lockdowns were a reasonable course of action. I think they saved many thousands, if not millions, of lives. And while they were done imperfectly, I think they were far preferable to letting the virus rip through our communities unprepared. That was a valid exercise of government power.

Supposing you were there during the persecutions as a clerical leader. The Romans tell you they will kill every single one of your congregants if you don't sacrifice to Caesar. If you do, they will let you and your congregation go free.

What would you do?

 

[ralliann]

It doesn't work like that. By becoming part of the church, you have consented to the church's forms of governance and discipline. You might not always like how that works out (and I see plenty of decisions I disagree with or dislike), but you don't get to say you want to be part of this community but then pick and choose which bits of that apply to you. If you no longer want any of it, of course, you're always free to leave.

How does it work for Church leadership? When these joined the Church was this teaching among you or not? No it was not what Church leadership before you taught. It looks like you can ignore and change what was established by church authority, but the people can just leave if they maintain that authority. You are the ones rejecting their authority not those people that were forced to leave over Your having pushed aside what was given by Church authority.

 

[Paidiske]

It seems you are much more concerned about those outside the Church, than those in Christ.

How so?

In this sort of discussion, where we are talking about how the church relates to the world, I am definitely concerned about those outside the church. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned with those in Christ, but that's not what this discussion is about, I think?

I would like to attend a liturgical Church. All you have done is told me I am unwelcome.

Again, how so? I am genuinely puzzled as to why you would think you are unwelcome?

Consent is when both parties agree on an action.

As I said, when it comes to being part of a group, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the group's governance apply to you. You consent to the whole by agreeing to be part of the group (assuming you are free to leave).

There is however the use of force to expel a dissident, which I fully approve of.

There are also ways to hold those in authority accountable for misuse of power, which is absolutely necessary.

Actually you are. Anyone is free to overturn an authority, it's just a matter of how you do it and if you can do it.

Perhaps I should have said, it would not be ethical for me to do so.

It kind of is because you are suggesting that when using power the consent of someone else matters.

Well, yes. Of course. That's why consent is such a big deal in so many aspects of daily life, from medical procedures to having sex to financial contracts to the sharing of one's personal information (and so many more).

Power in order for it to be enforced needs to be done without consent.

Again we come around to having a different conception of power.

Indeed, yet we must also remember the limited nature of power and that not everyone's interests can be satisfied.

This is true. But the point I was trying to make is that while it is not wrong to seek power, one must always remember that whatever power one has, is given for the common good.

Dehumanizing behaviors such as what exactly?

Warfare; torture; economic exploitation; political and cultural oppression; and on and on it goes.

So we are then unique in our unworthiness of having power?

We are unique in the standard to which we ought to hold ourselves in the use of power.

Supposing you were there during the persecutions as a clerical leader. The Romans tell you they will kill every single one of your congregants if you don't sacrifice to Caesar. If you do, they will let you and your congregation go free.

What would you do?

For the lives of my congregants, I would be sorely tempted to sacrifice. I am grateful that I have not been put to such a test.

 

[Paidiske]

How does it work for Church leadership? When these joined the Church was this teaching among you or not? No it was not what Church leadership before you taught. It looks like you can ignore and change what was established by church authority, but the people can just leave if they maintain that authority. You are the ones rejecting their authority not those people that were forced to leave over Your having pushed aside what was given by Church authority.

I'm sorry, I really am not at all clear what you're talking about, here.

 

[ralliann]

I'm sorry, I really am not at all clear what you're talking about, here.

I was addressing your comments about Church government. How do you claim authority in governance, when you overturn the governance of those which were before you? Does your authority become ineffective for leadership that follows you?

 

[stevevw]

I think there's been a shift at both extremes. The extreme Christian/traditional/conservative positions held by some now, would be unrecognisable to mainstream Christians of times past. And in fact, are fairly unrecognisable to many Christians today (a lack of recognition which is mutual, which is why many more moderate/progressive/liberal Christians are viewed with suspicion, or as not real Christians, by the more conservative folks; somewhat ironically, as unless trends shift, it's the more moderate/progressive/liberal end of Christianity which is likely to be more effective in mission).

I don't think the Christian/traditional/conservative position has changed that much throughout time. Maybe the resignation that some Christain standards have been undermined and they have lost the power to install these traditions but nothing has changed in the moral itself. Christains have always been opposed to abortion and SSM for example.

But as the Church no longer rules they have to accept that other powers no have that authority in this world who will implement changes that is against Christain ethics. That is going to continue to happen. We have seen the trend and now the tables are turning where Christain values are considered outdated or cruel.

I suspect that this is driven, in part at least, by growing pluralism and a reaction on all sides to a loss of common identity, and each "side" feeling threatened by not being the social default. So the distrust, the rejection of the "other," the self-referential discourse "bubbles," and so on, only reinforce all of that and push it further along.

The growing pluralism is because of a move away from God in society. It use to be that God set the standard or at least governance considered Christain values as the foundation of how we should live as a society. But as God has been taken away the voide has to be filleed with something. When we choose not to have any foundation at all then this opens the door for pluralism.

But inevitably what happens is that pluralism deoesn't work. What endes up happening is that those with the most power aned position or those with the most influence even being a minority take control of what sets the standard. Moral relativism is self defeating. We end up with another dictatorship. Now its telling us what is moral, real and it seems its target is Christian/traditional/conservative positions and as a result causes both sides to become more radical. The ironic thing is that God gives the balance through Christ.

I don't think the secular "end" of society is actually rejecting God, by the way, but from what I can see they are (with good reason) rejecting religious institutions driven by theologies of power, control and authority. Such institutions will, I think, continue to wither unless they can learn a gentler, humbler way of being.

I think they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The question is why are believers deminishing. If they were only rejecting religion then there would still be a growth in Christainity in the west. If anything is growing its the belief in other things New age beliefs, ideological beliefs that propose alternatives to Christainity. Or just no belief. I think I read someone that atheism is the fastest growing new religion and its a religion in itself because it holds onto atheism like a religion.

I think healing will be found in genuine mutual respect, dialogue (which means appreciative listening as well as talking!), and willingness to embrace diversity as a genuine gift. That is hard; it is hard intellectually and it is hard emotionally. It will take a great deal of grace. But wisdom is vindicated by all her children.

I think respect for God aned Christains can only come from being the example of Christ without saying too much at all. The key here is mutual respect and I don't think secular society or the world has respect for Christains and God because of past experiences. But also because a general skepticism aned anti religion has grown as a moral position relying on humans ability not Gods to determine whats right and wrong. fundementally its a spiritual war about what is the truth and who is the authority of this world.

 

[Paidiske]

I was addressing your comments about Church government. How do you claim authority in governance, when you overturn the governance of those which were before you? Does your authority become ineffective for leadership that follows you?

I'm sorry, I'm still not following you. Is this a comment about the ordination of women?

I don't think the Christian/traditional/conservative position has changed that much throughout time. Maybe the resignation that some Christain standards have been undermined and they have lost the power to install these traditions but nothing has changed in the moral itself. Christains have always been opposed to abortion and SSM for example.

I was thinking more about things like the outright rejection of science as a discipline, which was not where Christianity was, say, before the rise of fundamentalism; and which does mean the "conservative" view drifts away from the mainstream which finds science a valuable source in shaping its worldview.

We have seen the trend and now the tables are turning where Christain values are considered outdated or cruel.

I think this comes back to my comments about power and control.

The growing pluralism is because of a move away from God in society. It use to be that God set the standard or at least governance considered Christain values as the foundation of how we should live as a society. But as God has been taken away the voide has to be filleed with something. When we choose not to have any foundation at all then this opens the door for pluralism.

I think it's more, pluralism means there are no longer shared understandings of God. (For example, if your community has thriving Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Muslim communities alongside the church, there's no longer one shared idea of what "God" even means, and that's before we consider the "nones.")

I think your comment about past experiences - and, let's be real here - ongoing bad experiences of the church and Christians, have hit the nail on the head.

 

[ralliann]

I don't think the Christian/traditional/conservative position has changed that much throughout time. Maybe the resignation that some Christain standards have been undermined and they have lost the power to install these traditions but nothing has changed in the moral itself. Christains have always been opposed to abortion and SSM for example.

But as the Church no longer rules they have to accept that other powers no have that authority in this world who will implement changes that is against Christain ethics. That is going to continue to happen. We have seen the trend and now the tables are turning where Christain values are considered outdated or cruel.

The growing pluralism is because of a move away from God in society. It use to be that God set the standard or at least governance considered Christain values as the foundation of how we should live as a society. But as God has been taken away the voide has to be filleed with something. When we choose not to have any foundation at all then this opens the door for pluralism.

But inevitably what happens is that pluralism deoesn't work. What endes up happening is that those with the most power aned position or those with the most influence even being a minority take control of what sets the standard. Moral relativism is self defeating. We end up with another dictatorship. Now its telling us what is moral, real and it seems its target is Christian/traditional/conservative positions and as a result causes both sides to become more radical. The ironic thing is that God gives the balance through Christ.

I think they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The question is why are believers deminishing. If they were only rejecting religion then there would still be a growth in Christainity in the west. If anything is growing its the belief in other things New age beliefs, ideological beliefs that propose alternatives to Christainity. Or just no belief. I think I read someone that atheism is the fastest growing new religion and its a religion in itself because it holds onto atheism like a religion.

I think respect for God aned Christains can only come from being the example of Christ without saying too much at all. The key here is mutual respect and I don't think secular society or the world has respect for Christains and God because of past experiences. But also because a general skepticism aned anti religion has grown as a moral position relying on humans ability not Gods to determine whats right and wrong. fundementally its a spiritual war about what is the truth and who is the authority of this world.

Authority, is a huge issue here. How could a Church establish themselves as an authority from God, if later generations of authority cast theirs off? It seems to also fly in the face of the reformation as well.

 

[ralliann]

I'm sorry, I'm still not following you. Is this a comment about the ordination of women?

No. As the other poster mentioned abortion. I also am talking about homosexuality.

 

[Paidiske]

No. As the other poster mentioned abortion. I also am talking about homosexuality.

In no way have I overturned the historic norms of the church on that matter. Arguing - as I was in the other thread - for not trying to control what happens outside the church, says nothing about what happens in the church.

 

[ralliann]

In no way have I overturned the historic norms of the church on that matter. Arguing - as I was in the other thread - for not trying to control what happens outside the church, says nothing about what happens in the church.

Really? The fathers of your church through history taught marriage is for homosexuals?

 

[Paidiske]

Really? The fathers of your church through history taught marriage is for homosexuals?

My church doesn't solemnise same-sex marriages.

 

[Whyayeman]

Why do religious institutions need to let go of all power and authority? If religion is to not have power and authority, those things will not cease to exist, rather they will be held by the non-religious.

It gives me no little pleasure to quote the Scripture here - and it is Gospel! Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

There has always been a division of authority: temporal and spiritual. Here is proof - in the Gospel.

 

[stevevw]

Authority, is a huge issue here. How could a Church establish themselves as an authority from God, if later generations of authority cast theirs off? It seems to also fly in the face of the reformation as well.

I was thinking more about Christain values being the authority of Truth of what was right and wrong in society and how society should be structured. Such as anti abortion laws, norms that supported traditional families ect. Sex before marriage was looked down upon only a few decades ago.

I think the Reformation was more about how we could apply Gods Word rather than undermining it. Reformers wanted a more genuine representation of Gods Word that reflected Christs teachings rather than the misrepresentations of the Church and institutionaliszed authority over people. Part of that was allowing everyone to read aned understand the Bible themselves which was a core Truth of Christain teaching.

But what I mean is that Gods Truth still held authority over society even when after the Church had lost its secular authrity and continued as recent as the 1950's where laws and norms reflected Christain values and morals. It still does today in some ways and yet the Church as a ruling authority is non existent in society.

 

[stevevw]

I was thinking more about things like the outright rejection of science as a discipline, which was not where Christianity was, say, before the rise of fundamentalism; and which does mean the "conservative" view drifts away from the mainstream which finds science a valuable source in shaping its worldview.

I think its the other way around today. It was the Church who began the scientific revolution. Its just that it became political and didn't like some of the findings that science was showing which caused them to reject some science (the Curch lost faith). But certainly many discoveries about the world and reality have come from Christain scientists who believed that reality should reflect Gods creation. I don't think this has basically changed except for some fundementalism but I think this is a minority.

The majority of Christains have always supporteed the science. But ironically in recent times its the science that is backing the Christain Truths long held and its the Left side of politics and progressives that now doesn't like the science and wants to shut it down. Even to the point of destroying any disenters like the Church did in the past. That tells me fundementally this is a spiritual war and not just a cultural one.

I think this comes back to my comments about power and control.

I think it's more, pluralism means there are no longer shared understandings of God. (For example, if your community has thriving Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Muslim communities alongside the church, there's no longer one shared idea of what "God" even means, and that's before we consider the "nones.")

So what happens to the Gospel of preaching Gods word to the world. What about false preachers and all that.

I think your comment about past experiences - and, let's be real here - ongoing bad experiences of the church and Christians, have hit the nail on the head.

That is why its so important to emphasize Christ even more than ever. Theres a lot of hurt and skepticism out there and we need a saviour. We need to be clear about what is happening here and not beat around the bush so to speak (lol Aussie lingo for you) ie get serious and to the point, whats at stake. Because now is the time many will be decieved.

Experiential truth is important but it is not the ultimate truth as far as how we should structure ourselves as a society and what is moral. I think society is more relativistic than ever and feelings seem to dictate what is real and true for everything. This is the new truth and reality even over Gods Truth, like a new religion. That is why we need Gods Truth more than ever because everything has become muddled, unclear, open for exploitation and irrational thinking posing as truth.

 

[Larniavc]

But it seems things have become more polarised is recent times deue to society moving away from a Christain worldview to a secular one.

I don’t think this is established. Most developed countries are way past America in moving away from the Christian world view and are not so radically polarised.

 

[stevevw]

I don’t think this is established. Most developed countries are way past America in moving away from the Christian world view and are not so radically polarised.

Which countries are these.