When two worldviews collide.

[ralliann]

My church doesn't solemnise same-sex marriages.

Calling it marriage in itself is a problem isn't it? To address them as each others spouse is a problem. I am not attempting to try to make the world live by my rules Paidiske, I am simply saying we should not either agree to, or be forced to use those terms to describe their relationship. Civil union and partners is not forcing anything on anyone. They can call themselves whatever they want, we should not legally be forced to.

 

[Larniavc]

Which countries are these.

Uk, Norway. Ireland, Netherlands, all the lads.

 

[ralliann]

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.

They taught also the holy spirit was teacher. Many set up their own version of "institution" unable to agree. They had governing offices they claimed were from God.

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.

This has always been so. Judaism called it Noachide law. The church historically called it Natural law.
Just like Moses father in law, knew how to set up a justice system over a people.

Ex 18:13 ¶ And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.
14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.
17 And Moses’ father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.
18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.

 

[childeye 2]

In discussing some of the moral issues facing society such as gender, sex, race, Rights, identity politics ect relating to how we as a society should structure ourselves I have found that a polarisation is happening between two broad worldviews. On the one side the Left which I think is more likely to be athiest or more pluralistic about belief and on the other is the Right which are more conservative and traditional and more likely to be Christain. Though I think there is degrees of variance where some will also be open to opposing views to some degree.

But it seems things have become more polarised is recent times deue to society moving away from a Christain worldview to a secular one. In the past there was more middle ground and basically people I think were more traditional had belief and progressives were seen as out of step. I think today the Left has gained a lot of ground mainly due to a reaction to percieved past injustices by traditionalist or Christains and being more open to alternative ideas.

In the past Western societies were based on Christain values but in the last few decades God and Christainity has been rejected and in its place the State has become the arbitor of societal morals and infringed more on peoples private lives. Of course a lot has happened in that time with social media which I think has had a profound impact on thinking undermining truth and has given individuals and groups much power to push their views and influence governments and society.

But the result of all this is that there is a growing division between the Christian Worldview and the Secular Worldview to the point that they clash even violently like people want to destroy Christains aned opposing views and it seems the State is actively siding with the a secular position with the help of certain lobbyist. They have been actively dismantaling Christainity and taking God completely out of the picture in our institutions and public life generally, I should say its not always just Christains but also traditionalist and others who believe in the Truths that the West was built upon such as Enlightement and Democracy. Many on the Left also seem to support some sort of Marxism so this polarisation seems to be political and religious.

I guess our present situation is also the result of Postmodernism the idea of tearing down the old truths and archetypes of the West and society has become more individualistic and relative. Its a complex combination of factors but the thing that stands out for me is that there seems to be a showdown brewing between Christain and traditionalist and the Secularist and the Left and I think the Left is winning at the moment. I can see this continuing where Christainity is pushed to the fringes.

So we are at a point for the first time in a long time in our history where societies efforts to rid themselves of God and Christainity will see secularist and non believers outnumbering Christains and completely rejecting God from society.

But is this new World completely devoid of belief or is society replacing God and Christainity with some new religion, a secular religion which has been able to grow disguised as something else like some new utopia that promises to do away with injustice and inequality and bring people true happiness. I think so as it seems that peoples reaction to Christainity and God today isn't just about a new way but is tied to their identity and debates are often full of feelings even to the point of wanting to destroy others who disagree,

So I think this is a fight for Truth and there can only be one Truth. But today truth has lost all meaning and personal truth has become the only truth. But I think the Truth as in the one Truth we all know is real will shine through in the end, but its going to be a fight in the meantime where many false ideas will seem to win out and may fool many.

As I see it, the problem is fundamentally a difference in understanding the term God in our psycholinguistics, and the subjective imageries that we project out of our ignorance. The semantics we argue reflect this phenomenon.

 

[stevevw]

As I see it, the problem is fundamentally a difference in understanding the term God in our psycholinguistics, and the subjective imageries that we project out of our ignorance. The semantics we argue reflect this phenomenon.

I don't think its just God we have formed different understandings of but many things like truth itself, love, sex, gender, man and women, family and morals.

 

[stevevw]

They taught also the holy spirit was teacher. Many set up their own version of "institution" unable to agree. They had governing offices they claimed were from God.

Yes there were different expressions about how to Reform the Church but primarily I think they wanted to dissolve the Churches power and give it to the people. Getting back to grass roots so to speak. The Friars were prominant in doing this and led the way. Actually living the Word. Politics still influenced things and has progressively become more interwoven in religion. But as more people came to understand the Bible Gods Word was no longer the exclusive domain of the Church to dictate what it meant.

This has always been so. Judaism called it Noachide law. The church historically called it Natural law.
Just like Moses father in law, knew how to set up a justice system over a people.

Ex 18:13 ¶ And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.
14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.
17 And Moses’ father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.
18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.

Yes I agree aned that was my point to this thread. That for thousands of years the West has stood on these Truths and they have stood the test of time. But it has only been in recent times for the first time in a very long time that we are beginning to dismantle and reject these Truths. I don't think its a coincident that this is happening at the same time society is rejecting God.

In getting rid of God and these long held Truths a void has been created which has to be filled with some belief system. The question is what.

 

[ralliann]

Yes there were different expressions about how to Reform the Church but primarily I think they wanted to dissolve the Churches power and give it to the people. Getting back to grass roots so to speak. The Friars were prominant in doing this and led the way. Actually living the Word. Politics still influenced things and has progressively become more interwoven in religion. But as more people came to understand the Bible Gods Word was no longer the exclusive domain of the Church to dictate what it meant.

Yes I agree aned that was my point to this thread. That for thousands of years the West has stood on these Truths and they have stood the test of time. But it has only been in recent times for the first time in a very long time that we are beginning to dismantle and reject these Truths. I don't think its a coincident that this is happening at the same time society is rejecting God.

In getting rid of God and these long held Truths a void has been created which has to be filled with some belief system. The question is what.

For me, it seems it is following the same attitude, and desire which has been from the beginning. Which makes me rethink the reformation. When the temple was destroyed, The rabbi's usurped the authority of the priesthood. Many still do.
They do not want a rebuilt temple, as that office of authority would return.
Protestants, have done the same with the historic Church. Usurping authority. These historic reformers set up their own ("God given") authority of Church structure. Their children are doing the same to them in turn right now. And the sheep are left without shepherds within that structure.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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.

There has indeed always been a division but that does not mean we as Christians have to hand off all political power to our enemies. That is foolish and I have no intention of buying into that game of secular liberalism. The Church historically didn't operate on that logic and neither do i. Nice try though.

 

[Paidiske]

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.

For sure, a healthy integration of Christianity and science is possible. But I definitely see many Christians rejecting basic science, not just in particular instances but as a way of knowing about the world, and that seems to me to be something new in Christian thought in, say, the last couple of centuries.

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

I'm not sure why this is your response to my comment, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. A pluralistic society doesn't mean we can't proclaim the good news, although it might require us to do so with a bit more sensitivity to our audience.

Calling it marriage in itself is a problem isn't it?

I don't think it's a problem to recognise a legal reality. Ymmv. Either way, it's not overturning any historic practice of the church (we've generally recognised that the state makes laws in respect of marriage), and it doesn't mean people with different views would be unwelcome in church.

They can call themselves whatever they want, we should not legally be forced to.

Unless you're working in some role that would require you to acknowledge the legality of marriages (like a justice of the peace, perhaps?) I'm not seeing that anyone is legally forcing you to call anyone anything, on this score.

 

[stevevw]

For sure, a healthy integration of Christianity and science is possible. But I definitely see many Christians rejecting basic science, not just in particular instances but as a way of knowing about the world, and that seems to me to be something new in Christian thought in, say, the last couple of centuries.

I am not sure what you mean.

I'm not sure why this is your response to my comment, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. A pluralistic society doesn't mean we can't proclaim the good news, although it might require us to do so with a bit more sensitivity to our audience.

How sensitive should we be. Should we deny the Truth. Do we not renounce sin. Isn't just speaking Gods word enough to cause a reaction from secular society. Didn't Christ say that christains will be persecuted for preaching the gospel. Doesn't that imply that just simply standing on the gospel is enough to provoke antagonism from the established secular society that wants to reject the gospel.

 

[Paidiske]

I am not sure what you mean.

What I mean is, I see many Christians who think science as a discipline is basically untrustworthy, that its findings bear little relation to meaningful reality.

How sensitive should we be. Should we deny the Truth. Do we not renounce sin. Isn't just speaking Gods word enough to cause a reaction from secular society. Didn't Christ say that christains will be persecuted for preaching the gospel. Doesn't that imply that just simply standing on the gospel is enough to provoke antagonism from the established secular society that wants to reject the gospel. Modern society sees Gods Word as being hateful and descriminatory no matter how it is presented.

Oh dear Lord. It's not about denying truth, or whatever. But whenever we want to communicate, we need to understand the person (or people) with whom we want to communicate; appreciate their understanding of the world, empathise with their emotional attachments, and so on. Only then will we be able to speak in a way which truly connects, rather than just throwing words at them and then wondering why they seem indifferent.

And sure, modern society sees Christianity as hateful and discriminatory because so many Christians seem hell bent on insisting that their faith requires them to be hateful and discriminatory! If we behaved better, they'd be more open to our words.

 

[stevevw]

For me, it seems it is following the same attitude, and desire which has been from the beginning. Which makes me rethink the reformation. When the temple was destroyed, The rabbi's usurped the authority of the priesthood. Many still do.
They do not want a rebuilt temple, as that office of authority would return.
Protestants, have done the same with the historic Church. Usurping authority. These historic reformers set up their own ("God given") authority of Church structure. Their children are doing the same to them in turn right now. And the sheep are left without shepherds within that structure.

I'm not up on the politics of the Church and how all the denominations split off with their own take on how Christs Church is established. Early writings mention Peter aned Paul setting up the Church in Rome and Peter being Bishop until his death. It also mentions Linus was named as Peter's successor. So I would imagine an a Church was established which was meant to continue.

Whether it represents an actual Church or as some say an invisible church I am not sure. BUt certainly I think someone living in a distant country who is not a Catholic can be saved if they believe in Christ and follow His teachings. Jesus saied go out into all the world and preach the Gospel. So I am sure many were saved and yet belonged to Christ Church aned not a symbolic Church 1,000s of miles away.

I think its like Football. Everyone agrees and believes in football but people group into clubs to express that belief differently. So long as the core truths are not changed. If someone said you can pickup the ball in football that would be an obvious mistruth to the principles of football. The same if someone said Christ is not the Son of God or God Himself.

 

[stevevw]

What I mean is, I see many Christians who think science as a discipline is basically untrustworthy, that its findings bear little relation to meaningful reality.

Oh dear Lord. It's not about denying truth, or whatever. But whenever we want to communicate, we need to understand the person (or people) with whom we want to communicate; appreciate their understanding of the world, empathise with their emotional attachments, and so on. Only then will we be able to speak in a way which truly connects, rather than just throwing words at them and then wondering why they seem indifferent.

Actually I wasn't thinking about a one to one basis which wouled allow to get to know the person and their situation and building raport. A basic principle of counselling. But rather more generally as the basis for morality and for speaking the Truth in important matters that will affect society and its wellbeing. For example the debate about a women not being a women accoreding to Trans ideology. This is a fundemental Truth of God and I think is important in standing up for because its a misrepresentation and may lead to many children being harmed.

This example is one of many where Gods Truth clashes with secular ideological beliefs that a Christain has to contend with nowaedays. As we found with people like J.K. Rawlings and Riley Gains who were presecuted just for speaking Gods Truth. In fact you don't even have to be a Christain to speak this truth.

And sure, modern society sees Christianity as hateful and discriminatory because so many Christians seem hell bent on insisting that their faith requires them to be hateful and discriminatory! If we behaved better, they'd be more open to our words.

I think the days of the fire and brimstone preaching is just about gone except for some small pockets. I think most Christains have been disempowered today and cannot even speak simple Truths of God even in a polite and curteous way and are still persecuted. I think many are scared to speak the truth for fear of being attacked and shut deown.

Rather I think much of the reaction against Christains and conservative traditionalist today is born out of an opposing belief rather than anything about equality and protection. Gods Words threatens their secular beliefs and therefore a threat to self which requires reaction and action to shut down Christains. I think this is a spiritual war and not just a cultural one..

 

[Paidiske]

Actually I wasn't thinking about a one to one basis which wouled allow to get to know the person and their situation and building raport.

One person or a group, the principle of knowing your audience and tailoring your message accordingly applies.

But rather more generally as the basis for morality and for speaking the Truth in important matters that will affect society and its wellbeing.

I have found, generally, that if we take fulness of life as our basic ethical good (after all, Christ came that we may have life in its fulness), that's one that a secular pluralist society resonates pretty well with.

I think the days of the fire and brimstone preaching is just about gone except for some small pockets.

It's not just fire and brimstone that's the problem. Although social media has handed those small pockets a megaphone, and they're not afraid to use it.

But even a quick glance through a few threads on CF will show plenty of hateful and discriminatory attitudes from people who probably don't think of themselves as being extreme.

I think most Christains have been disempowered today and cannot even speak simple Truths of God even in a polite and curteous way and are still persecuted.

Mmm. Being disagreed with - even strongly - is not really persecution.

I think many are scared to speak the truth for fear of being attacked and shut deown.

Well, no one is actually obliged to listen to us, I suppose. Which brings us back around to considering our audience...

Rather I think much of the reaction against Christains and conservative traditionalist today is born out of an opposing belief rather than anything about equality and protection.

From what I can see, the reaction against Christians comes mostly out of, in no particular order: cultures of abuse; appalling treatment of LGBTIQ folks; sexism and misogyny; economic and political exploitation; a materialist-consumerist approach to church and/or ministry; and generally failing to live the gospel with integrity.

Unfortunately for us, even if we got completely right on all of those things tomorrow (and we're a long way from it), I reckon it would be at least a generation before people would be willing to see whether the repentance was real. In the wake of the Royal Commission etc. etc., we'll be fighting an uphill battle for at least that long.

I think this is a spiritual war and not just a cultural one..

If it's a spiritual war, it's one where the enemy is as much within the church as outside it.

 

[ralliann]

For sure, a healthy integration of Christianity and science is possible. But I definitely see many Christians rejecting basic science, not just in particular instances but as a way of knowing about the world, and that seems to me to be something new in Christian thought in, say, the last couple of centuries.

I'm not sure why this is your response to my comment, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. A pluralistic society doesn't mean we can't proclaim the good news, although it might require us to do so with a bit more sensitivity to our audience.


I don't think it's a problem to recognise a legal reality. Ymmv. Either way, it's not overturning any historic practice of the church (we've generally recognised that the state makes laws in respect of marriage), and it doesn't mean people with different views would be unwelcome in church.

Unless you're working in some role that would require you to acknowledge the legality of marriages (like a justice of the peace, perhaps?) I'm not seeing that anyone is legally forcing you to call anyone anything, on this score.

That is why I asked you about gender pronouns. It has become an issue today. Either address them by the gender they identify, or be fired, etc. This is what I am talking about. That worldly government regulates marriage is true. We the church, should not help, to agree with them. Especially since like gender identity, is made law to do so. Can we stop it? No, not if they are bent on it. Can we speak of what marriage is according to ourreligious beliefs and attempt to maintain religious liberty in that? Yes, unless our religious institutions help them to agree with them against us.

 

[ralliann]

I'm not up on the politics of the Church and how all the denominations split off with their own take on how Christs Church is established. Early writings mention Peter aned Paul setting up the Church in Rome and Peter being Bishop until his death. It also mentions Linus was named as Peter's successor. So I would imagine an a Church was established which was meant to continue.

My comments concerned Church governance as an authority from God. Therefore if any does not accept their teaching on this, they can leave. Yet, they in doing so are rejecting the authority of their own Church governance that was before them. Those governing authorities never taught such things about homosexuality. Those forced to leave, are the ones keeping with the governance of the forefathers of their faith and teaching. Either it was a GOVERNANCE FROM GOD PASSED ONTO THEM, OR IT WAS NOT. If they do not recognize it themselves, why should anyone else.

 

[Robban]

In discussing some of the moral issues facing society such as gender, sex, race, Rights, identity politics ect relating to how we as a society should structure ourselves I have found that a polarisation is happening between two broad worldviews. On the one side the Left which I think is more likely to be athiest or more pluralistic about belief and on the other is the Right which are more conservative and traditional and more likely to be Christain. Though I think there is degrees of variance where some will also be open to opposing views to some degree.

But it seems things have become more polarised is recent times deue to society moving away from a Christain worldview to a secular one. In the past there was more middle ground and basically people I think were more traditional had belief and progressives were seen as out of step. I think today the Left has gained a lot of ground mainly due to a reaction to percieved past injustices by traditionalist or Christains and being more open to alternative ideas.

In the past Western societies were based on Christain values but in the last few decades God and Christainity has been rejected and in its place the State has become the arbitor of societal morals and infringed more on peoples private lives. Of course a lot has happened in that time with social media which I think has had a profound impact on thinking undermining truth and has given individuals and groups much power to push their views and influence governments and society.

But the result of all this is that there is a growing division between the Christian Worldview and the Secular Worldview to the point that they clash even violently like people want to destroy Christains aned opposing views and it seems the State is actively siding with the a secular position with the help of certain lobbyist. They have been actively dismantaling Christainity and taking God completely out of the picture in our institutions and public life generally, I should say its not always just Christains but also traditionalist and others who believe in the Truths that the West was built upon such as Enlightement and Democracy. Many on the Left also seem to support some sort of Marxism so this polarisation seems to be political and religious.

I guess our present situation is also the result of Postmodernism the idea of tearing down the old truths and archetypes of the West and society has become more individualistic and relative. Its a complex combination of factors but the thing that stands out for me is that there seems to be a showdown brewing between Christain and traditionalist and the Secularist and the Left and I think the Left is winning at the moment. I can see this continuing where Christainity is pushed to the fringes.

So we are at a point for the first time in a long time in our history where societies efforts to rid themselves of God and Christainity will see secularist and non believers outnumbering Christains and completely rejecting God from society.

But is this new World completely devoid of belief or is society replacing God and Christainity with some new religion, a secular religion which has been able to grow disguised as something else like some new utopia that promises to do away with injustice and inequality and bring people true happiness. I think so as it seems that peoples reaction to Christainity and God today isn't just about a new way but is tied to their identity and debates are often full of feelings even to the point of wanting to destroy others who disagree,

So I think this is a fight for Truth and there can only be one Truth. But today truth has lost all meaning and personal truth has become the only truth. But I think the Truth as in the one Truth we all know is real will shine through in the end, but its going to be a fight in the meantime where many false ideas will seem to win out and may fool many.

Could well be that the industial revolution changed everything,


before all things revolved around God and having Him in center, but in and with the industrial revolution man replaced God and placed himself in the center.

Something like a Copernicus observation.

 

[Paidiske]

That worldly government regulates marriage is true. We the church, should not help, to agree with them.

Well, different churches probably have different takes on that. In general, my church has not had a problem with recognising the validity of what the government decides, even if it doesn't always reflect a Christian ideal (so, for example, a more historical example would be recognising the reality of a secular divorce, rather than insisting on a church annulment process as well).

But again, holding your view wouldn't mean you're not welcome in our church. There is a plurality of views on all sorts of issues, and we don't generally demand conformity.

Yes, unless our religious institutions help them to agree with them against us.

Ah, so your issue is that if religious institutions are not vocally denouncing same-sex marriage as "not real marriage," you feel they are undermining your own position? I can understand that frustration, but my sense is that Anglicanism historically has sought to be broader, making room for as many people and views as possible under an Anglican umbrella, rather than taking a narrow position.

The reality, on the ground where I am, is that on any given Sunday I might have people in church who believe that a same-sex marriage is not really a marriage, and a person or people in a same-sex marriage, in the congregation. I would be concerned to make it possible for everyone there to worship and seek God, without making views about secular marriage law the point which drives anyone away.

My comments concerned Church governance as an authority from God. Therefore if any does not accept their teaching on this, they can leave. Yet, they in doing so are rejecting the authority of their own Church governance that was before them. Those governing authorities never taught such things about homosexuality. Those forced to leave, are the ones keeping with the governance of the forefathers of their faith and teaching. Either it was a GOVERNANCE FROM GOD PASSED ONTO THEM, OR IT WAS NOT. If they do not recognize it themselves, why should anyone else.

I suppose different churches take a different approach to this, but there is very little my church would consider binding, in a "believe this or leave" kind of way. My point was aimed more at, say, clergy, who agree to operate within the church's structures and governance. We are not free to say, "Well, I don't agree with that so I'm going to throw it all out and do my own thing."

And never before has the church had to answer the question, "is a same-sex civil marriage really a marriage?" so I don't see that answering that it is, at least, a legal reality, is rejecting the authority of those who were before. The question of the relationship between civil laws and Christian ethics has a long and complex history and there are multiple strands of thinking to draw on. (As I said, accepting or rejecting the reality of secular divorce provides us with a relatively recent case study).

@Robban, that's an interesting observation. I was reading something recently about C. S. Lewis suggesting (in the 1950s) that the industrial revolution heralded the post-Christian age, as machines fundamentally changed our relationship to power and agency, and therefore our thinking about God. I have more reading and thinking about that, to do!

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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).

When it comes to group dynamics those who are expelled from a group don't believe they have violated the groups rules if they are sincere. There typically isn't consent when a member is forcefully expelled from groups.

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

No there aren't. Unless you yourself have power over said people or wrestle it away from them the only thing you can rely on is argumentation and that doesn't work most of the time.

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

It's no more ethical for party B to exercise authority and power over you than it is for you to exercise authority over them. Power doesn't automatically belong to others, it only really belongs to them when we concede it to them.

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).

Yet when it comes to power it is used without consent. The governments of the world don't need your consent to exercise power and take your life. They will do so regardless of how you feel.

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

Indeed we do. You're approaching power from a liberal perspective, whereas I am approaching power from a realist and elite theory perspective. Power and how it functions does not correspond to liberal reality or principles.

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.

The problem is there are contradictory views about what the common good is and who it benefits. There is no such thing as a society where everyone benefits or is favored. Any appeal to a common good in a pluralist system will be the dismantling of the particular groups which are part of the pluralist system. Hence we see the decline of Christianity, especially as Christians adopt the view that the common good is what benefits everyone and not Christians. To my view, the common good is defined by Christian and traditional principles, not secular and liberal principles which seek to displace the former in law and culture.

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

You mean things every civilizations has done since the dawn of time? Christians aren't unique in having those things as part of our civilizational heritage.

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

We are apparently so unique that we ought not have power at all. If you say we can have power, it can only be power within the frame of the current system which means subordination to said system. We don't have to accept that premise to wield power legitimately.

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.

The reason I asked that question specifically is because I am convinced the early Christians would have been willing to die for each other, even if the whole group died rather than deny the name of Christ. In the hierarchy of importance Christ supersedes the lives of the laity and it is the duty of the cleric to uphold Christ rather than the lives of their parishioners, despite love for the latter. That takes an amount of zealotry and absolute belief in Christ that I think few have in modernity and is it thus any wonder that the Churches shut down so easily during covid? That we surrendered power to the government to stop sacred services based on the flawed assumptions of the true high priest of modernity: "science"?

Even now you defend the policy and say it was justified, when in retrospect it clearly wasn't and was an overreaction.

 

[jayem]

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.

I'm a 50s Baby Boomer, and a native Southerner--born and raised in Georgia. Was it a Christian value that black folks couldn't have dinner in a restaurant serving white people? In my home town, gas stations had 3 bathrooms: Men, Women, and Colored. I remember being downtown with my grandmother during a Ku Klux Klan parade. (She told me not to look at them. They were bad people.) Public buildings had a modern water cooler for whites next to an ancient ceramic water fountain marked with a "Colored" sign on the wall. Buses were strictly segregated, and interracial marriage was forbidden by law. And you think the 50s was a time of better morals and values.

I worked in health care 40+ years. During my training, one of our OB professors told us his take on the old days. In most reasonably sized cities, were gynecologists willing to help young ladies who missed a period. If she didn't wait too long, and her family had money, he'd perform a "menstrual extraction" in his office. A quick D & C just to restart her periods. No need for a pregnancy test. It was all very private and discreet. Going farther back in time, I have an antique medical textbook from 1902. Almost 100 pages are devoted to syphilis. Which was estimated to have affected 10% of the US population. A far higher percentage than was ever seen with HIV. The high prevalence of syphilis was why many states required blood tests before issuing a marriage license. And this doesn't include the countless more people with gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, HPV, and the other STIs that weren't yet recognized. For sure, these were the good old days.