Well of course they couldn't have read in the 1960s a blog I only wrote in the 2000s. At the time they were getting it wrong I was still in the midst of looking at the body count in Ulster and thinking that caring about others - having 'agape' in NT terms - meant giving serious consideration to those issues. And the question I then had to consider was whether the arguments that led to that body count were good or bad arguments, in theological terms because the question was precisely are these right or wrong in Christian terms, not in political terms. Are they "Jesus is Lord" answers irrespective of worldly convenience? And I had to consider not just the arguments of the Ulster Protestants and Catholics, but also the related arguments of many other Christians which form the background over some centuries. And I had to unravel a lot of well-meant but ultimately bad argument to come out with the best answer I could. And that answer turned out to be close to that given also by Anabaptists like Menno Simons.
Those answers are right for Christians not because I think them, but because they are in the Christian scriptures. And they are right for everyone else in that they mean Christians take a proper place in the world and don't seek to domineer over others but only to persuade.
Well of course they couldn't have read in the 1960s a blog I only wrote in the 2000s.
I'm so sorry my inferior intellect failed to notice this point.
It is clear from what you say that in your view, had they had the opportunity in the 1960s of reading your words from the 2000s, they would never have got so muddled.
At the time they were getting it wrong I was still in the midst of looking at the body count in Ulster and thinking that caring about others - having 'agape' in NT terms - meant giving serious consideration to those issues. And the question I then had to consider was whether the arguments that led to that body count were good or bad arguments, in theological terms because the question was precisely are these right or wrong in Christian terms, not in political terms. Are they "Jesus is Lord" answers irrespective of worldly convenience? And I had to consider not just the arguments of the Ulster Protestants and Catholics, but also the related arguments of many other Christians which form the background over some centuries. And I had to unravel a lot of well-meant but ultimately bad argument to come out with the best answer I could. And that answer turned out to be close to that given also by Anabaptists like Menno Simons.
So.What.Did.You.Do?
Those answers are right for Christians not because I think them, but because they are in the Christian scriptures.
Unless and until you allow yourself to entertain the possibility that not everybody reads the "Christian scriptures" exactly the same way as you, or puts them into practice in exactly the same way as you, and that this does not ipso facto make these people in any way inferior to you, there is no discussion to be had with you at all.
I'm so sorry my inferior intellect failed to notice this point.
It is clear from what you say that in your view, had they had the opportunity in the 1960s of reading your words from the 2000s, they would never have got so muddled.
Stop looking for ways to be offended and just ask yourself whether I'm right.
What. I. Did. was to spend years working this stuff out and making as sure as possible I did get it right.
by Eutychus;
Unless and until you allow yourself to entertain the possibility that not everybody reads the "Christian scriptures" exactly the same way as you, or puts them into practice in exactly the same way as you, and that this does not ipso facto make these people in any way inferior to you, there is no discussion to be had with you at all.
This looks like another example of the "there are lots of opinions" response the flaws of which I've previously pointed out - including the fact that it's a major discussion killer. There is discussion to be had with me precisely because I don't sit on the fence but take a view which you can then challenge. Ducking the challenge behind woffle about 'lots of opinions' means that you haven't anything useful to discuss....
I'm so sorry my inferior intellect failed to notice this point.
It is clear from what you say that in your view, had they had the opportunity in the 1960s of reading your words from the 2000s, they would never have got so muddled.
Stop looking for ways to be offended and just ask yourself whether I'm right.
I just can't even.
What. I. Did. was to spend years working this stuff out and making as sure as possible I did get it right.
And to me, unless "getting it right" involves tangible, real-world outcomes it's worthless. The only thing "getting it right" appears to produce is an indomitable sense of moral superiority on your part.
This looks like another example of the "there are lots of opinions" response the flaws of which I've previously pointed out - including the fact that it's a major discussion killer.
The discussion killer is twofold:
a) your contention that Scripture offers a definitive view on these and other issues
b) your repeated contention that your interpretation of Scripture is that definitive view.
What. I. Did. was to spend years working this stuff out and making as sure as possible I did get it right.
The big question is, inspired by the body count in Northern Ireland, all those years spent working out some stuff about the relationship between church and state until you thought it was right. What did that do to reduce the body count in Northern Ireland? How has that comforted the bereaved? In what ways has that brought the different communities in Northern Ireland closer together?
The discussion killer is twofold:
a) your contention that Scripture offers a definitive view on these and other issues
b) your repeated contention that your interpretation of Scripture is that definitive view.
Of course a claim that Scripture doesn't have a definitive view on anything is really going to help discussion and make it really worthwhile. As in, if it doesn't give us anything definitive, why bother?? Observation suggests, mind you, that this argument tends to be used when scripture isn't giving people the answers they want and it's therefore very convenient to claim it doesn't say anything definitive - people don't seem to find a problem when scripture is saying what they want....
And again, if I've got it wrong, show me.... Though of course if you're also claiming it isn't definitive anyway, how is it going to show anything...? Denying that scripture is definitive is simply a convenient 'get-out'.
What. I. Did. was to spend years working this stuff out and making as sure as possible I did get it right.
The big question is, inspired by the body count in Northern Ireland, all those years spent working out some stuff about the relationship between church and state until you thought it was right. What did that do to reduce the body count in Northern Ireland? How has that comforted the bereaved? In what ways has that brought the different communities in Northern Ireland closer together?
It took how long, starting even before Wycliffe, to bring about the Reformation changes against the massive vested interests of the RCC and its secular supporters? And you expect me to achieve a similar change almost overnight in comparison. I've not been doing nothing at all - but the resistance is considerable. And where I personally have been doing what I'm best at, the research, others have been applying Anabaptist answers on the ground and gradually growing a considerable influential community. As involved in the UK Anabaptist Network I'm part of that and between all of us things are gradually changing.
The thing is with this discussion that your arguments have failed to convince not only people who might owe some allegiance to the established church in England, but also those opposed to the idea of establishment. There are limited possibilities. Your thesis could be correct, but your arguments unconvincing, your thesis could be incorrect, or those unconvinced by your case might be too thick to understand it. If it’s the last then you're wasting your time. If it’s either of the former two you need to listen carefully to the responses you get either to strengthen your argument, or to understand the flaws in your thesis. Such listening ought to include a full engagement with the questions and points others are raising - not just giving answers where you’ve got them, and passing over the questions where you haven’t got answers.
Such listening ought to include a full engagement with the questions and points others are raising - not just giving answers where you’ve got them, and passing over the questions where you haven’t got answers.
But that appears to be how he got to those conclusions in the first place.
Ok, Marvin, I overdid the apologies ... whilst putting the boot in ...
What say we ask Steve Langton to apologise for Munster?
Heck, various Popes have apologised for the Inquisition and the Crusades.
It's becoming harder to tell the two of you apart. You with your insincere apologies and promises of future good behavior followed by more obsessive dissection of Steve's faults and trying to goad him into more responses and him with his theory of Christianity and his endless spew of posts. You could use the same instructions that were given to Steve;
What. I. Did. was to spend years working this stuff out and making as sure as possible I did get it right.
The big question is, inspired by the body count in Northern Ireland, all those years spent working out some stuff about the relationship between church and state until you thought it was right. What did that do to reduce the body count in Northern Ireland? How has that comforted the bereaved? In what ways has that brought the different communities in Northern Ireland closer together?
It took how long, starting even before Wycliffe, to bring about the Reformation changes against the massive vested interests of the RCC and its secular supporters? And you expect me to achieve a similar change almost overnight in comparison. I've not been doing nothing at all - but the resistance is considerable. ... .
Sorry, Steve, despite your caveats of "doing what I'm good at and leaving others to do what they're good at", I don't think that answers the question. What Alan is prodding at is to ask what physical and tangible acts you did, out on the streets, in community groups, amongst your neighbours, to foment change. Yes, philosophy and theology are good things to ponder and reflect on ... but was there any practical outworking (eg peace marches, attempts to bring people together socially across the big divide, getting involved in local politics)? These things would, I grant you, have been difficult and probably of limited value - but they would have hopefully achieved something.
The discussion killer is twofold:
a) your contention that Scripture offers a definitive view on these and other issues
b) your repeated contention that your interpretation of Scripture is that definitive view.
Of course a claim that Scripture doesn't have a definitive view on anything is really going to help discussion and make it really worthwhile. As in, if it doesn't give us anything definitive, why bother?? Observation suggests, mind you, that this argument tends to be used when scripture isn't giving people the answers they want and it's therefore very convenient to claim it doesn't say anything definitive - people don't seem to find a problem when scripture is saying what they want....
And again, if I've got it wrong, show me.... Though of course if you're also claiming it isn't definitive anyway, how is it going to show anything...? Denying that scripture is definitive is simply a convenient 'get-out'.
OR (and apologies in advance for the length of this)...
Suggesting there may be several possible interpretations of Scripture, several possible ways of looking at this issue, several possible conclusions we might come to in good faith, might actually open up the discussion. Because then we can consider and talk about the pros and cons, the advantages and drawbacks of each approach and conclusion; we can discuss the criteria people have used to reach those conclusions. Heavens, we might learn something from each other! You might find people more sympathetic to your point of view.
The trouble is, your approach ("there is one definitive reading of Scripture and I have it", which is how you come across, whether or not you mean to), shuts down discussion. If you're constantly telling people not only that they're wrong but that it's pointless to suggest there are other possibilities, then you're effectively denying them space to have any form of discussion. And people then are either not going to bother discussing the issue at all, or it's going to end up here in Hell because they're so pissed off about it. In a forum like this, the discussion can't just be about your views, even if it's challenging people to say where we think you're wrong. Other possibilities have to be brought into the discussion - or there simply is no discussion.
The trouble with this discussion at the moment is that not only do you believe your view is right, but you've done so effectively against a set of criteria that you've decided is the right one, the definitive one. So we can't even discuss why we think it's the wrong approach and why others might be better because you just dismiss that as "fudge". It's simply impossible to engage on these terms - though heaven knows we keep trying...
Oh, and I note that while you've clearly had chance to post several times on this Hell thread, you've not had chance to respond to my post from yesterday lunchtime, which attempts to do some of the things you're complaining people don't do.
What. I. Did. was to spend years working this stuff out and making as sure as possible I did get it right.
The big question is, inspired by the body count in Northern Ireland, all those years spent working out some stuff about the relationship between church and state until you thought it was right. What did that do to reduce the body count in Northern Ireland? How has that comforted the bereaved? In what ways has that brought the different communities in Northern Ireland closer together?
It took how long, starting even before Wycliffe, to bring about the Reformation changes against the massive vested interests of the RCC and its secular supporters? And you expect me to achieve a similar change almost overnight in comparison. I've not been doing nothing at all - but the resistance is considerable. ... .
Sorry, Steve, despite your caveats of "doing what I'm good at and leaving others to do what they're good at", I don't think that answers the question. What Alan is prodding at is to ask what physical and tangible acts you did, out on the streets, in community groups, amongst your neighbours, to foment change. Yes, philosophy and theology are good things to ponder and reflect on ... but was there any practical outworking (eg peace marches, attempts to bring people together socially across the big divide, getting involved in local politics)? These things would, I grant you, have been difficult and probably of limited value - but they would have hopefully achieved something.
Basic answer, yes I have been actively fomenting change in various ways - and yes it is difficult and I've not achieved as much as I'd have liked. And can I point out that raising the issue on the Ship and all the time I've given that in the face of very hot opposition is hardly nothing. And my blog is out there on t'interweb thing and people do read it and generally respond favourably - check it out yourself. And for a lot of the time whatever I did was limited by the only recently discovered Asperger problem - one of the main effects of which was shyness and a problem akin to that of "The King's Speech"; in view of that I'm surprised how much I have achieved. And at least I was doing research most people were just ignoring....
Oh, and I note that while you've clearly had chance to post several times on this Hell thread, you've not had chance to respond to my post from yesterday lunchtime, which attempts to do some of the things you're complaining people don't do.
Yes and I'm taking you very seriously and trying to respond; but also trying to observe the strictures of Eutychus and others of producing a 'discussion-style' answer rather than a small book - it is coming, it will take time if you want me to do it properly.
And BTW, as a Baptist minister did you go to this year's Whitley Lecture at any of its venues? I went at Manchester's Luther King House; it was quite relevant to what we're discussing here....
What say we ask Steve Langton to apologise for Munster?
I can hardly apologise for something I didn't do. Popes can apologise for their Church precisely because in a sense they are the Church and are apologising for stuff they're deeply implicated in. I surely regret that Munster happened and that those who did it were believers in "believer's baptism". However, as I've also pointed out
a) By the time Munster happened the decidedly pacifist 'Schleitheim Confession' of the mainstream Anabaptists was already nearly a decade old; as in, the Anabaptists I belong with had already moved on and the Munsterites were an atypical aberration.
b) If anyone should be apologising for Munster it is surely those who actually (unlike me) share their ideas. To do what was done at Munster they had to be holding an idea of a kingdom 'of this world' for Jesus; that is, an established church/Constantian view of things. As Menno Simons saw in making his decision to join the mainstream Anabaptists at about that time, the Munsterites were essentially in agreement with the Catholics, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants (eg the Church of England) in wanting a form of 'Christian state' of the kind that establishes and defends itself with armies and police.
The apology for Munster needs to come from those whose churches held/still hold similar views to the Munsterites on that issue; and of course, to make the apology they'll have to give up those similar views themselves, and stop being that kind of churches. It would of course be monumentally hypocritical to say Munster was wrong while remaining on the key issue the kind of 'established church' the Munsterites tried to be.
1. You have yet to demonstrate how any autonomous anabaptist community does not to all intents and purposes become a "kingdom of this world", a little state within a state. There is a millenarian danger for any religious group that seeks to withdraw from the "world" and anabaptists are no exception.
2. You have repeatedly dodged the basic question of whether you sanction any interaction whatsoever between Christians and the state, eg as state teachers, police officers, elected officials, etc.
1. You have yet to demonstrate how any autonomous anabaptist community does not to all intents and purposes become a "kingdom of this world", a little state within a state. There is a millenarian danger for any religious group that seeks to withdraw from the "world" and anabaptists are no exception.
2. You have repeatedly dodged the basic question of whether you sanction any interaction whatsoever between Christians and the state, eg as state teachers, police officers, elected officials, etc.
Yes the danger exists; though 'millenarian' is a distraction given that my personal beliefs are 'a-millennial' (interpreting the 'thousand years' in Revelation as symbolising the gospel era between Resurrection and Second Coming rather than as a distinct era yet to come).
The balance is that Christians do/should see themselves as "God's holy nation" on an international basis; but the idea of being a 'diaspora' of citizens of heaven does/should also oblige us to work for the good of the people we are metaphorically 'exiled' among - see Jeremiah. Assuming, of course, that they don't themselves push us away....
I am not 'dodging' the question of interaction with the state; simply saying that we need first to sort out the 'establishment' issue which confuses the whole business. In broad terms there should, in a half-way decent state, be few jobs Christians can't do. The military is an obvious one; I think the police another (not because we've no interest in 'law and order' but because we see different ways of achieving the goals, in which entanglement on the state side may hinder. As a minor but direct example, 'Street Pastors' co-operate with the police, but their independence is advantageous; and 'Christian Peacemaker Teams' are respected precisely because they are pretty much entirely drawn from Anabaptists and similar who are clearly 'neutrals' even in terms of the country they live in themselves)
But I'm expecting to get round to that on the other thread....
And for a lot of the time whatever I did was limited by the only recently discovered Asperger problem
One of the oft-noted features of the 'medicalisation' of certain problems is that those diagnosed can be quite keen on it, as they can often be a way of recasting ethical problems.
It is possible to both have Aspergers and also be an inconsiderate shite who should listen to people a bit better.
It happens to be a fact that for many years all kinds of areas of my life were limited by a problem nobody including doctors understood or could help with. What I did with my views on church and state issues also suffered from that; I'm now, with shyness considerably relieved by realising where it came from, trying to redress that. So I'm socially awkward about it - that's why I warn you I'm an Aspie in hopes you'll see round the social awkwardness and yourself listen to the substance of what I'm arguing.
I don't think "millenarian" means what you think it means, and I don't need a lecture on millenialism.
And for the billionth time, we are not here to listen, we are here to discuss.
While discussing, most of us manage to put our various social, physical and general life events difficulties to one side when posting, not use them as an excuse (and/or, bafflingly, as a badge of outstanding expertise at the same time).
It might help if you realised that some posters here are actually trying to help you rather than oppose you. They are trying to help you either by playing Devil's Advocate to some extent or by trying to help you to think 'outside of the box' a bit more and not on the kind of rather stretched proof-text tramlines you tend to run along.
I'll admit, I've not helped. I've goaded you and taken the mick. I'm to blame for a lot of this and I should have left well alone.
I wasn't serious in my suggestion that you 'apologise for Munster'. I was being sarky. Of course, what do we get but your usual rant about how it was the state-churches and so on who were really to blame and the real hypocrites and villains of the piece ...
When the only tool in your box is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It'd be cruel of me to suggest that you aren't as good at research as you seem to think. There are people here who can run rings round you (and me and most of us) in that respect.
Nobody has a problem with you being an Anabaptist.
For my part, I'd like to see you become as good an Anabaptist as you can possibly be.
That means doing your own cause a favour by actually listening to what other people have to say.
It would also help if you stopped stalling for time on those questions where you don't actually have any answers by suggesting we all back off and give you time to think about it. You've been saying that for months and months aboard Ship, possibly even years. You still haven't answered anyone's specific questions about the extent to which you feel it's appropriate for the Christian to be involved in public life.
Ok, you've cited the military and the police, but that's hardly a surprise. When it comes to anything else you haven't the foggiest. You haven't got a clue.
If it helps and to be a lot fairer, might it just happen to be the case that it is unrealistic to expect scripture - which I agree can be definitive - to prescribe in great detail how much or how far it is legitimate for the believer to be involved in the public realm?
For all your protestations to the contrary, it doesn't seem that there's a great deal of definitive declarations in the NT as to what aspects of public life Christians should or shouldn't engage in.
It's great that you want to reflect and review. But after aeons of posting aboard Ship to keep side-stepping straight-forward and simple questions about this rather suggests:
- You really don't have very much idea how to answer.
- The kind of specific and detailed answers you'd like to present aren't actually provided in the scriptures in the first place.
Principles, yes. Details no.
Hence you are trapped in a Straw Man spiral where you are constantly knocking scarecrows down and wondering what to do with the debris.
I am not 'dodging' the question of interaction with the state; simply saying that we need first to sort out the 'establishment' issue which confuses the whole business.
Trust me, we're not confused about what we think. We're confused about what you think, because you refuse to explain yourself.
I don't think "millenarian" means what you think it means, and I don't need a lecture on millenialism.
Ok, so 'millenarian' has come to mean a general kind of 'Utopianism/Golden-Age-ism' as well as specific Christian millennialism. As far as a quick web search tells me, it's still basically called that - with the 'thousand' reference - by analogy to Christian millennialism.
But I'm not suggesting any such thing. I don't believe in that kind of Utopianism in any form in the present world. But I do believe that it would be very useful to the Church's mission to finally, if we can, get rid of one particularly problematic mistake of the past, and it might also benefit the surrounding world which has suffered, and still does to far too large an extent, from that problematic mistake.... Have you really any interest in perpetuating the mistake...?
When the only tool in your box is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Plenty other tools available - but when the object in question is clearly and indisputably a nail, why wouldn't I use the hammer (or of course, other tool if, say the need is to extract the nail rather than knock it in).
As Menno saw, the Catholics, Protestants and Munsterites of his day were all trying to do the 'kingdom of this world' thing in almost identical terms. And all were wrong. And unfortunately, wrong in ways that got thousands killed and even more thousands oppressed and persecuted. A better answer was needed and turned out to be there in the Scriptures....
And for the billionth time, we are not here to listen, we are here to discuss.
While discussing, most of us manage to put our various social, physical and general life events difficulties to one side when posting, not use them as an excuse (and/or, bafflingly, as a badge of outstanding expertise at the same time).
That particular response was to one Shipmate. My point was that we weren't going to get much of a discussion if he was going to raise irrelevant issues instead of listening to substance of my points and, well, discussing them with me.
And again above I was asked what I'd been DOING with my views over my life and mentioned that my communicating of my views for many years had been affected by my disability. Not unreasonable to mention that in the circumstances/context.
I don't consider AS a " badge of outstanding expertise". I have mentioned that there are occasions when Aspies have thought outside the box and ended up getting it right and that Shipmates should at least consider that possibility when they're having a bit of trouble understanding my outside the box ideas; when I did mention that I was more than a bit nettled by someone who was being particularly obnoxious, and the response was probably naive. But still true, of course.
And I find the accusation of being in a narrow box myself rather annoying when I definitely am thinking outside the usual boxes....
A shy, idealistic, non-violent entity has trouble with the establishment. With historical memories of abusive treatment from the establishment, the entity seeks to have the establishment dismantle and transform itself in order to become more like the entity: idealistic, non-violent, self-righteous, with hardcore conservative social values.
I speak, of course, of the relationship between Anabaptist churches and established churches.
This thread is a comforting reassurance that some things in life can be depended upon to never change. Like Steve will self-glorify and also refuse to answer questions that he doesn't like, and Gamma will promise to shut up then spew enough paragraphs (very short paragraphs) to fill several screens.
No, you aren't thinking outside the usual boxes. If you were then you would be able to give us a coherent answer when it comes to the extent that Christians should or shouldn't be involved in public life.
You continually fail to do that.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you either haven't thought it through properly or that you realise deep down that there is no single, clear-cut and definitive answer to that question that can be established beyond any shadow of doubt by citing chapter and verse from the NT.
The NT does not tell us what jobs we can and can't do.
It doesn't tell us whether it is legitimate or otherwise for a Christian to be a judge or magistrate, a police officer or bartender.
You seem to think that your Anabaptist stance is startlingly original and that no-one else here has ever considered it.
The fact is, it isn't. Plenty of people hold similar views. Fine. Nobody here is saying they shouldn't. What they are doing is asking you to answer a simple question which you continually appear to dodge.
The fact is, it isn't. Plenty of people hold similar views. Fine. Nobody here is saying they shouldn't. What they are doing is asking you to answer a simple question which you continually appear to dodge.
I don't believe in that kind of Utopianism in any form in the present world. But I do believe that it would be very useful to the Church's mission to finally, if we can, get rid of one particularly problematic mistake of the past
These two statements contradict each other. We cannot get rid of the past, or its present-day outworkings. A fact which you strenuously avoid confronting.
I don't believe in that kind of Utopianism in any form in the present world. But I do believe that it would be very useful to the Church's mission to finally, if we can, get rid of one particularly problematic mistake of the past
These two statements contradict each other. We cannot get rid of the past, or its present-day outworkings. A fact which you strenuously avoid confronting.
Rather obviously we cannot simply wipe out the past; it happened, it is there, it is unchangeable. Nor, up till the present moment, can we simplistically get rid of the present-day outworkings. But we can and must repent of the past and as a result change the future. We can make it so that the future is no longer balefully affected by the past. And I'm very much confronting that possibility.
Yeah, but you can tell if you are posting before or after the final [/quote] tag either when posting or previewing - which is so much easier on this system both on phone, tablet and laptop.
Clue - if you are not posting after the [/quote] tag, your post will appear as a quote.
Yes, I quite like Mennonite thought too. Until I came across Steve Langton.
To be fair, what little real-life interaction I've had with that tradition has been positive. It's a shame that they only have Steve as a mouth-piece on here.
I don't claim to actually 'represent' the Mennonites - only to be within the broad Anabaptist tradition particularly as it's worked out here in the UK Anabaptist Network. And to be blunt you've not been seeing the best of me partly because of your own treatment of me - a lot of you have spent a lot of time in effect telling me what I believe and criticising me for it and then criticising me again when I've seemed inconsistent with the image you'd created. Not easy to cope with....
To repost in slightly stronger terms what I just posted in Purg, I can't engage with this myopic, hubristic crusade to englighten the Church of England any longer. It's not doing me any good and I don't think it can really be doing Steve any good either to nurture his obsession. I officially give up.
One of the things I'm finding annoying is everyone else's narrow focus on the CofE and failure apparently to realise there's more to the issue. My extended post just now was a response to Gamaliel who specifically asked a set of questions about the Anglican situation - was I supposed to just ignore him??
And while you're waiting for me to sort out an acceptable Ship style response you could always try checking out the proper blog I run - which will give you far more than I'll ever be allowed to say on the Ship. Google up stevesfreechurchblog - just like that, all one word.
Comments
Those answers are right for Christians not because I think them, but because they are in the Christian scriptures. And they are right for everyone else in that they mean Christians take a proper place in the world and don't seek to domineer over others but only to persuade.
It is clear from what you say that in your view, had they had the opportunity in the 1960s of reading your words from the 2000s, they would never have got so muddled.
So.What.Did.You.Do?
Unless and until you allow yourself to entertain the possibility that not everybody reads the "Christian scriptures" exactly the same way as you, or puts them into practice in exactly the same way as you, and that this does not ipso facto make these people in any way inferior to you, there is no discussion to be had with you at all.
Stop looking for ways to be offended and just ask yourself whether I'm right.
What. I. Did. was to spend years working this stuff out and making as sure as possible I did get it right.
by Eutychus;
This looks like another example of the "there are lots of opinions" response the flaws of which I've previously pointed out - including the fact that it's a major discussion killer. There is discussion to be had with me precisely because I don't sit on the fence but take a view which you can then challenge. Ducking the challenge behind woffle about 'lots of opinions' means that you haven't anything useful to discuss....
And to me, unless "getting it right" involves tangible, real-world outcomes it's worthless. The only thing "getting it right" appears to produce is an indomitable sense of moral superiority on your part. The discussion killer is twofold:
a) your contention that Scripture offers a definitive view on these and other issues
b) your repeated contention that your interpretation of Scripture is that definitive view.
Let's all grab something soft, put in some gentle music and think soothing thoughts.
And whilst we are doing that maybe we can all avoid thinking about violence, Steve's face, fists and Constantine.
Of course a claim that Scripture doesn't have a definitive view on anything is really going to help discussion and make it really worthwhile. As in, if it doesn't give us anything definitive, why bother?? Observation suggests, mind you, that this argument tends to be used when scripture isn't giving people the answers they want and it's therefore very convenient to claim it doesn't say anything definitive - people don't seem to find a problem when scripture is saying what they want....
And again, if I've got it wrong, show me.... Though of course if you're also claiming it isn't definitive anyway, how is it going to show anything...? Denying that scripture is definitive is simply a convenient 'get-out'.
It took how long, starting even before Wycliffe, to bring about the Reformation changes against the massive vested interests of the RCC and its secular supporters? And you expect me to achieve a similar change almost overnight in comparison. I've not been doing nothing at all - but the resistance is considerable. And where I personally have been doing what I'm best at, the research, others have been applying Anabaptist answers on the ground and gradually growing a considerable influential community. As involved in the UK Anabaptist Network I'm part of that and between all of us things are gradually changing.
It's becoming harder to tell the two of you apart. You with your insincere apologies and promises of future good behavior followed by more obsessive dissection of Steve's faults and trying to goad him into more responses and him with his theory of Christianity and his endless spew of posts. You could use the same instructions that were given to Steve;
OR (and apologies in advance for the length of this)...
Suggesting there may be several possible interpretations of Scripture, several possible ways of looking at this issue, several possible conclusions we might come to in good faith, might actually open up the discussion. Because then we can consider and talk about the pros and cons, the advantages and drawbacks of each approach and conclusion; we can discuss the criteria people have used to reach those conclusions. Heavens, we might learn something from each other! You might find people more sympathetic to your point of view.
The trouble is, your approach ("there is one definitive reading of Scripture and I have it", which is how you come across, whether or not you mean to), shuts down discussion. If you're constantly telling people not only that they're wrong but that it's pointless to suggest there are other possibilities, then you're effectively denying them space to have any form of discussion. And people then are either not going to bother discussing the issue at all, or it's going to end up here in Hell because they're so pissed off about it. In a forum like this, the discussion can't just be about your views, even if it's challenging people to say where we think you're wrong. Other possibilities have to be brought into the discussion - or there simply is no discussion.
The trouble with this discussion at the moment is that not only do you believe your view is right, but you've done so effectively against a set of criteria that you've decided is the right one, the definitive one. So we can't even discuss why we think it's the wrong approach and why others might be better because you just dismiss that as "fudge". It's simply impossible to engage on these terms - though heaven knows we keep trying...
Oh, and I note that while you've clearly had chance to post several times on this Hell thread, you've not had chance to respond to my post from yesterday lunchtime, which attempts to do some of the things you're complaining people don't do.
Basic answer, yes I have been actively fomenting change in various ways - and yes it is difficult and I've not achieved as much as I'd have liked. And can I point out that raising the issue on the Ship and all the time I've given that in the face of very hot opposition is hardly nothing. And my blog is out there on t'interweb thing and people do read it and generally respond favourably - check it out yourself. And for a lot of the time whatever I did was limited by the only recently discovered Asperger problem - one of the main effects of which was shyness and a problem akin to that of "The King's Speech"; in view of that I'm surprised how much I have achieved. And at least I was doing research most people were just ignoring....
Yes and I'm taking you very seriously and trying to respond; but also trying to observe the strictures of Eutychus and others of producing a 'discussion-style' answer rather than a small book - it is coming, it will take time if you want me to do it properly.
And BTW, as a Baptist minister did you go to this year's Whitley Lecture at any of its venues? I went at Manchester's Luther King House; it was quite relevant to what we're discussing here....
I can hardly apologise for something I didn't do. Popes can apologise for their Church precisely because in a sense they are the Church and are apologising for stuff they're deeply implicated in. I surely regret that Munster happened and that those who did it were believers in "believer's baptism". However, as I've also pointed out
a) By the time Munster happened the decidedly pacifist 'Schleitheim Confession' of the mainstream Anabaptists was already nearly a decade old; as in, the Anabaptists I belong with had already moved on and the Munsterites were an atypical aberration.
b) If anyone should be apologising for Munster it is surely those who actually (unlike me) share their ideas. To do what was done at Munster they had to be holding an idea of a kingdom 'of this world' for Jesus; that is, an established church/Constantian view of things. As Menno Simons saw in making his decision to join the mainstream Anabaptists at about that time, the Munsterites were essentially in agreement with the Catholics, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants (eg the Church of England) in wanting a form of 'Christian state' of the kind that establishes and defends itself with armies and police.
The apology for Munster needs to come from those whose churches held/still hold similar views to the Munsterites on that issue; and of course, to make the apology they'll have to give up those similar views themselves, and stop being that kind of churches. It would of course be monumentally hypocritical to say Munster was wrong while remaining on the key issue the kind of 'established church' the Munsterites tried to be.
2. You have repeatedly dodged the basic question of whether you sanction any interaction whatsoever between Christians and the state, eg as state teachers, police officers, elected officials, etc.
You see yourself as an influencer and change-maker. All this is sound and fury, signifying nothing. We want to know how dirty you've got your hands.
Yes the danger exists; though 'millenarian' is a distraction given that my personal beliefs are 'a-millennial' (interpreting the 'thousand years' in Revelation as symbolising the gospel era between Resurrection and Second Coming rather than as a distinct era yet to come).
The balance is that Christians do/should see themselves as "God's holy nation" on an international basis; but the idea of being a 'diaspora' of citizens of heaven does/should also oblige us to work for the good of the people we are metaphorically 'exiled' among - see Jeremiah. Assuming, of course, that they don't themselves push us away....
I am not 'dodging' the question of interaction with the state; simply saying that we need first to sort out the 'establishment' issue which confuses the whole business. In broad terms there should, in a half-way decent state, be few jobs Christians can't do. The military is an obvious one; I think the police another (not because we've no interest in 'law and order' but because we see different ways of achieving the goals, in which entanglement on the state side may hinder. As a minor but direct example, 'Street Pastors' co-operate with the police, but their independence is advantageous; and 'Christian Peacemaker Teams' are respected precisely because they are pretty much entirely drawn from Anabaptists and similar who are clearly 'neutrals' even in terms of the country they live in themselves)
But I'm expecting to get round to that on the other thread....
One of the oft-noted features of the 'medicalisation' of certain problems is that those diagnosed can be quite keen on it, as they can often be a way of recasting ethical problems.
It is possible to both have Aspergers and also be an inconsiderate shite who should listen to people a bit better.
And for the billionth time, we are not here to listen, we are here to discuss.
While discussing, most of us manage to put our various social, physical and general life events difficulties to one side when posting, not use them as an excuse (and/or, bafflingly, as a badge of outstanding expertise at the same time).
I'll admit, I've not helped. I've goaded you and taken the mick. I'm to blame for a lot of this and I should have left well alone.
I wasn't serious in my suggestion that you 'apologise for Munster'. I was being sarky. Of course, what do we get but your usual rant about how it was the state-churches and so on who were really to blame and the real hypocrites and villains of the piece ...
When the only tool in your box is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It'd be cruel of me to suggest that you aren't as good at research as you seem to think. There are people here who can run rings round you (and me and most of us) in that respect.
Nobody has a problem with you being an Anabaptist.
For my part, I'd like to see you become as good an Anabaptist as you can possibly be.
That means doing your own cause a favour by actually listening to what other people have to say.
It would also help if you stopped stalling for time on those questions where you don't actually have any answers by suggesting we all back off and give you time to think about it. You've been saying that for months and months aboard Ship, possibly even years. You still haven't answered anyone's specific questions about the extent to which you feel it's appropriate for the Christian to be involved in public life.
Ok, you've cited the military and the police, but that's hardly a surprise. When it comes to anything else you haven't the foggiest. You haven't got a clue.
For all your protestations to the contrary, it doesn't seem that there's a great deal of definitive declarations in the NT as to what aspects of public life Christians should or shouldn't engage in.
It's great that you want to reflect and review. But after aeons of posting aboard Ship to keep side-stepping straight-forward and simple questions about this rather suggests:
- You really don't have very much idea how to answer.
- The kind of specific and detailed answers you'd like to present aren't actually provided in the scriptures in the first place.
Principles, yes. Details no.
Hence you are trapped in a Straw Man spiral where you are constantly knocking scarecrows down and wondering what to do with the debris.
Trust me, we're not confused about what we think. We're confused about what you think, because you refuse to explain yourself.
Ok, so 'millenarian' has come to mean a general kind of 'Utopianism/Golden-Age-ism' as well as specific Christian millennialism. As far as a quick web search tells me, it's still basically called that - with the 'thousand' reference - by analogy to Christian millennialism.
But I'm not suggesting any such thing. I don't believe in that kind of Utopianism in any form in the present world. But I do believe that it would be very useful to the Church's mission to finally, if we can, get rid of one particularly problematic mistake of the past, and it might also benefit the surrounding world which has suffered, and still does to far too large an extent, from that problematic mistake.... Have you really any interest in perpetuating the mistake...?
Plenty other tools available - but when the object in question is clearly and indisputably a nail, why wouldn't I use the hammer (or of course, other tool if, say the need is to extract the nail rather than knock it in).
As Menno saw, the Catholics, Protestants and Munsterites of his day were all trying to do the 'kingdom of this world' thing in almost identical terms. And all were wrong. And unfortunately, wrong in ways that got thousands killed and even more thousands oppressed and persecuted. A better answer was needed and turned out to be there in the Scriptures....
That particular response was to one Shipmate. My point was that we weren't going to get much of a discussion if he was going to raise irrelevant issues instead of listening to substance of my points and, well, discussing them with me.
And again above I was asked what I'd been DOING with my views over my life and mentioned that my communicating of my views for many years had been affected by my disability. Not unreasonable to mention that in the circumstances/context.
I don't consider AS a " badge of outstanding expertise". I have mentioned that there are occasions when Aspies have thought outside the box and ended up getting it right and that Shipmates should at least consider that possibility when they're having a bit of trouble understanding my outside the box ideas; when I did mention that I was more than a bit nettled by someone who was being particularly obnoxious, and the response was probably naive. But still true, of course.
And I find the accusation of being in a narrow box myself rather annoying when I definitely am thinking outside the usual boxes....
I speak, of course, of the relationship between Anabaptist churches and established churches.
You continually fail to do that.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you either haven't thought it through properly or that you realise deep down that there is no single, clear-cut and definitive answer to that question that can be established beyond any shadow of doubt by citing chapter and verse from the NT.
The NT does not tell us what jobs we can and can't do.
It doesn't tell us whether it is legitimate or otherwise for a Christian to be a judge or magistrate, a police officer or bartender.
You seem to think that your Anabaptist stance is startlingly original and that no-one else here has ever considered it.
The fact is, it isn't. Plenty of people hold similar views. Fine. Nobody here is saying they shouldn't. What they are doing is asking you to answer a simple question which you continually appear to dodge.
Why is that?
Steve is one of those people.
I quite like Anabaptist thought, and on those whole I've found Mennonites and other people of that tradition to be charming.
Isn't it annoying when that happens.
If it weren't for Steve I might well be a Mennonite.
Clue - if you are not posting after the [/quote] tag, your post will appear as a quote.
To be fair, what little real-life interaction I've had with that tradition has been positive. It's a shame that they only have Steve as a mouth-piece on here.
And while you're waiting for me to sort out an acceptable Ship style response you could always try checking out the proper blog I run - which will give you far more than I'll ever be allowed to say on the Ship. Google up stevesfreechurchblog - just like that, all one word.