Here in Denmark, the church and state is together , it means that we pay church tax.

But this also means that the church adapts to the state and its worldly values.

Martin Luther King said that: The church should not be the governments megaphone but its conscience.

Do the Worldly  maner also sneak slowly in your churches  ?

Views: 220

Replies to This Discussion

The answer to your question is Yes, but that's the answer semper et ubique. When the Church ran Europe, it had its worldly aspects. Where there is a high wall of separation, as in the US, the Church has its worldly aspects. Where the State has some control over the Church, the Church has its worldly aspects. Even when the government is hostile to the Church, the Church had its worldly aspects.

 

The legislature should establish true religion.

The legislature should establish true religion.

 

Is this what you really mean?  Can you explain further? 

Good one Rebekah. You managed to get Liam and I to get together, hold hands, sing Kumbaya and agree with each other.

 

What do you mean by "legislature should establish true religion"?

Anglicans (like me) pray for our legislatures. We pray

MOST gracious God, we humbly beseech thee, as for the people of these United States in general, so especially for their Senate and Representatives in Congress assembled; that thou wouldest be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations, to the advancement of thy glory, the good of thy Church, the safety, honour, and welfare of thy people; that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be establish among us for all generations. These and all other necessaries, for them, for us, and thy whole Church, we humbly beg in the Name and mediation of Jesus Christ, our most blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.

Or some variation. That's American, but the Prayer for Parliament in the Empire is almost exactly the same.

It gave me serious pause when I first read it in law school, 'cause, you know, the Constitution I was about to promise to "support" says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." I decided that whatever the Prayer Book means, it can't be contrary to the Constitution, 'cause some of the same people wrote them.

So, what does it mean? I take it to mean that the legislature should make laws that create an environment that fosters religion and piety. Our Founders believed that was best done without our federal legislature directly legislating about religion. I don't know if I agree with the Founders about the means (though if the US is to change its policy, it needs to amend the Constitution; I stick to my oath; and notably the Founders generally supported the Danish arrangement at the state level), but I agree with my Church.

 

I take your statement above "Legislature should establish true religion" - to mean either that legislature should define what a true religion is, legally. Or pick one to officially endorse as correct for its citizens. Neither of which really is in the spirit of the constitution (and the one gets into seriously sketchy philosophical waters).

If you really just mean that legislature should create an environment that allows for true religion ("create an environment that fosters religion and piety") - then I think you should rephrase. If you don't agree with the means currently employed (no direct legislating about religion) - then what do you think would be a reasonable improvement (with the understanding that it would require changing the constitution - e.g. How would you change it?).

Well, as I said, all I meant by the original line was the quoted text. I have more knowledge of the context, but it's just sixteenth century English. There's no magic code for interpreting it. Why don't you take a stab? What does it mean that "all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be establish among us for all generations"?

 

I don't know if I agree with the present means. I therefore don't know if I disagree with them. Your questions beg questions I'm not prepared to answer.

I take from that - that God would do the establishing. Or at least that the establishing would be the result of his imposed will - the legislature having been divinely guided to allow a foundation for religion(s) to flourish.

I don't think this equates to "Legislature should establish true religion."

I suggest phrasing it as: "Legislature should set the foundations, that allow for religion and piety (and truth, justice, happiness, peace, etc.) to be established." But still keeps them removed from doing any of the establishment of religion in any direct sense.

That is a fair interpretation.

 

My problem is that "establish" and "foundations" are words closely affiliated in meaning. I think that the prayer asks God that the endeavours of Congress would establish foundations of...Those good things describe the foundations Congress' endeavours are to establish.

 

We're probably both right. Liturgical texts are meant to have built-in ambiguity. The only reason I like mine better than yours is because it ruffles more feathers and I've been hanging with papist monarchists/theocrats too long.

Yes the world has also managed to  slip into the values of the church in a fair amount of the American churches too.  For us it is mainly in the form of the blasted "prosperity Gospel" which is a mix of the consumerism of the American Dream and the Gospel.  Somewhat of a God wants you rich, happy and healthy and if you are not something is wrong with you spiritually.  As long as Christians have a lot of growing to do I think there will always remain some aspect of worldliness within the church regardless of how much of it as we can see as it as the closer we grow to God the more we can see around us and within us that is not of God.  I'm not saying that we should blindly accept it just that we all need to realize that true spiritual growth takes time, although unlike physical growth spiritual growth is not automatic as we have to want it and be willing to work with God in order to grow in Christ. 
+1
Government and church together corrupts both.  This is not separation as is commonly expressed, meaning government restricting religion; that's not separation, but involvement.  Government should be religion-neutral, so we can be free, and church should have no authority but moral authority, so we can avoid corruption.

While it's tempting to want to create a "Christian" society from the top down, we've got to remember that the New Testament church was born and lived under a very hostile government. And yet it thrived and within a couple of centuries had spread far from its starting place to most of the known world, and at all levels of society (Constantine's sister was a Christian convert). State religion tends to dilute the church's message - when the church's influence is top-down in society, rather than bottom-up, the church becomes worldly, it's message becomes weaker.

 

I'm a Brit, but I have respect for the American Constitution. Someone once quipped that the Constitution is there to guarantee "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion". Faith should certainly play a part of public life, but I don't think the state should ever go as far as endorsing one denomination over another, nor should the priest endorse one party over another. 

RSS

Latest Activity

Regular Joe replied to Sir's discussion Grilling -- how guilty should I feel?
""As a socialist-feminist grill, I particularly love shared public space, but that’s besides the point." LOL! "
12 minutes ago
David F. replied to Carl Monster's discussion "When you gonna stop doin' that?"
"Sorry for the late reply I just caught it on the feed. I asked about weight lifting last year here and got a great response here and I'm hitting 40. The thing is that most people our age think weight lifting is for younger and at heavier…"
15 minutes ago
Sir replied to Pale Horse's discussion After Chattanooga in the group The Great Debate
"Had that problem when Gov. Jindal was trying to get permission (!) to protect La. beaches from the Gulf Oil spill, and when allies' oil skimmers were asking permission to enter US waters, and for that matter when he said it was urgent to pass…"
22 minutes ago
Sir replied to Sir's discussion Grilling -- how guilty should I feel?
"It's worse than I thought.  Even talking about it marginalizes women by taking over the feminist conversation. http://flavorwire.com/529500/i-am-a-grill-please-dont-politicize-me/"
28 minutes ago
Sir posted a discussion

Grilling -- how guilty should I feel?

Hat tip to Joe for sharing this link -- that helps me (and you?) see the error of my ways.I am a man who grills.  It's how I marginalize women.Like the author, I have to ask myself:  Have I become some sort of monster?http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/07/grilling_feminism_and_masculinity_a_grand_unified_theory.htmlSee More
34 minutes ago
Native Son replied to Pale Horse's discussion After Chattanooga in the group The Great Debate
"OK guys, I'm neither a Tea Partier nor one of those folks who still have their "Obama-Biden '08 sticker on the car. To be fair, I'd have to put a lot of the "blame" for this flag flap where I've put the…"
35 minutes ago
Errol R. Alger updated their profile
35 minutes ago
Errol R. Alger left a comment for Luke
"Thanks for the friend request Luke. Propagation, promotion, and protection of manliness is a worthy ambition."
52 minutes ago

© 2015   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service