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: 213

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"?

Aye.  Rebekah, 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.

RSS

Latest Activity

Jack Bauer replied to Regular Joe's discussion G-Spot Officially Declared A Myth
"Michael D. Grafenberg.  Heh. JB"
10 minutes ago
Rick Shelton commented on Josh Allen's photo
Thumbnail

Captain Lamat

"N. Vest, I was actually referring to the post by Josh "Your a strange old man" and his lack of skill in written English, which is odd as he is such a 'highborn' peer and all."
16 minutes ago
Carl Monster replied to Rafael's discussion Explain this anti-rape add to me, please
"Yup, Grizzly Man. Movie was hard to watch, as he was obviously mentally off.  Sad that lady didn't see it. "that bear was full of people!""
19 minutes ago
Jon Glueckstein replied to Daniel's discussion What is a cheap skill/trade to learn that is high in demand?
27 minutes ago
Liam Strain replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"I agree this is an issue. Creating a mechanism for submission of sales that isn't a financial burden on the private seller - I don't know what form that would take. But I could certainly see either a subsidy to FFL's to cover the…"
28 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Titus Techera's discussion Mr. Tyson, the clown in the group The Great Debate
"What I got from this is that philosophy is better because the philosophers said so."
29 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"Its amazing the lengths we'll go to avoid the issue when the 'issue' makes us uncomfortable.  Even conservatives.   At this point, the conservative position on gun violence seems to be 'more guns, less…"
29 minutes ago
John Muir replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"It's rather comprehensive in Israel. How to survive a hostage situation as well.  It's simple stuff that requires minimal practice, will be remembered for life, and MAY work - in any case, it's better than doing nothing. You…"
31 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service