next »

[oldadjunct]

Hvernon, I just received the following link from a friend of mine.  It may advance your discussion http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/114-32.0.html?start=2

I wonder if anyone is interested in discussing this?

The Lutheran two-kingdoms doctrine is very interesting... very modern, in many ways, but also (as the author makes clear for this election) very foreign to many in the modern world.  I think this idea of a strict separation between things of God and things of this world can be helpful... as he brings up, it prevents the blind following of dangerous worldly "messiahs".  At the same time, though, I think the two-kingdoms idea taken to an extreme can lead to the same sort of problems from the opposite direction... from inaction.

The author gives Nazi Germany as an example of Lutherans who fell short of the ideal:

all too many Lutheran pastors in Nazi Germany hailed Hitler as a redeemer.

...yet just as problematic, and perhaps more widespread, were the Lutherans in Germany who failed to act against Nazism because the affairs of this world were supposedly not for them to meddle in (based upon the two-kingdoms idea).  The quote offered from Bonhoeffer comes from his stay in America... as "The Cost of Discipleship" was simmering in his mind but before he fully came to realize what was required against Nazism (he even came to regret parts of Discipleship as being too cautious and not cognizant enough of the Christian's ethical role).  But fast-forward to Bonhoeffer trying to assassinate Hitler, held prisoner and hung for his act of defiance.  One wonders what makes Bonhoeffer's action different than "the organized struggle of the Church against some particular worldly evil" that he dismisses earlier. 

I think the author's view is an important presentation to make... I'm hesitant about being overly committed to any particular political theology, be it two-kingdoms, Integralist, Kuyperian, liberationist, Augustinian realist, anabaptist, secularist, or any other.  Yet I find aspects of all of these viewpoints helpful and very important to take into consideration.  I think that overly strict adherence to any ideological commitment is in itself the most dangerous wedding of religion and society, and so I try to balance an eclecticism on the matter. 

Siemon-Netto has written on Bonhoeffer in a number of areas so likely those sources would better answer your question.  As a former journalist, covering among other things the Viet Nam War on the ground and later ministering to Viet Nam vets, he is intensely concerned with the intersection of faith and society.

[husqvarna]

o.a.,

On the "matters indifferent", you're correct about the political aspects of the term... that I wouldn't dispute.  There were ecclesiastical as well as civil applications of it, to be sure.

Also, I think Siemon-Netto offered some great points... I don't mean to be in utter disagreement with him.  His piece here was, of course, a short bit offering a Lutheran perspective on political life.  I wouldn't expect him to lay out anything in great detail or air-tight argument about either Lutheran political theology or legitimate intersection between faith and society- I think the piece was more of just a good conversation starter. 

It sounds like CT is doing a series on the election from different perspectives, so perhaps we should revisit the link as time goes by and see if there are more good pieces that might stir up discussion.

[husqvarna]

Nothing complicated.  Either EU countries have close and operative religious/governmental ties, or religion is moribund in Europe.  Pick one and argue the point.

This is apples and oranges- I don't know what else to say.  Having ties to a government doesn't make a religion vibrant or fading.  Sometimes this is certainly the case, but often it isn't... and it certainly isn't in Europe*.  I really don't know what else to say... perhaps you could explain why the thriving of a religious group necessarily has anything to do with its political status?  That may help, if I understand what you're meaning by a religion being moribund.  I think the political category of official/unofficial/[suppressed?] is more straightforward, and I don't think there's a misunderstanding about what you mean here.

*Of course this might be qualified... Poland, perhaps... Russia (if we lump that into Europe)...

[goldstein]

Nothing complicated.  Either EU countries have close and operative religious/governmental ties, or religion is moribund in Europe.  Pick one and argue the point.

This is apples and oranges- I don't know what else to say.  Having ties to a government doesn't make a religion vibrant or fading.  Sometimes this is certainly the case, but often it isn't... and it certainly isn't in Europe*.  I really don't know what else to say... perhaps you could explain why the thriving of a religious group necessarily has anything to do with its political status?  That may help, if I understand what you're meaning by a religion being moribund.  I think the political category of official/unofficial/[suppressed?] is more straightforward, and I don't think there's a misunderstanding about what you mean here.

*Of course this might be qualified... Poland, perhaps... Russia (if we lump that into Europe)...

As you know, or should since you pasted my comment from another thread, I did not say that religion was moribund in Europe, another poster did while at the same time asserting that EU countries were somehow different from the US because there was a direct church/state relation in Europe that does not exist in the US.  I pointed out that one, or the other, position might be true.  Not both.

I am not going to be drawn into this discussion, or your personal religion blog via CHE.  Do not misrepresent my statements.  Doing so does not engage me, it embarrasses you.

[husqvarna]

Didn't mean to misrepresent your statement, I was simply giving much of Europe as a good example of the fact that 1 (state religion) and 2 (moribundity) can certainly both be true... indeed they can be causally related (or so some would venture).  I do realize that for you the issue is the supposed contradiction, without necessarily accepting any other details of jobhunter's comment. 

I'm still confused by your point, though.  If you can stoop to posting on my "personal blog" again (I know I cramp your style, sorry!), then I'd appreciate some clarification.  Are you saying that a religion's thriving consists of its political connections, and its deterioration in a lack of the same?  I just don't see how this is at all the case, either theoretically or empirically.  Yet the contradiction you see seems to rest on this very identification.

Sorry, I obviously pushed a button.  If you're not interested in people... um... responding to you, then there might be other forums where you'd fit in better.

[t_r_b]

I was going to post this over in Elections, but since hvernon has (probably for the best) moved this conversation over here, I'll follow suit.

Nothing complicated.  Either EU countries have close and operative religious/governmental ties, or religion is moribund in Europe.  Pick one and argue the point.

Just taking the UK example: the UK technically has an established church (actually at least two: the Church of England and the Church of Scotland; is there still a Church of Ireland, or is that considered part of the CoE?) These churches are established in the sense that they are the official churches of the government, and the head of state is also head of the church. But English people, on average, tend to be far less devout than American people, on average (the Scots are probably somewhere in between).

Many have suggested that the lack of an established church in the US has actually fostered greater piety by facilitating the growth of independent denominations. State-supported established churches probably tend to be more theologically and liturgically conservative than independent denominations. Established churches have a vested interest in not rocking the boat, so they tend not to embrace evangelicalism, for example. By contrast, independent denominations are more likely to develop an evangelical bent (or at least an evangelical wing). The strength of evangelical Christianity in the US has been the foundation for the rise of the religious right in American politics, even though the two are by no means coequal. So it seems likely that the prevalence of religious discourse in American politics, which posters here have referred to as theocratic, actually resulted from America's lack of an established state religion.

[john_proctor]

If I could...

I think the dissolution of the binary that both HV and t.r.b. are making is, of course, useful.  The presence of a state-endorsed religous body does not mean that the citizens of said state are religously active (at least, in certain ways or according to general definitions of "activity").

I might probe a bit why there seems to be an assumption that "not like the 'vitality' of US (evangelical) churches" is tantamount to "moribund," but I sense the word was something of a "given" (used in earlier conversation).

I wonder, though, why no one has taken the opportunity to challenge jobhunter's binary.  S/he seems to be suggesting that "atheists/secularists" all support abortion and that thesists/Christians all oppose it (not to mention, the fairly common assumption that no one hesitates for whatever reason about making a moral position a legal circumstance.  I.e. many people, theist or atheist, may be personally opposed to abortion and find it immoral but also be opposed to laws that restrict its practice/access for all citizens).

If we're going to push for precision in argument . . .

[goldstein]

Didn't mean to misrepresent your statement, I was simply giving much of Europe as a good example of the fact that 1 (state religion) and 2 (moribundity) can certainly both be true... indeed they can be causally related (or so some would venture).  I do realize that for you the issue is the supposed contradiction, without necessarily accepting any other details of jobhunter's comment. 

I'm still confused by your point, though.  If you can stoop to posting on my "personal blog" again (I know I cramp your style, sorry!), then I'd appreciate some clarification.  Are you saying that a religion's thriving consists of its political connections, and its deterioration in a lack of the same?  I just don't see how this is at all the case, either theoretically or empirically.  Yet the contradiction you see seems to rest on this very identification.

Sorry, I obviously pushed a button.  If you're not interested in people... um... responding to you, then there might be other forums where you'd fit in better.

Your can't be serious.  How is it a person goes to the trouble of commenting across treads without understanding or properly representing the context of a comment?

Based on that I am not surprised that you are confused by my comment to someone else. That confusion may well be chronic if not congenital.

The "pushing a button" comment is classic passive/aggressive, you know.  You didn't push a button, yours and jh06's posts were simply uniformed and stupid, respectively.  I fit in very well where people have intelligent comments, sometimes I find them here, but not yours in this case.

This has nothing at all to do with either religion or society, it has to do with intelligent conversation and careful representation of what others have said.

[scheherazade]

Goldstein, Hvernon is the most consistently open-minded, careful, respectful forumite here in regards to religious topics.  If you're going to take an honest misunderstanding and blow it into biblical proportions (pun intended), then you are the one embarrassing yourself.

Please, take a deep breath, and converse.  Things get muddled sometimes in Virtual Land.  We'd like to understand what you're saying.

Moving on...

I agree with JP that the either/or choice as given is incorrect.  The abortion example JP gives is a good one, as well, and one I mentioned on the elections thread today.  Religious beliefs and attitudes are far more complex than Jobhunter represented them.  I'd like to hear Jobhunter's explanation of why he felt the simplification is appropriate.

[husqvarna]

I might probe a bit why there seems to be an assumption that "not like the 'vitality' of US (evangelical) churches" is tantamount to "moribund," but I sense the word was something of a "given" (used in earlier conversation).

Good point... it was a given term in this case and I think we were just going with it.  One could, of course, measure something like this in a number of different ways- my thought would be that "official" numbers like church attendance or percentage of population, clergy numbers, etc. would be appropriate insofar as they mirror the "official" nature of the church.  If the religion as institution has black letter connections with a government, we also have some black letter boundaries to work with in assessing the religion.  But I do think (and this ties into your point below) that often what appears "dead" to some can simply be "liberal" or not "evangelistic".  Of course there's a lot of work to be done in even beginning to measure the vitality of an official religion.  I bet the ratio of regular church attendance to official membership lists would provide a good start, since for many countries with official religions there is a strong tie between citizenship and religious affiliation (so mere nominal membership would tell us more about the political climate than the religious).  All of my above musing works better with Christianity (which we're dealing with in Europe) than other religions, of course.

I wonder, though, why no one has taken the opportunity to challenge jobhunter's binary.  S/he seems to be suggesting that "atheists/secularists" all support abortion and that thesists/Christians all oppose it (not to mention, the fairly common assumption that no one hesitates for whatever reason about making a moral position a legal circumstance.  I.e. many people, theist or atheist, may be personally opposed to abortion and find it immoral but also be opposed to laws that restrict its practice/access for all citizens).

If we're going to push for precision in argument . . .

Another good point.  I didn't pursue it simply because there were enough other things to discuss.  I think it's a good criticism to make, though.  I disagreed with jobhunter on the abortion issue a little ways up-thread, actually.

[john_proctor]

I wouldn't want us to get too far past my question about the definition of "moribund."

True, without doubt, religiosity isn't expressed in (to take the example below) England the same way it is found in the US.  There's much more of a public "buzz" in the US about religion.

But "moribund" seems a bit harsh.

Really?  Without vitality?  Dying?

True, it isn't the same in its expression and energy that we find in the US, but is that tantamount to "dying" and irrelevant?

I mean nothing perjorative by the following illustration: In my yard is an ash tree.  My neighbor has a bad kudzu problem.  Those vines creep over into my lot and I have to cut them back.  No question, the kudzu is growing faster and changing on a rapid pace.  Particularly compared to my 4 foot diameter ash tree.

Is the ash tree "moribund?"



p.s. I cited some numbers on religious affiliation in the US in the other thread (I think the demographic data was more relevant to that discussion).


pps.  Ah, I see hv has taken up this very question and posted as I'm trying to.  Let me read, ruminate, and see if I need/want to respond.

[john_proctor]

But I do think (and this ties into your point below) that often what appears "dead" to some can simply be "liberal" or not "evangelistic".

That's what I'm looking for/getting at.  I'm even appreciative of the scare quotes.

My point is that "dead" and "vital" are based on the observation of certain criteria along with the assumption that these criteria have merit / are harbingers of doom.

I'd certianly agree that religiosity in Europe is different in expression than it is in the US. 

I'd wonder about "moribund" or even "irrelevant."

Many a Holiness Church member would conclude that the lovely Episcopal congregation I sometimes attend here (lovely music program) is irrelevant, outdated, unconnected, and well past "moribund" and into the realm of stone-cold dead.

Many who identify as members would very much disagree.

[husqvarna]

What we need, JP, is numbers for Europe like the ones you provided in the Election thread (GREAT contribution, by the way... I had forgotten about this.)  I think that would give us a better idea.  Because while it's true that sometimes assessments can be ideologically loaded, I've also experienced mainline denominations in the U.S. (TEC being one of them, actually- sorry!) where all the talk is bright, sunny, and "vibrant" while membership is turning drastically downward, churches are folding, etc. etc.  Now, this may not be the case in the parish you attend, but a broader demographic look at things would provide a good picture of increase or decrease, if only based on who is showing up (which isn't an insignificant start).

I do know that the Catholic Church throughout Europe and the US is experiencing a shortage of clergy except in Poland, so that Polish seminarians are being sent to other Catholic countries where there is a need.  I know that this is an issue for the Lutheran Church in Germany as well.  I imagine, although I don't have data, that we could find evidence for state churches "dying" simply based on polling like this.  That's where I'd start, at least.

I'd also add, back to the whole establishment issue, that I'm on the fence about that.  In the US it's easy to praise the church-state separation from a purely religious point of view, pointing out how much it allows the religious bodies to thrive.  But then talk about the religious "market" inevitably creeps in, and it makes me wary of how ANY relationship or non-relationship between religion and government may very well adversely affect religion.  Disestablishment often leads to voluntarism, which opens the door to a whole host of adjustments that will forever change the life of a religious body, leaving a decidedly modernist, consumerist stamp on its activity.  I'm not saying that I'm all for the idea of official state religions, I'm just saying that any way you organize it there will be serious problems to address for both religious and governmental bodies.

[sad_goat]

State-supported established churches probably tend to be more theologically and liturgically conservative than independent denominations.

I've always wondered about this idea, considering that the Anglican Church was heretical and wildly liberal in its day, yet seems to have become the opposite over time. I suspect the answer has more to do, as always, with the need to mark our turf. What might the UU church look like in twenty years?

[scheherazade]

State-supported established churches probably tend to be more theologically and liturgically conservative than independent denominations.

I've always wondered about this idea, considering that the Anglican Church was heretical and wildly liberal in its day, yet seems to have become the opposite over time. I suspect the answer has more to do, as always, with the need to mark our turf. What might the UU church look like in twenty years?

Heretical, yes.  Wildly liberal...I guess that depends on when you're talking about and how you define liberal.