| Author |
Message |
    
jayhernandez
Intermediate Member
Username: jayhernandez
Post Number: 327
Registered: 4-2006
Posted From: 64.198.236.232
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 3:08 pm: | 
|
Is the ability to develope a good working universal social language contingent on the church's ability to unite in rhetoric?
This is the question I was going to ask Professor Charles Curran, a Roman Catholic priest and author of over 50 books. He was expelled from the church in Rome, where he studied and received two doctorate degrees, all leaned under and in the Latin language- a great feat. He is involved in many projects and is now a teacher in a Methodist Church in New York. He is considered important for various reason but his expulsion from the church is considered his major rebound. (kinda like us former EN'rs, etc's)
His views are on the churches role in society, and how to separate Law and Moral topics. This focus seems to be why he was removed- someone "big" must considered them radical.
One view, for example, is that prayer in school isn't a real political issue but more of a moral issue. He says that he supports the person who would want to keep it in the school. To show why he would support he addressed the phrase "the separation of church and state", and gave recognition that the church has always been involved in the policies of this country. (Poli=Poli).
What I see wrong here is a change of recognition- especially if prayer was removed because the school is now being seen as strictly a public place. What he said is that the public was very much connected to the state- and still is. But has it been the Christian understanding of it that has changed? The public hasn’t? Who is this public? Is it the World, the pagan, the sinner, the outside of the church, the lost? They feel like they have taken over where the church has quite. Is this why the church and state drift apart? Or is it because the public should stay public?
Doesn't this then add up to another phrase "the separation of public and state"? It makes sense to think of it in this way. After all Socialism seems to believe that The Hill is being run by a bunch of Conservative Christians. It seems they see the connection of the public to the state in a negative way- where as Christians are not seeing the connection to The Hill at all.
He said, that instead of the public crying out on the issue like stem cell research- "No, that’s a contradiction to the separation of church and state", they should just say "No, you are wrong" because the “separation of church and state” is both a wrong argument, but most importantly because it has and continues to break down our society. What we need to do instead is change our rhetoric so that we can co-exist in America.
I think, as a Christian I can say what Prof Charles tells the public to say- “No, you are wrong”. But I think I already say this- quietly, without words. In many ways, I am doing this by living the Christian life, right? I think I say I love you as well. What more can I say?
I wasn't able to ask the question there because we ran out of Q&A time, so I'm bring it here. What do you think? Is it contingent on the church to unite in rhetoric for us to develop a good working social language? |
jayhernandez
Intermediate Member
Username: jayhernandez
Post Number: 329
Registered: 4-2006
Posted From: 64.198.236.232
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Here is an edited version of the one above. I went back and saw how sloppy it was. Hope this one is better. Think of this question it in terms of the "church" being able to untie in rhetoric with EN to get a zoomed in focus.
-----
Is the ability to develope a good working universal social language contingent on the church's ability to unite in rhetoric?
This is the question I was going to ask Professor Charles Curran, a Roman Catholic priest and author of over 50 books. He was expelled from the church in Rome, where he studied and received two doctorate degrees, all leaned under and in the Latin language- a great feat. He is involved in many projects and is now a teacher in a Methodist Church in New York. He is considered important for various reason but his expulsion from the church is considered his major rebound. (kinda like us former EN'rs, etc's)
His views are on the churches role in society, and how to separate Law and Moral topics. This focus seems to be why he was removed- someone "big" must considered them radical.
One view, for example, is that prayer in school isn't a real political issue, but more of a moral issue. He says that he supports the person who would want to keep it in the school. To show why he would support it he addressed the phrase "the separation of church and state" by gaving recognition that the church has always been involved in the policies of this country. (Poli=Poli).
If what he says is true, then what I see wrong here is in the church. A change of recognizing the public place- especially if prayer was removed because the school is now being seen as strictly a public place. The public place was very much connected to the state, which is why some of actually grew up praying schools.
But has it been the Christian understanding of the public place that has changed? The public hasn’t changed thiers? Who is this public? Is it the World, the pagan, the sinner, the outside of the church, the lost? They'll quickly tell us they have taken over where the church has quite. Is this why the church and state drift apart? Or is it because the public should stay public?
Doesn't this then end up adding to a phrase that might sound like "the separation of public and state"? It makes sense to think of socialism in this way. After all Socialism seems to believe that The Hill is being run by a bunch of Conservative Christians. It seems like they see the connection of the public to the state in a negative way- where as I'm seeing that Christians are not seeing the connection to The Hill at all. (Calvin coined this phrase on the Hill and the pilgrims brought it with them.)
He said that instead of the public crying out, on a issue like stem cell research "No, that’s a contradiction to the separation of church and state", they should just say "No, you are wrong", because the “separation of church and state” is the wrong argument, and because this rhetoric continues to break down our society. What he says we need to do instead: is that everyone needs to change our rhetoric so that we can co-exist in America.
But I think, as a Christian I think I already say this- quietly, without words. In many ways, I am doing this by living the Christian life, right? I think I say I love you as well. What more can I say? Do I need to say 'you are wrong' like he says the public should?
I wasn't able to ask the question there because we ran out of Q&A time, so I'm bring it here. What do you think? Is it contingent on the church to unite in rhetoric for us to develop a good working social language? |
philiprosenthal
Advanced Member
Username: philiprosenthal
Post Number: 762
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 198.54.202.250
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 8:37 am: |
|
Jay
Language is use to frame the debate. In that sense it can be used to manipulate. I would argue that the slogan 'separation of church and state' is an example of a massive manipulation being used to neutralise Christians and impose all sorts of evils on American society. Essentially, with this rhetoric, anything Christians promote is a violation of the separation of church and state while anything secularists promote is not. It results in an unlevel playing field. Nevertheless, there is no neutrality here. Biblical language is not neutral either. Concepts like 'sin' for example presuppose a moral law order accountable to God.
Further I argue that the primary goal of political involvement is not to 'co-exist' but rather to submit to God and his law-order. Co-existence is a secondary goal and should not displace the primary. |
jayhernandez
Intermediate Member
Username: jayhernandez
Post Number: 350
Registered: 4-2006
Posted From: 64.198.236.246
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 1:26 pm: |
|
What if- just what if- the past of American politics was a co-existance with religion. A seperate part of the politics.
I remember some of the things you spoke about months ago. (BTW Hi, it's been a while.) You had, if I remember correctly, mostly to say about reformation and church behavior. I argued that EN needed to change it's ways, that reformation was only from the ground up, and argued against the word "behavior" because it turns out to be a play on words for them- a matter symantics.
But here you sound to take a different position. It seems the tables are reversed. (I'm not breaking your balls-just hear me out- I think you might be able to give them real input here.)Is it because the topic is state vs church? Rather then church vs church. Are they different? If there is no difference then why a change in perspective?
What I'm saying is.... if there really isn't a difference in understanding between church and state then there isn't a perspective change due. If no perspective change happens, then we'll continue to speak as we do- past each other as Christians do with each other.
But isn't the tongue of a Christian different from those who aren't?
It seems I'm asking the public and the church to come together on words. Some, as you say, don't think it can unless the publc(AKA the World) repents.
This is interesting to me. I just don't see the World doing this as a fast as I see a Christian country slipping by. I think I understand what you're saying though, and I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just think that if you're right about the world needing to respond first then we'll never be able to come together.
Until then can't our words like Secular, the World, the Lost, the Pagan, the ......etc be left for inside the church and never in politics? Even in church, doesn't this language further distance us from the few Christian people in the state that is crying out for closer Christians.
I'm with you- I don't acknowledge that "seperation of church and state" bit either.
When I talk about "politics" aren't I saying "the state" without realizing it? Why would the local church down the road have Church politics?
You speak of repentance and I speak of language? But is our once predominately Christian country capable of a repentance, or reformation?
Repentance is not reformation- nor does the two necessarily coincide.
Is our country really a Christian country anymore? Do we need to wake up and smell the coffee? If we aren't a Christian country anymore then the remaining Christans and the Public will continue to speak past each other. Meanwhile we race each other up the Hill.
What do think? Is coming together in "one language" contingent first on the church coming together in rhetoric? Lets say the state (country) repents....doesn't the church stand out like a sore thumb when we (the church) can't even partner up? There is so much division. This is why I ask if it is contingent on the church to come together?
I don't know where any of this is going. I just thought a lot and typed a lot. Thanks. |
philiprosenthal
Advanced Member
Username: philiprosenthal
Post Number: 764
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 196.25.255.250
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Jay
I argue both the church and the state must repent of their sin. Even Ninevah repented of its sin when challenged by the prophet Jonah - why not todays government and churches? God is sovereign over all of life and over all churches and nations. All must repent of their sins and submit to him. |
|