Comments on: Polity and politics http://targuman.org/blog/2008/07/12/polity-and-politics/ Translating my thoughts into words. Tue, 22 May 2012 16:01:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: “If bishops were no more, would we miss them?” at Targuman http://targuman.org/blog/2008/07/12/polity-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-30777 “If bishops were no more, would we miss them?” at Targuman Fri, 18 Jul 2008 04:31:21 +0000 http://targuman.org/blog/?p=1706#comment-30777 [...] That is the headline of a Times story. And it is a good question and a good little piece. Some highlights are below, but be sure to read it all. Of course this goes straight to the earlier conversation with Kevin Wilson of Blue Cord about polity. [...] [...] That is the headline of a Times story. And it is a good question and a good little piece. Some highlights are below, but be sure to read it all. Of course this goes straight to the earlier conversation with Kevin Wilson of Blue Cord about polity. [...]

]]> By: Looney http://targuman.org/blog/2008/07/12/polity-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-30550 Looney Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:53:28 +0000 http://targuman.org/blog/?p=1706#comment-30550 Not part of this game, but I always bristle when I see terms like "traditionalist" associated with proscriptions on homosexuality. Perhaps I come from a tradition where we stomp on traditions just to prove that they are disposable and not part of core Biblical teaching. The fact is that sin is a foundational concept, which has the subset of sexual immorality and this has a major subset of homosexuality. The Anglican ship is at the point where half of the crew insists that the ship will float better if we do away with the tradition of having a hull without holes, while the other half of the crew is adamant that the tradition of not putting holes into the hull should be preserved at all costs. Not part of this game, but I always bristle when I see terms like “traditionalist” associated with proscriptions on homosexuality. Perhaps I come from a tradition where we stomp on traditions just to prove that they are disposable and not part of core Biblical teaching. The fact is that sin is a foundational concept, which has the subset of sexual immorality and this has a major subset of homosexuality. The Anglican ship is at the point where half of the crew insists that the ship will float better if we do away with the tradition of having a hull without holes, while the other half of the crew is adamant that the tradition of not putting holes into the hull should be preserved at all costs.

]]> By: Drew http://targuman.org/blog/2008/07/12/polity-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-30546 Drew Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:33:04 +0000 http://targuman.org/blog/?p=1706#comment-30546 It is hard to know what an evangelical polity would look like since there is no clear prescription for a political system in Scripture in the New Testament church. To the way that it was described here it seems to be a congregational system rooted in firm non-negotiables. This is an implausible position to take and will lead to a rather non-connectional system. The problem is what is negotiable versus what is not. That is the issue of the Anglican communion as well as every other religious polity in the Protestant world. The only way to resolve that unity is to have a pope who can declare non-negotiables ex cathedra. That is what is ensured by papal infallibility. But without this rigid hierarchical system, everything becomes negotiable at some point in time and none of us can ignore history and the reality that none of these denominations are the same as they were 100, 50, or 25 years ago. To me it comes down to pragmatism. We can have an agreed set of principles, but the question that results in difference is how we instantiate those principles in our political systems that are structured to bear witness to them. It is hard to know what an evangelical polity would look like since there is no clear prescription for a political system in Scripture in the New Testament church. To the way that it was described here it seems to be a congregational system rooted in firm non-negotiables. This is an implausible position to take and will lead to a rather non-connectional system. The problem is what is negotiable versus what is not. That is the issue of the Anglican communion as well as every other religious polity in the Protestant world. The only way to resolve that unity is to have a pope who can declare non-negotiables ex cathedra. That is what is ensured by papal infallibility. But without this rigid hierarchical system, everything becomes negotiable at some point in time and none of us can ignore history and the reality that none of these denominations are the same as they were 100, 50, or 25 years ago.

To me it comes down to pragmatism. We can have an agreed set of principles, but the question that results in difference is how we instantiate those principles in our political systems that are structured to bear witness to them.

]]>