Counter-Kingdom Ism’s

[PetrChelcicky]

Max asked;
"Petr, what if those "-isms" promote unBiblical and sinful needs and wishes? How do you feel a Christian should address that carnality?"

My thoughts about this start with the concept of "interest".
Interests can be seen as lines which start at zero and go to infinity. And there are morally relevant distinctions along this line. Interests start as basic needs (w.r.t. which we all ought to support each other), then develop into legitimate (but perhaps erroneous) wishes (w.r.t. which we may support each other or not) and finally develop into trespassing/transgressive wishes (w.r.t. which we must not support each other).
These are as far as I see quite clear distinctions. But "-ism"-distinctions mostly stand at right angles (or at least diagonally) to this.

Take "sexism", "racism" and "nationalism". They try to bind morals to the question "Whom do I support - someone of my own sex, race or nation - or someone else?" instead of asking "How far do I support anyone"?
In my eyes there is nothing morally wrong with supporting (mutually) people of one's own sex, race or nation (or denomination); and when it is a question of basic needs it is even praiseworthy.

By the way, the Catholic Church had a doctrine of Federalism or (later on and more sophisticated) Subsidiarism which taught that such communities of mutual support should not be hampered, as long as they could care for themselves and manage their own affairs - superseding institutions (like the State or nowadays supernational organizations) should only intervene insofar the smaller communities could not fulfill their task. (This principle was of course a justification for denomational-Catholic autonomy, but it was quite rightly formulated as a general principle, applicable to all other kinds of communities, too.)

[MaxPC]

Max asked;
"Petr, what if those "-isms" promote unBiblical and sinful needs and wishes? How do you feel a Christian should address that carnality?"

My thoughts about this start with the concept of "interest".
Interests can be seen as lines which start at zero and go to infinity. And there are morally relevant distinctions along this line. Interests start as basic needs (w.r.t. which we all ought to support each other), then develop into legitimate (but perhaps erroneous) wishes (w.r.t. which we may support each other or not) and finally develop into trespassing/transgressive wishes (w.r.t. which we must not support each other).
These are as far as I see quite clear distinctions. But "-ism"-distinctions mostly stand at right angles (or at least diagonally) to this.

Take "sexism", "racism" and "nationalism". They try to bind morals to the question "Whom do I support - someone of my own sex, race or nation - or someone else?" instead of asking "How far do I support anyone"?
In my eyes there is nothing morally wrong with supporting (mutually) people of one's own sex, race or nation (or denomination); and when it is a question of basic needs it is even praiseworthy.

By the way, the Catholic Church had a doctrine of Federalism or (later on and more sophisticated) Subsidiarism which taught that such communities of mutual support should not be hampered, as long as they could care for themselves and manage their own affairs - superseding institutions (like the State or nowadays supernational organizations) should only intervene insofar the smaller communities could not fulfill their task. (This principle was of course a justification for denomational-Catholic autonomy, but it was quite rightly formulated as a general principle, applicable to all other kinds of communities, too.)

Not really a doctrine per se (as Catholic World defines it); it does not carry the same theological weight as Biblical primacy and the Deposit of the Faith. Rather instead it is a topic of "principle" regarding the interference of socialistic governments in the lives of local communities and indeed in the affairs of individual families. John Paul II wrote an encyclical (Centesimus Annus) about this very theme and the need to respect the identities and values of communities and families. You can read the original document at the Vatican website. Here it is in English but you can also switch it over to other languages at the Vatican tabs.

[Chris]

Kingdom Business.

It's actually a heresy.

A real kingdom business would be a group of Christians working to provide food, raiment, and needs met.

How is kingdom business a heresy? It's the excuse for men to become multi millionaires, live a life of luxury, have hidden stashes of money and toys, be the power monger of the church, and pass it all off as a good Christian business that builds people up.

Food and Raiment are we content? Never seen that in Kingdom Business. It's a term that cloaks "the love of money".

[MaxPC]

Kingdom Business.

It's actually a heresy.

A real kingdom business would be a group of Christians working to provide food, raiment, and needs met.

How is kingdom business a heresy? It's the excuse for men to become multi millionaires, live a life of luxury, have hidden stashes of money and toys, be the power monger of the church, and pass it all off as a good Christian business that builds people up.

Food and Raiment are we content? Never seen that in Kingdom Business. It's a term that cloaks "the love of money".

I think I understand your concern, Chris. Would you consider the Hutterites and their colonies heretical?

[ken_sylvania]

"Anti-Church" was used by both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and now by Abp. Vigano. Yes, I suppose they could be used interchangeably.

Indeed. Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Vigano both were/are on a mission to root out corruption in the ranks. Both are aging. Both are still working on the mission. That mission is one that is needed in every decade of every age, in all denominations. We cannot and should not become complacent.

It appears that any further work by Vigano to root out corruption will have to take place from outside the RCC.
https://apnews.com/article/vatican-viga ... c8a3acd072

[MaxPC]

"Anti-Church" was used by both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and now by Abp. Vigano. Yes, I suppose they could be used interchangeably.

Indeed. Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Vigano both were/are on a mission to root out corruption in the ranks. Both are aging. Both are still working on the mission. That mission is one that is needed in every decade of every age, in all denominations. We cannot and should not become complacent.

It appears that any further work by Vigano to root out corruption will have to take place from outside the RCC.
https://apnews.com/article/vatican-viga ... c8a3acd072

It most likely will not be a surprise that only time will prove the pudding, as it were. There have been several examples of holy men and women who were declared excommunicated only to be declared Saints years later, even declared Doctors of the Church. The long view of history tells me that today's headlines mean nothing. So I say my prayers and look to my family as this headline is not my circus nor my monkeys. God will sort it according to Truth.

[Josh]

It most likely will not be a surprise that only time will prove the pudding, as it were. There have been several examples of holy men and women who were declared excommunicated only to be declared Saints years later, even declared Doctors of the Church. The long view of history tells me that today's headlines mean nothing. So I say my prayers and look to my family as this headline is not my circus nor my monkeys. God will sort it according to Truth.

The simple reality and fact is that Vigano has been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, and according to official Catholic doctrine, teaching, and practice, is currently outside of the grace of Jesus because of that. This is not a matter of "today's headlines". Citing some counter-example that people your church excommunicates actually become saints pushes the limits of the absurd.

[MaxPC]

Another "counter-Kingdom-ism."
A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot. Proverbs 14:30

[ken_sylvania]

Yes, and when the core of an organization has an envious spirit, the organization rots from the inside out. And those who dare to expose the rot will be called schismatic and kicked out.