A question with a difference...

[The Liturgist]

I've noticed criticism coming from other countries about our country. I don't like it. I don't do that to yours and other countries.

I haven’t known my friend @Carl Emerson to ever criticize the United States, which is somewhat appreciated. My only interest in New Zealand politics is seeing to it that passenger rail from Christchurch to Dunedin is reinstated and that the overall state of public transit is improved, and additionally that the rebuilding of Christchurch including the cathedral is done expeditiously. As a clergyman I foreswear political opinions except as relate to the persecution of Christians and other religious groups, and also genocides and other acts of ethnic persecution and other human rights violations, and issues relating to public transit, aviation policy, and telecom, where I have some domain-specific knowledge. Indeed @Paidiske can attest at how thoroughly boring I can be in this regard as I did once interrogate her at length concerning the tram network in Melbourne, the issue of gentrification caused by the length of the tram lines, but also the benefits of expanding it, and also the rather Byzantine way in which commuter trains attempt to provide an urban heavy rail service like a Metro with some success but using a confusing system called the City Circle which makes the Chicago El’s famous loop look simple, even in the 1900s when it had spur terminals, long distance trains and extensive use of the inner track.

 

[The Liturgist]

More than likely no one is, and the opportunity goes begging because Church leaders don't chat to the mayor and/or police about doing it as the Maori Elders have.

And this is probably a missed opportunity, because where the Maori religious leaders are, one should expect Christian church leaders to be there as well, unless the item concerns a tragedy that happend at a specific Maori religious service where only members of the Maori religion were affected (also I daresay in all cases involving the Maori, Maori church leaders should be the ones to make contact, and from my conversations with you I gather that you have considerable confidence in the Maori Anglicans.

 

[The Liturgist]

When the missionaries arrived 60% of Maori converted to Christianity. Colonialism sadly damaged the good work done and turned many back to their own traditions. However many elders worshiped Io the 'High God' before the gospel arrived so were very open to the message of Christ.

Now Maori mythology/spirituality is being more widely accepted as the Church declines and is modernized.

The Anglican Church I attend was the centre of a significant revival among Maori back in the 1850's.

This is really unfortunate; the conversion of the Maori must be a priority for Christianity in New Zealand, and making things more complex, due to abuses during the colonial period, it must be done primarily by Maori who have already converted, and my fear is you might have misguided liberal bishops who would discourage that.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That’s true, but in fairness to both you and @Paidiske I think the wishes of the person receiving Holy Unction for healing, or due to a terminal illness, or receiving an exorcism, or certain other sacred mysteries of the church that exist to provide healing should be respected. With holy unction, most Orthodox parishioners who have a special service, which could also include an akathist and/or a moleben or paraklesis (the latter are supplicatory prayer services and the former is a hymn, usually a Kontakion, the predecessor to the Canon, which is the principle Orthodox hymn at Matins and many other services including Holy Unction), do want the congregation present, and I would imagine that the situation is the same at Anglican healing services, which correct me if I’m wrong consist of Holy Unction and other things (in the US, many Episcopal parishes do these on Wednesday, but I’ve never been).

However with an exorcism, while some demonaics are willing for their story to be made public, and thus we have a documentary which shows the beloved exorcist Fr. Gabriel Amorth, memory eternal, who was considered the leading Catholic exorcist in Italy, repeatedly exorcising a woman determined by the Roman Catholic Church to have a demon, and the case was quite frightening. I’ve never heard of an Orthodox exorcism being done publicly however, and I am not sure if its something Orthodox clergy would want to publicize, although in the Eastern Orthodox church the prayers themselves are attributed to St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, who of course are also credited with the two main settings of the Divine Liturgy (I’ve never seen the text of an Oriental Orthodox exorcism prayer but perhaps @dzheremi or @coorilose has; I think they are one of the few things missing from my Coptic liturgical library and one of the many things missing from my Syriac Orthodox liturgical library; most things alas are missing from my Armenian and Ge’ez libraries although given chatGPT can apparently translate these languages I hope to change that at least somewhat).

Also if we see someone in public who could be a demonaic, one could try an exorcism I suppose from a safe distance, but if it was a person with a mental health condition that could be embarrassing or even harmful to do it in the most rigorous form. It should be stressed that some cultural conditions are different today vs. the 1st century, and most cases of potential demonic possession turn out to be mental illness, although possession is real and does need to be taken seriously, and I believe that only Christian clergy are capable of dealing with it, and at that, only clergy from denominations that have a tradition of dealing with the problem and a robust training and supervision system in place, to avoid abuses. There are some churches that blame everything on demonic possession, and exorcise people who have minor or major medical complaints, and this is improper.

FYI, but you probably already knew, a Catholic diocese is supposed to have an exorcist (or even a few exorcists). And very rarely will the name of the exorcist be made public, or even be common knowledge among laity or other priests. I never knew the names of any exorcists in either diocese I have lived in. And it's not the kind of thing you look up in a phone book. Fr. Amorth was indeed an exception in being known.

Then too an exorcist cannot perform an exorcism without the express permission of the bishop. These are not independent agents. They also usually work together with medical personnel, and sometimes require multiple sessions.

The new 'Exorcist' movie is one I doubt I will be seeing. The original had some basis in fact, and although I have not read the book OR seen the movie I was in the building years after the exorcisms were completed and met with people who have had living memories of those days. I think the movie 'Nefarious' is far more realistic and less sensational. But then it had a patsy shrink and a patsy priest who you would NOT want doing your exorcism. I will be going to that movie soon. It's not my genre but Nefarious seemed to get some things right, as did 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose'.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So what? If the aim is setting people free from the demonic, we don't need to make a spectacle of our prayers.

Your doing it again - I have never suggested 'making a specticle' of anything...

 

[Carl Emerson]

I've noticed criticism coming from other countries about our country. I don't like it. I don't do that to yours and other countries.

Who did that ???

 

[Lost Witness]

I've noticed criticism coming from other countries about our country. I don't like it. I don't do that to yours and other countries.

 

[Lost Witness]

So what? If the aim is setting people free from the demonic, we don't need to make a spectacle of our prayers.

The LORD knows the intent of the heart.

 

[Paidiske]

Your doing it again - I have never suggested 'making a specticle' of anything...

I'm still really not clear, though, on what you want. If it's the demonic dealt with, that might not be publicly visible or known (and probably won't be). If it's something you can point to and say, "Look, the Christians are doing something too!" I'm not sure that's appropriate.

 

[Carl Emerson]

In Wellington we have a WW2 memorial jokingly called the 'Pepper Pot' named locally in the 40's to have something in size to complete with the US !!!

When it came to opening the memorial, the RC and Anglican Churches were asked to come and bless the space.

So they drew a line and the RC priest did one side and the Anglican Priest the other.

No one questioned the function of the church in the public space back then.

But todays Church Leaders have lost the territory and the authorities would be more likely to contact Maori Eldership to do the 'spiritual' thing because that would be the PC thing to do.

All I am saying is that Church leaders need to make it known to the relevant authorities that they will participate in sanctifying the public space, especially after a heinous crime when innocent members of the public are shot.

 

[Paidiske]

All I am saying is that Church leaders need to make it known to the relevant authorities that they will participate in sanctifying the public space, especially after a heinous crime when innocent members of the public are shot.

Fair enough. I would be surprised if the relevant authorities don't know that, but it can't hurt to find a way to say, hey, I'm available. I would also be surprised if that meant being called on more often, though.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Fair enough. I would be surprised if the relevant authorities don't know that, but it can't hurt to find a way to say, hey, I'm available. I would also be surprised if that meant being called on more often, though.

Why ???

 

[Paidiske]

Why ???

Why would I be surprised if we're called on more often? Because most people don't believe what we do, and many people don't trust us. So why would they want to give us a public platform in a secular pluralist community?

I think the only reason we still get invited to things like ANZAC day is that that started many decades ago and is now embedded as "the way we've always done things."

 

[Carl Emerson]

Why would I be surprised if we're called on more often? Because most people don't believe what we do, and many people don't trust us. So why would they want to give us a public platform in a secular pluralist community?

Yes... I guess that is what Paul thought before going to Mars Hill...

 

[Paidiske]

There is a big difference between taking part, informally, in the marketplace of ideas, and claiming some sort of formal role in the life of a community. I don't think we can expect the latter any more.

 

[Carl Emerson]

There is a big difference between taking part, informally, in the marketplace of ideas, and claiming some sort of formal role in the life of a community. I don't think we can expect the latter any more.

Sad that...

I am not sure that capitulation has or needs to occur...

I say regain the territory - talk to the Mayor, talk to the police - the public including believers need a visible evidence of the kingdom in action.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't see it as capitulation. The world doesn't owe us a public position, and it's not what we should be seeking. If it happens organically, well and good; but it's not what we're meant to be about. We don't need to conduct rituals on behalf of the wider public in order to provide evidence of the reign of God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Should Church leaders give up marrying folks then ?

And funerals - leave that to secular priests as well ?

Withdraw from any formal role in public life ?

No more coronations...

Sorry Charles we don't participate in public ceremonies any more - we have moved on...

 

[Paidiske]

Should Church leaders give up marrying folks then ? And funerals - leave that to secular priests as well ?

We only do weddings for people who are Christian anyway. (In Australia it's actually set in the secular marriage act that ministers of religion may only solemnise marriages for "adherents of their own religion.") Christian rites of passage aren't the default for everyone. We do them for members of our own community who request them.

Withdraw from any formal role in public life ?

Unless we're requested to take one, sure.

No more coronations...

Sorry Charles we don't participate in public ceremonies any more - we have moved on...

England is different; it has an Established church (church and state are one entity there). Neither Australia nor New Zealand have that. And it's a matter of open debate whether England should retain it.

I just don't see any need to push for some sort of quasi-official public role. It's not intrinsic to being the church, or living out our mission. And we don't need the state to set its imprimatur on our expression of the reign of God (in fact, that often ends up making things more difficult, not less).

 

[dzheremi]

The history of Church-State relations/symphonia is a very interesting one that I wish more believers would take an interest in, rather than passing simplistic judgment upon like saying that it is "good" or "bad". I think on balance it's one of those things that just is (or, for the most part, was), as there have been some historical cases in which it can absolutely be said that it kept the state together in the face of great pressures from outsiders (e.g., Imperial Axum vs. the Sultanate of Adal), such that there likely would not be the modern countries that we know if it were not for their national churches which helped them pull through various times of historical threat. On the other hand, there are also just as convincingly cases where a historical territory had a national church, and that didn't help them at all when faced with similar threats (e.g., the Church of the East/Nestorian Church in Persia, which formally reorganized its dioceses c. 410, if I recall correctly, at the personal request of Yazdegerd, who apparently saw this Church as his empire's equivalent to the more powerful Church of his Byzantine enemies to the west of the Tigris and Euphrates).

This may not directly relate to how NZ or Oz should view the churches within its borders, but at least I know that the Coptic clergymen in both countries are very well-positioned to be both proponents of traditional Christian practice and belief, and evidence that taking in Middle Eastern/North African immigrants need not create an overabundance of tension in western societies, as is often claimed. That seems to be good enough for us, in answer to this question of how or to what degree Christians should participate in civic society. It is taken as a given that we should, as we always have. (Fun fact: Some of the most well-preserved caches of Coptic-language documents available to researchers of Coptic society from before the arrival of the Muslim Arabs come down to us in the form of Coptic legal documents drafted by luminaries of the 5th-6th centuries such as Dioscorus of Aphrodito, who was simultaneously a village administrator, a poet of apparently some renown, and a lawyer. What a busy guy!)