tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post9177354854078284792..comments2024-02-19T13:11:04.970-05:00Comments on Ponderings on a Faith Journey: Public Christian or Public Church?Robert Cornwallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04581876323110725024noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-30318795097476158152007-02-20T12:04:00.000-05:002007-02-20T12:04:00.000-05:00I'm definitely on the side of "Public Church". I ...I'm definitely on the side of "Public Church". I think that unless a church serves as a prophetic voice against injustice, then it is not really serving God. On the other hand, I take a radical stance on this, because I believe that the true prophetic role means not allying ones self with the any of the factions of the ruling class. That means that I don't think that religion should operate within the halls of power, but rather outside of it. That also means not identifying necessarily with political parties or candidates, but as forces for social change that can pressure the domination system from the outside.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-6122047911962189712007-02-20T07:51:00.000-05:002007-02-20T07:51:00.000-05:00Thanks for posting this; I've had this debate with...Thanks for posting this; I've had this debate with myself over and over again, and it's nice to see it discussed in a forum like this. Like you, I generally line up with the "Public Christian" idea. While there is a great deal of power in "Public Church," I'm not sure it is as powerful a witness or as powerful a force for change as "Public Christian." Perhaps more importantly, the "Public Church" idea can be polarizing, in that it forces otherwise happily diverse congregations of believers to line up on one side or the other. In mainline denominations, most of which are as theologically diverse as the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), congregations are often thought of as "liberal" or "conservative," descriptors famously called obsolete by Michael Kinnamon. Those descriptors miss the diversity within each congregation, and the misunderstand the nature of the Church at every level. I have heard over and over again the angry and empty threat that a church member "cannot share the table" with those whose views on Christian political activity are contrary to their own; "Public Church" guarantees that this will happen at every manifestation of the Church.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, there's a serious drawback for "Public Christian." The Church doesn't exist only as a loose association of independent individuals; decisions have to be made about how the congregation or denomination will do business. How does a local institution decide whether to provide benefits to partners of gay clergy or whether to engage in social justice-related boycotts without becoming "Public Church?" In short, it can't. Much as I personally would like to see the church avoid divisive resolutions and empty pontificating, I wonder if it goes hand in hand with the need to make corporate decisions for the corporate church.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07785417306666738766noreply@blogger.com