Daily Archives: April 27, 2009

Church Order as Superabundance

Posted by on April 27, 2009 7 comments

J.C. Hoekendijk makes some interesting comments about the nature of church office and order. For Hoekendijk it is absolutely central that church order not be understood as constitutive of the church. Rather, the only thing that is constitutive of the church is the office of Christ, made present by the Spirit, manifest in mutual agape. Thus, according the biblical witness he claims that “it is of the essence that the offices, which we see functioning in great diversity [in the New Testament], be relativizes as a matter of principle.” Rather, “the church lives through the Spirit; it structures itself through the manifold spiritual gifts; it is ‘complete’ in Christ, where the Spirit and love rule, and it is definitely not in need of any further church order.”

Does this leave one with a negative and denigrating view of church order? Not necessarily, in Hoekendijk’s view. “Is this to say now that the offices are superfluous? We could put it that way, but then we would put it in the language of those who seek the minimum of existence, want to be content with that, and apprehensively and suspiciously shrug their shoulders at every extra gift. What they consider superfluous is called superabundant in the terminology of the gospel. It is the extra that God cannot help but give over and above that which is necessary.”

The First Time Habeas Corpus Was Suspended

Posted by on April 27, 2009 7 comments

For all those who have an overly-romanticized portrait of Abraham Lincoln, this is rather interesting. You may remember the massive outrage about the Military Commissions Act a couple years back that stripped alleged enemy combatants of their right to trial. Turns out its not the first time its happened in the U.S. In 1861, on this very date, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for all Confederate soldiers:

Whereas, It has become necessary to call into service, not only volunteers, but also portions of the militia of the States by draft, in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure, and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection. Now, therefore, be it ordered, that during the existing insurrection, and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to the rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military commission.

Second: That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prisons, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court-martial or military commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this Twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventh.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President.

Not too much really changes I suppose. If anything, though this should chasten the sort of liberal outrage that erroneously seems to think that our present militarism is some sort of departure from a previous standard of goodness.

Do We Need a Theory of the State?

Posted by on April 27, 2009 6 comments

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Centesimus annus, makes the following observation:

Pope Leo XIII was aware of the need for a sound theory of the State in order to ensure the normal development of man’s spiritual and temporal activities, both of which are indispensable. For this reason, in one passage of Rerum novarum he presents the organization of society according to the three powers—legislative, executive and judicial—, something which at the time represented a novelty in Church teaching. Such an ordering reflects a realistic vision of man’s social nature, which calls for legislation capable of protecting the freedom of all. To that end, it is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the “rule of law”, in which the law is sovereign, and not the arbitrary will of individuals.

The part of this that interests me is the first sentence. Why is a “theory of the state” necessary for the spiritual well-being of humankind? That seems like quite an odd claim, which, if true would seem to imply that vast segments of (Christian) humanity throughout history could not possibly have had access to “normal” spiritual development.

Switch to our mobile site