In Papua New Guinea, the Lutherans got there
first, but the Catholics soon followed. So after fighting with one
another over the lives and souls of cannibals, they finally decided it
was silly, that they should reach "comity". Quit arguing
and contending, when the field of harvest was so great, and they were so
few. So they divided the country, and on one side of a particular
river, to this day, the people are mostly Lutheran, and on the
other side they are mostly Catholic, and if you move, normally (such as
getting married or getting a job) it is common to switch churches as
well.
This is called "comity". It's sometimes called
"parity".
When the Baptists (and others not in on the original deal) arrived, they
didn't get the same courtesy! No, they have to contend with a very
tight coalition of Catholics and Lutherans, who may not care for one
another, but are certainly agreed that "we don't need any more
missionaries in our territories!" The fact is, they
would rather people remain cannibals than to allow competition in the
arena.
See definitions below:
Main Entry: co·mi·ty
Pronunciation: \ kä-m -t , k -\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural co·mi·ties
Etymology: Latin comitat-, comitas, from
comis courteous, probably from Old Latin cosmis, from
com- + -smis (akin to Sanskrit smayate he smiles)
more at
smile
Date: 1543
1 a: friendly social atmosphere : social harmony
<group activities promoting comity> b: a loose
widespread community based on common social institutions <the
comity of civilization> c:
comity of nations d: the informal and voluntary recognition by
courts of one jurisdiction of the laws and judicial decisions of another
2: avoidance of proselytizing members of another religious
denomination
Comity, in
law, refers to legal
reciprocity
the principle that one
jurisdiction
will extend certain courtesies to other nations (or other jurisdictions
within the same nation), particularly by recognizing the validity and
effect of their
executive,
legislative,
and judicial
acts. The term refers to the idea that courts should not act in a way
that demeans the jurisdiction, laws, or judicial decisions of another
jurisdiction. Part of the presumption of comity is that other
jurisdictions will reciprocate the courtesy shown to them. Many
statutes
relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments require that the
judgments of a particular jurisdiction will be recognized and enforced by
a forum only to the extent that the other jurisdiction would recognize
and enforce the judgments rendered by that forum. See
reciprocity (international relations).
In the context of professional licensure, comity refers to one
jurisdiction granting credit for experience earned and exams passed in a
different jurisdiction.[1]
But comity should not be misinterpreted as implying that all laws are
of
universal jurisdiction. In many countries, comity is effective only
to the extent that foreign laws or judgments do not directly conflict
with the forum country's
public
policy: for example, the
United
States will not enforce foreign judgments (such as
defamation
judgments) that present a conflict with the strong
free speech
protections in the U.S.
The problem with "Christendom" today is that most
so-called Christians have decided to accept comity with the World, with
the political powers, with the kings of the earth. We are content
to "live and let live." Unfortunately, we are not told to
do that. Worse, we are told to NOT do that! ("Know ye
not that friendship with the world is enmity with God?")
The Muslims are not plagued with this problem. They don't
believe in comity. (At least, the REAL ones don't.) They only
act nice until they have the upper hand. Then we are given the
options to convert, to die, or to stand them off with physical
force.
Our compromised view leads us to being content to sit down with sodomites
and child molesters and abortionists and have political comity with them,
allowing them room under the "Big Tent" if they will but allow
us the same comity. And then we wonder why they mock us for being
hypocrites.
I suggest that sincere Muslims have a much more Biblical worldview than
we do in this regard, because they are practicing what we ought to
practice!!! That is a refusal to compromise with the world!
They shame us with their proper attitude toward compromise, regardless of
their heresies in all other respects! (They also shame us with
their practices of modesty, and several other points, but that's for
another day.) Furthermore, they are willing to die for their faith
-- whereas we are only willing to form committees to study the problem
and recommend solutions, which often wind up suggesting that we
accommodate our Enemies, in the hopes that they won't kill us.
When Charles Martel, Duke of the Franks, and head of most Europe, finally
decided that Europe had to resist the Muslims who had occupied Spain,
Greece, parts of Italy, and were marching on western Europe, he finally
applied the only workable solution to dealing with a militant enemy, and
that was to defeat them, or die trying. He defeated them at the
Battle of Tours in 732 AD, and stopped the westward and northern spread
of Islam, throwing them completely out of Europe, but not defeating
them.
There are only two ways to defeat radical Islam -- either we convert
them, every last one, or we kill them all! Here's the shameful
thing -- it ought to be the same for us!! But, until we grasp the
concept that the best word to describe our duty toward the world, as
Christian Believers, is "warfare", not
"accommodation", not "comity", and not "the big
tent theory", we are going to be fighting a retreating action from
the World, and we are going to experience defeat, not victory.
I've been thinking of a great bumper sticker these days, which would
probably be perceived as a political campaign by most who see
it:
Charles
Martel Where are you when we need
you?
In fact, I'm thinking of writing in Charles Martel for
president this year.
July 2008
(C) Daniel D. New, Permission to copy,
with credits, is hereby granted.