Atheism, Utopianism, and Totalitarianism

[Attention: This posts is not about all atheists, or what all atheists believe, or even (necessarily) all utopianism - please read carefully]

I will begin with a comment I made in a discussion of Bill Maher's "enabling" of the "Religious Right" (all the scare quotes there are because I do not think any of that terminology is very good).

Suffice it to say, that the view of Marx on the philosophical side was the same as Dawkins: progress will only occur in solving the world's problems if the metaphysical, non-naturalist ideologies and theologies standing in the way of that progress (and they always stand in the way of that progress) are isolated from the culture so they can no longer stand in the way of that progress.

In either case, both Marxism and Dawkins stated, or seriously implied, that religion must be removed as an influence in society in order for humanity to solve its real problems and evolve to a higher order of human social relationship. In the case of Marxism in power, that led in every case to atrocities against the religious and holders of other "bourgeois philosophies" in order to move that evolution on.

There is no doubt that the modern history of totalitarianism is primarily anchored with expressly atheist ideology (Communism) or non-Christian ideology (Hitler). The slaughter has been enormous - far, far outweighing the closest of Christian kings or rulers since the beginning of Christendom around 400 AD. Religious, but non-Christian, kings have not been as bloodthirsty either by several orders of magnitude. Why is this?

Read more!

Speaking Truth to Power?

"Speaking truth to power" is not a phrase that one hears very often either from political or theological conservatives. I always assumed that it just had to do with someone who was a theological or political liberal having used it; and that it was picked up in one of those cultures. It has always felt presumptuous to me.

However, I have never seen a critique of the phrase. Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed pointed me to a "an old blog that deserves a wide readership" - and if this post is any indication then I agree.

The name of the site, and the author, is Allan R. Bevere; and he speaks

"On Why The Church in America Cannot Speak Truth to Power"
". . . perhaps the most useless political phrase of all is the high-sounding but irrelevant phraseology of "speaking truth to power." -- Allan Bevere

Bevere gives two reasons:

1. the vast majority of Christians in America have accepted the Constantinian notion that the primary political task of the church is to rule, to be in charge. What that means at the very least is that Christians are to play a prophetic role in the political court of Washington DC.



2. it means that most Christians have accepted the modern dichotomies of left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican

"And therein is the heart of the problem. That most Christians in America believe that the church's primary role is to affect policy in Washington DC betrays the mistaken belief that the primary political action in this world is to be found in the White House and on Capitol Hill, when the New Testament clearly indicates that the primary agency of politics is located in nothing less than the community of faith known as the church. In order for the church to speak truth to power it must recover its unique polity apart from the earthly polity known as the nation state; for it is God and not the nations who rules the world.

My great concern is that when Christians in America want to play the role of prophet in Pharaoh's court, they end up looking, not like the wise sage, but the court jester that gets used by the king for his or her own comical and unsavory purposes.

The people of God have been co-opted; it is time for the church to recover the politics of witness." -- Allan Bevere

One of the examples Allan uses is feeding the poor:

For Christians to be concerned for the poor, the outcasts, and those on the fringes of society is a given. The problem is that it is not always clear how Christians should care for such persons.

Another writer who tried to lift Kingdom priorities over politcal priorities was J. Budziszewski in his two essays on political liberalism:

The second moral error of political liberalism is expropriationism. According to this notion I may take from others to help the needy, giving nothing of my own; according to Christianity I should give of my own to help the needy, taking from no one. We might call expropriationism the Robin Hood fallacy. Today, the expropriationist is usually a propitiationist too, confusing the needy with some subset of the merely wanty. So we are speaking of a style of politics in which the groups in power decide for us which of their causes our wealth is to support, taking that wealth by force

and political conservatism:

The eighth moral error of political conservatism is meritism. According to this notion I should do unto others as they deserve. With the addition of mammonism, matters become even simpler, for then those who need help are by definition undeserving, while those in a position to help are by definition deserving. That meritism is not a Christian doctrine comes as a surprise to many people. Large numbers think the meritist motto “God helps those who help themselves” is a quotation from the Bible. What the New Testament actually teaches is that in what we need most, we are helpless; the grace of God is an undeserved gift. According to Christianity I should do unto others not as they deserve, but as they need.

Read the rest of Allan Bevere's thought-provoking post; and I would suggest you put his blog on your reading schedule - I am going to.

I even like his quote of the week from G.K. Chesterson:

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

Read more!

"Divine Will" or "Will of the People"? - Part II

One needn't be a theophobe to believe that government ought to be conformed to
the will of the people, not of the divine.

I examined one side of this idea in Part I - I am going to examine the other (maybe "next") part here:

What does control of the US government by the "will of the people" look like?

I am going to have to go to the idealized concept of control by the "will of the people" because certainly few in this country believe that their will controls the government; nor am I sure very many folks believe some will of "the people" in general controls government.

Indeed, the modern nation state resembles these remarks to me:

. . . important decisions in society were being made in remote, or at least highly inaccessible places like Washington and London. The growth of bureaucracies in capital cities and the remoteness of the centers of power increased the feeling of alienation from those who make truly adult decisions in society . . .

. . . once the institutions of government have outgrown the individual and the neighborhood, so that the very scale of governance no longer permits effective action for most people, then those people are more likely to take to the streets and address their grievances in destructive ways . . .

. . . [government] power is a prophylactic against violence

Assuming that in an ideal world, the modern western nation-state still has the ability to be directed by some general "will of the people" - how does that occur? The United States is not a true democracy - it is a representative republic. Also, most folks who have really thought it out really do not believe in "majority rule". The bottom line is that we expect our elected and appointed leaders - who are closer to being the actual people the government bows to the will of than us - to be ethical, moral and "do the right thing"; and that has nothing to do with the "will of the people" because we really do not care what the majority thinks if that majority opposes what we believe to be ethical, moral, and right. C.S. Lewis:

I now go back to what I said at the end of the first chapter, that there were two odd things about the human race. First, that they were haunted by the idea of a sort of behavior they ought to practice, what you might call fair play, or decency, or morality, or the Law of Nature. Second, that they did not in fact do so.

This oddity is both the basis of natural moral law, and one of the important theistic arguments.

So, I believe there is a universal moral code, and that this is a general universal revelation from God to all of humanity. Lewis again:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' . . .

I have mentioned a number of times this list of reasons why - even if our conscience tells us to "do the right thing" - our faulty moral reasoning may corrupt our moral agency:

1. insufficient experience: we do not know enough to reach sound conclusions;
2. insufficient skill: we haven't learned the art of reasoning well;
3. sloth: we are too lazy to reason;
4. corrupt custom: it hasn't occurred to us to reason;
5. passion: we are distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully;
6. fear: we are afraid to reason because we might find out we are wrong;
7. wishful thinking: we include in our reasoning what we are willing to notice;
8. depraved ideology: we interpret known principles crookedly; and
9. malice: we refuse to reason because we are determined to do what we want.

This is why believers in natural moral law hold that, even though it flows from God to everyone, it must be strengthened, supported, and trained. That strength, support, and training comes from whatever ethical and moral system the person subscribes to - typically religion for 85% of the world - and it really must be pursued proactively. This includes our elected representatives.

Since I believe most ethical and moral systems on the planet are rooted in the divine nature, I do not expect those people elected to be Christians - that is a specific (not general) revelation. I do expect them to believe in Right and Wrong - and I expect them to be held to that. I also expect them to place their duty as an elected official, and as a representative of the people, higher than themselves: I expect it to be a vocation:

1. The idea of a call implies an agent outside of the one who is subject to the call.
2. The summons is often against the will of the one who is called into service.
3. the calling involves in almost every case hardships that must be overcome in order to answer the summons.
4. from the point of view of answering to the summons, the greatest danger appears not in this kind of resistance, but in the possibility of being diverted or distracted from the goal.

That vocation should have them work to analyze and improve their moral reasoning for the sake of strengthening their moral agency; and serving their constituents better by being more moral, more ethical, and doing the right thing more often.

And, in my opinion, their actions - by doing so - will be rooted in the "will of God" and not the "will of the people"; and it is exactly in the will of God (as reflected in doing Right and avoiding Wrong), and not the majority (the only logical definition of the "will of the people"), that their actions - and the actions of government - should be rooted. If - because they "do the right thing" against the will of the majority - they are removed from office by "the will of the people" then so be it.

Read more!

"Divine Will" or "Will of the People"?

One needn't be a theophobe to believe that government ought to be conformed to
the will of the people, not of the divine.

This comment really ties together a number of ideas I have been writing on for awhile - and I think you are NOT a theophobe because you believe that. You are a theophobe if you believe that those who do not have this divided, "enlightened" view of the secular and the divine realms are trying to take over the government for Christ (or Allah) - and you irrationally fear that. After all, as Joe Carter contends:

After all, it is true that some conservative Christians in our country do want to establish a theocracy. Their actual numbers, however, are rather negligible and their political influence almost non-existence. As a group they likely outnumber black separatists, though they are dwarfed by the number of liberal secessionists.

However foolish I really think the theocracy canard is - that is not the point here.

The point is the intersection of faith and politics - and the connecting together of a few threads that have been running through my blogging - some nearly since the beginning:

• Natural moral law, or - as it is called by C.S. Lewis - the law of right behavior; and the source, role, and defeat of conscience.



• The Great Commandment, specially "Loving God with all Your Heart" and " . . . Mind"



• Vocation, and its fall in front of individual will endorsed by the Enlightenment

The first part of my view on this is that there are not, as the Enlightenment wished to contend, a spiritual realm and a secular realm. Of course, most devout folks I have met from any religion understand that the morality and ethics flowing from their faith cannot simply be cut-off from their secular lives - we can not be two-minded.

However, the natural law tradition is that all good things in the world overflow from God's character - including the governments we raise up to bring right order and maintain justice since the Fall. Thomas Aquinas and William Blackstone:

But Aquinas is also a natural law legal theorist. On his view, a human law (i.e., that which is promulgated by human beings) is valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law; as Aquinas puts the point: "[E]very human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law" (ST I-II, Q.95, A.II). To paraphrase Augustine's famous remark, an unjust law is really no law at all.

The idea that a norm that does not conform to the natural law cannot be legally valid is the defining thesis of conceptual naturalism. As William Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original"

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Christian theologian and martyr who most had to tackle whether the "Two Kingdoms" of Luther had been subverted - also opposed the idea of separate secular and religious realms:

Any reduction of Luther’s doctrine of the “Two Kingdoms” to a notion that there are two spheres, “the one divine, holy, supernatural, and Christian, and the other worldly, profane, natural, and un-Christian,” Bonhoeffer held to be a vulgarization. The modern reading of the Two Kingdoms—a reading shaped (Bonhoeffer would say deformed) by the Enlightenment—unwittingly finalized the separation of Christian concerns from the secular and profane. “On the Protestant side,” he writes, “Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms was misinterpreted as implying the emancipation and sanctification of the world and of the natural. Government, reason, economics, and culture arrogate to themselves a right of autonomy, but do not in any way understand this autonomy as bringing them into opposition to Christianity.” The Lutheran misunderstanding of Luther contributed over time to the Enlightenment cult of reason and the emergence of the self-mastering self.

With that triumph came an idolatrous faith in progress that could only result in nationalism—the “Western godlessness” that became in modern times its own religion. In the “apostasy of the Western world from Jesus Christ,” a massive defection from our collective recognition of finitude, we abandoned the knowledge that we are creatures as well as creators. This for Bonhoeffer is the backdrop to twentieth-century totalitarianism, a terrible story of what happens when we presume we stand alone as Sovereign Selves within Sovereign States, a terrible story of what happens when individual hubris meets nationalism.

For many today, the United States is the country that most reflects "individual hubris" meeting "nationalism" with a "massive defection from our collective recognition of finitude".

For Augustine, Aquinas, Blackstone, and Bonhoeffer laws and government are only legitimate if they maintain the right order and right justice that overflows from God's character in the form of natural law. In other words, right government must conform to divine will - or it is not right.

However, let us say for a second that that is not true (as many reading this will) - what does it mean in modern America to say that government conforms to the will of the people; and where does true justice and right order flow out of the people's will (and, of course, what is it's source).

That is for Part II

Read more!

Inching up to the Fence

A saying I have used a lot is that I think being on opposite sides of the fence from another should be a process where both folks get closer and closer to the fence, until both folks are leaning on the fence chatting - rather than screaming at each other from a distance. Then, maybe, occasionally, one of them can see whether it is possible to kick some of the slats out of the fence that separates them.

That obviously makes me a moderate - a position in which I am quite comfortable. Now, the ideologues on both sides view those folks leaning on the fence chatting as less than pure, and less than right. They, of course, are pure and right - and a bit hoarse.

There are a couple of posts over at the Stand to Reason blog that warmed my heart - because they both point to the dialogue occurring in the middle. The middle is, of course, where dialogue occurs. The first dialogue is a direct one. Steven Wagner

specializes in training college students to engage their campuses in large-scale discussion on abortion . . . Steve is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Southern California, and he is currently working on his Masters Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology.

and examines in "Kissling and Michelman Refuse to Dismiss Pro-Lifers as Irrelevant" an Los Angeles Times opinion - "Abortion's battle of messages" by

Frances Kissling, a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, is the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice. Kate Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the author of "Protecting the Right to Choose."

Michelman and Kissling outline the issue for the pro-choice movement pretty clearly:

Science facilitated the swing of the pendulum. Three-dimensional ultrasound images of babies in utero began to grace the family fridge. Fetuses underwent surgery. More premature babies survived and were healthier. They commanded our attention, and the question of what we owe them, if anything, could not be dismissed.

These trends gave antiabortionists an advantage, and they made the best of it. Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge. Caring societies, they say, seek to expand inclusion into "the human community." Those once excluded, such as women and minorities, are now equal. Why not welcome the fetus (who, after all, is us) into our community?

Advocates of choice have had a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus. The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women. At times, this makes us appear insensitive, a bit too pragmatic in a world where the desire to live more communitarian and "life-affirming" lives is palpable. To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels. Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term "culture of life." President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.

and

In recent years, the antiabortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate. Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion. Likewise, we haven't convinced people that we are the ones actually doing things to make it possible for women to avoid needing abortions . . . If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement. It is inadequate to try to message our way out of this problem. Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility.

Wagner welcomes the article

In fact, they make the pro-life case better than many pro-life advocates . . . I applaud the honest assessment Kissling and Michelman have made of the best of the pro-life movement . . . they have worked hard to understand pro-life arguments . . . That's the attitude I encourage both sides to adopt in my book, Common Ground Without Compromise in which I . . . help pro-life advocates take seriously the legitimate concerns pro-choice advocates typically emphasize. These include honestly confronting the very difficult circumstances many women face and being realistic about solutions to the problems of unwanted pregnancy

It appears from their article that Kissling and Michelman are calling for an internal discussion of the effective pro-life challenges they've highlighted, but I would encourage them to go further. Talk to pro-life advocates about them. We're ready to listen, understand, and build common ground first in order to really hear your concerns and perspective.

The other bit of "slat kicking" has Stand to Reason pointing to a John Mark Reynolds's post - "Is Huckabee Confused About the Proper Role of Christianity and Politics?" - discussing Mike Huckabee's comment on making the Constitution conform to God's will

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

.It is a great post on which discusses:

• general vs. specific revelation
• that some truths could be gained through human reason, itself a common grace of God to all humankind.; and
• that "Christians discovered through history that freedom of conscience was one of God’s great gifts to mankind."

among other things.

Melinda, in an earlier post - "Presidents and Pastors" also looked at Huckabee's quote

The Constitution should never be changed to conform to God's standards - at least that's not the reason we should change it. What's right and good is certain God's standard, and the rationale for Constitutional amendments should be made because it's right and good, not because it's God's standard. We should amend the Constitution for appropriate and good reasons for societal welfare.

Both posts echo many of the criticisms from the left of Mike Huckabee's comment - something neither side may be entirely comfortable with.

Certainly, some folks reading this at the two blogs where it is posted will object from both sides of both fences. They will call those folks on their side traitors for giving up the purity of their position - and accuse the opposition of much worse. Certainly, they will not agree to the views of those across the fence from them.

However, this post is not about views on abortion or theocracy - it is about the "music" of chatting and slat-kicking.

Read more!

Religion, Faith and Politics

I said at the end of "Establishment and Free Exercise":

when Rick Moran started to talk about relgion and natural law in the last part of his piece - he gave me some things to want to look at a bit closer. However, that is another diary.

This one in fact.

What Rick said in "Drunk with Religiosity" was:

I realize I’m treading on dangerous ground since most “natural rights” adherents believe that freedom is God’s gift to humans at birth. As an atheist, I reject that notion based simply on the fact that God is not necessary in this equation. Being born free is our patrimony as human beings and does not require any kind of Supreme Being to validate it.

Just as government is designed by man to regulate the affairs of citizens – who in an ideal situation grant the government the powers necessary to do so – religion is designed by man to regulate behavior. While some recent research shows that we have genes that give us a conscience and perhaps even a gene that grants us a propensity to believe in a higher power, the fact is cultural and moral strictures must be taught and are therefore excluded in any debate over the necessity for faith and freedom to co-exist in a democracy.

Leaving his butchery of the theory of natural moral law aside, I do not have much of a problem when people talk about religion as a human institution with all the problems that entails - it is and it has them. All of the religions have all of the problems - Christianity included.

I do not think that it is so easy to say, as Rick does, that government regulates affairs and religion behavior - because both seek to regulate both to a large degree. However, I think religions are primarily communities for allowing their members to share common worship or other activity in regards to a shared object to faith. By extension, they are communities where we know, by profession, what that common object of faith is. Religion is not faith; however, it is the human institutional expression of the shared faith of its members as they relate to their common object of that faith.

Which brings us to the important thing here: faith.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see [NET Bible]

All human beings who are not suicidal or otherwise terminally pessimistic share that – but faith has an object. Before that though, let us make sure we understand the word "hope". This is not "I hope I get a pony for Christmas" - this is elpiß : "joyful and confident expectation [of eternal salvation"]. As Peter said about hope:

1 Peter 3:15 . . . always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess.

Stepping aside from my personal object of faith and where my hope lies - Christ Risen - there is a political lesson here.

My pastor defines his principle role as casting a vision for our church: defining a path and a future based on our hope. This is what the country wants, and needs, from its political leadership:

someone with a confident expectation of the future based on what they cannot see (the outcome) while being able to give an answer to anyone about what that hope is based on (the object of their faith).

That has nothing to do with God. This is why Reagan, and Carter, and Obama, and Huckabee are successful: by casting their visions in religious (or nearly religious) language they offer a hope in the unseen future of the country based on an object of hope that resonates with Americans. That is why folks like Dean, Clinton, and Thompson struggle to connect - people just do not grasp their vision, their hope, or the object of their faith. It is not their political policies that folks do not attach to - it is their heart and their hope they do not find attractive, or find at all.

This is not necessarily (actually not usually) a religion with God as its object. J. Budziszewski on civil religionism:

The third stage was in the early and middle republic. God was still understood as the underwriter of American aspirations, but as the content of these aspirations became more and more nationalistic it also became less and less Christian. It appeared that God cared at least as much about putting down the South and taking over the West as He did about making His people holy; patriotic songwriters like Samuel Francis Smith used expressions like “freedom’s holy light,” but they meant democracy, not freedom from sin.

The fourth stage was the late republic. By this time American culture had become not just indifferent to Christianity, but hostile to it. Conservatives still wanted to believe that the nation was specially favored by God, but the idea of seeking His will and suffering His chastening had been completely lost. President Eisenhower remarked that what the country needed was a religious foundation, but that he didn’t care what it was. President Reagan applied the image of the City Upon a Hill not to the remnant of the Church in America, but to America as such—its mission not to bear witness to the gospel, but to spread the bits and pieces of its secular ideology

and instrumentalism (the use of religion for the purposes of the state - and not God)

. . . Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, wanted the state to invent a civil religion to his order and then make use of it. Its articles would be proposed “not exactly as religious dogmas” but as “sentiments of sociability without which it is impossible to be a good citizen or a faithful subject.”

The danger is to buy into the vision of the leader without really understanding upon what his hope is based. What is the object of their faith in America's future? It's institutions? It's people? It's military strength? It's rightness or purity?

What is the object of your faith in America's future?

Read more!

Establishment and Free Exercise

This is the first person I've read - Charles Krauthammer's "An Overdose of Public Piety" - who really has found the balance in the establishment vs. free exercise debate; and someone commenting on it - Rick Moran's "Drunk with Religiosity" even improved on that. For my friends at Street Prophets reading this - that it comes from the secular right is probably not going to make them happy. They, if they read it, may react like this person in the comment section at Rick's post:

It really irritated my Leftie sensibilities that Krauthammer said something rational and intelligent. I’ve gotten so used to hating his work that I had to read the column three times to make sure I didn’t miss something. It makes being radically partisan much more difficult when there’s intelligent discourse on both sides. That damn man is going make me think!

The context of all of these columns is Mike Huckabee's showing in Iowa - suddenly the secular right is coming out loaded for bear to make sure he doesn't get the Republican nomination: the venom is both interesting and predictable.

However, right now let's look at Krauthammer's main points:

Now, there's nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments. The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.

There can be no privilege for any set of ideas in the public square. As Jefferson said in the body of the "Virginia Statutes for Religious Freedom"

That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

That cuts in every direction - Jefferson's argument was in favor of absolutely free debate:

truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them

Back to Charles:

A certain kind of liberal argues that having a religious underpinning for any public policy is disqualifying because it is an imposition of religion on others. Thus, if your opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious belief in the ensoulment of life at conception, you're somehow violating the separation of church and state by making other people bend to your religion.

This is absurd. Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation. It's ridiculous to say that therefore abolitionism, civil rights, etc., constitute an imposition of religion on others.

Imposing religion means the mandating of religious practice. It does not mean the mandating of social policy that some people may have come to support for religious reasons.

Exactly. Before my liberal friends that read this fluff to much - notice that Krauthammer does not paint with a broad brush - and accurately portrays the position of those "certain kind of liberals". Since I have had multiple arguments on a long-term and on-going basis with this "certain kind" I can personally attest to the accuracy of the remark. Now, he adds the balance:

But a certain kind of conservative is not content to argue that a religious underpinning for a policy is not disqualifying. He insists that it is uniquely qualifying, indeed, that it confers some special status.

Romney has been faulted for not throwing at least one bone of acknowledgment to nonbelievers in his big religion speech last week. But he couldn't, because the theme of the speech was that there is something special about having your values drawn from religious faith. Indeed, faith is politically indispensable. "Freedom requires religion," Romney declared, "just as religion requires freedom."

But this is nonsense -- as Romney then proceeded to demonstrate in that very same speech

Exactly. This is where Rick Moran adds to the discussion:

But there is a huge difference between being inspired or animated in your politics by religion and thrusting your religious beliefs forward as “proof” of your superiority as a candidate. Or that your faith gives you a privileged position in a debate over public policy issues.

And that, boys and girls, is the problem with this GOP field. The Democrats have their own agenda when it comes to trying to appeal to Christians. Witness Barack Obama’s efforts in South Carolina where he staged a “Gospel-fest” featuring some of the country’s finest Gospel singers. But Obama seems to wear his faith like an old coat – comfortable and roomy. Candidates Romney and Huckabee wear their faith like a straitjacket, the tenets of which limit their worldview while binding them to positions on social issues that brook no opposition because they are based on holy writ.

Back to Krauthammer: I cannot even fault his next statement because he does not confuse faith and religion as many do:

In some times and places, religion promotes freedom. In other times and places, it does precisely the opposite,

Again, he is right - religion has done both.

His summation parallels Jefferson above and is, to me, the key quote here:

In this country, there is no special political standing that one derives from being a Christian leader like Mike Huckabee or a fervent believer like Mitt Romney. Just as there should be no disability or disqualification for political views that derive from religious sensibilities, whether the subject is civil rights or stem cells.

Exactly.

Now, when Rick Moran started to talk about relgion and natural law in the last part of his piece - he gave me some things to want to look at a bit closer. However, that is another diary.

Read more!

Another View on Evangelicals Cracking Up

Certainly, nothing in reading David Kirkpatricks "The Evangelical Crackup" struck me as wrong - it just struck me as somehow "off the point" - yet again. [read David Domke's take on the article here.]

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost hit the point for me:

The article itself is mostly a rehash of the dominant media perspective on evangelicals and politics, though it is noteworthy for Kirkpatrick's style of "journalism by name-dropping." The 7900 word article manages to cram in the names of 23 evangelicals leaders: Terry Fox, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Paul Weyrich, D. James Kennedy, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Marvin Olasky, David Welsh, Ralph Reed, Frank Page, Rick Scarborough, David Wells, Scott McKnight, Jim Wallis, Tony Perkins, Gene Carlson, Todd Carter, Joe Wright, Paul Hill, Harry Jackson, and Donald Wildmon.

But while Kirkpatrick focuses on the cult of personality, the true crux of the conservative Christian political movement is based on a culture of principles. Rather than focusing on a "Who's Who" of Christian leaders, an adequate understanding of the "evangelical Right" requires the recognition and prioritization of six core principles. (Note: Many of these themes were outlined in the National Association of Evangelical's paper on civic engagement [a very good read for those who really want to understand Evangelicals]):

Joe goes on to list those 6 core principles:

Principle 1: Protecting the sanctity of human life

Because all humans are created in God's image, evangelicals believe that all people have an inherent and inalienable dignity. We believe that it is at the times when life is most vulnerable, particularly in the early stages of development and at the period near death, that life is most in need of protection. Evangelicals believe in promoting policies that recognize the dignity of all humans without regard to such relativistic criteria as mental capacities or "quality of life."

Issues: Abortion, euthanasia, embryo destruction, capital punishment, cloning, and unethical human experimentation.

Principle 2: The nurturing of family life and the protection of children

While the institutions of marriage and church bear the primary responsibility for fulfilling this duty, evangelicals believe that the government should promote laws and policies that strengthen the well being of families.

Issues: Promotion of policies on marriage and divorce law, education, tuition vouchers, drug policies, abstinence promotion, fair labor practices, anti-discrimination legislation, protections against spouse and child abuse, affordable health care, reducing crime

Principle 3: Seeking justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable

Evangelicals believe in the promotion of both a fair legal system that does not favor either the rich or poor and in a fair economic system that does not tolerate perpetual poverty. This principle also includes the protection of the vulnerable members of society, including the poor, children, the elderly, the disabled, refugees, minorities, the persecuted, and the imprisoned.

Issues: Poverty reduction both in America and abroad, torture, anti-pornography legislation, immigration reform, stemming the AIDS pandemic, ending slavery and sexual trafficking, stopping prison rape.

Principle 4: The protection of religious freedom

Evangelicals believe that the joint freedoms of religion and conscience constitute the First Liberty and are deserving of protection both in our own country and abroad.

Issues: Defense of First Amendment protections, expansion of religious freedoms abroad

Principle 5: Seeking peace and restraining violence

Although evangelicals prefer that governments pursue nonviolent paths to restoring peace, most of us recognize that military force can be a legitimate means of restraining evil. While there is no consensus on how this principle should be implemented, we are in general agreement that the principles of just war must guide our government's policies.

Issues: Defending against terrorism, ending genocide, weapons proliferation, defending human rights against tyrannical regimes

Principle 6: The protection of God's creation

Evangelicals believe that stewardship of the earth is a responsibility delegated to us by our Creator. Because the earth is a shared resource, the government has a particularly important role in implementing policies that protect the environment.

Issues: Promoting recycling, reduction of pollution, protecting animals from cruelty, conservation of resources, proper care for wildlife and their habitats

He rightly points out that you understand currents within the Evangelical movement not by treating them like "cults of personality" but by understanding how they prioritize and view those core issues.

This gives folks a principled way to determine which groups are likely to be approachable and open to common work - and on what issues. It also avoids some of the following foolishness:

For example, Christians have always been concerned about protecting God's creation. Yet it is only when an evangelical leader or organizations takes a stand that is outside the dominant conservative narrative (i.e., Richard Cizik saying that global warming is anthropocentric) do they take notice.

The media also tends to conflate the priorities of all evangelicals with the primary concerns of specific groups. Because of the influence of Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family, the media tends to portray all evangelicals as putting the primary emphasis on principles 1 and 2, to the exclusion of all others. So when Rick Warren talks about AIDS or poverty in Africa (Principle 3 issues), he is portrayed as breaking away from Dobson and the "religious right--even though they are in agreement on the importance of Principles 1 and 2.

Joe points out that Evangelicals do not have a generally accepted political theology (with the exception of neocalvanists) - and while they agree on the principles in general they do not have a unifed, developed view of their application to specific issues. Therefore

What Kirkpatrick is noticing is not a "crackup" among evangelicals but the continual re-prioritization of principles and disagreements over how they correlate with specific issues. At the level of the level of the church and community this is an ongoing, never-completed process.

Now, this touches the heart of my major problem with how political and theological liberals view the theological, and most political, conservatives I hang with. The constant reference to this leader or that leader - and the manipulation through demagoguery and distortion of the Gospel - is not what I see going on in the Evangelical movement I am part of. These folks strain and strive to understand Biblical principle on which to base their life - and they study, pray, and generally work hard to achieve that. Joe's view that there is

continual re-prioritization of principles and disagreements over how they correlate with specific issues. At the level of the level of the church and community this is an ongoing, never-completed process.

speaks to the world I live in better than almost any other comment I have seen.

This may gives a bit of a deeper insight than what normally comes around.

Read more!

Wilberforce and Separation

Again, from Stand to Reason :

I found, in the preface to a new edition of [William] Wilberforce's book, A Practical View of Christianity , the following quotes of protest directed towards Wilberforce's work in his day:

The linked article, "200 Years of Christianity, Politics, and Human Rights" is an interesting read on the comparisons between trying to expand the definition of imago dei now with trying to extend it then.

Read more!

Again: What is Dominionism?

A series of long posts on dominionism at Street Prophets has led me again to narrow in on the theological underpinnings of Dominionism - and the mistake of painting with too broad a brush.

The diarist is primarily on an anti-Assemblies of God rant. That shouldn't concern me much, except that he keeps nailing folks that are:

1. Not Assemblies of God in theology [although AoG isn't Dominionist either]
2. Not Dominionist in theology.
3. Not involved in organizing for political purposes - or rejects it.

Certainly, not everyone who believes in the Kingdom of God, or is conservative theologically, is dominionist. In fact, the Kingdom being here, now, is more of a liberal theological bulwark than a conservative one.

Certainly, neither the IRD or the National Association of Evangelicals is dominionist. Folks know that one of my favorite folks to quote is J. Budziszewski, an ex-Episcopalian who became a Catholic over issues related to ordination of gays. One of my favorite pieces to quote is this part on Moralism from his "Problems of Conservatism":

To the question "Should the civil law enforce the precepts of the faith?" the biblical answer is, "Some yes, but some no; which ones do you mean?" The New Testament contains literally hundreds of precepts. However, Christianity is not a legislative religion. While the Bible recognizes the Torah as a divinely revealed code for the ruling of Israel before the coming of Messiah, it does not include a divinely revealed code for the ruling of the gentiles afterward . . . Christians, then, may certainly commend a law as good or condemn it as evil. They may declare it consistent or inconsistent with the faith. But not even a good law may be simply identified with the faith; Christians must not speak of a tax code, marriage ordinance, or welfare policy as Christian no matter how much, or even how rightly, they desire its enactment or preservation. That predicate has been preempted by the law of God. The civil law will be Christian-if it still exists at all- only when Christ himself has returned to rule: not when a coalition of religious conservatives has got itself elected.

Now, J. Bud is Chairman of Board for the IRD. Do you suppose his explicit and complete denunciation of the foundations of dominionism means he just doesn't really understand the organization he helps run?

Now the NAE: the claim that the core of the NAE is Pentacostal and Assemblies of God is really rather laughable - and certainly the characterization of folks who didnt have a national lobbying office until around 1980 as attempting to influence politcal power will take some work. Nor, is their statement of faith dominionist. Certainly, their current efforts for creation care and against torture are hardly far-right.

Link after link in the diaries goes to dKos diaries, or posts on other liberal blogs. There is very little in the way of primary documents or primary quotes - it is almost second or third party; and served up with a twist.

One interesting criticism: that an organization formed as a Christian Men's business organization is bigoted for not allowing women and Muslim's to join. Really. Please. It is both ok for men to form organizations that do not include women (and vis versa) and for Christians to form organizations that do not include Muslims (and vis versa). Men and women are different. Christianity and Islam have major mutally exclusive beliefs. Whether Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship International is dominionist or not is one thing - bigoted for not allowing women and Muslim's is another. As you will see if you compare their stated beliefs with Dominionism below - they are not Dominionist.

Another is "cell churches": what does that mean? I tried to find a definition (and couldn't even in his links) but there is the implication that there is something sinister in large churches organizing primarily around smaller community groups/bible studies/life groups - one of those big encouragements in the Purpose Driven Church movement. He specifically warns against home-based small

Or, Promise Keepers as dominionist? Sigh.

I am too over-worked and tired to deal with some of the vast theological and political fuzziness involved here. So, I will simply, once more, post the theological definition of dominionism and ask that y'all, please, make folks use a smaller brush. From "Dominionism"

According to Gary DeMar, a popular Reconstructionist author, the foundation of Reconstructionism is a unique combination of three Biblical doctrines:

1. Regeneration of the individual, through an intimate relationship with Christ
2. Individuals guiding their lives closely by following a specified subset of Biblical laws
3. Promoting of the world-wide Kingdom of God.

Specific beliefs include:

• A rejection of Antinomianism: the belief that salvation is obtained totally through faith and not through performing good works and living a moral life [keep in mind Calvinists are decidedly antinomian, as are all those "pray a prayer" and "born again" folk. Most Christians at SP reject antinomianism to one degree or another - you dominionists you]



• Presuppositionalism: the acceptance on faith that the Bible is true. They do not attempt to prove that God exists or that the Bible is true.



• Inerrancy: the belief that the Bible, as originally written, is totally free of error.


[These next two are BIG dividers]:


• Postmillennialism: the belief that Christ will not return to earth until much of the world has converted to Christianity. This will not take place for some considerable time; it will not be a painless transition. Most Fundamentalists and other Evangelists hold to a different view. They are Premillenialists and believe that all (or almost all) of the preconditions of Christ's return have been met. They expect Jesus' second coming to occur very soon.

  Who just left the Dominionist camp: anybody that believes in a pre-tribulation rapture of the church:

  • All the Left Behind folk
  • Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship
  • The General Council of the Assemblies of God

• The 613 laws contained in the Hebrew Scriptures' Mosaic Code can be divided into two classes: moral and ceremonial. Christians are not required to follow the ceremonial laws, because Jesus has liberated them from that responsibility. However, all persons must follow those moral laws which were not specifically modified or cancelled by further revelation --generally in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). In contrast:
  • Non-reconstructionist Christians generally divide these laws into three classes: moral, civil and ceremonial law, and generally believe that most Old Testament laws are no longer binding on Christians.
  • Jews generally believe that the Mosaic Code is binding only on Jews.


• The moral laws given by God to the ancient Israelites reflect of God's character, which is unchangeable. Most of the laws are intended for all nations, cultures, societies, religions and all eras, including the present time. However, there are a few laws, in such areas as personal safety and sanitation, which are no longer applicable because of changes in architecture and sewage disposal. These do not need to be obeyed.



• The primacy of the Hebrew Scriptures, relative to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). All of the Hebrew Scriptures' non-ceremonial laws are still in force, unless they have been specifically rescinded or modified by verses in the Christian Scriptures.

  "Only if we find an explicit abandonment of an Old Testament law in the New Testament, because of the historic fulfillment of the Old Testament shadow, can we legitimately abandon a detail of the Mosaic law."

  This is largely supported by their interpretation of Matthew 5:17:

  "Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets

• Civil laws must be changed to match the Bible's moral rules. That is, anything that is immoral (by their standards) is also to be criminalized.



• The only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs, economic theory are those derived from the Bible



• In every aspect of life, there are only two options: God-centered or man-centered; Theonomy or autonomy. Their political goal is to ban the latter, everywhere. Each individual, family, church, government and society must be reconstructed to eliminate sin. Each Christian has the responsibility to contribute to this conversion.



• They oppose inter-faith, inter-racial, and same-sex marriages. R.J. Rushdoony wrote about opposition to:

  "inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.

  Rushdoony's condemnation of inter-racial marriage appears to have been his own and unrelated to the biblical text. It was not shared by other Reconstructionists.



• Reconstructionists regard the Gods and Goddesses of all other religions to be "the devil," and their teachings to be false. They would attempt to replace all religions with their version of Christianity. For example, David Chilton wrote about Judaism:
  

  "The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers--the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel."

  [this throws Hagee and the dispensationalists out]

Of course, there exists diversity of opinion within the Reconstructionist movement. Not all followers will necessarily agree with all the above statements of the movement's leaders

Indeed, I own a few of those, and do not own a few.

The core is that they must believe the Kingdom of God requires the kingdoms of men to come under Christian control - and that because God requires it.

It is not dominionist to carry our faith into the political arena, or even to organize politically as Christians, or (again) to be a theologically conservative Evangelical Christian.

Read more!

Christian Leaders and Politics

This could broaden the discussion on the intersection of politics and faith. Here is the (start of I hope) a dialogue between Dr. David Gushee and Joe Carter. A little background on the players in the following diary.

Dr. David Gushee is involved with Evangelicals for Human Rights, an organization that has called on President Bush to end practices it believes crosses the line into torture. He is/was involved with the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD) where he gave his working definition of the "sanctity of life":

The concept of the sanctity of life is the belief that all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status. [I think this is an incredible definition]

Joe Carter has a blog - Evangelical Outpost - which is arguably the biggest of the Evangelical blogs. Joe has said he is a "single issue voter" when it comes to abortion; and worked at the CBHD before he took his present job at Family Research Council. He also came out in opposition to torture.

These guys worked together, and do not disagree on two issues that are touchstones on the left and right: torture and abortion. Both have been politically active on these issues. The main thread is David Gushee's proposed rules of political engagement posted at David's blog Counter Culture. The block quotes are Joe Carter's comments on the points. Italics are me.

1. Christian leaders must not officially or unofficially endorse political candidates or a political party.

   This legalistic rule could lead to results that are absurd and or un-Christian. For instance, should ministers in 1930s-era Germany have avoided showing approval or support of the republican political parties that were running against the Nazis?

   Someone pointed out in the comments at EO that we are not 1932 Germany, yet some on the left have placed the need to remove the Republicans on this kind of level; as some on the right have implied the same about electing Democrats - folks on both ends seem to think civilization as we know it rests on the next election (in nearly every election)



2. Christian leaders must not distribute essentially partisan or single-issue voter guides that purport to be apolitical or nonpartisan.

   One of the qualities I admire most about Dr. Gushee is his commitment to the sanctity of life. So it seems odd that he thinks that National Right to Life shouldn’t be able to distribute voter guides on this "single-issue." Shouldn't Christian choose to support candidates who will uphold what Gushee considers to be a "moral conviction?" What would be the reason for such a prohibition?



3. Christian leaders must not publicly handicap or comment upon the political horse race.

   Conversation between a congregant and her pastor (c. 1932):
   Congregant: "Herr Bonhoffer, what do you think about the Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party."
   Pastor: "I cannot speak of such matters, for it would be imprudent for a minister of the Gospel to comment on this particular political horse race."



4. Christian leaders must not provide private or public advice to particular politicians, parties, or campaigns concerning how they can strategize in order to win evangelical or Christian votes.

   If this rule is a prohibition against providing Machiavellian advice, I'm in agreement. But I see nothing out of line with providing prudent counsel on politicians, parties, or campaigns on how best to appeal to a group of their constituents. I see nothing untoward, in saying, "If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate a pro-choice candidate in '08, then they should expect evangelicals to abandon their support for the party."

   Up to now, I think Joe has asked some incisive questions that will spur debate; and here he misses the point. Gushee doesn't think Evangelicals should be "on board" with the Republican Party (or the Democrats) so why would he advise the GOP on keeping us from not supporting the party. How can we abandon that which we are only in tactical, and not strategic, alliance with?



5. Christian leaders must not calibrate their public teachings or writings in order to affect the outcome of political elections or to gain and hold the support of politicians.

   Again, this rule would be dependent on context. For example, if the Sunday before an election a Catholic priest were to remind his congregation that to vote supporter of abortion would be a sin, he should be commended -- even if it might prevent the pro-abortion candidate from gaining office.



6. Christian leaders must not attend political rallies or campaign events of one candidate or party unless they are prepared to attend rallies and events of all candidates and parties.

   Should Abraham Kuyper, founder of the Anti-Revolutionary Party in the Netherlands, have attended the rallies of the Socialist parties, groups that he considered a threat to the Christian worldview? Why should Kuyper--or any other Christian--attend a rally for a group whose views are antithetical to their beliefs?
   And how far do we carry this principle? Should Republicans attend Green Party debates? Should Democrats sit in on Communist rallies?

   Again, I think Joe misses the point - Gushee doesn't think Christian leaders should be attending rallies of political parties. Also, this is a two-party country right now - let's leave this to the Democrats and Republicans for now (perhaps the Constitution Party on the right and the Green's on the left if you must broaden



7. Christian leaders must not invite political candidates to speak in church pulpits or on church grounds unless they are prepared to invite all political candidates of all parties to do so.

   Legally speaking, this is already a requirement. Morally speaking, there is no reason why a church should be required to give "equal time" to political candidates who hold positions that they find repugnant.
   



8. Christian leaders must not identify the potential or actual victory of any politician as a victory for God or God’s kingdom.

   Admittedly, it might be presumptuous for a Christian leader to claim to know whether an electoral victory is a victory for God's kingdom. But it is also presumptuous for a Christian leader (in this case, Dr. Gushee) to make a blanket prohibition about what others might know about God or his kingdom.

   Sorry Joe, have to go with Gushee here for sure.



9. Christian leaders must limit their direct contact with politicians or staff in order to avoid even the appearance of undue loyalty or involvement.

   This presumes that loyalty and involvement are things that must always be avoided. Last year Dr. Gushee wrote:

   President Bush’s veto on Wednesday of any change in his stem cell research policy was derided by many as a sop to his conservative base. But the price that the president and his party are sure to pay for this decision leads me to the conclusion that, whatever the politics of the move, the president actually has been persuaded by the moral argument against embryonic stem cell harvesting

   What if it was a "Christian leader" that had provided the persuasive moral argument that had convinced Bush of this grievous harm? Would they have been acting unethically since that level of familiarity and contact could have been construed as "undue involvement?"

   Certainly, that same argument could be made about a candidate's position on Iraq, feeding the poor, rebuilding New Orleans, or support for gay marriage. Are we really going to cut politicians off from their spiritual advisors if those advisors are also Christian leaders?



10. Christian leaders must not engage in voter registration campaigns or get out the vote efforts aimed at mobilizing the voters of one political party rather than another.

    Why not? Should abolitionists not have mobilized voters in an effort to end the great sin of slavery? Should '50s-era civil rights leaders not have engaged in voter registration campaigns since it might have led people to vote against pro-segregation candidates?



11. Christian leaders must not direct the funds of their churches or organizations toward direct or indirect support for a particular political candidate or party.

    In practice, I would tend to agree, though I wouldn't make this a moral absolute. While following this rule would certainly be wise here in America, there might be instances where it would be more prudent to directly fund a candidate who faced a corrupt or evil party organization.

    I would be more morally absolute here. When I give money to my church it is for the church and its ministries. If someone wants me to fund a candidate who faces a corrupt and evil party organization they should approach me for a separate donation



12. Christian leaders may not sidestep these rules by drawing a distinction between their activities as a “private individual” over against their service in their public role.

    Let's combine #1 and #12:

    1. Christian leaders must not officially or unofficially endorse political candidates or a political party.
    
    
    2. Christian leaders may not make a distinction between their activities as a “private individual” and their public role.
    3. Voting in an election is a form of official endorsement of a political candidate.
    
    
    4. Voting in an election is a form of official endorsement of a political candidate. [oops] Therefore, Christian leaders must not vote in elections.

    
    If applied consistently, the logical conclusion would be the Christian leaders should not vote or do anything else that they would be prohibited to do in their "official" capacity.

    The problem with this logic chain is #3: endorsement must imply that someone else know your vote; and really that a lot of people know your vote - and before the polls close. A secret ballot does not constitute endorsement either official or unofficial. Joe has given some good arguments above about why Christian leaders left and right might support issues and candidates - this isn’t one of them.



13. Christian leaders must offer Christian proclamation related to that large number of public issues that are clearly addressed by biblical principles or direct biblical teaching.

    Here is where Dr. Gushee's reasoning goes completely off the rails. For example, biblical principles would warrant the protection of innocent life, the prohibition of abortion, and the denial of the legitimacy of homosexual behavior, including the manufacturing of "gay rights." To offer Christian proclamations on these issues, however, would directly conflict with the official position of the DNC and/or specific Democratic candidates.

    As the proclamations both Joe and Gushee have made against the use of torture might affect Republican ones. So what? We cannot be silent on issues for Christ's sake (that was serious and not in vain) - and that falls where it falls on parties and candidates. This ability to speak openly and loudly on issues mitigates some of the problems above about opposing evil organizations and candidates



14. Christian leaders must encourage Christian people toward active citizenship, including studying the issues and the candidates and testing policy stances and candidates according to biblical criteria.

    Again, this rule could directly conflict with many of the others on this list.

    I do not see why.



15. Christian leaders must model and encourage respectful and civil discourse related to significant public issues as well as political candidates.

    Finally, a point on which we can completely agree.



16. Christian leaders must model and encourage prayer for God-ordained government, its leaders, and their policies.

    Amen.



17. Christian leaders must teach and model respect for the constitutional relationship between religion and the state as these are spelled out in the First Amendment.

    Based on whose understanding of the First Amendment? My interpretation differs from Christian leaders of various stripes, including David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, and the Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Whose interpretation should we teach and model?

There you have it — seventeen rules for Christians and politics. Who will offer some revisions? Who will come up with the other three to make it an even twenty? Who will join me in committing themselves to these rules for the 2008 election?

While Dr. Gushee's intentions are noble, the last thing we need in the electoral process is legalistic rules that transform conscience-driven politics into political correctness.

[End dialogue]

In discussing this, do not get bogged down in Joe's opposition to abortion as a key to his criticisms - it might just as well have been the war in Iraq, torture, or any number of issues.

What do you think of these rules for - please note - Christian leaders (as opposed to Christians in general). Incidentally, I disagree with Joe - Christian bloggers are not Christian leaders for the sake of my definition.

Enjoy.

Read more!

Toward Defining Theocracy

As most know, I dislike the use of the word "theocracy" - well, hate it really. That is because I think it is used to describe people who in no way are theocrats. I think it is also used, as Joe Clark said here

It's a desperate attempt to create a term that has the affect of "rascist" or "sexist": when applied, it automatically paints an opponent as beyond the pale of political discourse.

However, there are folks who truly desire a theocracy in the US; and folks like the fool Senator back east, who truly utter theocratic remarks. The Ellison "controversy" brought some out of the woodwork.

So, if we are going to keep our labels accurate, we need to define our labels.

Now, three definitions of theocracy. Definition 1, quoted by Joe Carter:

Theocracy, which literally means "rule by the deity," is the name given to political regimes that claim to represent God on earth both directly and immediately. The role of the theocratic leader is to play the role of both priest and king, implementing and enforcing divine laws.

Definition 2, provided by XT:

Theocracy - A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. A state so governed.

I have no problem with either definition as truly being theocracy, as long as in the second one we know what is meant by "authority" - and I am sure that this is where we will end up having this discussion. From Wiki:

In politics, authority is often used interchangeably with the term "power". However, their meanings differ. "Power" refers to the ability to achieve certain ends, 'authority' refers to the legitimacy, justification and right to exercise that power. For example whilst a mob has the power to punish a criminal, such as through lynching, only the courts have the authority to order capital punishment.

Amazingly, XT and I came "that close" to coming to an agreement. The divide remained because of the next definition of theocracy, which I do not agree with - and which is, I believe, how it is commonly used in the political debates today. Also from XT what I will label Definition 3:

The reason it is labeled theocratic now is that, for the last 30 years, Conservative Christian commentators have consistently used the public governmental sphere to advance their religiously-based agenda.

with these later clarifications:

if the only basis for your agenda is religious, then you are pushing a theocratic agenda.

and

A theocrat pursues a political agenda with no other justification than religious belief.

XT believes definitions 2 and 3 of theocracy are equal, or at least both define different forms of theocrat. I do not think that pursuing a religious agenda in the governmental sphere, even if it has no other justification than religious belief, is theocratic unless you are seeking governmental authority - the right to legitimately exercise power - for your religion. Iran is a current day theocracy. The Revolutionary Council - comprised of religious leaders - while allowing a civil government, exercises veto powers over the decisions of that government; and who can run for office in that government.

Now, I will admit to all the elements of the definition 3:

• My political agenda is absolutely based in my religion - loving God with my all requires nothing less;
• I am willing to band together with other Christians to pursue that political agenda, and indeed believe that is our constitutional right; and
• I see no reason why my political agenda cannot entirely be based on my religious beliefs (I would have to stay out of the political arena otherwise), or (as others have said, not XT) my political speech must run through some secular translator [although that is supremely wise].

I contend that does not make me anywhere close to a theocrat because I have no desire, whatsoever, for the US government to be under the authority of a religious entity; or for religion to exercise any other authority than moral authority. In fact, I agree with John Calvin, who said:

For some deny that a state is well constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses, and is governed by the common laws of nations. The dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will be sufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish.

and point for contrast to Eugene Volokh

What do you think about the abolitionist movement of the 1800s? As I understand it, many -- perhaps most or nearly all -- of its members were deeply religious people, who were trying to impose their religious dogma of liberty on the legal system that at the time legally protected slavery.

Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God's will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.

Or how about religious opponents of the draft, opponents of the death penalty, supporters of labor unions, supporters of welfare programs, who were motivated by their religious beliefs -- because deeply religious people's moral beliefs are generally motivated by their religious beliefs -- in trying to repeal the draft, abolish the death penalty, protect labor, or better the lot of the poor?

Eugene, BTW, is either an agnostic or an atheist.

So, what say you all.

Read more!

Toward a Definition of Theocracy: Part Deux

[Sorry Mike - just had to steal that "deux" thing].

Jefferson's idea was that religious influence which included belief in the miracles of Jesus was too much influence in the affairs of state. Which is not to say Jefferson considered such influence "theocratic," but he certainly considered it inappropriate in the American republic he envisioned. -- RMJ here

This seems like a good lead-in to talking about what separation meant to the founding fathers who created it.

Thomas Jefferson had three accomplishments placed on his tomb:

1. founding of the University of Virginia;
2. authoring the Declaration of Independence; and
3. authoring the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom

It is the last I am going to chat about.

This was passed in the Virginia Legislature in 1786 by the efforts of James Madison; and is generally credited to be the foundation of the Separation Doctrine championed by Madison ast the Constitutional Convention soon to come. Jefferson, BTW, was a member of neither body.

Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom

Whereas:

1. Almighty God has created the mind free;
2. that all attempts to influence it by earthly punishments or burdens:
• tend only to cause habits of hypocrisy and malice,
• are a departure from the plan of the God, who chose not to spread His plan by coercions on mind or body, as it was in his Almighty power to do;
3. that legislators and rulers (civil as well as clerical), in sinful presumption (being themselves but fallible and uninspired men):
• have assumed power over the faith of others,
• set up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others,
• have established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
4. that to compel a man to furnish money for the spread of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;
5. that even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own creed:,
• is depriving him of the right of giving his aid to a particular teacher,
• whose morals he would make his pattern, and
• whose instruction he feels most influential to virtue, and
• withdraws from his favored teacher the aid that would be an added stimulus to the teacher's instruction of mankind;
6. that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry;
7. that therefore making any citizen unable to assume public office unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him of those privileges and advantages to which he has a natural right;
8. that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honors those who will externally profess and conform to it;
9. that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation [to falsely profess and conform], yet neither are those innocent who tempt them to do this;
10. that to allow the judge to impinge his powers into the field of opinion, and to control the profession or spread of principles on belief in their incorrectness, is a dangerous myth, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because:
• the judge will make his opinions the rule, and
• approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they agree or disagree with his own;
11. that it is time enough for the purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when those principles lead to overt acts against peace and good order; and finally,
12. that
• Truth is great and will prevail if left alone
• Truth is the proper and ample opponent to error, and
• Truth has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless humans remove truth's natural weapons: free argument and debate, (since errors cease to be dangerous when they are freely contradicted):

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

So, while it may be true that Jefferson himself believed us superstitious miracle-believers were fools - his political view was that we should be able to be freely fools in the political arena and that "Truth is great and will prevail if left alone" "unless humans remove truth's natural weapons: free argument and debate".

So, Jefferson's position, and I believe the Constitutions, is that anyone, in or out of office, should be able to express their "principles", religious or not. at any time - and no law should restrain that unless "those principles lead to overt acts against peace and good order".

So, President Bush is perfectly free to say that God told him to invade Iraq as long as arguing with that in the public arena is not stifled. To argue that he has no right to express his religious views because he is in public office, is to violate Jefferson's view of religious freedom.

Read more!