And He has said to me, “My Grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me (2 Corinthians 12:9).
It is understandable that people believe that any tie they have to a perceived immoral action is equivalent to doing the action, condoning the action, or enabling the action be done. So, tax money being used to fund an abortion is seen negatively. Some Christians may refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, and that same-sex marriage is a sin. They may also believe that by baking a cake for a gay wedding, they would be participating in or supporting the event, and therefore they would be complicit in what they consider to be a sinful act.
This really is not such a stretch, because — from a nationalistic perspective — when the US Govt (including the Courts) does something internationally (or even nationally, but observed by the international community), I can feel proud or ashamed, elated or appalled. In the same vein, I’m not happy that the money I have contributed as a citizen has been used to used to start & conduct wars in the name of supposed safety, spreading democracy, or pushing other national “interests” that negatively impact other peoples.
It is also understandable that people want to change, structure, or institute laws and policies that minimize or remove immoral connections. There is a push from religious or other moral perspectives to do that under the banner of re-establishing the US as a Christian Nation (Dominion), taking back the country from Godless forces, and turning back progressive (ever changing and evolving) agendas that foist upon them both immorality and connection to it.
For individuals with this perspective, when it comes to voting or participating in national issues (such as by voting or debating), decisions & viewpoints need to be “biblically informed.” For instance, “From God’s ethical command not to murder, flows, in the minds of many people, the obligation to protect the lives of unborn children. Therefore we campaign—sometimes very aggressively—for laws that protect the lives of unborn infants.”
There exists an underlying pressure to “be Christian,” and to be Christian, you have to do and think Christian things, in every context. Christianity supposedly emphasizes the importance of compassion and love, and encourages Christians to serve others and to work for the common good, rather than focusing solely on personal salvation as a way to participate in God’s will and fulfill God’s “plan.” But there is a line crossed when concern for society’s spiritual welfare eclipses your own spiritual growth and development. If you help to enact a law that is Christian-based (presumably), then you are both being Christian and … that’s the question here. You are obviously attempting more than just “being Christian” because your actions result in larger things that affect more than just you.
Working toward what you think is the “common good” becomes your predominant journey towards God and causes you to focus outward to the faults in others. There is more going on here than merely distancing oneself, for example, from abortion ties.
Homogenization of Grace
When you legislate or attempt legislation of your beliefs, I posit that you are doing more than distancing your self from the “appearance of evil” by not directly or indirectly participating in non-Christian, sinful acts & larger-community (city, state, national) policies. You are also both insulating yourself from temptation and tribulation, and — when proclaiming to “take back” the US as a Christian Nation (Dominion) — you are trying to establish a righteous nation, God’s Kingdom on earth (something I thought Christ’s second coming was supposed to do).
The distancing part I get, but I think minimizing trials is like paving the Path to make it easier to walk (more on that later); and legislating holiness is not just un-Christian, it is anti-Christian.
~Buddy Hanson, of Exodus Mandate (a dominionist organization)
The Oklahoma school superintendent, Ryan Walters, said “I really see there’s a civil war going on, where the left is really fighting for the soul of our country….They are undermining the very principles that made this country great, our Judeo-Christian values and our traditions in this country.”
Getting back to those values and traditions, he added, “that’s what will unify us.”
It becomes anti-Christian when you break and annul the concept of Grace. Legislating holiness & engineering a Christian society is far from being a beacon of light and, most importantly, Grace to the souls who need it. In fact, it is not grace because Grace is God’s alone to give; and the moment you apply a rule to it, it is not present. It can’t be because your rule and God’s freely given gift of unmerited mercy or favor are absolutely mutually exclusive. Instead, you have supplanted Grace in favor of legislation (rules & dogmas) and homogenizing orthodoxy.
So what is happening, and what are we to make of the modern-day Christian church’s take on government and its corresponding political walk with Christ? Is it Christian (as in Christ-like) or Christian (following some interpretation of the Bible)? What are non-Christians supposed to make of Christ & Christianity as exemplified by the body of Christ?
Part of what’s going on, of course, is interpretation via bias confirmation and illusory correlation.
Romans 13 says:
13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Did Romans 13 and a few Psalms say that a nation of various faiths and creeds needs to be Christianized and, thus, homogenized so that diversity only exists within a Christian government framework (like Islam’s Sharia) in order for believers to be Christians?
Nope. It didn’t say that. Romans 13 goes on to say that you maintain your walk by sticking to Biblical laws and pursuing spiritual development toward God independent of “nations,” or governments.
Did Romans 13 and a few Psalms define what government should be? It alluded to selected, not exhaustive, aspects.
One Christian thinker says,
…governments ought to perform a limited function and ought to perform that well. They should be strong in their limited function, but in the big picture their strength should be very limited. In other words, they should be weak not strong on the broad scale of things. Paul says in Romans 13 that government does have a legitimate function and the Scriptures largely define this function, but it’s very limited.” [Bold added]
(The full article whence this quote is pulled argues against healthcare for all. See here for an excellent counterpoint.)
Really? This is to say that Romans 13, like the US Constitution, supposedly exhaustively enumerated the rights and scope of the govt., just as the Bible also did on other topics of great importance, such as exhaustively prescribing how to get married (in a church with a civil license), who could get married (not blacks & whites together), everything that should happen in a marriage (division of labor and all sexual practices), when to kill and not to kill (capital punishment vs. military action vs. abortion), etc.? Not.
Let’s assume that “ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,” protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are, somehow, uniquely Biblical tenets. Generally, Christians have no Biblical problem with the things on this list, and, in fact, assert that they are Bible-based.
Does specifically listing some things categorically exclude providing for the common welfare, regulating commerce, ensuring religion & govt don’t mix (avoiding “establishment” of a religion [Christian] by institutionalizing its precepts, thus showing “preference”), and establishing a framework to which all states must abide to be part of a republic of federated-though-independent States?
How things are accomplished in both the Bible and the Constitution are very rarely specified, but rather we see guidelines for conducting, recognizing, and regulating activity to establish a path.
The point is, the Bible is not often exhaustive in any matter. Since it is not a comprehensive guidebook that covers every aspect of human life, it is not surprising that there are many topics that are not discussed in detail. What the cited Christian thinker is arguing is that the absence of mentioning other things means they are deliberately excluded.
The argument that the absence of something in the Bible means it is deliberately excluded is a form of argument from silence, which can be problematic because it is not always clear whether or not something is being deliberately excluded or simply not addressed. Consider that nowhere is the sex-life of married couples discussed or even how marriage ceremonies are to be conducted or other reasons why besides being horny that you should get married (suggesting that sex is part of a monogamous, committed relationship).
Using this ‘it is excluded by omission‘ logic: if marriage is for procreation and controlling sexual urges, then sex should only be engaged for procreative purposes. And since procreation involves the direct involvement of both sets of complementary sexual organs in procreative conjunction, no other sexual activity to satisfy sexual urges is allowed — because they are not mentioned. That leaves only intercourse. That’s it.
I don’t know a single soul — gay or straight — who believes that. (And I’m not trying to make an Argumentum ad populum here.)
So how can one say that govt. is Biblically limited as “largely defined” by the Bible? I suspect that is a political view coloring Bible interpretation to suit its own ends. I know God by knowing myself (via my prejudices, biases, revulsions, etc.) Assuming the Bible is a spiritual guide for a personal walk toward God, why should we expect that it would also specifically address non-spiritual matters, such as what a government should and shouldn’t do?
(Matthew 7:13-14)
What we see here is a type of rationalization with a different motive, and it ain’t Christian. To alleviate the disharmony (dissonance), the political perspective is Christianized; and politics (and economics) becomes the focus for the path to God via activism and legislation. Onward Christian Soldiers.
In this way, Christianity has been polluted and has supplanted Grace with efforts to work out its own and others’ salvation. It is in no way “Christ-like.”
We Can Guess What it Will Be by Their Fruits
For the sake of argument, what might we expect from a Christian government and from the people instituting the Government?
Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
(Matthew 7:15 – Sermon on the Mount)
Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:20-21 ).
First off, I would expect a Christian government to simply evolve via the fruit that results from the collective actions of its citizenry. The Kingdom of God is established in the hearts as a spiritual kingdom that naturally results in a physical (or legal) manifestation.
Second, I would expect that those who want a Christian Dominion would inspire those around them with Christ-likeness, to be a beacon of Grace and justice — and more immediately — demonstrate blameless attitudes and behaviors. In that way non-Christians might preview what a Christian-run nation would look like.
With such inspiration and demonstration, why wouldn’t we all want to live in a Christian Dominion, where the Grace of God reigns supreme.
Unfortunately, what we actually see (the fruits) is an effort to construe the current Govt to be Christian (as in following the precepts of Christ) and then attempt to achieve the Christian Govt with slander, false witness, lies, and misleading arguments (among other dishonesty- & ignoble-based sins) with the attitude that the ends justifies the means. We see a poisonous tree — what should we expect of the fruit?
What we see coming from politicians, the proponents of California’s Proposition 8, NOM, the Tea Party, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Bachmann to name a few is astounding in the distortion, mischaracterization, constituent manipulation, and outright falsehoods, whether sincerely believed or politically expedient. We see people willing to change or throw out the Constitution when it conflicts with their agendas while at the same time praising the Constitution as being inspired by Christian Founding Fathers.
What we see begs a few questions:
- Did Christ do these things to further his message and characterize God?
- Do noble and sanctifying motivations need to be achieved by sinful & evil actions?
- Are injustices tolerable to arrive at sanctity — can sanctity spring from evil?
- Is it mandated that Christians re-form a country in their own likeness with the expectation that it corresponds to God’s Kingdom on earth?
Supplanting Grace with Kingdom-building
The whole point of being a Christian is to become Christ-like (following the Way of Christ), which is the human manifestation of Divinity & Grace.
One of many aspects of Christ-likeness is that Grace shine through the believers. If Christians are the “body” of Christ, then what we see of the “grace” coming through Christians compels us to believe that what Christians do (as a body) is what Christ would do — or, by extension, is what Christ is doing.
Based on what we see, Christ, for instance, would claim a land as his own; and he would mislead, lie & bear false witness in order to legislate his views. He would get heavily involved in politics, and he would sanction the use of Government to force-feed his Father’s Grace to non-believers in him and his ways. He would utterly ignore free will to come to him, and instead create holy cattle chutes by which to both herd the non-believers and insulate the believers from growth-providing trials.
For Grace and Salvation to work, it has to be freely accepted by the receiver. It has to be wanted; and the value to the soul recognized. We have to recognize our own sinful state and that we need to be redeemed from it. But if mostly all we see from the Body of Christ is sin and sinfulness, the light that’s supposed to shine from Christians is not illuminating our states. We see hypocrisy and demagoguery and deceit. We see political agenda clothed in Sunday clothes pandering to the gullible.
We see these things in the Christian effort to “reduce government” by increasing its religious intrusion into our lives with laws, the very instrument they supposedly abhor and not the instruments supplied by the Spirit and knowledge of God. In this way, they establish a theocracy — Old Testament-style structures to simulate Grace and holiness. Old Testament Leviticus, or Christian Sharia And these structures are to be forced onto the nation.
(Ephesians 2:8-9)“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy.” (Romans 9:16)
Since grace is God’s only and can only be reflected by or transmitted through Him or a believer, for man to do anything at all in order to establish God’s grace to mankind by rule is to nullify Grace.
It’s not for a human to interpret. It’s not for a human to dispense. It does not belong in any way to mankind. It’s His grace, or it isn’t.
Attempting a Christian Dominion Is Sin
Legislating Christian precepts is like cocooning and building fences at the same time. It is cocooning in the sense that it attempts to insulate the Christian from non-Christian influences. It is building fences in that it clearly establishes an “Us vs. the Gentiles” mentality, one that Christ explicitly taught to destroy.
The Christian Dominion attempts to create by law social structures to help ensure they, the “Faithful”, don’t stray — in addition to separating themselves from government-enacted sinfulness.
In other words, they have supplanted Grace with more Pharisaical laws & rules. They try to limit the trials they are exposed to by making it illegal to do otherwise in the guise of pre-establishing God’s Kingdom on earth. (Christ’s second coming notwithstanding.)
For instance, the “lax” conception of marriage (easy divorce for other than Biblical reasons) does not provide sufficient penalty or restriction to cause re-evaluation of one’s Christ-directed motives or to force reconciliation. On the contrary, lax conception of marriage encourages consideration of non-Biblical separation or divorce — it is an evil temptation sponsored by the Government and the godless.
Legislating God’s Kingdom on earth sets up walls within which you think yourself worthy of heaven and re-establish the Us vs. Gentiles mentality. Within these walls, looking out, Scripture is reinterpreted:
“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire”
becomes
‘If someone else’s eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better to attempt to create the kingdom of God in your own eyes, than serving God by loving your fellow man in His eyes within His grace.’
It’s pretty obvious that I didn’t write this post from an outline. Ugh — the concepts are muddled.
The concept of Grace is central for there to even be a Christ and, thus, a Christianity. The entire faith is built on the premise of there being Grace and what the nature of that Grace is, in both its manifestation and as a characteristic of a loving God. God did not have to show Grace (well, He did, as it is part of His character) — he could have let us suffer the consequences of forever severing our communion with Him (“hell,” or death). To show us unconditional mercy & a means to come back to Him when we clearly don’t merit it is a gift, which is the definition of Grace.
One of the major things to understand about Grace is that it emanates strictly from God. There are no bounds to it, as it is a freely given gift of mercy and favor. There are no conditions on it. There are no rituals to achieve it. There are no rules within which you must live to deserve or maintain its being granted. If any kind of a rule, ritual, or condition at all enters the picture, Grace exits the picture. The whole notion of Grace is antithetical to rules & conditions.
Since Grace emanates from God, it can only be reflected through humans as far a any human’s participation in Grace goes. If a human applies some filter, measure, rule, etc. to showing Grace, it is no longer God’s Grace. Period.
Enter politics.
There are two motivations and one possible motivation (if it is not merely a happy side-effect) to Christian political activity. The most obvious (as it is the loudest and most salient) is distancing oneself from the appearance of evil, whether directly or indirectly, such as through use of taxes. The second is to effect a Christian Dominion or Nation. The third is that, in establishing Christian tenets into law, the law becomes both a crutch and a type of insulation. Hence the “happy side-effect” of removing the liberty of others to sin around you and the ability to enact unholy laws against that which affects your “walk” with Christ toward God.
In a Christian environment (produced by adherence to the laws), the temptation to do something is alleviated, and the channels for getting back on the straight and narrow are painlessly (and prescriptively) provided. You have, thus, effectively removed or obstructed growth-enabling and spirit-strengthening exercises. Almost like taking a pill to lose weight instead of doing physical activity.
The path to God is reflected in the story of the Good Samaritan, where you learn about God and develop in sanctity by what you make of the trials and challenges of the world around you. Removing or mitigating the trials and challenges is like paving the path to make it easier to walk. Not just paving the path, but also lining it with fruit trees and water wells.
But the main point of this post is that establishing Christian laws (by whatever unsavory means) upon a nation re-establishes Leviticus type scenario: a reversion back to a time before the Grace of God saw its fulfillment in the sacrifice of Christ. The efforts — both the attempt and how they are attempted — detract from the main purposes of a Christian, which are to become Christ-like and to offer light to the world of sinners in order that they see their sin and repent. Focusing on and overlaying laws interferes with the greater spiritual purposes of both.
Sin is deviation from the Path — the path toward righteousness, which is acting in accordance to the divine will, which is to grow in knowledge of Him and transmit that knowledge by your transformed and transforming spirit and its fruits to others. If the manner and type of things you do obscures these things, that is sin. To mischaracterize & misrepresent Grace and Christ-likeness is sin. To focus on the making of new Laws in an effort to clothe oneself in the appearance of righteousness and work out by decree, not only your own salvation, but that of non-believers, is to focus on the wrong thing. Hence deviation from the path. Hence sin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-chuck-currie/hate-crimes_b_869455.html
Probably never run out of examples, so I won’t try to compile them. However, when I run across a particularly apt example (and I think about it), I’ll try to include it here.
~~
Quote from C.S. Lewis:
From Desmond Tutu:
I enjoyed reading your take on the idea that tax money used for “immoral” purposes implicates us all. Hmmm. I do believe Jesus said to “turn the other cheek” when someone slaps you. Why is it this Christian nation has never once done that? Perhaps someone can tell me if it has because every time someone slaps us, we seem to want to sanction or bomb them. I think it the ultimate hypocrisy for us to call ourselves, or even believe ourselves to be a Christian Nation, when we were in fact founded on the idea of religious freedom and if you wanted to NOT be a Christian that was actually OK. And we put down other nations for being theocracies while pretending to be one even though we don’t even come close. What’s with all the self deception?
There is a reason why ‘hypocrisy’ is the most oft-named sin (over 400 times) in the Bible, right? If one were to judge the sin of being gay to the sin of being a hypocrite by the sheer volume of mentions, it would certainly be easy to figure out which one to work on the hardest.
Quotes of quotes from the Slacktivist in his article, “Richard John Neuhaus did not think dominionism was a myth”
http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2011/08/30/one-more-point-on-biblicism/
From the book “The Violence of God and the War on Terror” by Jeremy Young. Pg 125
The rejection of a superseded group’s right to maintain its own beliefs is easily generalized to include all oppositional sects, an intolerance which St Augustine sought ot justify through the doctrine that ‘error has no right’. As the Irish theologian Joseph Liechty explains:
It should be noted that there is a functional equivalence between the idea that error has not right and the dynamic in domestic abuse when a abusive partner disallows the rights of the other to be heard because he determines the truth and she is ‘stupid’. Liechty points out that when the belief that error has no right is combined with the belief that there is only one true Church — or, we may add, one chosen people — the result is likely to be sectarianism:
From dominionist Stephen Che Halbrook’s book titled, “God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws” regarding how Mosaic law should be the basis of our civil law:
From the Slactivist “Still in Hell” (footnote):
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=17100
-the Slacktivist
Great article here:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/18/should-christians-force-the-government-to-serve-as-their-spiritual-savior/
~Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, Section I (1777, 1779)
http://morganguyton.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/biblical-literalism-magisterial-inertia-sacramental-pelagianism/
From David Johnson (a pretty smart fella) on Facebook regarding this comment: “Whatever that number is, they are used to defend human life,” Assemblyman Tim Donnelly explained. “They are used to defend our property and our families and our faith and our freedom, and they are absolutely essential to living the way God intended for us to live.”:
Thinking about what is going on in AZ as an ongoing reaction to Agenda 21, which reaction is against the ominous specter of a OWG, I wondered:
Is it Christian to attempt to forestall conditions that are a part of or herald the End Times? Aren’t they supposed to be focusing on their walk with God toward a state of being holy enough to stand in His presence?
The ‘biblical worldview’ doesn’t come from the Bible
The list of what constitute Kinnamon and Lyons “biblical worldview” has as a #5 “A Christian has a responsibility to share his or her faith in Christ with other people.” The argument in my post is that YES THEY DO have that responsibility, but it is sharing as fruit, not sharing as doctrine.
To rely on doctrine as the sole medium of communication is the lazy way out in the sense that it requires no actual godliness, holiness, or spirituality. It’s just “words of hope.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/21/colorado-lawmaker-tells-anti-gay-christians-get-thee-to-a-nunnery/#.USbXauuGhXY.facebook
~
From some Facebook exchange:
…those who do things to others in the name of God within a belief system where one’s motivation makes those actions sin/not-sin. And oddly enough, at the root of this belief system, if you don’t think about whether something is “right” or not because you’re doing it as an emanation of your soul that has its gaze fixed on the divine, that’s the most sanct of all. Trees that don’t grunt out fruit; the fruit is simply what its living bears.
<Kill an unrepentant infidel> let’s say is a fundamental tenant of religion. In this religion, it is your duty. Doing so is not a guideline, but a command. But when you execute a specific command, you participate in formula, one where the sum total of your actions add up to a degree of sanctity to earn you points. You can internalize the command to the point where it becomes a motivation, but the fact of its transformation does not likewise transform the seed of its motivation.
Rowan Atkinson, commenting in 2004 on Britain`s proposed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill:
http://federalistpress.com/the-mormon-effect.php
I found this sentence to be fascinating: «Lucifer said that he would be the savior and he would force everybody to live righteously, thus guaranteeing that all of God’s spirit children would return to Him in heaven… »
When I think of the current religious climate in the US, I constantly reevaluate the notion of “forc[ing] everyone to live righteously.” What precisely might that look like?
~
~Republican Barry Goldwater
~ http://source4politics.blogspot.mx/2010/12/manhattan-declaration.html
~ http://www.redletterchristians.org/are-there-any-solid-arguments-against-same-sex-marriage/
~
~ U.S. Tea Party Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert
~
Re: http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/advanced/what-role-for-christianity-in-21st-century-politics.htm
I didn’t find the piece particularly analytical, but rather a little sketchy. The premises he pulls in that are dragged into the political sphere read like strawmen (mostly interpretation of what the atheist Murray worte). But given the issues he addresses (lightly), I won’t commit the “fallacy fallacy” of dismissing his underlying point. I did enjoy the “separation” topic — fascinating. I didn’t know about Iceland, for instance.
My ggggg+-grandfather was one of the two co-founders of the Quaker Church who didn’t appreciate having to pay tithes to the Church of England. In that tradition, I would not appreciate paying tithes to a church I did not belong to. There is something clearly not “freedom of religion” in that scenario. I understand his point: separation is not a necessary prerequisite for a full democracy. I would question the “full” part in the case of paying tithes to a church I didn’t belong to.
It is obvious that the speaker has the UK in mind when he speaks. If I apply his speech to America, there is no need to “return … God [religion] to public life” – He’s already there.
«Outside a tiny number of theonomists on the very fringes of Christianity, no Christian advocates theocracy today.» I don’t believe this is true. Every effort to legislate a Christian principle is theonomy. Theocracy, to me, is a system built on theonomy.
Further, what are the implications of “tiny number” and “fringes”? Here he attempts to minimize or gloss over a rather important point: It only takes a “tiny number” to insinuate their agendas into a larger, largely unaware body of believers within the full spectrum of belief. Earlier he muses on something else Murray might have been saying: “…or laws drawn exclusively from scriptures…” This sets a false-dichotomy frame: Why “exclusively”? If laws drawn are derivative of something religious, isn’t the effect the same: theonomy?
In America, the presence of Christianity is already quite keenly felt in politics, as is the notion of Christian privilege. To me the article’s “return” premise is similar to the “Take Back America” agenda of the Tea Party. It is as hollow as it is specious.
I also think that the value of Christianity in politics to «articulate a vision of the human being, the human good, and the common good» is a good place to start … if it were left there. But in our American experiment, that vision results in “dictation” (as the speaker muses upon Murray’s words). It is a “lodestar” that is «amorphous and badly, or disingenuously expressed » that leads to backlash.
In the end, for Christianity to be a lodestar of value to everyone, it needs to draw down on the efforts to legislate its “vision” on a diverse population and focus on the core of Christ’s teachings, not the evolved and extrapolated interpretation we see floating to the top of national dialog.
For the sake of argument, if we gave full rein to Christianity in America, how might we expect the lodestar to work— from a “core teachings” perspective?
First off, I would expect a Christian government to simply evolve via the fruit that results from the collective actions of its citizenry. The Kingdom of God is established in the hearts as a spiritual kingdom that naturally results in a physical (or legal) manifestation. It does not result from legislation to create its formation or force a perspective.
Second, I would expect that those who want a Christian Dominion would inspire those around them with Christ-likeness, to be a beacon of Grace and justice — and more immediately — demonstrate blameless attitudes and behaviors. In that way non-Christians might preview what a Christian-run nation would look like.
With such inspiration and demonstration, why wouldn’t we all want to live in a Christian Dominion, where the Grace of God reigns supreme, regardless of what other faith we might follow?
But that is hardly possible if even imaginable.
C.S. Lewis on theocracy:
More Lewis:
The Lie of Religious ‘Victimhood’ at the Root of Culture War
The Power of Gay is more than more than conquerors … the Slacktivist
~
Some great links:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-guyton/the-theology-of-governmen_b_4020537.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
> http://thejesusevent.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/the-roots-of-american-christian-exceptionalism-part-1/
Facebook post with a link to the “Origin of ‘Separation of Church and State’”
My Reply:
One can be “truly interested” without accepting the undisclosed premises of this article.
If the Constitution meant “denomination of Christianity,” might these super-smart men have said so? But they didn’t.
To extrapolate to an a-priori conclusion (begging the question), you have to draw from the Founders’ own religion: Of course they would mean “Christianity” because they were Christians. They were obviously not capable of framing a guiding Principle to allow for freedom of religion for all people, agnostic of a particular religion – as reflects today’s Christian approach and the move toward Dominion.
Part of what’s going on, of course, is interpretation via bias confirmation and illusory correlation. The SC justice of Alabama’s position is just the unvarnished version.
To say “obviously, the words ‘separation,’ ‘church,’ or ‘state’ are not found in the First Amendment,” relative to the Origin article, reveals this double standard of enumeration vs. extrapolation. I would argue that ‘intent’ is actually clearer in the resulting words and the words the Founders did *not* use. I apparently give the Founding Fathers more credit than others do, and see them as attempting to frame higher principles than tribal ones.
Another element in play: discussion of one’s beliefs, if it is in fact NOT reflected in the Constitution, does not make those beliefs implicit in the final language. Further, one member’s beliefs is anecdotal, and one cannot argue as though from “Founding Father” (singular), you can extrapolate to the whole of Founding Fathers (plural).
The above two paragraphs are examples of the double-standard clash. Yes, those words aren’t there — and neither is the “Christian” intent.
What is a “law”? The SC skirted the issue of ‘no establishment’ by reducing prayer to tradition and merely a part of the mechanics of a governmental meeting. It is actually quite clever and requires a great deal of privilege attribution.
Yet, as also argued, if you only allow a Christian construct of prayer, you are in fact establishing a religion, de-facto. “Law” seen this way results from the notion of “rules in play” or “standard applied.” Tyranny of the majority knowing that, predominantly, one religion above all others will be furthered.
The article finishes by decrying “judicial activism” … another double standard in play. It’s ok as long as it works for one’s faction.
To me, the SC’s ruling is an insidious tactic of intellectual dishonesty.
~
Christian extremists disrupt Buddhist prayer in state senate: http://youtu.be/EZ9To30Hz7A
An absolutely perfect example of how the homogenization to Christianity would solve so many bumps in the Way if only everyone would simply conform to their tenets.
Re: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/08/george-will-denounces-flimsy-people-who-challen/199223
~
If It Weren’t for Jesus, I Might be Pro-Death Too: A Response to Al Mohler
Let’s say that Christ is “The Light” of God’s unconditional Grace; and Christians are the lanterns.
And anything beyond Christ’s direct teachings is extrapolation. We know about extrapolation: the farther away you get from the source, the thinner the connection to the core truth.
Imagine now years and years — thousands — of extrapolation. We can see them like geographical layers of history in the earth’s surface; or layers of colored wax that accumulates with each dip of the wick into a vat of molten wax.
Imagine now the rings of extrapolated crust or colored wax around a lantern. How much light do we actually expect to get through?
Today’s christianists and dominionists are not Christian. They have straightened the path, paved it with gold, and lined it with nice fruit trees and water wells. They shelter it so that no rocks, rifts, or bumps occur that would cause them to stumble as they skip through life worrying about how well other people are skipping on the road of their making and without considering the path at all.
Some aren’t even skipping. They’re standing in the middle of this road, content that as long as they’re on something shiny, they at least have a seat at the location where it supposedly leads.
But both types of gold-pathers consider holiness to be in the encrustment and just the right type of skipping. They fancy the effort they make to polish the road or even to pave it or plant the fruit trees as merit, as layers of holiness by which they will be recognized when arriving at their supposed destination.
They have confused the journey and what they (would) find on a path to righteousness with their paving toils and protecting the path from debris — temptations and the ungodliness of others. Their “job” isn’t really a relationship with a divine being, but rather it is with a path they think this being will approve of.
They are Pharisees in the truest sense of the word.