proctor & politics
Attention: Be sure to read the post before this one, before reading this one.
Ben,
I think one of my difficulties in wrapping my head around this issue is that it is, indeed, a vast issue. It is hard to stay on one particular point without bringing in so many others. Your email to me, posted below, is helpful, and I am going to interact with it a bit here. At times I will take the opposing position, not because I'm sure I believe it, but to demonstrate the difficulties I'm having with this issue. Stuff you wrote will be in italics. So here goes.
The separation of church and state is not for the protection of the state, although secularists would have you believe that. It is to keep the state out of the church, so that the church would be free from the clutches of political power (political power is inherently corrupt).
This is a significant point! I do believe we have turned things around in our modern way of thinking, keeping the church out of the state rather than the state out of the church. I'm not, however, certain that political power is inherently corrupt. David was a good king. Jesus is called King. There are political positions. Rather, it seems that political positions are filled up by inherently corrupt people.
America was not founded on Christian principles....It was, however, founded to protect Christian principles as maintained by the church. The Christian leaders entering politics these days are turning to the state to do what the church has failed.
I would agree that deism won the day when it comes to the writing of the Constitution. I think you're saying here that the principles of American freedom and religious liberty were put in place to allow the church to continue to be what it is without any state telling it what it must and must not do. I also agree that Dobson and the like are trying to accomplish the work of the church through the state. But must we wait for everyone in America to be converted (a highly unlikely thing) before we can overturn Roe v. Wade? What is the best plan of action?
Furthermore, since we are agreed that America was not founded as a Christian nation (at least in the late 18th century), what is the standard for governmental laws? Enlightenment principles? Good and sound reason? "The tyranny of the 51%?" By what standard does a government say, "You can only drive so fast," or "You cannot put this type of plant into a pipe and smoke it," or other such laws?
You are concerned about the battle between the Christian right and left. I think it is one in the same with the battle between liberal and conservative political philosophies.
I agree that it's the same battle, but when divided evangelicalism enters the public, political realm on this issue, and Campolo and the left begin acting the same way as Dobson and Falwell, it's a recipe for destruction. My hope (at least at this point) is not that Campolo and company will rise up like the Christian right, but that the Christian right will take a deep breath, relax, and start coming at these issues with love rather than pharisaical rage.
Your points are all very well taken and worth much consideration. I look forward to more discussion with you and others. I intend to post soon on how the principle of Jesus' Lordship as well as the question of eschatology relates to this issue. Thanks for your thoughtful input.
Ben,
I think one of my difficulties in wrapping my head around this issue is that it is, indeed, a vast issue. It is hard to stay on one particular point without bringing in so many others. Your email to me, posted below, is helpful, and I am going to interact with it a bit here. At times I will take the opposing position, not because I'm sure I believe it, but to demonstrate the difficulties I'm having with this issue. Stuff you wrote will be in italics. So here goes.
The separation of church and state is not for the protection of the state, although secularists would have you believe that. It is to keep the state out of the church, so that the church would be free from the clutches of political power (political power is inherently corrupt).
This is a significant point! I do believe we have turned things around in our modern way of thinking, keeping the church out of the state rather than the state out of the church. I'm not, however, certain that political power is inherently corrupt. David was a good king. Jesus is called King. There are political positions. Rather, it seems that political positions are filled up by inherently corrupt people.
America was not founded on Christian principles....It was, however, founded to protect Christian principles as maintained by the church. The Christian leaders entering politics these days are turning to the state to do what the church has failed.
I would agree that deism won the day when it comes to the writing of the Constitution. I think you're saying here that the principles of American freedom and religious liberty were put in place to allow the church to continue to be what it is without any state telling it what it must and must not do. I also agree that Dobson and the like are trying to accomplish the work of the church through the state. But must we wait for everyone in America to be converted (a highly unlikely thing) before we can overturn Roe v. Wade? What is the best plan of action?
Furthermore, since we are agreed that America was not founded as a Christian nation (at least in the late 18th century), what is the standard for governmental laws? Enlightenment principles? Good and sound reason? "The tyranny of the 51%?" By what standard does a government say, "You can only drive so fast," or "You cannot put this type of plant into a pipe and smoke it," or other such laws?
You are concerned about the battle between the Christian right and left. I think it is one in the same with the battle between liberal and conservative political philosophies.
I agree that it's the same battle, but when divided evangelicalism enters the public, political realm on this issue, and Campolo and the left begin acting the same way as Dobson and Falwell, it's a recipe for destruction. My hope (at least at this point) is not that Campolo and company will rise up like the Christian right, but that the Christian right will take a deep breath, relax, and start coming at these issues with love rather than pharisaical rage.
Your points are all very well taken and worth much consideration. I look forward to more discussion with you and others. I intend to post soon on how the principle of Jesus' Lordship as well as the question of eschatology relates to this issue. Thanks for your thoughtful input.
posted by Travis Prinzi @ 11:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home