I told Cliff I would post this stuff from Riverside Church.
?At no time in the nation?s history has our witness been more urgently needed than it is now. The year 2004 is a critical one for our congregation to come together and create a collective witness to reconnect America with its moral, spiritual, and democratic values."
-Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes Jr., Senior Minister
(Here is an interesting Moyers interview.)
P R O P H E T I C -- J U S T I C E -- P R I N C I P L E S
A set of public policy guidelines inspired by Dr. James A. Forbes' sermon - " The Plumbline Principles " - November 2003
Does or Is the policy :
1. Represent the common good of society rather than the interest of an elite few?
2. Based on a true analysis and does it disclose its true intention? How likely is the outcome to achieve its proposed purpose?
3. Hold the prospect of reducing the polarization and fragmentation of the society due to race, religion, class, gender, sexual orientation or national origin?
4. Have the capacity to be good news for the poor? Does it reverse the trend toward widening the gap between rich and poor?
5. Good for children, the elderly, and the disadvantaged? Does it show sensitivity to the spirit of the golden rule?
6. Refrain from the arrogant assumption that the powerful have the right to ignore the interests and subsistence needs of the less advantaged segment of the society?
7. Provide for free press, free discussion, and the expansion of dissent along with fair and just methods of participation in the democratic process?
8. Encourage respect for persons and nations other than our own? Does it respect the right of self-determination of other nation-states?
9. Based on commitment to a global vision of cooperation and mutuality of respect rather than relying on unilateral military actions for empire-building and domination strategies? Does it use diplomacy as a valued instrument of statecraft in resolving international conflicts?
10. Supportive of strong measures to insure ecological responsibility and sustainability?
Posted by tripp at May 26, 2004 08:54 AMI hate to be a killjoy, but I feel constrained to point out that it is no part of the Church's job to 'come together and create a collective witness to reconnect America with its moral, spiritual, and democratic values.' It doesn't matter how 'progressive' or 'conservative' those 'moral, spiritual, and democratic values' happen to be, either. It's simple - to preach that is to preach nothing but Law, Law, Law, and is really rather utopian.
Posted by: Thomas at May 26, 2004 10:25 AMI agree with Thomas.
For #1: The disagreement over what constitutes the "good" of society can only be answered in terms of first principles. Can you imagine the Christian martyrs agreeing with Neronian Rome about what constitutes the good of society? And don't even get going on the fact that modern day Christians can't agree.
For #2: This ain't Christian uniquely. It's just good ol' common sense. And it doesn't answer the question as to whether the purpose is Christian.
For #3: Problem: Jesus came to bring a sword and to divide families along Kingdom lines.
For #'s 4-6: Sure, okay.
For #7: Good for democratic government, but not necessitated by the Gospel.
For #8: The Gospel doesn't speak to other nation-states. Indeed, Christ in his Advent will overthrow all human government.
For #9: Ditto #8, and that Scripture has nothing to say about the practicalities of international governance.
For #10: Awww, forget it, it's not worth it.
As Thomas noted, this is pretty good utopia-speak, but utopia is a pernicious heresy, and modern day mailine Christianity is deeply infected with.
(There. Did I fulfill your expectations? Didn't want you to think I'd changed my pugnacious curmudgeonly self whilst thou wast thither.)
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 26, 2004 11:24 AMGood points, all. But I think that they may be a little reactive. Is Christianity utopian in its fullness? Maybe not, but utopianism flows in its veins.
Matthew 5?
When Jesus* saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying:I perceive that to be fairly utopian to be certain. Utopianism is as easily gleaned from the scriptures as it is read into it. Jerusalem is the city of God, the city of peace. Revelation proclaims Zion, the city where God is King. This is the promise of Christ, that this Kingdom is coming and it is here.
3 ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 ‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5 ‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6 ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
7 ‘Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
8 ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9 ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
10 ‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 ‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely* on my account. 12Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Why would voting Christians not lobby for change that would reveal that vision? It would seem consistant with some of the anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and general pacifist stuff floating about. I know that you two do not buy into some of the above, but certaily an anti-abortion stance is as utopian as any other.
Regardig #8, Cliff...read the psalms again.
Posted by: Tripp at May 26, 2004 11:48 AM"Reactive"?! Oh, my argument is mortally wounded! Help! Medic!
Avast, you scoundrel! Yer a commie-luvver!
(Thank God you didn't ask me why I hate my mother.)
Utopia:
Well, if you mean establishing an earthly Christian Kingdom, then, yes, utopia is a heresy.
Psalms:
You mean ones like these?
A Psalm of David. When He Fled from the Face of Abessalom His Son, in the Wilderness, 3.
O Lord, why are they multiplied that afflict me? Many rise up against me. Many say unto my soul: There is no salvation for him in his God. But Thou, O Lord, art my helper, my glory, and the lifter up of my head. I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy mountain. I laid me down and slept; I awoke, for the Lord will help me. I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people that set themselves against me round about. Arise, O Lord, save me, O my God, for Thou hast smitten all who without cause are mine enemies; the teeth of sinners hast Thou broken. Salvation is of the Lord, and Thy blessing is upon Thy people.
For David. By Jeremias, in the Captivity, 136.
By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and we wept when we remembered Sion. Upon the willows in the midst thereof did we hang our instruments. For there, they that had taken us captive asked us for words of song. And they that had led us away asked us for a hymn, saying: Sing us one of the songs of Sion. How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten. Let my tongue cleave to my throat, if I remember thee not, If I set not Jerusalem above all other, as at the head of my joy. Remember, O Lord, the sons of Edom, in the day of Jerusalem, Who said: Lay waste, lay waste to her, even to the foundations thereof. O daughter of Babylon, thou wretched one, blessed shall he be who shall reward thee wherewith thou hast rewarded us. Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock.Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 26, 2004 12:19 PM
Well, seems I'm the lone quasi-Luderan voice here, so I'll take a whack at this. I agree with much of your comment, Tripp, except to note that my emphasis wasn't so much on utopianism, although I think we can see the fruits of it all around us, but on the simple fact that all this stuff is Law, and not Gospel. Christian righteousness is not measured by obedience to commands which, truth be told, we lack the natural power to obey in the first place. Civil righteousness, the right ordering of our polity (which is not, and has never been, Christian), is of course not an indifferent matter, but let's not freight it with all sorts of transcendent surplus-value. The Church's polity, ordered to the Gospel, is inherently different from any given civil polity which must, as a matter of course, be ordered to law, and even to the use of force. So, being faithful to the Gospel in public life means accepting that our civil society will never, ever approximate the Kingdom, and that we will never, ever be pure of heart. So, for instance, I'm not quite a pacifist, and I'm also not quite convinced that there is such a thing as a 'just war theory.' Basically, I'm opposed to religion with all its pomps and works, especially when yoked to civic ideology.
Posted by: Thomas at May 26, 2004 12:40 PMCliff, I was thinking of this one and others like it.
Psalm 148
1 Praise the LORD!
Praise the LORD from the heavens;
praise him in the heights!
2 Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his host!
3 Praise him, sun and moon;
praise him, all you shining stars!
4 Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!
5 Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for he commanded and they were created.
6 He established them for ever and ever;
he fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed.*
7 Praise the LORD from the earth,
you sea monsters and all deeps,
8 fire and hail, snow and frost,
stormy wind fulfilling his command!
9 Mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars!
10 Wild animals and all cattle,
creeping things and flying birds!
11 Kings of the earth and all peoples,
princes and all rulers of the earth!
12 Young men and women alike,
old and young together!
13 Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for his name alone is exalted;
his glory is above earth and heaven.
14 He has raised up a horn for his people,
praise for all his faithful,
for the people of Israel who are close to him.
Praise the LORD!
Let's not continue the prooftexting. That will avail us nothing. Utopianism can be prooftexted out of scripture as can "non-participation." The extremes are there. That is undeniable. Where I struggle with your statements is this: Where does a Christian get off suggesting that we are to have no voice (#8?), or we should not stand up for all to have a voice. It seems to me from this and other conversations we have had, that you are willing to say that Christianity can only have a conservative voice and all so-called liberalism is simply not Christian. So, if I want to say that our school systems are racist and do not allow for the poor to have voice, then I am a liberal and not a Christian proclaimig a Jubilee, a sign of the Kingdom come. That is what I hear/read. Is this a total misunderstannding on my part?
Thomas, hmm...is it possible that through our allegiance/alliance with the polity of the church, we are compelled to speak out in the structures of the government? I wrestle with this. Sometime I think that Christians should not even vote much less seek public office. Other days I think we should march on DC with stoles in hand and baptist the entire triumvirate system because they sorely need it. I get lost in the complexities.
Posted by: Tripp at May 26, 2004 02:32 PMTripp:
Yeah, it's a total misunderstanding on your part . . . or at least a very large one. Given that in past discussions I was the one advocating Christian involvement in politics/government and you were the one arguing for a more strict separation of church/Christians and state, it's ironic that now I'm sounding like some of what you've said previously, you're now sounding like some of what I've said previously.
Here's my point in a nutshell: No government is going to ever come close to resembling the Kingdom of Heaven--my pro-Constantinian post of last week notwithstanding. So for Dr. Forbes et al to enunciate "Christian principles" (themselves debated amongs Christians) so as to somehow make the government more Christlike is, in my view, both silly and a waste of energy and resources. The key is converting people, and then making sure those disciples govern from their Christian convictions. Laws do need to be just, and laws do legislate morality, but no reform of law will ever make an earthly kingdom anything like the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world, bro.
Furthermore, here's the thing that gets me. If I and my conservative Christian friends articulate a position that says our government must reflect Christian principles, liberals (secular and religious) cry "theocracy" and calls are raised for the separation of church and state. Yet when liberals do the same thing, it's "utopia" and nobody bats an eye that religious are influencing the state.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 26, 2004 02:57 PMYou said:
If I and my conservative Christian friends articulate a position that says our government must reflect Christian principles, liberals (secular and religious) cry "theocracy" and calls are raised for the separation of church and state. Yet when liberals do the same thing, it's "utopia" and nobody bats an eye that religious are influencing the state.I agree. Now, breathe. You okay? Good. Let's continue.
Like I said to Thomas, I vacilate here. I seem to want both again. Who knew?! Heh. But it is an important conversation when we can see the polemics that become the "normative" points of argument.
Here is a question for you. I am simply not seeing the difference as of yet. You said:
So for Dr. Forbes et al to enunciate "Christian principles" (themselves debated amongs Christians) so as to somehow make the government more Christlike is, in my view, both silly and a waste of energy and resources. The key is converting people, and then making sure those disciples govern from their Christian convictions.I would say that Forbes is asking Christians to do exactly what you said. Bush is a Christian (self-proclaimed). So are the members of Forbes's church one assumes. Asking them to live by the principles that are, as you said, held by some (since no christian principle is held by all claiming Christ) Christians is just what you would wish, no?
Why then speak out against abortion. If I am to do that, then I should speak out for peace, against injustice, speak for those whose voices who have been silenced or at the least say "Thems silent folk! That's a bad thing!" I do not see the difference in the two propositions you state.
And, um, governing from a religious conviction is a theocracy. No?
Posted by: Tripp at May 26, 2004 03:07 PMTripp,
I suppose to clarify I would point to what I said in my earlier comment. The Church is not here to 'come together and create a collective witness to reconnect America with its moral, spiritual, and democratic values.' The Church is to proclaim the Gospel, and when I oppose abortion, an unjust war, or whatever, it is an implication of the Gospel, not simply a matter of America's 'moral, spiritual, and democratic values,' which are, at best ambiguous. In fact, the Gospel is, if I may be so bold, value-free. Given that for the sake of Jesus Christ all has been done for the sake of our salvation, that, in short, we have been given the Kingdom that is being prepared, so to speak, behind the scenes, we can get on with the business of ordering our civic life in a reasonable, human way, without fretting over eternal consequences or the surplus-value of our acts. So, when Christians serve in the government, say, they have to trust God's pardon in Christ and go about the work he has set them to, even if it's not pure and seems downright wrong. It's a weird sort of paradox, and rather offensive to many, but it's the only way I've found to prevent an easy association of human political life with the Kingdom of God. In short, I don't expect much out of human governments except a certain reasonable order that protects the weak and defenseless, and space for folks to go about their lives. Of course, we get precious little even of those humble goods, but, to wax quasi-utopian, I can always dream.
Posted by: Thomas at May 26, 2004 04:09 PM" I would say that Forbes is asking Christians to do exactly what you said. "
On the contrary, Dr. Forbes is not just asking his people to live by their principles, but is intending that the government (as institution vis a vis people) adopt his theological views. He is trying to convert an institution--which is (in Christian terms) impossible.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 27, 2004 06:48 AM