conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Once again, Tripp, this leads us to the question of whether you respect the separation of church and state. Or, looked at from another direction, whether you're willing to live in a place where church and state are kept separate.

I'm sure you've heard the old saw that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Analogously, your right to live as you see fit (to practice your religion) stops at the point where it would destroy my right to live my life as I see fit (with or without religion).

So. It's really a question of pluralism, and whether you embrace that principle.

Megan, you are right. And this is why I struggle. And, usually why I limit my voting voice to the stuff that is drafted in the Constitution here. I like Justin's "provisional" take from yesterday's comments. And I like what Jorge said on his blog today.

Our legislation is poor. It does not accomplish what the Constitution set out to accomplis, I believe.

And, no, the Constitution is not a Christian document. I do have to live with that. But, there is this whole right to whine in this country. Heh.

Oh, and just to reiterate, I assume a certain plurality within the church as well. So a plurality outside of it makes sense. But I still have the responsibility to my faith and, I assume, to the country to challenge it when I feel led to do so.

But to challenge what you know is a non-faith-based country on faith-based grounds? How do you do that while respecting your fellow citizens' fundamental right to freedom, including freedom from your religion?

The place of the church is to critique the government when it does not live up to what God asks of it. It is true to say that the assumptions may be different. It is true to say that traditions ask different things of us.

Secular, sacred, Christian, Moslem, white, female, aged, youthful...There are so many reasons and ways that our opinions vary. We are, as a nation, plural. We are, as a nation, constantly debating from places that do not include one another. That is the nature of a democracy. It is why, of all forms of government, I would rather have this one. It gives us room to express ourselves...

From a faith perspective, I am required to challenge all whom God has created. I do not believe that God created some of us, but all of us. So, I speak in those terms.

I have to live in a nation that does not, as a body, hold to the same religious truths I do. That is a foregone conclusion. I assume that we all have the freedom to speak from our faith. You speak from your understanding of faith, morality, ethics, politics etc. I am not stopping you by speaking mine.

Or do you think that I am?

"The place of the church is to critique the government when it does not live up to what God asks of it."

I believe that this is wrong, given that the U.S. is a secularly governed country. "The government" has no relationship with "God." So "God" cannot ask anything of "the government." However much religious people of various stripes might want it to. (This also applies to your mission to challenge "all those that God has created." Given that not everybody chooses to believe in God as you envision God, saying "God wants you to do thus and so" would work much like your saying "Ed Blackwell wants you to do thus and so." Why should I, who do not know Ed Blackwell, care what Ed Blackwell thinks I should do?)

So by trying to bring a secular government into line with your religiously based opinion of what a good government should be, you betray the essential nature of the U.S. government as it was created. You ask it to become a religiously based government rather than a secular one.

I oppose that. Obviously. :-)

By speaking, of course you are not stopping anybody else from speaking. But you are kind of wasting the time of the people who don't believe the way you do, or wish to be governed by the principles that extend from that belief that they do not share.

So, here is the question: Am I wasting time asking people to adopt a life that does not hold violence as a good? Even a relative good?

I don't think I am.

No more than you are wasting time suggesting that a secular government (In God we trust...whatever that means...) dictate anything about my faith life.

One of the possible answers to our quandary is religious sectarianism. But then, that would not be safe for the government. Then the government would want some kind of say in what religious folk are doing.

The government constantly infringes upon our lives. It does so in the name of safety. Usually.

The Isaiah passage about the new world seems to me to be describing eternal rewards, with Is. 65:25 describing how "...The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food."

It certainly doesn't describe matters as they are now. Because of this, I think that the depravity and fallenness of humankind (which explains Va Tech completely) is still going to be retarding our every step as we try for a resurrected life.

As a Reformed kind of guy, I don't expect ever to succeed fully in resurrected living, but as a Reformed guy I also think that Christ's ongoing sanctification of us will make anyone who's "in the fold" strive for it.

But "violence is false" and "a violent life is no life at all"? Really? Humanity's in trouble, then, because we all carry the seed for violence in us. Every last person.

The Constitution recognizes this, and does the best it can by permitting arming of the law-abiding and the lawless alike, since the lawless will arm themselves regardless.

Where do you stand on the Reformed doctrine of Law versus Gospel, Tripp? (That Law constantly reminds/convicts us of our inability to be perfectly virtuous in the face of any sin's wage being death; and Gospel being that Christ's death & resurrection saves believers by substituting His perfect virtue for our soiled virtue.)

Also, re: pluralism, I've found the Lutheran doctrine of the Kingdoms of the Left and Right Hands (secular vs. religious governance, respectively, or worldly vs. spiritual "reach") to be helpful. Basically, when it comes to matters of spiritual rectitude or morality the Right Hand applies, and to matters of law or society, the Left does. There is "bleed" between the two Kingdoms, but for the most part it's a more thorough application of the "render unto Caesar" abjuration.

The practical upshot of this doctrine for purposes of discussion is that the Church has little basis, scripturally, for interfering in political realms. The United States was, for example, a lot more overtly Christian 50 or 100 years ago than it is today. While this may be inconvenient, it's hardly rare in Christian history. Christianity (and its principles) was born into persecution, then became "official" in some places, and has remained persecuted in others. There's nothing in Scripture that says it won't ever be again in places where it's enjoyed influence before.

Jesus Himself said that His kingdom was not of this earth, so trying to bring it about through establishing a Christian nation can even be seen as counter-scriptural, though (arguably) we should try to construct societies as morally as we can, when we're given the opportunity.

So I come down on Megan's side in this. Jesus himself seems to be for separation of Church and State.

"Am I wasting time asking people to adopt a life that does not hold violence as a good?"

No. But in the context of secular government, the because-God-wants-you-to argument isn't an effective way to get there.

Do you perceive that I am suggesting that a secular government dictates anything about your faith life? If so, I have misled you. I don't intend to suggest anything of the sort. I endorse the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion.

(Hi Rich, I'm not ignoring you -- I'm just not arguing with you!)

Ah...

You see, where we may differ (And where I want to challenge some Reformed stuff which does not uphold a separation of church and state...Thus it ain't Lutheranism. Like you say. For Calvin, the church was the state, thus the Elders in Geneva.) is where we want to locate salvation. Salvation does not belong to the state. There is no government that can save our souls. The separation of church and state speaks to this. Give unto Ceasar. It matters not for your salvation. And, as Paul says, though the governments have been set here by God (Romans 12/13ish), no power or principality can separate us from the love of God...which is salvation.

And the church, before it was the official religion of the Roman Empire, still refused to participate in the life of the state that was contrary to the teachings of the church. There are stories of Bishops keeping leaders from the altar because of their sins in warfare.

I believe that there is a falleness to humanity. You bet. But I believe that the church must always speak to Christ-like virtues. It is absolutely impractical. Sure. It is foolish. Jesus witnesses to the foolishness. So do the disciples and Paul. They could have chosen to live in ways that would not have resulted in their deaths. They could have given in to the state. But they did not.

Tripp, was that addressed to Rich or to me? I found it hard to follow.

Sigh...my brain is inadequate.

That was to Rich.

I am responding to eleven things all at once. I cannot get 'em organized.

Re: secular authorities dictating to the faithful...sure it does. It does not tell me much about God, per se, but it does set certain boundaries around my life, limiting my choices. Sometimes this is a good thing. But every choice that I am called to make is to reflect my relationship with God and, in that sense, who God is. So, indirectly, the government tells me what it wants me to believe about God.

What I perceive Rich to be saying is that government cannot PREVENT salvation, so it's no conflict for a Christian to participate in government insofar as necessary for good citizenship (render unto Caesar, etc.)

What I perceive you to be saying is that government cannot ACCOMPLISH salvation. To which I can only say, "Of course. That's not what government is for."

I have a hard time following the turn of your logic that leads to "the government tells me what it wants me to believe about God." As I understand our governmental structure, it is set up to leave you strictly alone to make up your mind about God. So...?

Well, the government decides where my tax money goes. That is one. It says that thirty-six cents on the dollar goes to the military. That is about thirty six cents too much. Heh. By saying that reality demands such spending is a denial of the reality of the cross...and this is where Rich and I part ways to some degree. He wants to uphold both sin and saintliness (I think.) as real. And I do. But the church, I believe, can only support what is saintly and must admonish what is fallen. It can do so in very gentle ways, generous ways. So it need not be a heavy handed response...thus room for plurality.

But where our falleness puts us at risk, well, then I think that as a Christian I have no choice but to say something to challenge the status quo.

I believe God has redeemed the world. All things have been made new...but we see it as through a glass darkly (again with that!). So, I have to draw our attention to it...I have to proclaim it.

But sweetie, to people who aren't Christians, there is no "reality of the cross"!

You could always do what some Quakers I knew in Atlanta chose to do, which was to refuse to pay taxes, either completely or in part.

But the government deciding what to do with funds is not in any way telling you what you must believe about God. The government may be *disagreeing* with you about God. But that's a completely different thing.

*sigh*

Megan, I know that. And though I will speak about the cross here, if I were to speak before, say, town council, I would find some way to demonstrate the inappropriateness of their policy in their terms.

Gun control is a serious issue in this country. We have established a system where people will beg to own handguns that do not, in reality, sustain life. They end life. Like Jorge said in his post, they do more harm than good.

Yes, people will hurt one another. People will kill one another. But must we make it easy for them to do so? It seems that we would rather hold on to our right to bear arms than find ways to make it more difficult for troubled people to kill the innocent.

In my terms...we have embraced a stumbling block, an opportunity to sin, in the name of keeping sin at bay. It is a theological oxymoron.

Or, perhaps a better and more specific way to put it:

You believe in God and have a relationship with the God you believe in, so you make decisions based on that relationship.

The secular government that runs this country does not believe in nor have a relationship with any God, so it makes decisions without such consideration.

Yes, but you assume that the officials in government are making their decision as "athiests."

The government may not hold a faith tradition, but the individuals do...well, some of 'em likely. Heh.

Gun control is a serious issue in this country? Really?? I would NEVER have known...

Later.

Oh! Rich, there is a reason why these Isaiah readings show up in the lectionary after Easter and before Christmas. They are descriptions of the fruit of the Incarnation of God and the Resurrection of Jesus. They are not about the hereafter. They are about the here and now.

Well, that's what I think and what the long held tradition of the church encourages.

Megan,

Who knew?!

F*cking everybody, including me, which is why your condescending, lecturing comment made me really angry.

Megan, it was an easy transition back to the post from yesterday, simplified for the sake of example.

That's all, Megan. I was not trying to be condescending. Thus the humor...and my assumption that you were being funny as well.

Sorry.

I appreciate your apology, and eventually I will simmer down.

Meanwhile, again, you're wrong. I don't "assume" that government officials are making decisions "as atheists." Care to defend that claim? If not, please retract it and try again.

Ah, I see.

They take God out of the equation: a-theist...They are not actively denying God, they just remove it, and their faith tradition, from the equation. At least this is how I understand how you want the government to function. No?

I do not want to bifurcate (spelling) my life in that way. I assume all things have been redeemed, and that means all things, even the seemingly insignificant.

Tripp, it's not a matter of "what I want." (And since you have no way of knowing what I want, or even if I want anything at all... we return to the folly of assumptions.)

U.S. law binds the actions of its agents. We elect some of the agents, and since those agents have free will, they make decisions based on whatever the hell they want, including or not including their individual religious opinions. We therefore out of our free will can choose to keep those agents in office or vote them out (or assassinate them or whatever).

That law that binds them is secular law. If you want to live in a society whose laws are not secular, do you truly believe you have the right to try to bring this society's laws into line with YOUR religion?

BTW, your talk of redemption tends to be elliptical, poetic and confusing -- and this from a person who deals in the artistic, elliptical and poetic as a full-time job!

So, what does it mean to "assume all things have been redeemed"? How does this belief guide you in specific political decisions? If you give me a couple of hard examples to grab onto, I might be able to keep up better.

Okay...

re: All things have been redeemed...

All people have been redeemed. This includes the person who just committed murder. So, I think the death penalty denies this reality. Our court system assumes that there is something unredeemable in a person that commits murder. I disagree. If it is unsafe to allow them into society then give a life sentence. Create a prison system that cares for the mentally ill, drug addicted and offers opportunities for healing. Send my tax money there. Please. Execution is an act of despair...a denial of redemption.

That's the best example I can come up with at the moment. Does it help?

Now, help me out. You said, "The secular government that runs this country does not believe in nor have a relationship with any God, so it makes decisions without such consideration." How is this possible if there are people within the government making decisions in the name of whatever god they worship? Or are you suggesting a difference.

Yours in all obtuse happiness...

Good thing one of us is happy. It sure ain't me.

So first -- You're right. Taken out of context, that quote makes no sense. For clarification, I refer you to my comment immediately prior to this one. "U.S. law binds..." and following.

Second -- What you believe about sin and redemption is yours, and the law appropriately defends your right to believe it. But per the fist and nose example, your belief doesn't bind me. (And since you believe things about sin and redemption that I don't even FAINTLY buy, we're unlikely ever to agree about it.)

So why should what you believe factor into the laws that DO bind me for as long as I choose to live in this secular society? Am I not supposed to be as free as you?

And you do like to call your beliefs "realities." That's a rhetorical dead end. YOU believe that all people are redeemed, and say that the death penalty "denies this reality." But it's not a reality to anybody else unless THEY TOO believe it. If they don't, as I don't -- dead end.

Your statement about reality is exactly why I think that we have to allowed to debate these things in the public sphere. We have to be able to communicate in ways that speak beyond our own communities. I will have to develop language that supports my ideas without ramming my faith down someone's throat. To do otherwise is against how I understand my faith...

So, I can use language like "right" and "hope" and others. Back to the death penalty thing...I want to believe that people are worthwhile, even those who commit horrible acts. I don't think that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Instead we should focus our efforts on issues like poverty, drug abuse, etc. Ain't nothing gonna completely fix the issue. But the death penalty just lays tragedy upon tragedy. It is poor sense. So, my faith is not binding, good sense will bind. My faith informs my understanding and that is all.

That is the way I would speak of it so that I do not ram my faith down someone's throat.

Does this make sense?

Yes, and I believe it's also a much more *effective* way to discuss such matters.

I know you do. And for public/political discourse, you are right. But my blog is a different space for me. This is where I get to work out my theology and my life, to bring the things together.

So in the future, how would you like me to respond to posts like this one where you address your interface with life outside the church? It seems like I pushed you harder than you wanted to be pushed.

You did not push me harder than I wanted...though more than I expected.

Respond to it however you will, Megan. Just keep in mind that my posts are often reflections from my theological musings, my faith. So, I will use that language. It would help me if you would filter through that intention. It might avoid unnecessary conflict.

Pushing me on pluralism and the liberal version of Christianizing the state is a good thing.

Not if it gives me ulcers and high blood pressure.

Heh. I am sorry that it bothers you so much.

You say "Heh" as if I were kidding or trying to be funny. Believe me, I'm not.

Then I am doubly sorry, Megan.

It's been fascinating reading your comments here, Megan & Tripp - obviously this is a conversation which has been ongoing for quite some time.

Bonhoeffer once said that the church has three responsibilities in regard to the state. (this will be my interpretation of his words, as I don't have a copy of the writing in question here with me at the moment) First, the church is called to critique the state in its dealings with its citizens, as a faithful participant in the life we share as members of a country. Second, the church is called to bind up the wounds of citizens harmed by the governments negligence or activity, again, as a part of its involvement in the life of the country in question. Thirdly, the church may be called upon to do more than heal wounds; at some point the church may be required to "shove a spoke in the wheel" to stop the state's malfeasance or practice of injustice.

I think the third might best be exemplified in American history by the civil rights movement. Some portions of the American church were heavily involved in what was, essentially, a state matter of human rights. The churches did so because they believed they had a gospel mandate, but the issue was never evangelism; it was justice.

Perhaps that's the difference between the two of you - one sees the church's involvement as evangelism (or one could use a more sinister word) and one sees the church's involvement as justice work.

Having butted in, I'll now butt out.

Could very well be. At the end of the day yesterday, I decided to go back and read the whole conversation, and found it much calmer than it felt at the time we were having it.

Why? Probably because the history of Christian church-driven involvement in government has been extremely harmful to women. Therefore, when further Christian church-driven involvement in government arises, my every nerve catches fire.

Scott's comments were helpful...and Megan, what you say is really helpful. I was trying to figure out what button I was pushing and was uncertain.

Why didn't you ask?

Because I was cought completely off guard. No excuse, just a reason.