Let's be clear here that we are talking about the public square. When "Christians" are more concerned about the government stand with respect to homosexual marriage and abortion (and vote on that basis) than the torture of people labelled as "enemies" by the military, than the initiation of a war on the basis of a pack of lies, than the alignment in Afghanistan with a corrupt government made up largely of warlords prior to the US lead invasion, these people may be called Christian by some definitions, but I suggest they can hardly be called followers of Jesus. Since this is not a theological paper, I will refrain from quoting much scripture, but remind us that Jesus did say that to "Love your neighbor as yourself" is equal in importance to "Love God".
Can there be any wonder that there are those who do not embrace any religion, who may be atheist, who may be leftest (I don't know), who say religion has no place in the public square, whether it be Christian or Muslim -- or any religion.
The comments below may not quite fit in here, but I have wanted to make them for some time, and do believe they have relevance.
Karl has said a number of times that "The left is concerned with compassion, the right with values." Maybe so. In the 1960s, just when I was beginning University, Joseph Fletcher (an Episcopal Priest)wrote his book on situational ethics. At that time I was fast becoming a committed member of the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Fort Garry chapter, ultimately becoming, in my fourth year, the chapter president. IVCF was an an evangelical student movement, and we took the position that Fletcher's approach was too unprincipled. It was a hot debate, and we spent a fair bit of time and energy refuting situational ethics and upholding biblical principles -- moral standards. Today I would mostly be on the opposite side. Fundamentally I now believe love, compassion, mercy and grace describe God far more than do words like standards, principle, values. And I believe we are called to be like God. The question then is, what do we call the institutions that represent us to be like?
The argument is made that by calling people to biblical standards and values, we are not calling them to our standards, but God's standards. To me that is no argument at all. We cannot call anyone to a biblical standard without interpreting the bible. Unfortunately history is rife with examples of oppressive interpretations of the bible. There is no such thing as an objective call to biblical faithfulness -- it is always a call to my interpretation of biblical faithfulness. To a significant extent it was this insight that lead to the emergence of anabaptism. It was the Catholics of that time who said that the ultimate authority on biblical interpretation was the pope. Anabaptists said no. Every person needs to interpret the bible for himself. And they went to their death holding onto that belief. So I share my interpretation with you because I feel it brings me closer to God.
At my funeral, I would rather that people say "He was compassionate", than that they say "he lived by his principles." Both, a compassionate person as well as a principled person will make mistakes -- the mistakes will result in unintended consequences. In the end, I think the person of compassion will regret fewer actions than the person of principle.
Today is Monday. Yesterday in our adult Sunday School Class we continued our study of the book of Colossians. We look in particular at Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.We noted in particular that the injunction is not addressed to individuals, rather to the church. So the application is: what do my actions contribute to the church becoming that. I came home, and it so happens I read my most recent e-mail from Sojourners http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.current_issue, and followed a link to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593123,00.html. Need I say more? This is an honest question!
I would highly recommend you book mark http://www.gregboyd.org/. I think he deals admirably with the questions this raises. He has a weekly podcast which is his 45 minute sermon to his church. I listen to that regularly (when I ride my bike), and find it very encouraging. But I'm sure he also offends people.
If I have missed the mark here in what you mean by values, Karl, sorry. Restate, and it may turn out I agree with you.
So many points made in this i disagree with, but i want to try to keep this focused. First, i want to first provide clarity on this issue of the left guided by compassion, and the right by standards.
ReplyDeleteMy point on compassion vs standards, is not that as a conservative principals are a better personal trait than compassion. My point is that compassion is a wonderful personal trait - but it is a terrible value for making social policy - as it almost always leads to failure - and hence why i am firmly on the right. I think the current global financial mess is a good example of how compassion (of wanting to have everyone in the US to own a home or to generous social entitlements in most countries in the world) is not an effective guiding principal in making social policy. I fail to see the Bible teaching that a government should be the source of compassion.
I on the other hand find myself agreeing with many points. The measure of a society can be taken as to how they treat the least of them. Maybe as we age we see more gray??As to the US housing crisis - Not compassion but simple greed on the part of those lenders(along with really unsound lending practices- I could hardly believe some of the scenerios I heard) You are right though - many of those folks did not deserve(maybe wrong word ) to own a house. Out of space before I am out of words , What's with that? Now again I won't be understood
ReplyDeleteAs a person on the right, i certainly care how society treats people. However, i care about results as well, not just sentiment. I really wonder if intentions matter more than results to people on the left. The mandatory requirement the government had to force banks to lend to those that could not afford to pay it back, has in reality hurt the rich and poor. This is undeniable, and simply understood, that forcing banks to lend to those that cant pay it back will obviously fail. A simple sentiment of compassion, with not enough understanding of economics and human nature is the failure of most policies of the left. Greed is a trait all humans need to battle, it is a problem in all economic systems.
ReplyDeleteSorry I have not commentated lately. Require a break, I actually dreamt recently that we plus old school classmates and work colleagues of mine were in a classroom discussing these issues, though it was stimulating I was mentally drained when I woke up.
ReplyDeleteI am reading and enjoying the discussion and glad to see Little Chief contribute too, nice to have additional input.
Karl thanks for the WSJ article on Goldman/SEC but since not a subsriber I could not read it, too bad.
I listened to 23.5. Greg Boyd sermon while ironing and I did read Sojourner writeup.
I had a chuckle over Jim Wallis response to Glenn Beck and the ending with a click option to "tell Glenn Beck you are a social justice Christian."
Little Chief, this is the second time you have said that you have run out of room. I wonder what's going on. The rest of us all post comments much longer than yours without a problem. The box is small but it scrolls. I have had a problem with very long comments. On more than one occasion I have lost it when I 'Post Comment'. Now if I have a long comment, I save it in Word before I 'post'. If you really can't extend the length of your comments, give me a call. Maybe there is something in the controls.
ReplyDeleteCAB, I can't believe you can't get around that WSJ limit when you want to read a referenced article! I thought you were somewhat of a computer hack. I can't remember what I did, but it worked! I was looking for Karl's reference to repeat the feat, but couldn't find it. Anyway, I think what I did, is if you know the name of the article -- and you get it from the headline -- you simply google for it.
With respect to the intellectual engagement this blog requires, I agree with your dream. I, not infrequently, find myself spending too much time on the content of this blog and wondering whether this is time well spent. If my blogging (reading and writing) helps us all come closer to the truth, it is time well spent. If we simply gain greater clarity, (and perhaps become more adept at articulating our own argument) but don't change our minds about anything, how useful is that. 'Spinning our wheels' I think it is called. Mary has given up on this blog long ago for that reason.
Karl says “I fail to see the Bible teaching that a government should be the source of compassion.” Of course the government is not the source of compassion. God is. I hope you didn’t hear me saying government should be the source of compassion. But I have a huge problem with what you are implying. It was you who said that you are concerned about the erosion of Christian values in the public square? Is there a logic that says policy makers should take what the Bible has to say about abortion seriously, but consider what it has to say about compassion [and treatment of the poor, and the enemy, and . . . ] as irrelevant?
ReplyDeleteAren’t you essentially saying that Jesus’ teachings have relevance in the way I relate to my wife, my children, my neighbors next door, my neighbors throughout the city – woops, that just went a bit too far. Jesus’ teachings have no relevance to how we relate to each other in the city or in the country or internationally. I find discomfort with that dichotomy and find no basis for it in the Bible.
How does a ‘Jesus following’ policy maker express his compassion (and by extension, how do I advise or lobby him)? Colossians 3:17 “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” I don’t think the Bible allows for a dichotomy.
Having said that, I am not advocating for “faith based” policy. I am very much for research based policy.
Thought this article may be relevant to your discussion with respect to Christianity in the Public square. I found the comments perhaps more interesting than the article itself.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/stop-bashing-evangelicals-95245919.html,
Rob K.