A Christian Shares His Thoughts On Church And State
by tgirschJune 28th, 2007
These are pictures I took of the statue of Charlemagne outside Notre Dame Cathedral in France, and of the Cologne Cathedral in Germany. You may recall that Charlemagne was crowned Imperator Romanorum by Pope Leo III in 799, marking the rise of “Christendom” — the notion of a revitalized Roman Empire united under the leadership of the Church, with the Church legitimating the state. This unhealthly [sic] synthesis of church and state often led to terrible oppression, violence and wars carried out in Jesus’ name. I think the point of view in my Charlemagne statute photo illustrates this well — the armed charger bearing the Emperor jumping out in front of the church.
The Cologne Cathedral, started in 1248, is so enormous, and so ornate, so Gothic, that it generates a tangible feeling of heaviness. It’s a beautiful building, but beautiful in a “terrible” way. At some level, the terror of that beauty can serve as a reminder, I think, of what power can do when mixed with faith. In the presence of the Cologne Cathedral, there is no doubt that this was intended as an assertion of the Church’s authority over every sphere of life. It’s interesting that the Cathedral was unfinished in the middle ages, and was only finished by Prussian romantic nationalists in the 1800’s. The Prussians knew that this masive [sic] edifice could serve as a symbol of power and pride. That Prussian pride, and the desire for power it produced, was one of the streams that fed the grisly death mills of the two world wars.
We who call ourselves “the Church” would do well today, I believe, to remember what happens when we try to assert political power in Jesus’ name.
As they say, read the whole thing.
Categories: Church & State, Politics, Religion |
As I’ve said before, Christians should stay out of politics and not try to influence their society. After all, we can trust the atheists and liberals to do what is in the best interests of Christians. Certainly, Christians should not let their beliefs affect the way they live or vote. Keep quiet about what you think is right.
It is a little daft to assume that religious and metaphysical assumptions don’t play a role in our participation in politics. If we cared about precision, our complaints would be levied against the role biblicism and fundamentalism play in the participation of some conservative Christians.
I forgot to distinguish myself from Dan M. Sorry.
” I forgot to distinguish myself from Dan M. Sorry.”
You certainly want to do that.
Fred and Dan — please read the whole post, and note also my quote from Stassen & Gushee’s Kingdom Ethics. No one — at least not me — is suggesting a Christian’s faith is a “private” matter with no bearing on policy or politics. The question is what kind of bearing does it have: one of power and violence, or one of sacrifice and peace?
“The question is what kind of bearing does it have: one of power and violence, or one of sacrifice and peace?”
You can ask that question of any politician? If I have the choice, I’m going to want someone with my philosophies to be in power. Nothing unusual about that.
David:
My comment was directed at what appears to be the general assumption of tgirsch, KTK, and Kevin (sorry if I’m wrong, Kevin): that our metaphysical assumptions, specifically dogmatically religious ones, are entirely a private matter and shouldn’t inform our public life. I don’t see how that is possible.
Fred, again, you need to read the whole post. I’d suggest reading Stassen and Gushee as well. No one suggests Christians shouldn’t be involved in supporting political candidates or in lobbying for specific pulic policies.
Rather, it is a broader question about what kinds of policies genuinely are “Christian” — i.e., are consistent with what Jesus expects of us in the world. It’s also a broader question about what we ought to expect of politics in this world.
Personally, I’m concerned that much of the rhetoric and policies promoted today in the name of Christ is more of an effort to establish some kind of selfish, temporal power than to promote the Kindgom of God. It’s difficult to find any voices in the contemporary scene that are on par with, say, Bonhoeffer or ML King.
Dopderdeck wrote: “Rather, it is a broader question about what kinds of policies genuinely are “Christian” — i.e., are consistent with what Jesus expects of us in the world.
And of who makes that determination, as Christ’s opinion of present day secular politics is not transparent to us. Interestingly, the above article points to a time when the divisions of the main church had become increasingly intractable; Constantinople had been the seat of Christendom and successor to Rome for centuries and the West pushing to become more relevant. The East and West had conflicting interests, both claimed to have Christ on their side, and despite claims to the contrary, both were more concerned with power, influence and money than spiritual interests. In partisan, secular politics, it’s probably best not to presume one speaks for Christ until He makes His wishes known.
Dan G:
While you’re right in assuming that I’m inherently mistrustful of religion (especially organized religion), even I don’t go so far as to argue that one’s religious beliefs should be completely divorced from their policy views and public life. As long as those beliefs are tempered by a thorough understanding that there are many who don’t agree, and that civil society requires that we get along with those disagreeing voices, even if we never agree with them, I have no quarrel.
As it turns out, people of many different faiths and people of no faith generally agree about a whole lot more than they disagree about. (And interestingly, most of what I disagree with David about turns out to be economic, rather than religious, in nature.)
Of course your faith (and, in a broader sense, your beliefs) will profoundly influence your policy views. But when you stop being able to get along with other groups, you get into trouble. When you take it further, and start using the power of the state as a bully pulpit to impose your religious views to the marginalization and exclusion of others, you go too far (and, if history teaches us anything, is as harmful to the church in the long run as it is to the state).
Similarly, and I think this is even more what David is warning against, sometimes church leaders succumb to the temptation to use their influence with their followers to pressure them to do things for primarily or even purely political reasons, all the while couching it in the language of religion. Again, this demeans the religion, and were I a devout believer, I’d find this type of behavior (as often exhibited by Dobson and Robertson) extremely offensive.
“as often exhibited by Dobson”
Nonsense!
“My comment was directed at what appears to be the general assumption of tgirsch, KTK, and Kevin (sorry if I’m wrong, Kevin): that our metaphysical assumptions, specifically dogmatically religious ones, are entirely a private matter and shouldn’t inform our public life. I don’t see how that is possible.”
Well, I have a distrust of all powerful institutions (yes, including the government) but my problem with people ike Dobson is that they want to impose their morality by law, despite the fact that there is no legitimate government interest in those laws.
There is no reason, aside from religious opinion, that gays should not have marriage rights. There is no reason, considering tis well documented failure, aside form religious beliefs, that schools should be forced to teach abstinence only sex education. There is a good reason for the government to prevent theft and murder, so even if those are based in religious morality, they make sense from the standpoint of a government action.
“want to impose their morality by law,”
Every law is an imposition of morality by law.
Fred:
Every law is an imposition of morality by law.
That’s asinine. It’s illegal to jaywalk, but that doesn’t mean it’s immoral.
One could find a contrived moral component to jaywalking, connecting it (vaguely) to respect for the space and rights of others, to forsaking instant gratification in manners that may harm others or oneself, and so forth.
There is, of course, a nasty piece of circular (faulty) logic that many will give you. Some will say that respecting law and order is moral in and of itself. Of course, that presumes the law and order itself to be moral.
This brings into question even the most basic moral principles, even thou shalt not kill. Well, if somebody was given the chance to kill Hitler early on, and that person didn’t, was that a moral decision?
In a sense it is easier to define immorality than morality.
In the words of Ward Churchill, the only that is moral is that which opposed what is immoral.
Depend on what you mean by “moral.” Look it up. “Moral” has to do with right and wrong. It is not an exclusively religious word. Society decides that jaywalking is wrong so a law is made against it. It has nothing to do with any religion.
Do you ever think before you write?
It’s also immoral to be a disagreeable asshole, but that doesn’t seem to stop you from being unpleasant, Fred.
“Depend on what you mean by “moral.” Look it up. “Moral” has to do with right and wrong. It is not an exclusively religious word. Society decides that jaywalking is wrong so a law is made against it. It has nothing to do with any religion.”
I’m sorry, were you under the impression that you clarified anything?
Okay, so substitute right and wrong for moral and immoral. How does the discussion change? Is such a thing as inherent rightness or wrongness? No, there’s not. That is the basis of the age-old steal a loaf of bread to feed your family question, and the like.
People have to derive a sense of right and wrong, or morality and immorality for themselves. Religion’s place in the discussion is that as tenets of a faith, a religion often offers you guidelines for inherent rights and wrongs.
If you dogmatically subscribe to thou shat not kill, you don’t have to face the issue of whether or not killing Hitler would have been moral. It is made explicit that killing under no circumstance is acceptable, right, or moral.
To people who are religious, the words “right” and “wrong” embody some sort of objective reality. To those who aren’t, they are no more objective than moral and immoral, or short and tall. There is no definitive, objective, split between the two, it is all contextual, unlike say… spit or swallow - both of which would be immoral, I guess.
“If you dogmatically subscribe to thou shat not kill”
I subscribe to the “thou shalt not murder.”
“I’m sorry, were you under the impression that you clarified anything?”
I’m sorry, were you under the impression that your post made any sense?
“If you dogmatically subscribe to thou shat not kill”
I subscribe to the “thou shalt not murder.”
Would you mind explaining the difference as you see it? And, particularly where that distinction is noted in the tenets of your faith.
As for making sense, you said that moral “has to do with right and wrong.” I said that right and wrong are no more concrete measuring sticks than moral and immoral.
Somebody questioned the meaning of big, and you said that being big is defined by being large… Your defining of “moral” neglected the complicated issues of context. My point is that one of the attractive qualities of religion, to some, is that by accepting it, many very tough questions are answered for you.
“Would you mind explaining the difference as you see it?”
This is a first. I don’t think I’ve ever met a supposedly educated person who didn’t know that not all killing is murder.
I said, “as you personally define it.” I don’t want to hear the legal distinction.
My question to you was not silly, or simple (which is probably the real reason you avoided answering it and just acted like a smart-ass instead).
How does your faith define the distinction. Under what circumstance is ending somebody else’s life, premeditated or not, intentional or not, mercy killing or not accepted by your faith.
When I hear people of faith claiming that abortion and assisted suicide are murder, I think it is reasonable for me to ask how you reconcile a distinction between killing and murder with core tenets of your faith.
That’s the hard part of the question, the part that you ignored.
I know how I distinguish it, I know how the court does. I want to know YOUR distinctions, and then Jesus’s. Specifically, I want to know how you know that Jesus understands and approves of the distinctions YOU make.
Or, you could just insult me again. It’s up to you.
That’s the hard part of the question, the part that you ignored.
I haven’t ignored anything. If I thought you really had a question worth answering I would.
“Or, you could just insult me again. It’s up to you.”
Okay, I will. You are lacking in sincerity, and are intellectually dishonest in posing a question that does not truly puzzle you.
Digg,
I admire your effort to have an intelligent conversation with Fred. I hope you realize it is in vain because Fred doesn’t particularly care to be civil or respectful of anyone who doesn’t espouse his beliefs or views of life.
“Fred doesn’t particularly care to be civil or respectful of anyone who doesn’t espouse his beliefs or views of life.”
Physician, heal thyself. Go back and read your own posts if you want to read hate and bigotry. You certainly are in no position to lecture anyone about civility and respect for those with whom you disagree.
I just can’t help but laugh. You act like you don’t deserve any of the mockery you receive here. You foster all the contentious relationships you have here.
For the record, the only time I post a comment is when the topic is religion. I don’t pretend to know politics well enough to speak authoritatively on the matter. And I have been quite civil in my discourse.
‘And I have been quite civil in my discourse.’
I just can’t help by laugh.
Make that “but.”
Well, when we judge others, we are almost always communicating more strongly about our own opinions and insecurities than we are about the subject of our comments.
So, it does not bother me one bit if Fred continues to insult me.
He thinks the question is simple, and that it is intellectually dishonest of me to ask for clarification about it.
Yes, it is quite simple when you believe that complex questions can be answered unilaterally, without regard for any contextual or social dynamic, by an invisible, omniscient man in the sky.
If Fred wants to advertise his intellectual myopia by couching his inability to understand how fundamental differences in belief structures lead certain questions to be more or less open-ended, in insults and accusations of lying, then that’s fine with me.
Less work for me…
The irony is, I’m asking him a question about himself, how he reconciles his own views on a differentiation between murder and killing with his faith. He doesn’t understand how I can be confused. So, he is suggesting that he is a simple enough being that I should understand his deeper cognitive processes on the basis of about a month’s worth of combative exchanges on an internet message board.
BTW, anybody else think “Fred” is really an alternate internet identity that all three L.L. contributors have access to, used as a provocateur to increase passion, dissent, and traffic? I can’t be the first person to suggest this…
“BTW, anybody else think “Fred” is really an alternate internet identity that all three L.L. contributors have access to, used as a provocateur to increase passion, dissent, and traffic?”
Not a bad idea. Liberal blogs which are full of lies need counter-balances. Without responses to me, this blog would be duller than a Gore speech on global warming.
… or a conservative’s wit.
You have to have a sense of humor in order to understand wit. Liberals have none. They are too full of hate.
I like how in this conversation, Fred has still not actually answered the question of what makes a killing a murder, while continuing to insuld Dig for… um, not reading his mind?
“Dan M. Says:
July 4th, 2007
I like how in this conversation, Fred has still not actually answered the question of what makes a killing a murder, while continuing to insuld Dig for… um, not reading his mind?”
I’m glad you like it. If I thought it was a serious question I would give a serious answer.
Ah, right, cuz we’re all lying about everything. We don’t actually think you’re opinions are evil. We know they’re pure as the driven snow, and all work for Satan. What?
“Ah, right, cuz we’re all lying about everything. We don’t actually think you’re opinions are evil. We know they’re pure as the driven snow, and all work for Satan. What?”
Man, what are you talking about? Your post made no sense in the context of the discussion.
Maybe you can give me your definition of what is murder and what is not since the subject is so important to you. Then I can let you know if I disagree with you.
For the last time, the question isn’t that fucking simple.
Where do you differentiate? that is simple, I know. But that is the background.
Where does Jesus differentiate? How does he make his distinctions clear, and where?
Are your differentiations the same as the ones Jesus makes? If not, how do you reconcile those differences and still consider yourself a Christian?
Or even more simply, give me some examples of situations in which Jesus condones you being the direct agent of the expiration of another’s life. Isn’t it blaspheme, at its core, no matter the circumstances?
And yes, I’m willing to let you think that I am stupid in order to get you to answer. Here, Fred - I am stupid. Now, can you answer the question, please.
Fred, just so you know:
The word “ratsakh” in Hebrew covers death caused by accident and/or negligence. It is better translated as a general “kill.” The Hebrew word “harag” in the piel stem is generally the word for murder.
Basically, this means your distinction is moot and you aren’t being true to the text.
But why listen to someone who knows Hebrew, right?
To clarify:
The commandment in Hebrew is: lo tiratsakh, or better translated “you shall not kill (intentionally or unintentionally).”
Or even in self defense, correct?
I don’t know who is right, but at least one Hebrew Hebrew scholar disagrees with you. Look at:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html
Try these articles:
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/jv-isthesixth.html
http://www.beth-elsa.org/be_s0128.htm
I don’t know if I should believe these Jewish experts or not. That’s a tough one. Tell me why they are wrong.
As much as it pains me to agree with Fred on anything, the Rabbi I consulted on this matter some years back said that a translation of “not murder” was, in context, more accurate than a general “not kill” translation. Indeed, the old testament is chock full of examples when we’re required to kill people. Sometimes entire races, with God’s blessing.
Using my Stuttegart Edition of the Hebrew Bible, I did a brief philological survey of the differnt verbs of “to kill.” When the intent is to kill (something akin to first or second degree murder) the qatal (normal indicative) or piel (emphatic indicative) form of the verb “harag” is used; when it refers to a general killing, intentional or non-intentional (see the laws in Numbers and Deuteronomy) the verb “ratsakh” is used.
tgirsch, the problem I have with your Rabbi friend is that any form of killing interrupts the intended “shalom” of God’s creation.
What about the “playing God” aspect of killing, would there be an inherent contradiction in condoning killing of any sort?
See, Fred. I really don’t know. I’m not very educated about the finer nuances of religion. I was being genuine in my questions. I can see that there was an accusatory tone in some of my posts, but that was only because my original question was met with mockery. I am truly interested in how these distinctions are discerned and interpreted. Obviously, it is not THAT simple, since there is apparent disagreement among religious scholars.
So what about the “blaspheme” of killing under any circumstances, does that not trump the context of the killing? Is it still a sin, but a less serious one? It the burden of forgiveness lesser? I’m just curious as to how the differences in context manifest themselves in our perception of judgment.
There has been a lot of discussion about what is law, or morality, or Christianity, or what kind of Christianity is appropriate in government. But the real difference between America and many other countries is that our government was founded by men who wanted reason to rule the government, with lots of checks and balances directly from the people. It’s about NOT definining any absolute morality or any other kind of external force to conform, EXCEPT where the state can make a compelling, reasoned argument for the safety of others by doing so. It’s called liberty. Liberty to think, feel, believe, procreate, imbibe, complain, create, love, or anything else to your heart’s desire, as long as you don’t impinge physically, or financially on anyone else, or at least no more than any other citizen of the state already does.
I am sick of republic efforts to punish those who aren’t observant of their Christian morals, while they themselves break every moral rule in the book, regularly. IT’s hypocrisy of the sort that Christ warned against.