Church-State, etc

Recently, a conservative commentator lamented the overtly religious underpinnings and expressions used to support positions concerning government and public policy. here. This set off a considerable amount of debate on a number of websites.

It's probably the case that if you were to talk to 15 Christians, you would get 15 perspectives as to how to negotiate the "church-state" terrain. My opinion, being mine, is, of course, the most subtle, nuanced, complex and insightful of any such perspectives (he said with all "modesty.")

To a great extent, I understand McDonald's frustrations. She is a person whose educational and social settings probably did not include religious vocabulary and phrasing in the course of discussion concerning public events or issues. As a manner of communication, such vocabulary probably made sense in a time in our history when the vernacular of the Bible may have been familiar to the populace on the whole, regardless of their particular beliefs (this is not an argument about the U.S. being a "Christian" nation or about how many times George Washington went to church). Today and for the past several decades, this approach adopts the language and understanding of a subculture and attempts to employ it in communication to society on the whole. In so doing, not only is there a failure to communicate, but, as in McDonald's case, a resentment is fostered.

Of course, I recognize the profoundly significant role religiously rooted movements have played in our nation's history. Also, I certainly do not begrudge my fellow citizens' right to express themselves in a manner they deem most fitting. However, in some respects, in our current cultural climate, I think this is poor theology. We share a common human nature and inhabit the same reality. Our primary method of interaction is through a shared language. Therefore, in discussing goings on within this shared reality, I should be able to speak in a manner that is accessible to its fellow inhabitants. From a theological standpoint, this is the realm of creation, which is common to all and subject to investigation through experience and reason. There are truths concerning the creation that are or should be evident to those who don't acknowledge the One who brought it into existence.

None of this is to say that God's existence is not evident through creation, or is simply a matter of "belief," in opposition to reason. As those who are not self-created, self-existent, self-sustaining beings, we are the products of a reality that precedes us. We, who are dependent and derivative, are personal, moral beings necessarily derived from a personal and moral reality, namely God.

At the same time, statements concerning God in general, such as those some consider "safe" in our public discourse, are merely religious sentiment. A general God is opaque and impenetrable. Christian proclamation states that he did not remain unreachable and distant, but that he came down. In speaking of the God who creates and commands, we are also referring to the God whose devotion to his creation extended to his coming down to become a human being.

Yet, this also does not mean that I consider beliefs concerning Jesus Christ to be merely private. From the beginning, Christians proclaimed the events concerning Jesus as public events subject to investigation. Furthermore, the Christian confession is "Jesus is Lord," meaning he is the one who reigns over all reality, which is subject to him. At the same time, the church proclaims that Jesus is the one who gave up all power and died in order to rescue and transform this fallen and broken world and we, its fallen and broken residents. Thus, those who claim and confess that Jesus is Lord and profess his salvation and renewal of our world ought only to advance these claims in the same manner Jesus brought about his salvation, without any force or manipulation, and certainly not by recourse to the coercive power of the state.

In general, I think the tensions that exist in the views I advance are best worked out in a setting where the state's capacity and functions are limited, and are not a vehicle or proxy for a vision of a moral or good society. I realize that any law will reflect a moral judgment. My point is that which we consider good should not necessarily be deemed the proper subject of legislation or government action.

If you read McDonald's piece, you noticed that she not only spoke about the role of religion in government, but she also expressed the presence of evil in the world as the basis for her disbelief in an all-powerful, all-good God - the classic "problem of evil." I hope to write about this some time soon.