Abnormal Interests

Note that the reasons liberal and conservative evangelicals participate in public life are all founded on some Biblical proof test or other. People where given dominion of the earth by God as made known in Gen 1:27-28. Evangelicals engage in public life because Jesus is Lord and creator as revealed in Col 1:16-17. Rom 8:19-21 tells us, according to the document, that through Jesus "all things will be brought to fullness." I have an exegetical quibble but it is not relevant here. In following paragraphs we learn that Christians must ". . . help government live up to its divine mandate to render justice" based on Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17. (Another exegetical quibble or two that will wait.) And so, on and on.

A few specify examples. On pease:

The peaceful settling of disputes is a gift of common grace. We urge governments to pursue thoroughly nonviolent paths to peace before resorting to military force. We believe that if governments are going to use military force, they must use it in the service of peace and not merely in their national interest. Military force must be guided by the classical just-war principles, which are designed to restrain violence by establishing the right conditions for and right conduct in fighting a war. In an age of nuclear and biological terrorism, such principles are more important than ever.

Why?

Jesus and the prophets looked forward to the time when God’s reign would bring about just and peaceful societies in which people would enjoy the fruits of their labor without interference from foreign oppressors or unjust rulers.

I think Iagree with their conclusion with regard to war and peace. But they argue from dogma. And there is not the slightest attempt to define "classical just war principles." Is the current war in Iraq a "just war" by their lights? You couldn't figure it out from this. The Bible just doesn't say, so neither do they.

We must be good stewards of the environment. Why? Because Rom. 8:18-23 supports such a position. Another quibble that need not wait. I think Gen. 1:28, "Be fruitful and multiple, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth," trumps Rom. 8:18-23, at least as far as this world is concerned.

They oppose

Many social evils—such as alcohol, drug, gambling, or credit-card abuse, pornography, sexual libertinism, spousal or child sexual abuse, easy divorce, abortion on demand (which) represent the abandonment of responsibility or the violation of trust by family members, and they seriously impair the ability of family members to function in society. [Emphasis and parenthetical added]

They also oppose same sex mariage. Why do they oppose all of these?

From Genesis onward, the Bible tells us that the family is central to God’s vision for human society. God has revealed himself to us in the language of family, adopting us as his children (Rom. 8:23, Gal. 4:5) and teaching us by the Holy Spirit to call him Abba Father (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6). Marriage, which is a lifetime relationship between one man and one woman, is the predominant biblical icon of God’s relationship with his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:20, 31:32; Ezek. 16:32; Eph. 5:23, 31-32). In turn, family life reveals something to us about God, as human families mirror, however faintly, the inner life of the Trinity.

Again, they oppose them for dogmatic reasons.

The document does not mention evolution. But what are the implications of the highlighted portion of this statement.

Good family life is so important to healthy human functioning that we oppose government efforts to trespass on its territory: whether by encroaching on parental responsibilities to educate their children, by treating other kinds of households as the family’s social and legal equivalent, or by creating economic disincentives to marriage.

I'm not sure, but I am sure that the phrase after the highlighted one is another swing at same sex marriages.

I have two major problems with this document. First, it lumps unrelated ethical and occasional non-ethical concerns together so that the important issues are blurred. There are lists of things to condemn like: "abortion, euthanasia, and unethical human experimentation." Everyone is against "unethical human experimentation" by definition. How does that relate to abortion and euthanasia?

How about the list quoted further above? " . . . social evils—such as alcohol, drug, gambling, or credit-card abuse, pornography, sexual libertinism, spousal or child sexual abuse, easy divorce, abortion on demand . . ." Is child sexual abuse really on a par with alcohol use? Or even alcohol abuse? I don't think so.

These lists place ethical issues about which there is no reasonable dispute on the same plane as issues that can and are be reasonably debated. They also tend to universalize issues that need to be judged on a case to case basis: abortion and euthanasia for example.

Because of this, the document has the effect of wrapping a combination of difficult ethical issues and non ethical issues in a package of indisputability with an apparent practical judgment bow. This document clearly tries to make ethically unacceptable conclusions acceptable by association.

Second, dogma rather than reason is the ethic of the document. Because of the extensive use of Biblical proof texts it seems, at first reading, to propound an ethic based on authority: the authority of the Bible according to the Christian canon. A choice of this particular authority is, of course, a dogmatic decision itself. But the use of the Bible is highly selective. Note that the authors belive they must augment the Bible,

From the teachings of the Bible and our experience of salvation, we Christians bring a unique vision to our participation in the political order and a conviction that changed people and transformed communities are possible. In the power of the Holy Spirit, we are compelled outward in service to God and neighbor.

Not only is the Bible required but so is "experience of salvation" and the Holy Spirit; authority, personal experience and the ethereal are a new trinity for ethical political behavior.

Having said this the document refers the reader back to the Bible.

Every normative vision has some understanding of persons, creation, history, justice, life, family, and peace. As Christians committed to the full authority of Scripture, our normative vision must flow from the Bible and from the moral order that God has embedded in his creation.

There is more than a touch of natural theology in this statement. If it isn't in the Bible, it is in the "moral order." Again this is dogma. And then comes the humor.

Nevertheless, many contemporary political decisions—whether about environmental science, HIV/AIDS, or international trade—deal with complex sociological or technological issues not discussed explicitly in the Bible. As Christians engaged in public policy, we must do detailed social, economic, historical, jurisprudential, and political analysis if we are to understand our society and wisely apply our normative vision to political questions. Only if we deepen our Christian vision and also study our contemporary world can we engage in politics faithfully and wisely.

Even for evangelicals, sometimes the Bible is just not enough. What they don't say, is that sometimes the Bible is also too much. While not made explicate, the authors are clearly against gay sexual contact. Maybe they are explicit if "sexual libertinism" means gay sex. In any case, they seem not to support Lev 12:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them (RSV)." Or perhaps only the "liberal" evangelicals don't support this. At least, it is not mentioned in the document. This passage would be very hard to avoid if one was completely committed to the authority of the Bible. If fact, I could not find a single reference to Leviticus. Yet, Leviticus has by far the most explicate listing of "proper" moral behavior. It is also a bit of an embarrassment to many Christians. Let's just not mention it. On the subject of peace, the documents does not mention that much of the Bible seems to like wars. It even mandates wholesale slaughter in certain cases. In other cases, God uses war as a punishment. But this is embarrassing too, so let's not dwell on it.

This should be more than enough to demonstrate that the document rests on sectarian dogma. Sectarian dogma is, by definition, not universal. And I believe that a universal ethical philosophy is possible, desirable and that it exists. In fact, it exists in a few different forms, most of which lead to very similar ethical decisions. For the record, I am what some would call a neo-Kantian. But, how we arrive at a universal, ethical position that can be taught I will leave to another post.

I do have a postscript or, better, an appendix to this post having to do with the document's two strange discussions of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is directed only at government and restrains its power. Thus, for example, the clause was never intended to shield individuals from exposure to the religious views of nongovernmental speakers. Exemptions from regulations or tax burdens do not violate the Establishment Clause, for government does not establish religion by leaving it alone. When government assists nongovernmental organizations as part of an evenhanded educational, social service, or health care program, religious organizations receiving such aid do not become “state actors” with constitutional duties. Courts should respect church autonomy in matters relating to doctrine, polity, the application of its governing documents, church discipline, clergy and staff employment practices, and other matters within the province of the church (Acts 18:12-17)."

We affirm the principles of religious freedom and liberty of conscience, which are both historically and logically at the foundation of the American experiment. They are properly called the First Freedom and are now vested in the First Amendment. The First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, association, and religion provide the political space in which we can carry out our differing responsibilities.

The first paragraph above refers to the Establishment Clause and the second to the Free Exercise Clause, which they then lump with other rights provided for in the First Amendment. There are two things that strike me. The concern about "the (establishment) clause was never intended to shield individuals from exposure to the religious views of nongovernmental speakers." This is completely covered by the free Exercise Clause and the courts have universally treated them as separate concerns. Note, for example, Lamb's Chapel vs. Center Moriches School District, where the U.S. Supreme Court granted relieve to Lamb's Chapel to use a local school building for after-school Bible and religion classes for children. An interesting side note, the ACLU, that godless creation of the devil, led the charge on behalf of the church and its wasn't the first time nor the last.

Second, I think the document is dead wrong about "exemptions from regulations or tax burdens." This is a lingering deficiency in current law that needs fixing. The courts should not tolerate any special considerations beyond those given in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. These exemptions amount in many cases to a government establishment of religious institutions to the detriment of secular institutions. I will have to wait a while for this wrong to be mad right.