[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Disciple

I agree. I'll accept this definition that Politics refers to the means by which we accomplish the goals of seeking justice and helping the poor. We certainly have been admonished in the NT to do both of these. The question becomes have we been admonished to use political means to accomplish them or not? I think this is a bizarre question that stems from super spirituality (to become so spiritual that you are of no earthly good).

As Christians we are trained in the way of righteousness. We are given a model of God's Holy laws in the Bible. We are destined to rule and reign with Christ. The constitution of this country was specifically written to give us both the right and responsibility to take part in the governance. You could of course do this while making sure you didn't reference Bible verses, but that is an unfair requirement. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that we should hide our faith or beliefs while walking in this world....

Wow. This argument is so amazingly smug and lacking in Christian humilty. I'm sorry. I don't say this intellectually - I have just personally experienced - myself and GOOD christians I care for - be bulldozed by such arguments (not just in the LC). So I am going to respond with some rigor.

Here's you're argument:

1) As a Christian, I know "justice" and "righteousness" (if you don't believe me, trust me, "I was trained in the way of it").

2) I have the blueprint for justice (God's laws, memorized word-for-word. Forget that Jesus told many people who had God's laws memorized that they were "workers of lawlessness").

3) The Constitution says its okay for me to participate with my all-knowingness.

(*oh yeah, I forgot the part that I'm destined to rule and reign, so I should get some practice now)

Of course, I editorialized. But that's what you argued. Straight up.

Do you realize I could have made your exact same argument, word for word, even if Christ had never accomplished what He has and as if Christ isn't doing what He is doing???????? In what way, if at all, do you incorporate the New Covenant into your argument????????.


You set up a straw-man of the “over-spiritual do-nothing.” These people exist. Yet, not a SINGLE one has posted on this thread. NO ONE on this thread has advocated that. The only person on this thread who has advocated not bringing God into politics was me – and I wasn’t advocating doing nothing or keeping silent. Thus, I can only surmise that your post was directed at my posts. Except, my argument was nuanced and mindful of both sides of the argument. So lets be clear and talk to each other rather than to imagined arguments.

Straw men are easy to create. There is another straw-man that I could just as easily create. Here’s the recipe:

Take an extremely complicated and delicate human AND spiritual concept such as “justice,” reduce it to a few concrete issues, use some Bible verses to support your position on that narrow issue, and then commence with self-righteousess and condemnation of others. Oh, and pass laws based on that which will cover people who don’t even share your faith.

Whatever else get’s accomplished by invoking God in human politics, two things DEFINITELY get accomplished: 1) self-righteousness and 2) condemnation of others. I am not saying they were the mindful goal, but they are the only definite consequences. The other benefits – such as your un-defined notion of “justice,” or any other supposed “goal,” are debatable as to whether they were achieved. There are a number of other possible negative consequences too, though these are also debatable. But these two things are guarantees.

The same cannot be said of other kinds of advocacy or seeking justice as Christians in our society: non-political ministries to the poor, to would-be mothers, to struggling marriages, to kids who aren’t getting educated. These things don’t necessarily entail self-righteousness or condemnation. It might still be debatable how successful we are. But I trust the motives far more, since there isn’t the built-in guaranteed result of self-righteousness and condemnation.

Let’s talk about this “justice” you invoke to justify bringing God into politics. First, WHOSE Justice? God’s? If so, why aren’t we trying to pass crimes against lust, hating our brother, coveting. These are all SINS. In fact, they are more directly tied to the Ten Commandments than, say, homosexuality. And why aren’t we advocating the DEATH SENTENCE, since that is what God’s JUSTICE requires for sin? Do we really purport to be able to enact how GOD would govern?

Okay, so maybe we’re nuanced enough to realize we can’t possibly approximate GOD’S JUSTICE in human politics and wouldn’t even know where to begin (please tell me this isn’t a debatable point).

So then, whose Justice? Is it really that simple a concept that you can purport to know what it should look like? What I see, more often than not (on both sides of the political spectrum), when people invoke extremely complicated concepts like Justice as if it was a blunt instrument, is people usurping spiritual language to justify whatever the heck they want to do.


Have you ever read Michael Sandal’s book JUSTICE? He actually argues that we should have MORE moral debates in politics, not less. Because what we have now is “ideological food fights” rather than moral debate. Debate requires the humility that you might be persuaded (even if doubtful). I can recommend quite a few other books on “pursing Justice” and the political process if you’d really like to get into this, as opposed to tossing the word “JUSTICE” around as a banner above whatever it is one might be arguing. If you'd rather not getting into defining what "Justice" means, then lets leave it out of the argument.

I take moral civic engagement very seriously. And I take exercising my faith in the world toward concrete ends very seriously. That is different than bringing God’s name (and often His supposed “will”) into enacting laws for human government.

So, your point about not “over-spiritualizing” in order to justify “doing nothing,” is well taken. Except, I already knew that and evidenced it in previous posts. Do you acknowledge the dangers I flag here – of using complicated spiritual principles as blunt instruments to enact whatever human agenda one sees fit?

Pardon my intense tone. I've just seen too many people damaged by the kind of hubris at the bottom of your comments.

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I really do mean "In Love." I do hope you continue to post on this and other topics so that we can engage on numerous levels. I bark a little on this thread, in defense of humility when interacting with fellow citizens. I really am much more mushy on other topics... !!!!