Obama and Dobson are both wrong
A little over two years ago, Barak Obama gave a speech on the relationship between religion and politics. To say that it was a flawed performance would be to put it mildly. Nevertheless, it was a sincere attempt by Mr. Obama- a Christian, though a member of a church body so liberal as to be only marginally so- to reach out to his more orthodox brethren. He deserves credit for that.
At the time, Dr. Albert Mohler, a prominent Baptist theologian, criticized Obama's position on all the wrong grounds. Running a serious risk of falling into the Gnostic heresy, Dr. Mohler rejected Obama's reasonable argument that religiously motivated concerns need to be expressed in the public square in terms accessible to believers and unbelievers alike. The Moral Law (as distinct from the Ceremonial Law which Obama so disingenuously confuses with it in his speech)is the common property of mankind. According to the Apostle Paul, it is written on the human heart. As apologist C.S. Lewis pointed out, the laws and of even isolated and newly discovered tribes deep in the jungle or on some uncharted island disclose to any eyes prepared to see a rough analog of the Ten Commandments in their substance- along, of course, with a great many other things not necessarily compatible with Western Christian mores.
But disrespect for the gods and for sacred time, disrespect for parents and elders, adultery, murder, theft, false witness, coveting- it's hard to find a society anywhere that approves of these, whatever different ideas about religion or marriage may prevail. God instituted government, Martin Luther argued, so that the weak might be protected from the strong. It is not government's role to dispense the forgiveness of sins, but rather to be "the minister of God to execute wrath upon evildoers," as St. Paul puts it in Romans 13.
Luther called the realm of rules and laws and coercion (NOT, as is often claimed even by those who should know better, specifically of government) the "Kingdom of the Left Hand." Its mission is separate and distinct from the role of the "Kingdom of the Right Hand-" which is found only in the church, but is not to be identified with it; churches, too, have rules and governments and sometimes concern themselves with punishments and coercion. The Kingdom of the Right is a realm which has to do, not with the rules common sense and the Law written on the human heart dictate as the basis upon which human beings can get along together, but with forgiveness and uncoerced love. It is the Kingdom of the Right, and the Kingdom of the Right alone- which is specifically and exclusively Christian.
Hence, there is nothing specifically Christian about justice. And when Christians combine forces with other people of good will to advance the cause of justice, they do well to phrase their arguments in terms accessible to believer and non-believer alike. The Law being the common property of the human race, this ought not to be difficult. Yet it is to precisely this which first Dr. Mohler and now Dr. Dobson take exception.
Believers in a particular religion will always be a minority in a pluralistic culture. This is at the same time the reason why rhetoric about the possibility of theocracy is overblown (to be voted in, a theocracy would have to represent a theology endorsed by a majority of our very diverse society), and why it is simply silly to argue even for policies originating in one's religious beliefs in strictly religious terms. Why alienate people who might side with you by using language which speaks only to a few to express an idea which, when presented in religiously neutral terms, might appeal to many?
To insist that political concerns originating in Christian ethics be spoken of by Christians only in Christian terms is not simply self-defeating. It's not even that doing so alienates unbelievers who might well support that position on grounds accessible to natural reason. It seals Christian ethics off into a hermetically sealed, "pure" dimension accessible in theory only to Christians. And this, of course, is to make the very false distinction between the spiritual and the earthly into which the Gnostic heretics fell at the beginning of the Christian era.
Bob Waters does a very good job of responding to the sloppy logic and disingenuous arguments in Obama's statement here. Some of it- his equation of the dietary laws of the Old Testament with the Moral Law, for example- is so disingenous that it's hard not to laugh. But as Waters points out, Obama does deserve credit for the effort. And on the question of the basis upon which moral arguments make their way from Christian ethics into the public square, he's actually on far more solid ground than Mohler and Dobson are.
HT: Real Clear Politics
At the time, Dr. Albert Mohler, a prominent Baptist theologian, criticized Obama's position on all the wrong grounds. Running a serious risk of falling into the Gnostic heresy, Dr. Mohler rejected Obama's reasonable argument that religiously motivated concerns need to be expressed in the public square in terms accessible to believers and unbelievers alike. The Moral Law (as distinct from the Ceremonial Law which Obama so disingenuously confuses with it in his speech)is the common property of mankind. According to the Apostle Paul, it is written on the human heart. As apologist C.S. Lewis pointed out, the laws and of even isolated and newly discovered tribes deep in the jungle or on some uncharted island disclose to any eyes prepared to see a rough analog of the Ten Commandments in their substance- along, of course, with a great many other things not necessarily compatible with Western Christian mores.
But disrespect for the gods and for sacred time, disrespect for parents and elders, adultery, murder, theft, false witness, coveting- it's hard to find a society anywhere that approves of these, whatever different ideas about religion or marriage may prevail. God instituted government, Martin Luther argued, so that the weak might be protected from the strong. It is not government's role to dispense the forgiveness of sins, but rather to be "the minister of God to execute wrath upon evildoers," as St. Paul puts it in Romans 13.
Luther called the realm of rules and laws and coercion (NOT, as is often claimed even by those who should know better, specifically of government) the "Kingdom of the Left Hand." Its mission is separate and distinct from the role of the "Kingdom of the Right Hand-" which is found only in the church, but is not to be identified with it; churches, too, have rules and governments and sometimes concern themselves with punishments and coercion. The Kingdom of the Right is a realm which has to do, not with the rules common sense and the Law written on the human heart dictate as the basis upon which human beings can get along together, but with forgiveness and uncoerced love. It is the Kingdom of the Right, and the Kingdom of the Right alone- which is specifically and exclusively Christian.
Hence, there is nothing specifically Christian about justice. And when Christians combine forces with other people of good will to advance the cause of justice, they do well to phrase their arguments in terms accessible to believer and non-believer alike. The Law being the common property of the human race, this ought not to be difficult. Yet it is to precisely this which first Dr. Mohler and now Dr. Dobson take exception.
Believers in a particular religion will always be a minority in a pluralistic culture. This is at the same time the reason why rhetoric about the possibility of theocracy is overblown (to be voted in, a theocracy would have to represent a theology endorsed by a majority of our very diverse society), and why it is simply silly to argue even for policies originating in one's religious beliefs in strictly religious terms. Why alienate people who might side with you by using language which speaks only to a few to express an idea which, when presented in religiously neutral terms, might appeal to many?
To insist that political concerns originating in Christian ethics be spoken of by Christians only in Christian terms is not simply self-defeating. It's not even that doing so alienates unbelievers who might well support that position on grounds accessible to natural reason. It seals Christian ethics off into a hermetically sealed, "pure" dimension accessible in theory only to Christians. And this, of course, is to make the very false distinction between the spiritual and the earthly into which the Gnostic heretics fell at the beginning of the Christian era.
Bob Waters does a very good job of responding to the sloppy logic and disingenuous arguments in Obama's statement here. Some of it- his equation of the dietary laws of the Old Testament with the Moral Law, for example- is so disingenous that it's hard not to laugh. But as Waters points out, Obama does deserve credit for the effort. And on the question of the basis upon which moral arguments make their way from Christian ethics into the public square, he's actually on far more solid ground than Mohler and Dobson are.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments