I wish to associate myself with the things that crazy Christianist and madcap Huckabeean Joe Carter says in this "Open Letter to the Religious Right" (which is an address he delivered to a law school audience at Regent University). I regret to inform you that if you want to read past this excerpt, you have to figure out a way around a formatting error at Joe's site that obscures much of his text -- but that you can cut and paste it into a readable format. I'd put the whole thing in the extended entry box, but I don't want to rob him of some well-deserved page views. From his address:
One-- As a matter of political liberty I believe it is important that we support such issues as prayer in schools and public displays of religious symbols. But I can't imagine that on the Day of Judgment I'll hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant--you have faithfully fought to keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse." More likely we'll all be asked why we didn't spend more time concerned about our neighbors in Darfur or fighting the pandemic of AIDS. Perhaps we should rethink our priorities and put the first things first.Two -- Being Right doesn't mean we are always right. I know we claim we understand that but it would probably help if we acted like we believed it as well.
Three -- We have ideological enemies (such as Islamo-fascists) and we ideological opponents (such as secular liberals). While our ideological opponents want us to lose elections; our ideological enemies want us to lose our lives. That's a crucial distinction that we should always keep in mind. While we have to love them all, we shouldn't lump them all together.
In a classical statement of ecumenicity, St. Augustine once said, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love." Those of us on the religious right should adopt a similar principle and clearly define the boundaries between what is essential and what is non-essential in matters of policy and politics.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
It may be a bit of a stretch, but I think this one falls into the
"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love" department:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk
"As a matter of political liberty I believe it is important that we support such issues as prayer in schools and public displays of religious symbols."
Hmmm, ya mean like the Q'uran? The Torah? Pentangles? Little Buddha statues?
Why do I get the feeling he means public displays of CHRISTIAN symbols to the exclusion of all others?
Does national security trump the Law? Can we insist on our right to maintain, in Vice President Cheny's words, a darkside to our intelligence while professing our Christain roots. Specifically is the the CIA exempt from Matt 10:26? Can it forever stay in darkness? "For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Keith
Keith, we are not a theocracy. We have a secular - perhaps even shall we say, unreligious - government. Do you remember that even Israel had spies while en route to the Promised Land? If we fail to defend the safety of our neighbor, we're not 'fulfilling Christ's demands", we're failing to honor the first and great commandment to care for our neighbors.
Every now and then, someone makes a speech like the above quotes, which always comes out as some large surprise or even seemingly "out of the ordinary", but they're not, really. They are how mundane, ordinary, even ordinary politically involved people, live their lives. I found no new or strange concepts to any of it. It's how I think - even as a "right wing" Christian. Now, maybe Rod, who's somehow lost his mind or something, and rambled off into the far left, might find some kind of surprise there, but I sort of doubt it. Even though the poor soul has lost his way politically, he still seems to have the rest of his mind intact.
Many comments to this point have revolved around the "our ideological opponents consider us the enemy". Truth, that very much is, sadly. Even some of our political allies have too. But these people have lost their judgement. They have substituted politics for morality, their judgements no longer allow room for disagreement, and thus, they find themselves hemmed into corners from which they cannot escape, and retreat into radicalism. That's why and how a father can kill his daughter for having done nothing other than to marry a man not of his choosing. Can you see where we're going with this?
If some deranged lunatic, terrorist(s), madman, or God-knows-who, is holding my neighbor with a gun to his head, reciting the reasons for which he should die, my Christian obligation means I put a bullet in HIS head to save the life of my neighbor(s). For those who have lost their capacity to reason and to understand judgement and wisdom, they resort to the kind of radicalism that says they'll only vote to send him to jail for the rest of his life AFTER he murders. I don't have to hate him or want to kill out of anger or vengeance (definition of murder in the Ten Commandments), I only need to care for my neighbor to understand what to do.
This capacity for judgement is what is at issue, not whether we're in perfect agreement on political, or even theological, issues. As is rightly pointed out, LOTS of people have either given up, or else have never obtained, that capacity for judgement. Judgement is not prejudice, nor "judgementalism", nor radicalism. Nor is it a failure of conscience... it is instead, the application of the God-given sanctified standards of righteousness, along with a conscience and an intellectual grasp of our moral obligations, and then making decisions about how to apply all these to an imperfect world and imperfect situations.
It is not relativism, nor is it "everyone for himself", for the message to the Christian is exact opposite - love your neighbor and your enemy. Do good for both. But understand that sometimes you have to take a life to save more. We cannot be like a little child who clings to a shiny penny and refuses to trade it for a wrinkled 100 dollar bill - displaying no judgement or ability to value the greater for what it actually is. No, we must learn judgement and reason. After all, our God is intelligent and reasoned, and those two are among His greatest gifts to us.
The Watcher, I agree we are not a theocracy; however oftentimes the rhetoric out of Washington sounds like pious individuals are running our goverment. Its like we want to have it both ways. We want to be a house divided yet remain standing. We want to prepare the way for a second coming while preserving a worldy kingdom. I believe we would be better served if goverment spoke with a secular tongue and told people that is its rightful voice and churhes spoke with a religious tongue and told people that is its rightful voice. Let's eliminate the confusion. If I heard you right, intellignce agencies, regardless of country, are exempt.
Keith
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.