What does Returning to Judeo Christian Principles mean anyway? Pt.1 the hot button issues
Aug 15th, 2010 by David Anderson
There seems to be a major cultural disconnect between those who want a secular state and those who believe in traditional American values. When discussing the issue of returning to the governing principles of the Judeo Christian ethic some hear establishing some theocratic Christian state where Christians rule and others are tolerated. Christians hear the secular progressives what to cleanse the nation of any public expression of religious values and impose some sort of religious apartheid. The two sides just talk past each other. I what to go beyond the sound bites and explore what does it really mean to have Judeo Christian principles in government.
I cannot say no one wants Calvin or Cromwell style religious state in the Christian community. I can say that few do. Most American Christians do not believe theologically that human beings are capable of setting up the Lord’s Kingdom. He will do that when he returns and people will welcome His perfect kingdom. By that logic trying to set up GOD’s Kingdom through a secular state is inherently doomed to failure due to the corruption of human nature. We have neither the wisdom nor the perfect goodness to set up such a system. To do so is an affront to GOD. It is lifting us above Him. When one understands that Christians are called to take positive principles and use persuasion to better society and government in a spirit of humility (recognizing that we are fallible humans), the fear the secularists of some “Christian Taliban” should go by the wayside.
Outside of amillennialism eschatology, Christian eschatology and theological underpinnings are based upon what is found in Isaiah 9:6, the government shall be on His shoulders, not ours. We therefore believe that current Kingdom is expressed in the individual and the church not the government. The church is the visible body of Christ in the world. The Kingdom we seek is not of this world. Experiments with Christian states have been dissatisfying even to Christians throughout the millennium. Salvation is not a collective experience which can be obtained through the state. It is an individual experience leading to a personal relationship with GOD. Christianity therefore is based upon valuing the individual. Each person is important. The two basic laws of Christendom are Love GOD with all your being and Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
How does this understanding apply to politics? If Christians do not want to impose themselves on others, how do I explain Christian opposition to abortion and same sex marriage? What is this stuff about prayer in schools and under GOD in the pledge? Why have national days of prayer? What about the opposition of some Christians to legalized gaming, pornography, and drugs?
Many of these issues have secularists, Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and countless others who agree. While Christian theology is completely incompatible with abortion and same sex marriage, the basis for opposition to those policies is not solely theological. Christianity demands our fidelity to human rights. That is why Christians opposed abortion and child abandonment from the beginning. The Epistle of Saint Barnabas who was the mentor to the Apostle Paul laid out such opposition in the first century of the church. Christians were imprisoned, tortured, and some where even killed for violation laws which forbade the rescue of abandoned children in the Roman empire. In America, Northern Christians pressed their state legislatures to pass liberty laws which allowed the growth of the Underground Railroad by keeping safe houses in the North from being raided by southern slaveholders and federal officials. State’s rights played both ways in the battle around slavery. Human rights are fundamental to Christianity. GOD gave us life and the right to live it to choose our own destiny. We cannot allow that right to be summarily taken by another merely based upon convenience. The law exists to protect the weak from the strong. The law is the great equalizer of justice. The same principles loved by everyone regarding human rights (which were a Judeo-Christian concept) for themselves must be applied universally to have meaning. People who understand that principle must oppose abortion along with other forms of murder (unjustified taking of human life). It is not an issue of theology, but it is an issue of social justice. There is no difference in humanity between the embryo and a 70 year old, it is only a matter of time and stage of development therefore the rights of the human being are the same.
Marriage is the foundation of the family and the family is the building block of civilization. Christian theology teaches the first marriage covenant was initiated by the first man with the first woman in front of GOD in Genesis 2. It was ordained by GOD and cannot be changed by man. From a public policy point of view the first principle is that Christian churches cannot be forced to rent their facilities, solemnize, or endorse any other definition of marriage. Serious Christians would go to jail or suffer bankruptcy rather than give up who we are. Marriage and family are fundamentally a part of Christian theology. Almost every book in the Bible has some reference to the family, fidelity to marriage, or the analogy of the church to being a family. Even GOD is viewed in terms of family, Father GOD sent His Son into the world to reconcile us back to Him and adopt us into His Family. We are His children. The Church is the metaphysical bride of Christ. The Church is one with Him through covenant.
Does that mean that a theological understanding should be transferred to everyone else. I would say no. The public policy reason for sustaining marriage is that through thousands and some say millions of years, humanity struggled, refined, and developed a system which has been proven to civilize humanity. Civilization is the process which makes us unique among the animal kingdom. Marriage was founded as an intersex institution for the bonding of a man and woman together into a life giving and sustaining family unit. It provides the best system ever devised for emotional well being and stability of children. It is a collaboration of the different strengths of the sexes and the amelioration of their weaknesses. Every successful, long lasting society has recognized that the long term commitment to raising children is decades long (14 to 20 years per child depending upon the society). It requires unique sacrifice and demands of the individual for the good of society. Therefore successful societies recognize that sacrifice and honor hetero sexual marriage with a special place in society. It is an inherently superior institution to all others when it works for the stability of civilization itself. The idea that some want the benefits without the sacrifice is inherently destabilizing in the long run. No society which rejects the family lasts long. As an example, Rome was based upon family. When it lost that commitment, it lost itself and the empire disintegrated. The public policy reasons for sustaining the definition of marriage is accepted across the world by every major faith group. The burden is upon the secularists to show the benefits to society for changing an institution which even predates farming and not the other way around. It is the secular progressives who are imposing their view upon a majority of society who rejects their view not people of faith.
Some areas are controversial within Christianity. You cannot type cast Christians on many issues. Christians are not universally bound to oppose gaming, restricting alcohol (many believe that alcohol is good if not used to excess), favor banning recreational drugs, or most pornography. On the rarer side a Christian may not favor banning prostitution in favor of compassion over government force. Those are issues of public policy effectiveness. A Christian who favors regulating pornography, drugs, or gambling does so on two public policy bases. The activities are harmful to individuals especially if done to excess, and the activities in excess can be harmful to the environment necessary for a successful society. Christians universally would be opposed to child pornography on this basis. The child cannot consent and is exploited. The existence of this material is used to justify adult child sex and entice children by child rapists. It by its very use undermines the health of society and endangers children. Its very creation often involves exploitation and harm of children. The issue of adults using their GOD given right to choose between right and wrong is more controversial. Sex is sacred and blessed by GOD only in marriage. The majority of Christians therefore would reject pornography and view its widespread use as undermining the special place of marriage and sexual covenant. How to best use it is handle that is at issue. Half of the Church and many ministers use it. Some would argue that if it is that widely accepted, education not law would be the best way to handle it. Others argue that the very ease of access that makes it so widely utilized is the reason it needs to be restricted. Society should restrain harmful vices not condone them. That debate is not one unique to Christians. It is raging in other faith groups and quite frankly among secular factions as well. Many secular feminists groups rail against pornography for instance while others see it as sexual empowerment.
Many of the supposed examples of Christians imposing their views is just people advocating ideas for the betterment of society. The majority will either buy them or not. That is what everyone does. Why should Christians be excluded? Would society be better off?
The next part will look at the benefits of such a return. What would it really look like?
From Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History, Chapter VII, ‘Universal Churches.’-
“The purpose of the universal state is tranquillity, but the ensuing sense of relief is soon tempered by a sense of frustration; for Life cannot preserve itself simply by bringing itself to a halt. In this situation a nascent church may make its own fortune by doing for a stagnant secular society the service that is now its most urgent need. It can open new channels for the baulked energies of mankind. In the Roman Empire-
The victory of Christianity over Paganism…furnished the orator with new topics of declamation and the logician with new points of controversy. Above all, it produced a new principle, of which the operation was constantly felt in every part of Society. It stirred the stagnant mass from the inmost depths. It excited all the passions of a stormy democracy in the listless population of an overgrown empire. The fear of heresy did what the sense of oppression could not do; it changed man, accustomed to being turned over like sheep from tyrant to tyrant, into devoted partisans and obstinate rebels. The tones of an eloquence which had been silent for ages resounded from the pulpit of Gregory. A spirit which had been extinguished on the plains of Philippi revived in Athanasius and Ambrose…(Lord Macaulay, ‘History,’ 1860)
“This is as true as it is eloquent, but its theme is the second, or ‘gestitive’ phase. The first phase, the struggle preceding the victory, had given to ordinary men and women an exhilarating opportunity for making a supreme sacrifice, such as had been the glory and the tragedy of their ancestors in the days before the Roman Empire clamped down the dull peace of its universal state as an extinguisher on a Time of Troubles. Thus in the ‘conceptive’ phase the church receives into itself the energies that the state can no longer either liberate or utilize, and creates new channels along which they can find vent. The ‘gestative’ phase that follows is marked by a vast increase in the church’s range of action. It draws into service men of mark who have failed to find scope for their talents in secular administration. A landslide sets in towards the rising institution, and its speed and scope is regulated by the pace at which the disintegrating society collapses….”
Creation out of Destruction
Great piece David! It is very hard in the arena of public policy to engage in debate on these issues without all the noise. The public has been sold a lie that says that Christians are all judgemental theocrats that want to control everyone else’s lives. It has caused our society to become increasingly hostile to Christians who attempt to engage the culture on these critical issues. We are supposed to sit in the pew and let the world tell us what is appropriate for us to speak about. If I am advocating for traditional marriage because I believe that it is an institution derived by God for procreation and because I believe it gives children the best chance to have a stable home, does that automatically make me a bigot? Yes, in today’s culture. Unfortunately the last great hope of having a major political party that has the guts to stand up for traditional values (which as you acurately explained are similar regardless of the religion) is rapidly slipping away. I hate to bring this back to politics but I have become increasingly discouraged with the discourse of those like Jud Bennet who are Republicans but have become increasingly hostile toward those of us who have Christian beliefs and dare to defend those beliefs in the public square.
If I am advocating for traditional marriage because I believe that it is an institution derived by God for procreation and because I believe it gives children the best chance to have a stable home, does that automatically make me a bigot? Yes, in today’s culture.
Of course. How else can you define what a bigot is, except in the context of your culture?
Christians can make any rules they want about Christian marriages. The latest court ruling doesn’t change that.
And in case you haven’t noticed, Christians aren’t exactly of one mind on the issue. Some sects will allow gay marriage, and some won’t. Some members will follow the teachings of their church, and some won’t. Isn’t that a beautiful thing? God Bless America.
No group can be a Christian Church and sanction same sex marriage. It would just be a heretical sect. They always existed, but hardly represent some sort of division in Christianity.
Look at surveys within the Church; it is not even controversial. 90% plus of church goers and ministers are on one side of the issue.
so now David Anderson is the arbiter of what being a Christian means – wonderful!!
no group can be a Christian chruch and sanction same sex marriage??? and you have what standing to prognosticate that idiocy?? you gonna go out and burn Qurans on 9/11 too?? – go move to Iran you would fit in better there – and you?? have a position on the BOARD OF A SCHOOL – holy crap Batman – i’d be pulling my kid outta there fast!!
ya know what – you and GOD can go F*** each other – tell me how that works for you
Apo Witchywashy=real class.
Apo, you’re a perfect example
David,
This is a deep and excellent post. In many ways this is the type of post that is best initiated outside of a political campaign. Attempting to think and subsequently educate is typcially done outside the realms of the political season. It takes time, thought, and educaton to translate principals derived from religous beliefs into public policy.
The campaign season sadly leaves little time for honest discourse and thought and those who don’t understand the process typically misinterpret others engaged in serious thought.
In many ways, I agree. Realism tells me 10k will read these essays in the election season and 400 will bother outside of it. Most people think less about these issues less in a month than you and I do in a day. One has to engage people when they are focused.
Thanks for the compliment.
gee Pat – have a problem with Witches – paganism is now recognized as a religion here in the US –
you good Christian folks gonna start burnings in the circle while Rick rides around in his pick up truck with 5 guys with shotguns rounding up illegals…probably flying the confederate flag too.
Just about as classy as that comment he made – him and his citizens militia – come on – Mr. Pikett could not find his way out of a wet paper bag
So – why not have a bible burning and american flag burning all together – what fun
You’ll get your religious revival (what ‘religion’ I know not) when our society collapses; then, and only then. It’s the way it works.
I posted a couple of paragraphs from Toynbee’s A Study of History- I would recommend reading all ten volumes. He was uninterested in Jesus or Mohammad, ritual or dogma, the Bible or Koran. He identified twenty-three ‘civilizations’ in the history of man, and the religious progression is nearly always the same. Hence, as Western Civilization slips into its final stage- what Toynbee called the ‘universal state’- Islam is likely to be the sole survivor, primarily because of its aggressive nature and the fact that its practitioners in the Western realm will not be assimilated (by choice)- what Toynbee called an ‘external proletariat’ (the pro-choice, NOW and gay marriage crowd will not thrive- if any of them are still alive). Theirs is a religion which may be able to resist the ubiquitous moral degradation prevalent in the general society.
After the collapse- who knows? After all, it could take centuries.
In many ways, Western Society mirrors Rome; as will our fall. Toynbee’s masterwork demonstrates this process with ludicrous ease.
Rick as one who has read Toynbee from start to finish, I always hesitate to take the writings of even a brilliant historian such as Toynbee as some fatalistic predictor of our future.
Toynbee’s contributions provide a framework for future debate and not necessarily a format for comparisons on our current predicament.
Toynbee also made his observations on “civilizations” (Toynbee was not a fan of studying nation states) over the long haul. The U.S. is still an infant in the Toynbee Chronology. That being said the Toynbee concepts always have relevance in any discussion of religion and state.
Toynbee’s contributions provide a framework for future debate and not necessarily a format for comparisons on our current predicament.
The whole purpose of his ‘Study’ was to provide a ‘format’ for comparisons of civilizations. That was the point.
The U.S. is still an infant in the Toynbee Chronology.
You claim to have read all ten volumes and you don’t know that the United States is not a separate ‘civilization?’
“You claim to have read all ten volumes and you don’t know that the United States is not a separate ‘civilization?’”
First I agree that Toynbee’s purpose was to compare civilizations and not to make a point for particular public policy deicisons.
My comment about the today’s situation is my own view and not Toynbee’s.
Like many who have read Toynbee I appreciate his contribution. I don’t think one can take our current time and say that our current day civilization is in a particular phase. (Toynbee would agree.) I believe that one can only make that determination after the fact.
“You claim to have read all ten volumes and you don’t know that the United States is not a separate ‘civilization?’”…Rick
First I agree that Toynbee’s purpose was to compare civilizations and not to make a point for particular public policy deicisons…
My comment about the today’s situation is my own view and not Toynbee’s...TW
So you consider the United States to be a distinct ‘civilization?’
………………………………………………………………………….
I don’t think one can take our current time and say that our current day civilization is in a particular phase. (Toynbee would agree.)
‘Toynbee would agree?’ Why do you say Toymbee would ‘agree?’