Today is the 200th anniversary of the British decision to end the slave trade within the empire. Today also is the release date for the new movie Amazing Grace about William Wilberforce, the Christian politician whose achievement the ending of the slave trade is.
USA Today has a good article on the movie, with some historical background, and some early evangelical reaction to the film. Link from Religion Headlines.
USA Today has a good article on the movie, with some historical background, and some early evangelical reaction to the film. Link from Religion Headlines.
Joab, a frequent commentator on this blog and writer of his own Joab's House of Blog, has a provocative post in favor of legalizing marijuana and prostitution. Lest you start labeling him a liberal degenerate (no, that is not redundant), realize that he is a self-described Christian Libertarian and a law-enforcement officer.
He makes the case that marijuana is much less harmful to society than is alcohol; and the penalties seem excessive given the social harm that results from use. Regarding prostitution, he argues that it is going to happen, the way that it happens now has several bad features, and that the social cost would be less if all states followed the Nevada model.
In response: I have gone back and forth on marijuana legalization over the last couple of decade. I oppose the recreational use of marijuana, but it does seem to me that we should legalize it for the following reasons: (1) what Joab said; (2) if at least a significant minority of the members of a free-society are determined not to obey a law, that law cannot be enforced adequately and remain a free society; (3) a significant number of people in a free society chossing to break a law that is not adequately enforced results in a loss of respect for The Law as The Law (see Prohibition); (4) if a significant number of people create a demand that cannot be met legally, they will subsidize a lucrative criminal economy that creates a powerful criminal element.
As a Christian I have distinguished in a previous post between moral issues that should, and should not be, addressed through law (governmental public policy). Some issues are better left to cultural witness by Christians, rather than law. To quote my previous post:
First, while culture and politics are related obviously, they are not exactly the same thing. A Waco Farmer has observed that we do not implement the entire Ten Commandments as public policy. I would add, nor should we. For example, the command not to covet is better conceived as an issue of culture rather than of government. Culture is best shaped by passive and active witness. By Passive Witness I mean the Christian community living according to this commandment for all the world to see. By Active Witness I mean the public articulation of this command in a persuasive way. Even those commandments that have an obvious governmental aspect, such as not bearing false witness, have a limited relation to government in issues such as fraud or perjury. The broader issue of truthfulness is more of a cultural issue (I would never seek prosecution for lying about the size of the fish that got away) and should be promoted by Witness within culture.
I think marijuana is best left as a cultural issue, rather than a governmental. I am now thinking over the prostitution issue.
He makes the case that marijuana is much less harmful to society than is alcohol; and the penalties seem excessive given the social harm that results from use. Regarding prostitution, he argues that it is going to happen, the way that it happens now has several bad features, and that the social cost would be less if all states followed the Nevada model.
In response: I have gone back and forth on marijuana legalization over the last couple of decade. I oppose the recreational use of marijuana, but it does seem to me that we should legalize it for the following reasons: (1) what Joab said; (2) if at least a significant minority of the members of a free-society are determined not to obey a law, that law cannot be enforced adequately and remain a free society; (3) a significant number of people in a free society chossing to break a law that is not adequately enforced results in a loss of respect for The Law as The Law (see Prohibition); (4) if a significant number of people create a demand that cannot be met legally, they will subsidize a lucrative criminal economy that creates a powerful criminal element.
As a Christian I have distinguished in a previous post between moral issues that should, and should not be, addressed through law (governmental public policy). Some issues are better left to cultural witness by Christians, rather than law. To quote my previous post:
First, while culture and politics are related obviously, they are not exactly the same thing. A Waco Farmer has observed that we do not implement the entire Ten Commandments as public policy. I would add, nor should we. For example, the command not to covet is better conceived as an issue of culture rather than of government. Culture is best shaped by passive and active witness. By Passive Witness I mean the Christian community living according to this commandment for all the world to see. By Active Witness I mean the public articulation of this command in a persuasive way. Even those commandments that have an obvious governmental aspect, such as not bearing false witness, have a limited relation to government in issues such as fraud or perjury. The broader issue of truthfulness is more of a cultural issue (I would never seek prosecution for lying about the size of the fish that got away) and should be promoted by Witness within culture.
I think marijuana is best left as a cultural issue, rather than a governmental. I am now thinking over the prostitution issue.
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Good op-ed piece in the USA Today:
From "Left, Right and Religion: A Double Standard," by Patrick Hynes and Jeremy Lott:
"[T}he creation of the religious right was largely a function of the courts and politicians pushing the boundaries the other way. Evangelicals were moved to civic activism because the IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of private Christian schools; because the U.S. Supreme Court removed abortion from the political process; because mentions of the Almighty began to be scrubbed from valedictory addresses for fear that someone, somewhere might take offense. Today, the term "goddamn" is treated as protected speech, but remove the "damn" and watch the lawsuits roll in.
"So evangelicals did the only responsible thing they could in a democracy. They organized and reached out. They found allies in churchgoing Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews and even some agnostics who believed that religion plays a vital role in holding society together. In this they were not so different from the civil rights leaders of the past, whose rallying cry was the God-given dignity of every American. The new coalition grew over time to the point that the religious right (or "values voters," if you prefer) became the single largest voting bloc in American politics."
Hynes and Lott have all this essentially correct. The headline is a bit misleading, as the rest of the piece offers a report on the rise of the religious left, which the authors welcome as a good thing.
The article in full.
For much more on Religion and Public Policy, I recommend the Okie Gardener's extended series contained here (scroll down).
From "Left, Right and Religion: A Double Standard," by Patrick Hynes and Jeremy Lott:
"[T}he creation of the religious right was largely a function of the courts and politicians pushing the boundaries the other way. Evangelicals were moved to civic activism because the IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of private Christian schools; because the U.S. Supreme Court removed abortion from the political process; because mentions of the Almighty began to be scrubbed from valedictory addresses for fear that someone, somewhere might take offense. Today, the term "goddamn" is treated as protected speech, but remove the "damn" and watch the lawsuits roll in.
"So evangelicals did the only responsible thing they could in a democracy. They organized and reached out. They found allies in churchgoing Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews and even some agnostics who believed that religion plays a vital role in holding society together. In this they were not so different from the civil rights leaders of the past, whose rallying cry was the God-given dignity of every American. The new coalition grew over time to the point that the religious right (or "values voters," if you prefer) became the single largest voting bloc in American politics."
Hynes and Lott have all this essentially correct. The headline is a bit misleading, as the rest of the piece offers a report on the rise of the religious left, which the authors welcome as a good thing.
The article in full.
For much more on Religion and Public Policy, I recommend the Okie Gardener's extended series contained here (scroll down).
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
Should U.S. public policy reflect viewpoints arrived at because of religious beliefs? What is the role of religion in national debate? Do religious viewpoints have a place in the public square?
Prompted by the many debates over legal recognition of same-sex marriage on this blog, I undertook to try to answer these questions. I do not claim to be an expert, but, have thought about these issues for over thirty years. I also am a trained Christian pastor (Master of Divinity, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1983), and trained scholar of religion (Ph.D. in Religion, outside area American History, Baylor University, 2000). I undertook this writing project as well to help me clarify my own thought. I grew up in the Primitive Baptist tradition, historically a strong supporter of the Separation of Church and State. My parents even were members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. My earliest thinking on the issue, therefore, was in a strongly separationist mode. The last ten or fifteen years, however, I have moved to the opinion that a strict separationist position is too simple, and too naive. I am not, however, and probably never will become a Christian Theonomist, advocating that the laws given to Israel on Sinai should become the law of our land and of every land. (The terms "Theonomy," "Dominion Theology," and "Christian Reconstructionism" often are used imprecisely as synonymns.)
So, where do I stand? (cont. below)
Prompted by the many debates over legal recognition of same-sex marriage on this blog, I undertook to try to answer these questions. I do not claim to be an expert, but, have thought about these issues for over thirty years. I also am a trained Christian pastor (Master of Divinity, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1983), and trained scholar of religion (Ph.D. in Religion, outside area American History, Baylor University, 2000). I undertook this writing project as well to help me clarify my own thought. I grew up in the Primitive Baptist tradition, historically a strong supporter of the Separation of Church and State. My parents even were members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. My earliest thinking on the issue, therefore, was in a strongly separationist mode. The last ten or fifteen years, however, I have moved to the opinion that a strict separationist position is too simple, and too naive. I am not, however, and probably never will become a Christian Theonomist, advocating that the laws given to Israel on Sinai should become the law of our land and of every land. (The terms "Theonomy," "Dominion Theology," and "Christian Reconstructionism" often are used imprecisely as synonymns.)
So, where do I stand? (cont. below)
USA today carries a good report on research underway by Baylor University sociologists and the Gallup organization on the religious beliefs of Americans. One finding: the view of God held by a person is a much better predictor of positions on public issues than denominational affiliation. The researchers have grouped the results into 4 basic categories of how God is viewed: "These Four Gods — dubbed by researchers Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant — tell more about people's social, moral and political views and personal piety than the familiar categories of Protestant/Catholic/Jew or even red state/blue state." For example, those who see God as Authoritarian are more likely to support conservative Christian positions in politics. Also, different regions of the U.S. tend to have different proportions of views of God. Read Article.
This survey seems to lend support to some observations I made in Part 2 of my series of posts on Religion and Public Policy.
This survey seems to lend support to some observations I made in Part 2 of my series of posts on Religion and Public Policy.
Should U.S. public policy reflect viewpoints arrived at because of religious beliefs?
Prompted by the spirited debate on this blog over the issue of same-sex marriage and public policy, I began a series of posts on my view of the proper relationship between religion and public policy, including debate in the public square of the United States. In my first post I approached the issue from a historical perspective here. In the second post I approached it from a philosophical and observational angle here. Now I want to take a look from a theological perspective.
But first, no apologies, a little history. Christianity's parent religion, Judaism, made no fundamental distinction between religious life and ordinary life. The religious community was the tribe and eventually the nation; In this respect the Jews were like about everyone else in the premodern world. The Jewish prophets went beyond what was usually seen in paganism and held the people and the rulers accountable to the Law in all aspects of life from diet to care for the poor: ethics was firmly a part of religion. When Christianity arose as a minority sect within Judaism, it arose within an existing Greco-Roman society. The New Testament, perhaps because of an expectation of the immanent return of Jesus and the fact that "not many mighty" were Christians, contains no explicit call to conform the larger society to Christian beliefs and practices. Instead, the community is to live according to its own moral code within the larger society whose laws it is to obey except where these conflict with Christian morals. But, when Christianity grew larger and obtained a privilaged place within the Roman Empire, the relationship between public policy and Christian faith had to be revisited. Short summary: in the Eastern Empire (Byzantine) church and state formed a complex whole under the leadership of the emperor; in the fragmenting Western Empire, power within the church consolidated under the Bishop of Rome (pope) who engaged in power struggles with the various rulers, all the while advocating the position that all of life must be brought under the rule of Christ. Similar positions obtained in other Christian kingdoms such as Ethiopia and Armenia. Theologically, to summarize crudely, this change was justified on grounds such as the Lordship of Christ over all Creation, and the growth of God's Kingdom. Outside these areas in places such as along the Silk Road to China and in the Persian Empire, Christian communities continued the earlier pattern of living as small communities with little power. In the West, the Protestant Reformation did not basically challenge the organic nature of society--linking public policy and Christianity (though Luther's theology separates the two more than Calvin's), except for some of the small and persecuted Radical groups who did advocate a separation of church and government. When the story gets to America, see my first post. My own view is below.
Prompted by the spirited debate on this blog over the issue of same-sex marriage and public policy, I began a series of posts on my view of the proper relationship between religion and public policy, including debate in the public square of the United States. In my first post I approached the issue from a historical perspective here. In the second post I approached it from a philosophical and observational angle here. Now I want to take a look from a theological perspective.
But first, no apologies, a little history. Christianity's parent religion, Judaism, made no fundamental distinction between religious life and ordinary life. The religious community was the tribe and eventually the nation; In this respect the Jews were like about everyone else in the premodern world. The Jewish prophets went beyond what was usually seen in paganism and held the people and the rulers accountable to the Law in all aspects of life from diet to care for the poor: ethics was firmly a part of religion. When Christianity arose as a minority sect within Judaism, it arose within an existing Greco-Roman society. The New Testament, perhaps because of an expectation of the immanent return of Jesus and the fact that "not many mighty" were Christians, contains no explicit call to conform the larger society to Christian beliefs and practices. Instead, the community is to live according to its own moral code within the larger society whose laws it is to obey except where these conflict with Christian morals. But, when Christianity grew larger and obtained a privilaged place within the Roman Empire, the relationship between public policy and Christian faith had to be revisited. Short summary: in the Eastern Empire (Byzantine) church and state formed a complex whole under the leadership of the emperor; in the fragmenting Western Empire, power within the church consolidated under the Bishop of Rome (pope) who engaged in power struggles with the various rulers, all the while advocating the position that all of life must be brought under the rule of Christ. Similar positions obtained in other Christian kingdoms such as Ethiopia and Armenia. Theologically, to summarize crudely, this change was justified on grounds such as the Lordship of Christ over all Creation, and the growth of God's Kingdom. Outside these areas in places such as along the Silk Road to China and in the Persian Empire, Christian communities continued the earlier pattern of living as small communities with little power. In the West, the Protestant Reformation did not basically challenge the organic nature of society--linking public policy and Christianity (though Luther's theology separates the two more than Calvin's), except for some of the small and persecuted Radical groups who did advocate a separation of church and government. When the story gets to America, see my first post. My own view is below.
A Waco Farmer and Tocqueville have been going at it hammer-and-tongs over the issue of same-sex marriage: in part their disagreement involves the issue of the proper relationship between religion and public policy. Read here. In an attempt to be helpful ( or perhaps to commit an act of hubris), and to help me clarify my own thoughts, I am attempting to suggest some points I think are valid regarding the use of religious rhetoric and reasoning in the public square. Since the topic is huge, I am breaking it down into various angles of approach. My first posting looked at the issue historically. Read here.
This post looks at the issue from the angle of philosophy and oberservation. (Read below)
This post looks at the issue from the angle of philosophy and oberservation. (Read below)
28/08: Religion and Public Policy
Should U.S. public policy reflect viewpoints arrived at because of religious beliefs? In a previous post I argued that from an engagement with Scripture, Christians should reject same-sex practice, while welcoming into our congregations those who struggled with same-sex desires. Here. A Waco Farmer then commented "On the other hand, and although I don't think this is your point in this particular post--but it is relevant to past discussions, this excellent essay in no way changes my view that our scripturally based morality in re same-sex relationships should not dictate public policy. For example: of the Ten Commandments, only three are regularly codified as public policy. Same goes for the instructions of Christ: the word of God doesn't always translate into human law. I maintain, and I think you agree, questions of public policy require an almost completely different set of assumptions and perspectives." His comment brought a response from Tocqueville. (see post below)
I now begin an answer to Farmer; since the issue is so large and complex I will give a short answer, then over the course of several posts with give-and-take, give my longer answer. Short answer: sort of. (cont. below)
I now begin an answer to Farmer; since the issue is so large and complex I will give a short answer, then over the course of several posts with give-and-take, give my longer answer. Short answer: sort of. (cont. below)
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
Photognome draws our attention to this recent court ruling. (pdf file 140 pages)
Prison Fellowship summarizes and responds to the ruling in the following:
"Judge Strikes Down Faith-Based Prison Program, While Public Backs Helping Prisoners
June 21, 2006 | Vol. 5, No. 6
A federal judge in Iowa recently issued a stunning decision declaring that Prison Fellowship?s InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) was unconstitutional. In his 140-page decision, Judge Robert Pratt made sweeping findings that are as troubling as they are erroneous. He found that Prison Fellowship is ?Evangelical Christian in nature? and then went on to describe evangelical beliefs as not being in common with other Christian beliefs. His mischaracterization of Prison Fellowship and his misunderstanding of what Christians believe are apparent throughout his opinion. To cite just a few examples:
(read more)
Prison Fellowship summarizes and responds to the ruling in the following:
"Judge Strikes Down Faith-Based Prison Program, While Public Backs Helping Prisoners
June 21, 2006 | Vol. 5, No. 6
A federal judge in Iowa recently issued a stunning decision declaring that Prison Fellowship?s InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) was unconstitutional. In his 140-page decision, Judge Robert Pratt made sweeping findings that are as troubling as they are erroneous. He found that Prison Fellowship is ?Evangelical Christian in nature? and then went on to describe evangelical beliefs as not being in common with other Christian beliefs. His mischaracterization of Prison Fellowship and his misunderstanding of what Christians believe are apparent throughout his opinion. To cite just a few examples:
(read more)
