------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
Click
Here!
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ChaletKuyper-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: A Kuyper friend
From: PhilB1703@aol.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:41:48 EDT
From: PhilB1703@aol.com
Subject: Re: A Kuyper friend
In a message dated 4/29/2002 3:04:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
weeks-g@dircon.co.uk writes:
> http://www.SocialTheology.com/kuyperiana.asp
Thanks this is REALLY good. Kuyper's view of pluralism makes alot of sense.
Phil
[This message contained attachments]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
Click
Here!
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ChaletKuyper-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: A Kuyper friend
From: Graham Weeks
<weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
2. Re: A Kuyper friend
From: Donna Newton
<mimidjn@earthlink.net>
3. Re: A Kuyper friend
From: Graham Weeks
<weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
4. RE: A Kuyper friend
From: Rosana Mawson
<mawson1@comcast.net>
5. RE: A Kuyper friend
From: Graham Weeks
<weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
6. Re: A Kuyper friend
From: PhilB1703@aol.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 06:05:21 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: A Kuyper friend
>In a message dated 4/29/2002 3:04:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>weeks-g@dircon.co.uk writes:
>
>> http://www.SocialTheology.com/kuyperiana.asp
>>
>
>
>Thanks this is REALLY good. Kuyper's view of pluralism makes alot of sense.
>
>Phil
The brother is one of my best missionary friends and very gifted. He
has produced an excellent article on understanding Muslims post 9/11
which I can post as an attachment if you like.
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:51:53 -0700
From: Donna Newton <mimidjn@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: A Kuyper friend
On 4/30/02 10:05 PM, "Graham Weeks" <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
wrote:
>> In a message dated 4/29/2002 3:04:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> weeks-g@dircon.co.uk writes:
>> http://www.SocialTheology.com/kuyperiana.asp
>>>
>>
>> Thanks this is REALLY good. Kuyper's view of pluralism makes alot of
sense.
>> Phil
>>
>> The brother is one of my best missionary friends and very gifted. He
has
>> produced an excellent article on understanding Muslims post 9/11 which
I can
>> post as an attachment if you like.
>>
>>
Me too?
In Christ Jesus,
Donna
Cybershelter Worker
--Works? Works? A man get to heaven by works? I would as soon think of
climbing to the moon on a rope of sand!
GEORGE WHITEFIELD
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 06:49:18 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: A Kuyper friend
>On 4/30/02 10:05 PM, "Graham Weeks" <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/29/2002 3:04:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>weeks-g@dircon.co.uk writes:
>
> http://www.SocialTheology.com/kuyperiana.asp
>
>
>Thanks this is REALLY good. Kuyper's view of pluralism makes alot of sense.
>Phil
>
>The brother is one of my best missionary friends and very gifted. He
>has produced an excellent article on understanding Muslims post 9/11
>which I can post as an attachment if you like.
>
>
>Me too?
>
>In Christ Jesus,
>Donna
>Cybershelter Worker
Attached.
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 08:51:40 -0400
From: Rosana Mawson <mawson1@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: A Kuyper friend
Graham,
My machine can't convert what is in the attachment.
Could you send it in regular text?
Thanks,
Rosana
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Weeks [SMTP:weeks-g@dircon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:49 AM
To: ChaletKuyper@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChaletKuyper] A Kuyper friend
>On 4/30/02 10:05 PM, "Graham Weeks" <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/29/2002 3:04:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>weeks-g@dircon.co.uk writes:
>
> http://www.SocialTheology.com/kuyperiana.asp
>
>
>Thanks this is REALLY good. Kuyper's view of pluralism makes alot of sense.
>Phil
>
>The brother is one of my best missionary friends and very gifted. He
>has produced an excellent article on understanding Muslims post 9/11
>which I can post as an attachment if you like.
>
>
>Me too?
>
>In Christ Jesus,
>Donna
>Cybershelter Worker
Attached.
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<< File: ATT00029.html >> << File: Antonides2.doc
>>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:58:58 +0100
From: Graham Weeks <weeks-g@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: RE: A Kuyper friend
>Graham,
>My machine can't convert what is in the attachment.
>Could you send it in regular text?
>Thanks,
>Rosana
>
>
WESTERN-CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS
IN THE CURRENT CRISIS
A Christian Challenge
Jan H. Boer
September 11 created a shocking awareness of a dynamic that
has been unleashed upon us. It was not an altogether new awareness,
for we knew of earlier bombings of American embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania and of the downing of flight TWA800. In addition some
smaller attacks had occurred in the "Middle East." But September
11
brought it home with a shock that has changed the world forever, if
not for good.
The major immediate response to September 11 has been the
concerted bombing and other military activities that have
concentrated on Afghanistan, accompanied by many covert operations
and intense behind-the-scenes politicking, especially by the US. The
rest of this article asks some serious questions, but none of them
are meant to cast doubt on the legitimacy of at least some of the
bombing and related activities. Serious and drastic responses were
definitely called for.
However, this article does question whether those responses
should continue to be the major response. It also suggests that
there are some very serious Christian considerations that need urgent
attention. One of these is that of motivation. What precisely
motivated these terrorist attacks? I am suggesting here, as I have
elsewhere, that there is a whole package of motivations, all of them
related to each other. An important ingredient in the motivation
package is strong Muslim opposition to secularism. That, I would
suggest, is one that should find an echo in the Christian heart and
lead to a degree of empathy. Many Christians, especially Reformed
Christians, are similarly unhappy with that worldview.
However, there is a significant difference in the reaction of
the Muslim world to secularism and that of Western Christians. We
accept neither its philosophical underpinnings nor many of its
results. Secularism has done severe damage to the souls of many
Christians and is largely incapable of even understanding things
spiritual and religious. However, it is not a foreign imposition for
us. It developed in our own culture. It can even be argued
historically that distortions of the Christian faith have called up
the spirits of secularism from the depth. It subsequently became a
challenge to Christian distortions and at certain fronts led to
corrections in the Christian camp and to greater liberation for
segments of the population who had suffered under Christian
distortions.
That is not the experience of Islam. In the Muslim
world,
secularism is a foreign imposition that was imported by colonialism
and is regarded as a tool of colonialism to destroy the very
foundations of Muslim faith and culture. Unless faced squarely, it
undermines Islam as it undermines Christianity. It reduces the
entire worldview and way of life that Muslims are so proud of to a
narrow religious affair restricted to the mosque and to the personal,
again, much like the secular interpretation of Christianity. It for a
time succeeded in reducing the grand edifice of their comprehensive
religion to a dualistically reduced social force for which there was
no longer room in the public square. Because Muslims regard it
a foreign imposition consciously designed to undermine and destroy
them, Muslims, especially Islamists or Fundamentalists, hate it with
a passion. Put that together with the insulting presence of Western
military forces on holy Muslim soil to protect Western interests, and
you have a cauldron of motivations and emotions that has gone beyond
its boiling point.
If the above be the case, is it not imperative for Western
Christians
to understand that motivation? If we misgauge their motivation, we
will surely go wrong in our response. We might, for example,
concentrate on bombing terrorist strongholds as our major response.
It would be a virtual guarantee for a worse mess, lead to a
prolongation of the crisis and probably expand into the next world
war. If, on the other hand, we understand the underlying motivation,
then we can at least face it and respond appropriately. Previous
experience has taught me to make clear that I do not advocate that
perspective so much as explain it as a perspective held by most
Muslims. We may disagree with that perspective, but we cannot wish it
away.
Do Muslims have any basis for their convictions with respect
to the
West? Almost all North Americans would deny that the West aims to
destroy Islam. They would argue that the American government doesn't
have such intentions; corporations don't; churches don't; missions
don't. But Muslims are sincerely convinced of it, so much so that
anyone disputing that thesis will be met with a barrage of historical
facts-and definitely some fiction as well!-that she would have a hard
time refuting. Look at the crusades, they will counter, wave after
wave. Look how Muslims were routed out of the Iberian Peninsula and
other parts of Western Europe. Look how the West colonized the
Muslim world and undermined their religion with the theory and
practice of secularism. All Western forces cooperated in this
effort-the political, the economic and the religious.
Of course, the West is not monolithic. There are many
contradictory
forces and philosophies swirling around in the West, many of them
opposed to and keeping each other in check. None of us need to be
told that, but Muslims do not recognize that important fact and put
us all in one basket that contains little but rotten apples. In our
context it is therefore important to be aware of that perspective
without necessarily agreeing with it. And again, of course Muslims
have done the same thing to Christians. Look at all of North Africa
and the former Asia Minor, not to speak of current Muslim persecution
of and war on Christians in several countries. But none of that is
part of the Muslim perspective that is my focus.
We would do well to closely ponder that Muslim view of
Western
intentions. Is it not true that Western churches have sent their
missionaries, including yours truly, to evangelize Muslims? From the
Christian point of view, that is a benign intention: It is our
deepest desire to bring them to Christ and to salvation. It is our
Great Commission. Yes, but Muslims regard our missionary efforts as a
hostile attack that undermines the very fountains of their religion
and cultures. At this juncture they are correct. They are
under
attack by us. We may not regard it as an attack, let alone hostile
attack. We see our missionary approach as a benign way to spread the
blessings of Abraham, but we can hardly deny Muslims their
perspective on our endeavour. Indeed, they are under attack and have
been for centuries.
The Muslim sense of being under attack is further
strengthened by
Western missionary and other Christian writings about Islam.
Missionaries are sent by the churches but then they develop a
missionary culture of their own. They have become lobby groups vying
for Christian funds to support their endeavour. In this process they
publish a lot of reports and stories about Muslims. Positive and
affirmative stories about Islam would hardly encourage support from
the constituency. So they write negatively about Islam and about
Muslims. This has gone on for years and years, a barrage of negative
literature, a concerted campaign to demonize Islam. Pick up just
about any Christian missionary writing about Islam and you will
likely find the above description to be true. While this may be less
true of Ecumenicals and contemporary Roman Catholics, it is certainly
true of Evangelicals, including Evangelicals of the Reformed
tradition. If you want to check out the Reformed, pick up copies of
Missionary Monthly or of the Reformed Ecumenical Council's News
Exchange or, for that matter, Christian Courier (CC). You will find
the major tone to be consistently pejorative about Islam. Today I
randomly read an issue of CC and found three anti-Muslim articles. I
am not condemning this literature and have produced my own quota
during my missionary years. I am merely trying to emphasize that
whatever our goals are with such writings, Muslims cannot possibly
regard them other than part of a campaign to destroy them.
Muslims come across this stuff. These publications lie on
missionaries' coffee tables around the world. Their Muslim house
servants pick them up and sometimes pass them on to their fellow
Muslims. Muslim writers indicate familiarity with this kind of
missionary literature. Of course, they regard this as hostile attacks
on them that have gone on for centuries throughout the Muslim world.
How else can they interpret such stuff? Think about it! Put
yourself in their shoes! How could they possibly interpret these
benign intentions of our missionary enterprise in any other way?
There are more bricks to this Muslim construction of Western
intentions. I am a senior and most Westerners of my generation have
been brainwashed during the course of our education to interpret
Western colonialism as a benign penetration of the so-called Third
World, including the Muslim part. I remember the years right after
World War II in The Netherlands. The Dutch were overjoyed at being
liberated from Nazi occupation. And then, would you believe it, they
promptly sent their soldiers to their colony of Indonesia that wanted
the same thing the Dutch were celebrating, namely their freedom from
foreign control. I was a young child, but old enough to recognize the
terrible contradiction. That contradiction was camouflaged by
ideological justifications that turned Dutch occupation of another
country into almost a messianic mission to save the savages from
their own folly and ignorance. The Dutch and other Western
colonizers saw themselves as God's trustees over an infant people who
did not know right from wrong. In the meantime, we built up our own
economies from the colonial proceeds. If the effort also benefited
the colonized people that was great, but that was a side effect, not
the primary concern.
Colonization was accompanied in many countries by
secularization.
Secularism is defined by Muslims as a concerted effort to reduce the
scope of their comprehensive religion into a narrow "spiritual"
affair that is restricted to family and mosque, much like the secular
definition of religion in the West. This secularism has acted as a
virus or cancer or, as in the language of Deuteronomy, a poison that
has eaten away at the foundations of Muslim society and greatly
weakened the community. Revivalist Islam considers most of the
so-called "moderates" as unfaithful secularized Muslims that have
been infected by this virus and thus regards them as traitors to
Islam. This is in some way a replay of Abraham Kuyper's battle
against secularism amongst Christians of his day-without the
terrorist response. (Some argue that the "Terrible Abraham" practiced
verbal terrorism liberally!)
The current Muslim revival was largely sparked by
a recognition of
this virus and its damaging effects and they are determined to
overcome it, squash it, root it out from amongst them and restore
their religion to its more wholistic expression. Thus colonialism is
seen not only as an economic affront but also as another aspect of
the Western attack on their religious foundation.
The colonial era may be over, but it was succeeded by
post-colonialism, which means economic control without the
inconvenience of operating governments. Today we all, Westerners and
Muslims alike, talk of globalization, which is merely a variety of
the same thing as far as Muslims are concerned. It means the
imposition of secular capitalistic economic structures and methods
that they consider both oppressive and non-Islamic. The oil economy
is part of this picture, an economy that is marked by the presence of
Western, especially American, non-Muslim forces on the holy ground of
Islam. These forces are there to protect Western interests. They do
this by shoring up alleged corrupt governments, such as that of Saudi
Arabia, and by restraining potential "rogue" nations with threats of
armed intervention from Western forces camping in the neighbourhood.
Their presence is a terrible irritant and affront to revivalist
Islam. Muslims ask what business do these unholy forces have in the
heartland of Islam?
In addition to these Western attacks, Muslims have two
tendencies
that add fuel to the fire. One is their strong inclination towards
extreme paranoia or persecution complex. They tend to see an enemy
behind every tree that is just waiting in the wings to destroy them.
The second is their very human inclination to judge others by their
own standards. Since violence and destruction continues to mark
their relationship with others, they rather easily impute their own
motivation to others. They are blind to the fact that they accuse
others of what they do themselves. It is a tendency they display
routinely as my research of the Nigerian situation has demonstrated
to a surprising extent. Now add these tendencies to what they see
the West doing and you end up with a recipe for extreme anger and
lust for revenge that could not possibly be bottled up indefinitely.
The question about what business the West has on Muslim soil is, I
submit, a reasonable question even for us Western Christians. Well,
we know the business that we have there: largely oil to support our
wasteful use of energy. Our question should be what right does the
West have to be there in this particular mode? Can we give any
Christian justification for a presence that provokes so much
hostility and that largely messes up any Christian witness we think
we are presenting there? Why do we expect Muslims to tolerate in
their countries what we reject in our own? Which Western people
would tolerate the presence of foreign forces on their soil that are
there solely to protect their foreign economic interests? Muslim
investments in Western economies are growing. What if one day we had
their armies at our doors announcing they have come to protect their
economic interests? Have we forgotten the Golden Rule: Do unto
others.? Or have we become so secularized that we would restrict
that rule to personal relations that exclude international politics
and economics? Even the secular United Nations is aware of the
potentially strong impact of this Rule. I have on the door to my
office a poster replica of a mosaic by Norman Rockwell on a wall in
the United Nations Headquarters in New York displaying that very Rule
of our Lord in both verbal and artistic expression.
While I am fully aware of Muslim intolerance, persecution and
discrimination against women and non-Muslims and of a host of other
"no-no's," there is yet another teaching of our Lord that applies
here. We are advised to take the beam out of our own eyes before we
work on the Muslim sliver. It is probably true that in this context
few Christians recognize any beams in our own Western eye, but, at
best, a sliver. It is also probably true that most Christians
readily spot beams in the Muslim eye. Comparing the Muslim beam to a
sliver would seem to most Christians to be a gross understatement.
But have we then not turned this teaching of our Lord upside down and
nullified it? Is this yet another teaching that has lost its force
and been narrowed down to personal relations in our secularized
souls?
Regardless of whatever oppressive policies Islam may be
following and
without any attempt to justify them, it is incumbent upon us
Christians to search our own behaviour at every level in this
context. Have we demonstrated the Gospel to them or have we simply
jumped on the secular bandwagons of Western economic and political
policies without subjecting them to the searchlight of the Kingdom?
Have we demonstrated justice in the Muslim world? To ask the
question is to answer it.
Muslims are accusing the West as a whole of being bent on
destroying
them. Christians want to convert and save them, but Muslims see that
as destruction. Westerners, including Christians, put various
economic and military structures in place on Muslim soil to protect
Western interests in oil especially. But can we really, before the
Lord, justify imposing ourselves upon those nations and force, cajole
or trick them into submissive cooperation? Can we not understand
something of their outcries? Would we want them to treat us
similarly?
I realize I am treading on dangerous ground. I have
actually been
accused of being "on the side of the Muslims." What would that
mean?
Would it mean being anti-West? Am I approving of terrorism against
the US? Should I even be considered a traitor? It is my opinion
that Christian objectivity and fairness demand that we apply the
above principles that Christ has taught to this situation. They
demand that we listen carefully to the Muslim point of view and
accept what is true in it while we reject the false. After all,
common grace and antithesis, truth and error cuddle in one bed as
routinely as husband and wife. They are both operative in our souls
at all times. We must always test the spirits and always reserve the
right, no, stronger, exercise the obligation to be critical of both
sides in a conflict. Our citizenship in the Kingdom of God prevents
us from simply supporting the policies and practices of our own
nations or people when they fall short of its standards. This
obligation to be critical becomes more important as the seriousness
of the conflict grows. I believe we all agree that this conflict is
potentially about as serious as conflicts come. This article is an
attempt to help us all fulfill that obligation. That is very
different from taking sides or being a traitor.
Now, if my analysis of the Muslim motivation underlying the
current
crisis is correct, then we owe it to our governments, corporations,
other relevant parties and to ourselves to develop a response that
hits the central issues and solves the core problems. I am hesitant
to deny the need for smoking out the terrorists and for at least some
of the bombing. I do deny that this bombing hits the core of the
issues. Christians should demand that our governments and
corporations sit down with Muslims to explore the issues honestly and
courageously with a view to developing new relations and new respect
for Islam and its people. They are not by nature an unreasonable
people. For many centuries they far outshone the Christian West in
tolerating other cultures and religions. Though, like us Westerners,
they have their blind spots, they can do it. But they need to be
respected and not coerced into subservience.
I am not sure our secular governments can muster the
spirituality
this search for new relationships with Islam demands. As I observed
earlier, secularism is traditionally handicapped in understanding
matters spiritual and religious. I believe that churches or
constituencies that share a point of contact with Islam as central
as the rejection of secularism, have a special obligation to help
their governments towards the development of such new relations.
I am not ready to propose how we should go about this. I here and now
challenge the Christian community to rise to this unique occasion. I call on
the editor of this magazine to invite knowledgeable parties to embark
on a serious discussion in its pages on this crucial issue, to
exchange ideas with a view to encouraging readers to take up the
cudgel in their own Christian community or its broader assemblies
and/or their representatives in government. I summon the Association
for Public Justice to take up the issue as an emergency. Ditto for
our denominational offices for social justice. There are a host of
Christian organizations out there, denominational, ecumenical and
independent (para-church), that need to do the same-and then share
with everyone. Some are already doing so, but they don't share
sufficiently. Probably a time limit of three to six months should be
set for this exchange, for time does not allow us the luxury of
running a mere debating club. This must lead to action. This is an
emergency. May Perspective call the opening shot.
NOTE: Dr. Jan Boer is former missionary of the Christian Reformed
Church and served as Director of the Institute of Church & Society in
Jos, Nigeria. Now living in Vancouver, BC, he is currently doing
research in and writing on Christian-Muslim relations. Consult his
website: www.SocialTheology.com.
--
Graham J Weeks M.R.Pharm.S.
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/
My homepage of quotations
http://www.grace.org.uk/churches/ealing.html
Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/speeches_for_sale.htm My speech writing service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.-- G.K. Chesterton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:34:32 EDT
From: PhilB1703@aol.com
Subject: Re: A Kuyper friend
In a message dated 5/1/2002 1:31:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
weeks-g@dircon.co.uk writes:
>
>
> The brother is one of my best missionary friends and very gifted. He has
> produced an excellent article on understanding Muslims post 9/11 which I
> can post as an attachment if you like.
>
Thanks,
Phil
[This message contained attachments]
On Sat, 18 May 2002 PhilB1703@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 5/18/2002 7:36:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
>Dick@Stillwater-McMullens.net writes:
>> Examples: John Adams, one of my favorite presidents, called the
doctrine
>> of the deity of Christ an "awful blasphemy."
>I have just read the new biography on Adams by McCullough and have a new
>admiration for the 2nd President. Can you suggest some resources where I can
>further understand his theology?
Quite honestly, I would encourage you to have your library help you locate
a set of the Adams Papers put out by Harvard Press (actually still in
progress I think). Adams kept a journal almost his entire life, and it is
a joy to read. There is much that we 21st-century evangelicals will not
agree with (theologically) but nowhere else do I think a person can really
get to know Adams.
If your local library cannot find that material there is another book I
would recommend. Before McCullough's biography made such a hit among the
Adams' scholarly community there was a book by C. Bradley Thompson, _John
Adams and the Spirit of Liberty_. It focuses on Adams political thought,
but I believe there is a chapter on his theology. (I'm working from
memory right now and I don't have my little library of John Adams material
at hand. He was a large subject in my graduate research.) If there's
not
a chapter on theology in that book, I know that Thompson wrote a journal
article specifically on Adam's theology. I will look for a copy and try
to get an exact reference. I remember that I read the article after
reading a lot of Adam's journals and I really felt that Thompson knew what
he was writing about.
cheers,
Brian Burchett
On Fri, 17 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>> Kevin, you are forcing particular meanings on these words, rather than
>> using them as most people do in day-to-day conversations.
>
>Of course! That's my point. Most people think pluralism
>is good. I think it's bad. Not that I think *liberty* is bad,
>but only Christianity leads to liberty. Pluralism puts
>liberty and tyranny on a par.
But abandoning common usage makes communication difficult. I think you
should consider that you might be better off (especially on a Schaeffer
oriented list) just speaking to us plainly rather than setting some sort
of linguistic puzzle before us.
>Most people think "democracy" is a good word.
>America's Founders disagreed.
>
>http://www.americanvision.org/biblical_worldview/BWV_00/BWV08-3.html
The American Founders lived a long time ago. They were schooled in Cicero
& Aristotle and Plato. When they spoke of democracy they meant
something
quite different than your typical American citizen means in the year 2002.
So you see, you can't dismiss what "most people" think today just
because
they use a term that the Founders didn't like. The meaning of the term
has changed.
>> It quite right
>> for you to point out that in some Western countries the dominant
culture
>> is intolerant of Christian belief and practice in certain situations.
But
>> that doesn't prove that "pluralism" is a dirty word. It
proves that some
>> pluralists cannot consistently follow what they purport to believe.
>
>Yes, that's precisely my point. Pluralists and humanists
>cannot consistently follow what they purport to believe.
But most of us have trouble living consistently. How harsh should we be
towards others when we have the same difficulty?
>should not praise any idea that would lead to chaos if
>consistently followed. Pluralism, if consistently followed
>would lead to chaos. Pluralism holds that the Buddhist
>doctrine that killing is wrong is equally as valid as the
>Cannibalistic doctrine that ritual human sacrifice is
>good.
Which advocates of pluralism have said that ritual human sacrifice is
good? I think I know what you are saying: that *logically* this is where
their world view ends up. But your average, good-natured, 21st century
Western pluralist doesn't believe that ritual human sacrifice is good and
he doesn't say so.
>Civilization crumbles under consistent pluralism.
Depends what you mean by pluralism. I won't (yet) agree to use the term
like you do.
>> It's more complicated than this. Locke, Rousseau and others in
the
>> Western tradition had something to do with our societies becoming less
>> theocratic.
>
>Not Locke. Rousseau, yes, and his influence has been disastrous.
>Rousseau (1712-78) stands in the tradition of the French Revolution.
>Locke in the tradition of Calvin and the American Revolution.
Here I must disagree. Locke's treatises on politics do use a lot
of "Christian-ese" but in many ways that religious language appears to
be
the gift wrapping around something that is quite anti-Christian. What do
I mean? Locke is, you'll remember, a social compact theorist. He
starts
his explanation of man & society by theorizing that once upon a time men
lived solitary lives. (Yes, Locke has a lot in common with Hobbes.)
A
man and a woman find each other in the forest, breed, and separate. There
is no bond to hold them together. As time goes on these solitary men and
women find that they can form alliances for mutual protection, and these
alliances are the start of human society. The guts of Locke's theory, the
real meat of it, is based on ideas of human origin that are incompatible
with scripture.
>These two
>Revolutions shared a word but not a philosophy.
But I made no comment on the French Revolution. I was saying that
Rousseau and Locke (and really quite a few more from the 17th & 18th
centuries) had a lot of influence on religion becoming a privatized area
of life in the Western world, i.e. a secularizing influence.
The distinctions between the American war for independence and the French
revolution are important and pronounced, but they don't really speak to
the issue of pluralism.
>Locke was, by today's standards, a Theocrat, pure and simple.
Perhaps a theocrat. I'm not sure. But hardly a man with a worldview
that
was grounded on scripture.
>"Theocracy" comes from two Greek words meaning "God
Rules." God's cosmic
>curse comes down on every nation that will not put itself under God's
>Rule. America's greatness stems from its being a Christian Theocracy, a
>nation "under
>God."
Very interesting. The Constitution originally established a federal
system. One aspect of the federal system was that each state could
establish a state church if they chose to. Some, like Massachusetts, did.
Some, like Rhode Island, did not. I would say that is a form of
pluralism.
>> Yes, it is quite possible for communities to find an equilibrium that
they
>> are content with, even if the source of their boundaries/limits is
>> tradition or a non-Christian religion. That doesn't mean
that the limits
>> they hold to are true, but even misguided rules can (and do) provide
order
>> and safety.
>
>Christians are to be salt and light (Matthew 5). That means
>giving a culture guidance. You cannot build a lasting civilization
>on "misguided" rules. True Guidance comes only from God's
>Word, not from a pluralistic "consensus" between liberty and
>tyranny, order and chaos.
What do you mean by "lasting civilization?" We know from history
that
there were (and are) civilizations that are more than 1,000 years old. I
doubt that the United States of America will exist in another 800 years.
I don't know why you introduced the term 'guidance' into our conversation.
My point was that communities of people will accept tyranny if they need
to in order to have order and stability.
>
>> >If we deny that Christianity is the source of limits in our
>> >society and affirm "pluralism," we have denied the
existence
>> >of ANY absolute standard, and have opened the door for
>> >tyranny.
>>
>> Well, perhaps. Most political theorists/philosophers have
traditionally
>> distinguished between a tyrant and a monarch, and between democracy and
>> the mob. It's not necessary for a king to embrace Christianity in
order
>> to avoid ruling as a tyrant.
>
>Yes it is. That's precisely my point.
>Sure, if a king is an
>atheistic communist he might not be a *consistent* atheistic
>communist and no reign of terror will ensue.
Kevin, there are more worldviews out there than Christianity and atheistic
communism. And tyranny isn't the same as a reign of terror.
>But we cannot
>depend on non-Christians to be inconsistent with their
>religious beliefs. We must urge upon all men consistency with
>the Truth. The Bible says a king must build his reign on
>God's Truth (Deuteronomy 17:18ff.). Civilization cannot
>be built on a mixture of truth and error, liberty and
>tyranny.
Since we now see imperfectly, we will always build our societies on a
mixture of truth and error. Who among us knows all truth and can keep us
from making any incorrect decisions?
>> Nothing to do with 'fate.' It's the way we are. When our
political
>> societies lose cohesion we will accept order, even if it brings
injustice
>> along with it. We cannot live with chaos, but we can find ways to
live
>> with unjust circumstances if the laws are applied consistently and
>> predictably.
>??? This is your policy recommendation? "Learn to live with it?"
>This is hardly the philosophy that led to the birth of America.
>Don't Christians have something more concrete to say?
>America's Founding Fathers certainly did.
Kevin, please re-read what I wrote. I was writing descriptively.
regards,
Brian B.
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Graham Weeks wrote:
>>Obviously there must be boundaries or limits, otherwise our community
will
>>lose order. But since order is never lost for very long (because
people
>>prefer tyranny to chaos & anarchy) someone, or some group will step
in an
>>establish new boundaries.
>But who is to set the boundaries and on what basis? What is the
>ethical/ philosophical basis of the state and its lawmaking?
Graham,
I believe that the boundaries *should* be based on truth. I believe the
scriptures are true.
I also know that throughout history those who call themselves Christians
have disagreed as to the best ways to apply scriptural truth to their
particular political circumstances. The particular political arrangements
that we live in, and those that others in the West lived in previously,
are amalgamations of theology, non-Christian philosophy, vestiges of
previous practices which varied according to local culture, and the
influence of strong leaders. There are "Christian" arguments for
monarchy, "Christian" arguments for anarchy, "Christian"
arguments for
republicanism, "Christian" arguments for communism,
"Christian" arguments
for democracy, "Christian" arguments for separation of church and
state,
"Christian" arguments for theocracy, and so on & so on.
I also believe that the historical record shows that there have been quite
a few non-Christian civilizations that have enjoyed safety and stability
for significant periods of time.
I don't believe that we establish the truth of Christianity by trying to
argue that only Christian nations can offer their people safety, stability
& prosperity. (I actually think that a lot of political systems can
offer
safety, stability and prosperity. However, I think our political life
should aspire to much more than that, and a Christian worldview is needed
to pursue those other noble ends.) People are image-bearers. They are
made to live a certain way, and over & over again we see that cultures
(even uninformed by the gospel) find ways to live and maintain themselves.
I'm convinced that it is possible for them to do this precisely because
they are image-bearers and the practices that benefit our lives benefit us
because they fit who we are.
Brian B.
In a message dated 5/20/2002 7:39:42
AM Pacific Daylight Time, bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu writes:
But abandoning common usage makes communication difficult. I think you
should consider that you might be better off (especially on a Schaeffer
oriented list) just speaking to us plainly rather than setting some sort
of linguistic puzzle before us
.
I'm certainly not trying to be puzzling. I'm trying to
provoke clearer, more logical thinking. Think of my
posts as intellectual barbells, which may be difficult
to bench-press, but makes the analysis of subsequent
ideas a lot easier.
>Most people think "democracy" is a good word.
>America's Founders disagreed.
>
>http://www.americanvision.org/biblical_worldview/BWV_00/BWV08-3.html
The American Founders lived a long time ago. They were schooled in
Cicero
& Aristotle and Plato.
But also the Westminster Standards. Richard Gardiner writes
of the Confession:
In addition to being the decree of Parliament as the standard for Christian
doctrine in the British Kingdom, it was adopted as the official statement of
belief for the colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Although slightly
altered and called by different names, it was the creed of Congregationalist,
Baptist, and Presbyterian Churches throughout the English speaking world. Assent
to the Westminster Confession was officially required at Harvard, Yale, and
Princeton. Princeton scholar, Benjamin Warfield wrote: "It was impossible
for any body of Christians in the [English] Kingdoms to avoid attending to
it." The
Westminster Catechism (1646) Second only to the Bible, the "Shorter
Catechism" of the Westminster Confession was the most widely published
piece of literature in the pre-revolutionary era in America. It is estimated
that some five million copies were available in the colonies. With a total
population of only four million people in America at the time of the Revolution,
the number is staggering. The Westminster Catechism was not only a central part
of the colonial educational curriculum, learning it was required by law. Each
town employed an officer whose duty was to visit homes to hear the children
recite the Catechism. The primary schoolbook for children, the New England
Primer, included the Catechism. Daily recitations of it were required at these
schools. Their curriculum included memorization of the Westminster Confession
and the Westminster Larger Catechism. There was not a person at Independence
Hall in 1776 who had not been exposed to it, and most of them had it spoon fed
to them before they could walk.
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
Cicero and other Romans were used with great license,
subordinate to Biblical standards and English history.
Clinton Rossiter wrote:
Revolutionary thinkers drew heavily on their colonial [Puritan] heritage in
proclaiming virtue the essence of freedom. The decade of crisis brought new
popularity to the cult of virtue that had long held sway in the colonies. All
the familiar techniques that earlier colonists had borrowed from England and
converted to their purposes were revived for the emergency. The appeal to
ancient Rome for republican inspiration was especially favored. The nicest
compliment Samuel Adams could pay Joseph Hawley was to say that he had "as
much of the stern Virtue and Spirit of a Roman Censor as any Gentleman I ever
conversed with." John Dickinson had spoken "with Attick Eloquence and
Roman Spirit"; the dead of Concord were "like the Romans of old";
the way to exhort the Americans was to ''stir up all that's Roman in them.''
The Roman example worked both ways:
From the decline of the republic Americans could learn the fate of free states
that succumb to luxury.
Russell Kirk comments:
Clinton Rossiter expresses succinctly the cardinal point that American
democratic society rests upon Puritan and other Calvinistic beliefsand
through those, in no small part upon the experience of Israel under God.
"For all its faults and falterings, for all the distance it has yet to
travel," Rossiter states, "American democracy has been and remains a
highly moral adventure. Whatever doubts may exist about the sources of
this democracy, there can be none about the chief source of the morality that
gives it life and substance..." From this Puritan inheritance, this
transplanted Hebrew tradition, there come "the contract and all its
corollaries; the higher law as something more than a 'brooding omnipresence in
the sky'; the concept of the competent and responsible individual; certain key
ingredients of economic individualism; the insistence on a citizenry educated to
understand its rights and duties; and the middle-class virtues, that high
plateau of moral stability on which, so Americans believe, successful democracy
must always build.''[15]
That said, nevertheless American political theory and institutions, and the
American moral order, cannot be well understood, or maintained, or renewed,
without repairing to the Law and the Prophets. "In
God we trust," the motto of the United States, is a reaffirmation of
the Covenants made with Noah and Abraham and Moses and the Children of Israel,
down to the last days of prophecy. The earthly Jerusalem never was an immense
city: far more Jews live in New York City today than there were inhabitants of
all Palestine at the height of Solomon's glory. But the eternal Jerusalem, the
city of spirit, still has more to do with American order than has
even Boston which the Puritans founded, or New York which the Dutch founded, or
Washington which arose out of a political compromise between Jeffersonians and
Hamiltonians. Faith and hope may endure when earthly cities are reduced to
rubble: that, indeed, is a principal lesson from the experience of Israel under
God.
15.
Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic: the Origin of the American
Tradition of Political Liberty (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1953), p.
55.
Kirk, The Roots of American Order, p.47-51
When they spoke of democracy they meant something
quite different than your typical American citizen means in the year 2002.
This is because your typical American is oblivious to the
issues which animated America's Founding Fathers.
The Founding Fathers were upset at Britain's attempt
to levy a 4% tax rate. Your typical American now pays
TEN TIMES that amount without flinching. Your typical
American doesn't understand the political issues. I
think we should work to change that.
So you see, you can't dismiss what "most people" think today just
because
they use a term that the Founders didn't like. The meaning of the term
has changed.
I don't think the meaning (and the implications) have changed.
Only people's appreciation and understanding of the issue.
>> It quite right
>> for you to point out that in some Western countries the dominant
culture
>> is intolerant of Christian belief and practice in certain situations.
But
>> that doesn't prove that "pluralism" is a dirty word.
It proves that some
>> pluralists cannot consistently follow what they purport to believe.
>
>Yes, that's precisely my point. Pluralists and humanists
>cannot consistently follow what they purport to believe.
But most of us have trouble living consistently. How harsh should we be
towards others when we have the same difficulty
?
I'm not trying to be harsh.
It's one thing to admit that it's a difficult road.
It's another thing to say "I refuse to go down that road."
Too many Americans today refuse to go down
God's Good Road. At the risk of sounding harsh,
that is not a good thing. The ACLU is working to
keep America from being a nation "under God."
Shouldn't we be working in the opposite direction?
> >istently followed. Pluralism, if consistently followed
> >would lead to chaos. Pluralism holds that the Buddhist
> >doctrine that killing is wrong is equally as valid as the
> >Cannibalistic doctrine that ritual human sacrifice is
> >good.
>
> Which advocates of pluralism have said that ritual human sacrifice is
> good? I think I know what you are saying: that *logically* this is
where
> their world view ends up. But your average, good-natured, 21st
century
> Western pluralist doesn't believe that ritual human sacrifice is good and
> he doesn't say so.
"Your average, good-natured, 21st century Western pluralist"
may well be the most dangerous species on the planet.
Hannah Arendt spoke presciently of "the banality of evil."
http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97mar/tuuri.shtml
Go to any college campus. Ask the first 100 people
you meet if they believe that the United States
should punish aboriginal peoples who engage
in human sacrifice if it can be proven that the
aborigines were "sincere" in their beliefs. A
majority will say the natives cannot be morally
condemned. A majority of students graduating
from high school this year will agree that we
cannot condemn Hitler for what he did, because
he was acting according to his own beliefs.
We are living more and more in a moral stone age.
http://www.libertyhaven.com/noneoftheabove/culture/moralstoneage.shtml
>Civilization crumbles under consistent pluralism.
Depends what you mean by pluralism. I won't (yet) agree to use the term
like you do
.
Pluralism is the belief that all religions are equally valid.
Pluralism is relativism. Civilization crumbles under
consistent relativism.
Here I must disagree. Locke's treatises on politics do use a lot
of "Christian-ese" but in many ways that religious language appears
to be
the gift wrapping around something that is quite anti-Christian. What do
I mean? Locke is, you'll remember, a social compact theorist. He
starts
his explanation of man & society by theorizing that once upon a time men
lived solitary lives. (Yes, Locke has a lot in common with Hobbes.)
A
man and a woman find each other in the forest, breed, and separate.
There
is no bond to hold them together. As time goes on these solitary men and
women find that they can form alliances for mutual protection, and these
alliances are the start of human society. The guts of Locke's theory,
the
real meat of it, is based on ideas of human origin that are incompatible
with scripture
.
If you accept the ideas of Carl Becker you might conclude this.
But Locke's ideas are not "ANTI-Christian," as you say.
And there is good reason to doubt Becker's enlightenment
theories. Brutus' Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos was arguably
as influential on the Founding Fathers as Locke was. Gary
Amos has argued persuasively that Locke was not at
odds with Vindiciae and the Bible:
Gary Amos, Defending the Declaration, pp. 142-150
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/reviews/cm01_rev_declaration.html
>Locke was, by today's standards, a Theocrat, pure and simple.
Perhaps a theocrat. I'm not sure. But hardly a man with a
worldview that
was grounded on scripture
.
In his chapter on the state of nature Locke refers to Cain
in the Book of Genesis. In what way was Locke not
grounded on Scripture? "The State of Nature" is not
an evolutionary history, it is a scriptural pedagogy.
>"Theocracy" comes from two Greek words meaning "God
Rules." God's cosmic
>curse comes down on every nation that will not put itself under God's
>Rule. America's greatness stems from its being a Christian Theocracy, a
>nation "under
God."
Very interesting. The Constitution originally established a federal
system. One aspect of the federal system was that each state could
establish a state church if they chose to. Some, like Massachusetts,
did.
Some, like Rhode Island, did not. I would say that is a form of
pluralism
.
Rhode Island was a self-conscious Christian Theocracy.
Roger Williams was out to make a country which was
MORE Christian than Massachusetts, not less.
The ACLU would go bananas if we were to try to convert
any of the 50 states into a Rhode Islandian theocracy.
It was explicitly Christian, endorsing and promoting
Christianity, and witchcraft was a crime. There
was no state-prescribed order of worship, that's all.
Massachusetts and Rhode Island and all the other
Christian Theocracies of the day do not constitute
"pluralism" in the mind of any pluralist I know.
>> Yes, it is quite possible for communities to find an equilibrium that
they
>> are content with, even if the source of their boundaries/limits is
>> tradition or a non-Christian religion. That doesn't mean
that the limits
>> they hold to are true, but even misguided rules can (and do) provide
order
>> and safety.
>
>Christians are to be salt and light (Matthew 5). That means
>giving a culture guidance. You cannot build a lasting civilization
>on "misguided" rules. True Guidance comes only from God's
>Word, not from a pluralistic "consensus" between liberty and
>tyranny, order and chaos.
I don't know why you introduced the term 'guidance' into our conversation
.
You said "misguided."
Perhaps you said more than you intended.
My point was that communities of people will accept tyranny if they need
to in order to have order and stability
.
Is tyranny to be preferred to a nation "under God?"
Since we now see imperfectly, we will always build our societies on a
mixture of truth and error. Who among us knows all truth and can keep us
from making any incorrect decisions
?
When I say "We should make the effort to build
our legal system and government according to the
blueprints of Scripture," and you come back with
these questions, how am I supposed to interpret
them other than as a denial that human action
should be governed by the law of God? I'm
talking ethics: we OUGHT to construct our
politics on Biblical blueprints. You say, "But
we don't know all truth; our decisions might be
imperfect." So we should NOT base our
decisions on the Bible? We OUGHT NOT to
try to be a nation "under God?"
I certainly am aware that there are going to
be imperfect decisions, especially since my
voice is only going to be one voice in the
political mix. But it seems like you oppose
the idea of moving in a more Scriptural
direction.
>> Nothing to do with 'fate.' It's the way we are. When our
political
>> societies lose cohesion we will accept order, even if it brings
injustice
>> along with it. We cannot live with chaos, but we can find ways
to live
>> with unjust circumstances if the laws are applied consistently and
>> predictably.
>??? This is your policy recommendation? "Learn to live with it?"
>This is hardly the philosophy that led to the birth of America.
>Don't Christians have something more concrete to say?
>America's Founding Fathers certainly did.
Kevin, please re-read what I wrote. I was writing descriptively.
regards,
Brian B
I don't understand the purpose of your descriptions.
I say we OUGHT to be a theocracy (a nation "under God");
our goal should be "Liberty Under God." You respond
by saying, "But we're NOT a theocracy. We're not
a nation under God, we're a nation of would-be gods,
and we oscillate between chaos and tyranny."
When I argue ethics and you respond with a description,
I assume that you're denying my imperatives. If I'm
arguing eschatology and you respond with a description,
I assume that you're denying my hope and possibility.
Maybe I'm just being too argumentative. I apologize.
Perhaps there's a thin line between passion and paranoia. ;-)
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
In a message dated 5/20/2002 7:56:44
AM Pacific Daylight Time, bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu writes:
I also believe that the historical record shows that there have been quite
a few non-Christian civilizations that have enjoyed safety and stability
for significant periods of time.
I don't disagree with this as a matter of history.
(Although I would qualify the "quite a few" and the
"significant periods of time." They are few and like grass.)
I would say that their safety and stability were in
proportion to the conformity of their system to the
principles of Scripture. I would also add that any
society not committed to Scripture is only
accidentally a safe and stable society, and
is teetering on tyranny and chaos.
http://members.aol.com/vftfiles/security.htm#t2
I don't believe that we establish the truth of Christianity by trying to
argue that only Christian nations can offer their people safety, stability
& prosperity.
If you mean "Christian nations" in name only, I certainly agree.
A nation can call itself Christian and be built on
anti-Christian principles, and a nation can call itself
a pagan nation and accidentally be built on Christian
principles. A nation officially and publicly committed
to being a Christian nation is more likely to succeed,
I would think. A nation committed to the principle of
autonomy is "cruising for a bruising." The refusal to
be an officially Christian nation is the principle of
revolution, and it leads inevitably to chaos and tyranny.
http://capo.org/gvp.html
(I actually think that a lot of political systems can offer
safety, stability and prosperity.
The mafia offers this.
Mussolini "made the trains run on time."
Shouldn't we be committed to moving in a
more theocratic direction?
However, I think our political life
should aspire to much more than that, and a Christian worldview is needed
to pursue those other noble ends.)
Sounds like we're in agreement.
Why am I apprehensive?
People are image-bearers. They are
made to live a certain way, and over & over again we see that cultures
(even uninformed by the gospel) find ways to live and maintain themselves.
I'm convinced that it is possible for them to do this precisely because
they are image-bearers and the practices that benefit our lives benefit us
because they fit who we are.
This is the message of Romans chapters 1 and 2.
Romans 2:15 They show that what the law requires is
written on their hearts, to which their own conscience
also bears witness
But Romans goes on to show that apart from the
renewing power of the gospel, non-Christians sink
into slavery to sin.
Just because human beings are created in the
image of God does not mean we do not have
to continually work to put off the old man and
put on the new man.
I believe self-conscious obedience to God's commandments
is superior to unwitting obedience.
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
On Mon, 20 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>> When they spoke of democracy they meant something
>> quite different than your typical American citizen means in the year
2002.
>
>This is because your typical American is oblivious to the
>issues which animated America's Founding Fathers.
And I will still say to you that the meaning of the term, in everyday
usage, has changed. When your typical American now says 'democracy' he is
not using it to distinguish direct democracy from representative
democracy. He basically means 'a system of government where we vote and
they really count the votes.'
Now, I can imagine that at some point in a conversation I might want to
point out that there are different types of 'government of the people, by
the people, for the people' and that there are different terms for those
types. (I know that the Constitution guarantees to every
state a replublican form of government. But I won't get very far in a
conversation if I object constantly to how people use words when they are
using them in the current ordinary sense.
>> So you see, you can't dismiss what "most people" think today
just because
>> they use a term that the Founders didn't like. The meaning of the
term
>> has changed.
>
>I don't think the meaning (and the implications) have changed.
>Only people's appreciation and understanding of the issue.
Language evolves. In addition to our attempts to educate the people we
converse with we also need to make sure we understand their dialect.
>Pluralism is the belief that all religions are equally valid.
>Pluralism is relativism. Civilization crumbles under
>consistent relativism.
Webster's dictionary defines pluralism, in the sense of a pluralistic
society, in this way:
"4a: a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial,
religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and
development of their traditional culture or special interest within the
confines of a common civilization 4b: a concept, doctrine, or policy
advocating this state."
>In his chapter on the state of nature Locke refers to Cain
>in the Book of Genesis. In what way was Locke not
>grounded on Scripture? "The State of Nature" is not
>an evolutionary history, it is a scriptural pedagogy.
The "State of Nature" is fiction. Man has never lived in a
'state of
nature.' Man has always lived in community. On this point we should
listen to Aristotle, not Locke: man is a political animal. Locke's
starting point is mistaken; his house is built on sand.
>Rhode Island was a self-conscious Christian Theocracy.
>Roger Williams was out to make a country which was
>MORE Christian than Massachusetts, not less.
>The ACLU would go bananas if we were to try to convert
>any of the 50 states into a Rhode Islandian theocracy.
>It was explicitly Christian, endorsing and promoting
>Christianity, and witchcraft was a crime. There
>was no state-prescribed order of worship, that's all.
>Massachusetts and Rhode Island and all the other
>Christian Theocracies of the day do not constitute
>"pluralism" in the mind of any pluralist I know.
The point is that the federal nature of the constitution allowed for the
states to approach the question of established religion differently if
their people chose to. Diverse religious groups were allowed to
participate in a common civilization. And yes, I know that by today's
standards they wouldn't be considered very diverse. But in their minds
the differences were critical, some of them would have even considered the
differences worth fighting for and they would have fought if they had been
forced to accept one particular sect's establishment.
>When I say "We should make the effort to build
>our legal system and government according to the
>blueprints of Scripture," and you come back with
>these questions, how am I supposed to interpret
>them other than as a denial that human action
>should be governed by the law of God? I'm
>talking ethics: we OUGHT to construct our
>politics on Biblical blueprints. You say, "But
>we don't know all truth; our decisions might be
>imperfect." So we should NOT base our
>decisions on the Bible? We OUGHT NOT to
>try to be a nation "under God?"
No, that's not what I'm saying. You are too quick to assume these things.
Let the conversation develop. Don't assume you know which pigeon-hole I'm
supposed to fit in.
Here we are, two Christians who believe in the scriptures, and yet we
disagree on some very basic things that have to do with politics. Will
your regime allow people like me to pursue God's will as I understand it?
Or will I have to emigrate?
>I don't understand the purpose of your descriptions.
To point out that it doesn't take Christianity to provide stability &
order. That's not what Christianity brings to the political arena.
People *will* have order. They do not live in chaos, at least not for
very long. This applies to all people at all times.
One of the most sobering problems of political philosophy/theory is that
of ideology. In the 20th-century we saw great movements of
Marxist-Leninism and National Socialism that purported to be able to
re-make society and even re-make man. To raise the Soviet Man, for
example. These movements failed in large part because they refused to
accept the limits of reality. They sought to change nature, to change
human nature even.
The American experiment has succeeded in large part because the Founders
held very realistic views of what was politically possible. Good thing,
too, because American culture tends towards a utopianism.
>I say we OUGHT to be a theocracy (a nation "under God");
>our goal should be "Liberty Under God." You respond
>by saying, "But we're NOT a theocracy. We're not
>a nation under God, we're a nation of would-be gods,
>and we oscillate between chaos and tyranny."
I most certainly did not say anything resembling those words you put in
quotes and attributed to me. I really, really implore you to try to
understand me rather than impute to me such ideas. You are 'demonizing'
me so you can dismiss me.
>When I argue ethics and you respond with a description,
>I assume that you're denying my imperatives. If I'm
>arguing eschatology and you respond with a description,
>I assume that you're denying my hope and possibility.
I'm saying that you have to understand human nature, and how people behave
and what they will choose. People will not (I believe cannot) live in
chaos. But that particular point was made a long time ago.
>Perhaps there's a thin line between passion and paranoia. ;-)
Paranoia is as American as apple pie. :-) Where would we be if we
hadn't
seen a communist under every bed in the 50s?
regards,
Brian B.
On Mon, 20 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>> (I actually think that a lot of political systems can offer
>> safety, stability and prosperity.
>The mafia offers this.
Thank you, that's a great example! Obviously we want more than safety.
>Shouldn't we be committed to moving in a
>more theocratic direction?
I know Graham has pointed out that 'theocratic' might be a term that we
trip over. You've written in another post that by 'theocratic' you mean
'under God.' I guess I would have to asked whether you mean that there
would be formal, established institutions of government which would
purport to speak for God.
>> However, I think our political life
>> should aspire to much more than that, and a Christian worldview is
needed
>> to pursue those other noble ends.)
>
>Sounds like we're in agreement.
>Why am I apprehensive?
I dunno. Why are you apprehensive? (Maybe I don't fit in that
pigeon-hole that you had picked out for me.) :-)
regards,
Brian B.
In a message dated 5/20/2002 2:43:28
PM Pacific Daylight Time, bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu writes:
On Mon, 20 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>> When they spoke of democracy they meant something
>> quite different than your typical American citizen means in the year
2002.
>
>This is because your typical American is oblivious to the
>issues which animated America's Founding Fathers.
And I will still say to you that the meaning of the term, in everyday
usage, has changed. When your typical American now says 'democracy' he
is
not using it to distinguish direct democracy from representative
democracy. He basically means 'a system of government where we vote and
they really count the votes.'
Now, I can imagine that at some point in a conversation I might want to
point out that there are different types of 'government of the people, by
the people, for the people' and that there are different terms for those
types. (I know that the Constitution guarantees to every
state a replublican form of government. But I won't get very far in a
conversation if I object constantly to how people use words when they are
using them in the current ordinary sense.
OK Brian, I think I've pidgeon-holed you correctly now.
I have been assuming that your responses to me were
motivated by disagreement with the stand I take on
the issues I've raised.
You're not discussing the actual issues I'm raising.
You're giving me *communication pointers.*
You're concerned that I'm going to come across as
an extremist of some kind.
Is that in the ball park?
(Of course, I *am* an extremist, and if that hasn't
been made clear, then I've been a lousy communicator!)
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/extremism.htm
>> So you see, you can't dismiss what "most people" think
today just because
>> they use a term that the Founders didn't like. The meaning of
the term
>> has changed.
>
>I don't think the meaning (and the implications) have changed.
>Only people's appreciation and understanding of the issue.
Language evolves. In addition to our attempts to educate the people we
converse with we also need to make sure we understand their dialect.
I understand that most people think "democracy" is good
and "pluralism" is good. This is what they have been
taught in government schools and on the evening news.
I want to challenge people to re-think.
>Pluralism is the belief that all religions are equally valid.
>Pluralism is relativism. Civilization crumbles under
>consistent relativism.
Webster's dictionary defines pluralism, in the sense of a pluralistic
society, in this way:
"4a: a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial,
religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and
development of their traditional culture or special interest within the
confines of a common civilization 4b: a concept, doctrine, or policy
advocating this state."
What "civilization" does Christianity and Cannibalism have in common?
What "civilization" does Christian and Islam have in common?
Is the Cannibal attitude toward Christians "live and let live?"
Is the Muslim attitude toward Christianity one of "pluralism?"
Does the religion of Secular Humanism really allow
freedom for Christians?
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/Peloza.htm
All other religions recognize that pluralism is impossible.
It is only in Christian nations where they advocate
pluralism, and that is a transitional effort to eventually
suppress Christianity.
>In his chapter on the state of nature Locke refers to Cain
>in the Book of Genesis. In what way was Locke not
>grounded on Scripture? "The State of Nature" is not
>an evolutionary history, it is a scriptural pedagogy.
The "State of Nature" is fiction. Man has never lived in a
'state of
nature.' Man has always lived in community. On this point we
should
listen to Aristotle, not Locke: man is a political animal. Locke's
starting point is mistaken; his house is built on sand.
Aristotle is wrong. Man is a FAMILIAL being, not
a "political" one. The Family is natural, God-ordained.
The Empire is not.
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/polis.htm
Locke begins in Genesis, with Cain and Abel. That's
"community." That's also "state of nature." I think
Locke is perfectly Scriptural (except he goes on
to justify the collective initiation of force through
the "social contract.")
>Rhode Island was a self-conscious Christian Theocracy.
>Roger Williams was out to make a country which was
>MORE Christian than Massachusetts, not less.
>The ACLU would go bananas if we were to try to convert
>any of the 50 states into a Rhode Islandian theocracy.
>It was explicitly Christian, endorsing and promoting
>Christianity, and witchcraft was a crime. There
>was no state-prescribed order of worship, that's all.
>Massachusetts and Rhode Island and all the other
>Christian Theocracies of the day do not constitute
>"pluralism" in the mind of any pluralist I know.
The point is that the federal nature of the constitution allowed for the
states to approach the question of established religion differently if
their people chose to. Diverse religious groups were allowed to
participate in a common civilization. And yes, I know that by today's
standards they wouldn't be considered very diverse. But in their minds
the differences were critical, some of them would have even considered the
differences worth fighting for and they would have fought if they had been
forced to accept one particular sect's establishment.
We're confusing apples and oranges.
Or better, we're confusing apples and landmines.
Christian America represented ecclesiastical disestablishment,
or ecclesiastical pluralism. Not religious pluralism.
It was still a nation "under God." Political pluralism
between Christians and atheists is impossible.
Not a single state in the union permitted atheists
to hold office.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/21atheists.htm
They understood that pluralism is impossible.
>When I say "We should make the effort to build
>our legal system and government according to the
>blueprints of Scripture," and you come back with
>these questions, how am I supposed to interpret
>them other than as a denial that human action
>should be governed by the law of God? I'm
>talking ethics: we OUGHT to construct our
>politics on Biblical blueprints. You say, "But
>we don't know all truth; our decisions might be
>imperfect." So we should NOT base our
>decisions on the Bible? We OUGHT NOT to
>try to be a nation "under God?"
No, that's not what I'm saying. You are too quick to assume these
things.
Let the conversation develop. Don't assume you know which pigeon-hole
I'm
supposed to fit in.
Here we are, two Christians who believe in the scriptures, and yet we
disagree on some very basic things that have to do with politics. Will
your regime allow people like me to pursue God's will as I understand it?
Or will I have to emigrate?
"My regime?" I am against regimes. As I said,
I am a radical libertarian. But if I go out front to
get my morning paper and find that during the
night you have built an altar on your front lawn
and are preparing to slice open your virgin daughter
to rip her heart out as an offering to the sun-god,
I'm going to jump your fence and "kidnap" your
daughter to preserve her life. In an Aztec nation
I will be arrested for trespassing, kidnapping,
and violating your rights to religious worship.
In a Christian nation you will be arrested for
attempted murder. Pluralism is impossible.
>I don't understand the purpose of your descriptions.
To point out that it doesn't take Christianity to provide stability &
order. That's not what Christianity brings to the political arena.
People *will* have order. They do not live in chaos, at least not for
very long. This applies to all people at all times.
Yes.
What it takes Christianity to provide is LIBERTY.
All other religions lead to totalitarianism, tyranny, dictatorship.
Even the state of chaos which is wrongly described as
"anarchy" is really a state of multiple aggressors each
attempting to be his own god. The chaos of "anarchy" is
really the chaos of "poly-archy" or "multi-archy."
Everybody wants "order" -- as THEY define it.
Everybody wants to be king of the hill.
Only when a nation confesses that *God* is Lawgiver
and King (Isaiah 33:22) can there be liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17).
Jesus said we are not to be "archists," but servants
(Mark 10:42-45).
http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/thesis/servants.htm
This is the source of ordered liberty.
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
On Wed, 22 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>OK Brian, I think I've pidgeon-holed you correctly now.
>I have been assuming that your responses to me were
>motivated by disagreement with the stand I take on
>the issues I've raised.
>You're not discussing the actual issues I'm raising.
>You're giving me *communication pointers.*
At times, but not entirely. You are making a lot out of specific terms
like 'democracy' and 'pluralism' and you seem to want to chastise people
for using the terms differently than you do.
>I understand that most people think "democracy" is good
>and "pluralism" is good. This is what they have been
>taught in government schools and on the evening news.
>I want to challenge people to re-think.
It's not just that they think democracy is good. It is that they use the
term in a much more general sense than you do. If they hear you say
'democracy is bad' they aren't going to listen to you. They will believe
you are a kook or a communist, and they don't care to continue the
conversation. Because the meaning of the word in everyday language has
changed we have to engage them in conversation starting where they are at.
>> Webster's dictionary defines pluralism, in the sense of a pluralistic
>> society, in this way:
>>
>> "4a: a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic,
racial,
>> religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and
>> development of their traditional culture or special interest within the
>> confines of a common civilization 4b: a concept, doctrine, or policy
>> advocating this state."
>
>What "civilization" does Christianity and Cannibalism have in
common?
Where are you going? What does this have to do with whether pluralism is
possible in the United States? Are we threatened by cannibals?
Christians in the United States have historically asked for freedom and
diversity to practice their faith in a variety of ways. I will still put
that forth as a form of pluralism. We now live in an era when
international travel is much easier than it ever has been, and where ideas
can travel across oceans even faster. If people living in our country
choose to practice non-Christian faiths I am convinced that they should be
allowed to do so, within certain limits.
>> The "State of Nature" is fiction. Man has never lived
in a 'state of
>> nature.' Man has always lived in community. On this point
we should
>> listen to Aristotle, not Locke: man is a political animal.
Locke's
>> starting point is mistaken; his house is built on sand.
<snip>
>Locke begins in Genesis, with Cain and Abel. That's
>"community." That's also "state of nature." I think
>Locke is perfectly Scriptural (except he goes on
>to justify the collective initiation of force through
>the "social contract.")
Ok, so we're not going to resolve this unless we start a
discussion/on-line reading of Locke. Is that something you would want to
do?
>We're confusing apples and oranges.
>Or better, we're confusing apples and landmines.
>Christian America represented ecclesiastical disestablishment,
>or ecclesiastical pluralism. Not religious pluralism.
>It was still a nation "under God."
In what sense was it "under God?" If in any sense, it might be
that the
dominant culture or worldview was operating on a Christian legacy.
>Political pluralism
>between Christians and atheists is impossible.
We have Christians and we have atheists in the United States. While we
Christians are unhappy with the way the dominant culture is headed, and
while there are instances when we come into conflict with non-Christians
our conflicts are almost entirely verbal and legal. We are not having
religious wars.
>Not a single state in the union permitted atheists
>to hold office.
And you think it should still be that way?
>"My regime?" I am against regimes.
So why quote the American Founders if you aren't trying to revive a
political structure (regime) that looks like theirs?
But you didn't answer my question. Will you tolerate other Christians
even if they disagree with you? And if you'll tolerate another Christian
how will you define 'Christian' for legal and political purposes? And if
you can tolerate a Christian why can't you tolerate a Jew or a Muslim or a
Hindu?
>As I said,
>I am a radical libertarian. But if I go out front to
>get my morning paper and find that during the
>night you have built an altar on your front lawn
>and are preparing to slice open your virgin daughter
>to rip her heart out as an offering to the sun-god,
>I'm going to jump your fence and "kidnap" your
>daughter to preserve her life.
That's useful as an illustration of where you think things are logically
headed, but it's not a real example. Your typical American citizen
already thinks that JWs are weird for not allowing blood transfusions.
The culture already (or still) acts to stop acts that are nowhere near
human sacrifice.
>What it takes Christianity to provide is LIBERTY.
And even that is elusive. Not all Christian governments have promoted
liberty, at least not as the American Founders understood liberty. Many
Christian kings and emperors ruled with heavy hands. (Perhaps they
weren't personally Christians as evangelicals understand conversion.)
It takes Christianity, but for liberty to thrive I believe there are
probably a lot of other necessary cultural conditions.
>Only when a nation confesses that *God* is Lawgiver
>and King (Isaiah 33:22) can there be liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17).
>Jesus said we are not to be "archists," but servants
>(Mark 10:42-45).
The scriptures speak of liberty but they really do not speak of political
liberty. They speak of being liberated from death.
Brian B.
In a message dated 5/22/2002
10:04:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bburchet@darwin.helios.nd.edu writes:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>OK Brian, I think I've pidgeon-holed you correctly now.
>I have been assuming that your responses to me were
>motivated by disagreement with the stand I take on
>the issues I've raised.
>You're not discussing the actual issues I'm raising.
>You're giving me *communication pointers.*
At times, but not entirely. You are making a lot out of specific terms
like 'democracy' and 'pluralism' and you seem to want to chastise people
for using the terms differently than you do.
"Chastise?" No, more like "give a wake up call."
It's not the mere use of terms that bugs me, but
the content behind the term, and the naive acceptance
of this content. In fact, I sometimes use the term
"democracy" or "democratic" when I'm arguing against
oppressive elitist hierarchy with someone who thinks
democracy is good. When someone accuses me
of trying to "impose" my religion on society
I might even insist that I am "democratic."
"Ballots, not bullets."
I favor a Republic over a Democracy because I
believe principles are more important than majorities.
But I tend to favor democracy over dictatorship.
I oppose pluralism because all religions are not equal.
But I am not against liberty, and don't advocate
stoning Buddhists or subjecting Baptists to fines
or prison for failing to use my Book of Prayer.
>I understand that most people think "democracy" is good
>and "pluralism" is good. This is what they have been
>taught in government schools and on the evening news.
>I want to challenge people to re-think.
It's not just that they think democracy is good. It is that they use the
term in a much more general sense than you do. If they hear you say
'democracy is bad' they aren't going to listen to you. They will believe
you are a kook or a communist, and they don't care to continue the
conversation. Because the meaning of the word in everyday language has
changed we have to engage them in conversation starting where they are at.
I've never had this happen. (Or maybe I'm just unaware of
it happening.) Every time I've said something like, "Every
single person who signed the Constitution thought that
democracy was dangerous; that's why the Constitution
guarantees a republican form of government," the listener
has been intrigued and listens intently to the explanation.
One of the first tasks of communication on spiritual issues,
I believe, is jarring people out of their lethargy. A controversial
claim in a credible and amicable manner usually gets a
vibrant discussion going. But some people are just not
interested in discussing the interaction of law and religion
no matter how catchy your opening line, and no matter
how "tolerant" you appear. Don't come between them
and their TV!
>> Webster's dictionary defines pluralism, in the sense of a pluralistic
>> society, in this way:
>>
>> "4a: a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic,
racial,
>> religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in
and
>> development of their traditional culture or special interest within
the
>> confines of a common civilization 4b: a concept, doctrine, or policy
>> advocating this state."
>
>What "civilization" does Christianity and Cannibalism have in
common?
Where are you going? What does this have to do with whether pluralism is
possible in the United States? Are we threatened by cannibals?
I suppose this question is intended as humorous
and rhetorical. I've never really thought about cannibalism
specifically, but only as an abstract foil. But I did a
quick websearch and I'll say this: if the Signers of
the Constitution could review the following links
they would say our nation is threatened by cannibalism:
First, an 1844 U.S. Supreme Court decision in which
the Court REQUIRED the Bible to be used in a
government-operated school:
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Vidal.htm
Then, a 1963 case in which the Court said the Bible
MUST NOT be used in a government-operated
school.
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/Educ_Bible.htm
Then go back to an 1878 Supreme Court decision in
which Utah polygamists claimed that the First Amendment
gave them freedom to practice their religion. The Court
said NO, because this is a Christian nation.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/mormon.htm
Then back to the present, in which the Court says
schools must remove copies of the Ten Commandments
from classroom walls.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Stone.htm
Then consider the "detached" and "objective"
studies of "anthropophagy" at some of our modern
universities
http://acd.ufrj.br/pacc/literaria/paper1helo.html
http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/english/babo/wills/wills691autobio.html
http://www.educationforum.org.nz/documents/submissions/revised_social_studies.doc
which are unable to bring Christian morality to bear on
the subject, as the 1878 Supreme Court did,
and theatres:
http://fb14.uni-mainz.de/projects/cde/conferen/bayreuth/abstract.html
Then consider the presence of cannibalism in popular culture:
http://www.cannibalcorpse.net
http://www.angelfire.com/geek/cannibal/
http://www.canniballovers.com/
http://www.lasecrets.com/MurderInc/confession.htm
Or better still, DON'T consider them!
Consider the impact of these popular movies and
rock groups on young children who lack moral
direction from their parents.
From my reading of the Founders, and their defense
of Christian morality, I would say, yes, we are
threatened by cannibalism -- because we accept the
myth of pluralism.
Christians in the United States have historically asked for freedom and
diversity to practice their faith in a variety of ways. I will still put
that forth as a form of pluralism.
In light of the threat from cannibalist pluralism, above,
the desire of culturally irrelevant baptists and
culturally irrelevant episcopalians to "practice their faith
in a variety of ways" strikes me as trying to douse
the fires of hell with an eye-dropper.
OF COURSE baptists should be able to go to any
church they choose. Who denies this?
Answer: pluralists, especially if baptists turn into
uppity politically-active "right-wing" baptists.
http://www.texemarrs.com/121998/irsmuz.htm
We now live in an era when
international travel is much easier than it ever has been, and where ideas
can travel across oceans even faster. If people living in our country
choose to practice non-Christian faiths I am convinced that they should be
allowed to do so, within certain limits.
By saying "within certain limits" you give away the store.
You are not a pluralist, ultimately. But our culture is
threatened by those who ARE pluralists, ultimately.
By focusing on the right to go to church and missing
the threat from the Courts and Universities on the
other six days of the week, you consign the next
generation to moral and spiritual cannibals.
Politically, I am a pluralist in the sense that I object
to political (governmental) authoritarianism, and often
these two are pitted against each other.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0403/korea.democracy.html
But this is naive pragmatism, and when push comes to
shove, we have to be able to say there is a true religion
and there are false religions, and the practices of
false religions cannot be tolerated. James Madison,
speaking in defense of the right of culturally-irrelevant
baptists to worship any way they want, also
said any legislation which ignores the reality of
Christianity as the true religion, and the falsity of
other religions, deserves to be vetoed:
12. Because, the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light
of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift,
ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the
number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining
under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former!
Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once
discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming
into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who
continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them.
Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious
progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would
circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.
Memorial
and Remonstrance, 1785
For the pluralist, there is no such thing as a "false religion."
It is utterly inappropriate to speak of people being "in darkness."
>Political pluralism
>between Christians and atheists is impossible.
We have Christians and we have atheists in the United States. While we
Christians are unhappy with the way the dominant culture is headed, and
while there are instances when we come into conflict with non-Christians
our conflicts are almost entirely verbal and legal. We are not having
religious wars.
There's something uneasy about Christians, cannibals, atheists
and polygamists all sitting together, sipping tea, chatting
about the weather, and ignoring the bigger issues. This
is the setting which produces books like "Heather Has Two
Mommies" and, perhaps, "Jeffrey Eats Other People."
>Not a single state in the union permitted atheists
>to hold office.
And you think it should still be that way?
I would rather abolish the office entirely ;-) but
I could not in good conscience vote for an atheist,
given the Biblical requirements for a leader:
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/22leaders.htm
>"My regime?" I am against regimes.
So why quote the American Founders if you aren't trying to revive a
political structure (regime) that looks like theirs?
Because their religious sensibilities vastly exceed ours.
The Founders might be shocked at my radical libertarianism,
but I believe with dialogue they would come around to my
side:
http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/thesis/commentators/morality.htm
But you didn't answer my question. Will you tolerate other Christians
even if they disagree with you? And if you'll tolerate another Christian
how will you define 'Christian' for legal and political purposes?
Democratically, of course!
http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98oct/einwechter.shtml
And if
you can tolerate a Christian why can't you tolerate a Jew or a Muslim or a
Hindu?
We have to define "tolerate." I have a friend from Afghanistan.
He's something of a war hero back there, as he was taken
prisoner by the Communists. He is proud and happy to be
an American, and is appalled at Osama bin Laden. His
wife has cooked us some great Afghani cuisine. And we
have a mutual friend who is a Jew (who works with his wife).
In fact, I don't think I've ever been in my Afghani friend's home
without my Jewish friend also being there. It's quite ecumenical.
I think they would all say I was a "tolerant" person.
(None of them are as fanatically into their religions as I am.)
Should our legal system "tolerate" the expression of
Islamic Jihad faith by Osama and his crew? They were
sincerely "practicing their faith" (how can you be more
sincere and dedicated than to commit suicide for your
religion?) -- how can you say they shouldn't be allowed to
practice their faith (and still claim to be a pluralist)?
>What it takes Christianity to provide is LIBERTY.
And even that is elusive. Not all Christian governments have promoted
liberty, at least not as the American Founders understood liberty. Many
Christian kings and emperors ruled with heavy hands. (Perhaps they
weren't personally Christians as evangelicals understand conversion.)
Christians once accepted the doctrine of the divine right of kings.
Christians have matured. This is why I am a postmillennialist.
I see progress over the centuries, even if I see decline in ours.
It takes Christianity, but for liberty to thrive I believe there are
probably a lot of other necessary cultural conditions.
But the true source of these conditions can be found
only in Christianity. Seeking to find those conditions
in any other religion will ultimately result in loss of
liberty and, ultimately, cultural death.
>Only when a nation confesses that *God* is Lawgiver
>and King (Isaiah 33:22) can there be liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17).
>Jesus said we are not to be "archists," but servants
>(Mark 10:42-45).
The scriptures speak of liberty but they really do not speak of political
liberty. They speak of being liberated from death.
Brian B.
The Founding Fathers would emphatically disagree with you,
and I'm surprised to hear you say such a thing. The Bible
does not speak of political liberty?? Amazing claim. See the
catalog of "Election Day Sermons" here:
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/romans13rev.htm
Even Jews admit this:
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/amongthenations/The_Impact_of_the_Bible_4_-__-Proclaim_Liberty_throughout_the_Land...-.asp
See the quotes in
They
Preached Liberty by Franklin P. Cole.
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
On Wed, 22 May 2002 Kevin4VFT@aol.com wrote:
>> We now live in an era when
>> international travel is much easier than it ever has been, and where
ideas
>> can travel across oceans even faster. If people living in our
country
>> choose to practice non-Christian faiths I am convinced that they should
be
>> allowed to do so, within certain limits.
>
>By saying "within certain limits" you give away the store.
No, I don't.
This is where we started, I think. I understand your point. A person
cannot hold to moral relativism consistently. We cannot live that way, so
at some point all moral relativists make moral assertions and end up
contradicting themselves.
However, as a basic fact of human existence all societies find some way to
establish limits for what is or isn't allowed in their societies. This
will be true of our society, too, whether or not we base those limits on
Christianity.
>Should our legal system "tolerate" the expression of
>Islamic Jihad faith by Osama and his crew? They were
>sincerely "practicing their faith" (how can you be more
>sincere and dedicated than to commit suicide for your
>religion?) -- how can you say they shouldn't be allowed to
>practice their faith (and still claim to be a pluralist)?
The obvious answer is that our legal system, our society, will not
tolerate this if for no other reason than a sad Hobbesian fear of death.
>The Founding Fathers would emphatically disagree with you,
>and I'm surprised to hear you say such a thing. The Bible
>does not speak of political liberty?? Amazing claim. See the
>catalog of "Election Day Sermons" here:
>
>http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/romans13rev.htm
I'll have to try to get back to this later. The last time I read
political sermons from the Founding era I was convinced that they were
stretching the meaning of the text to fit their contemporary political
circumstances.
Brian B.
Brian says,
> >> The "State of Nature" is fiction. Man has never
lived in a 'state of
> >> nature.' Man has always lived in community. On this
point we should
> >> listen to Aristotle, not Locke: man is a political animal.
Locke's
> >> starting point is mistaken; his house is built on sand.
>
> [KC responds:]
>
> >Locke begins in Genesis, with Cain and Abel. That's
> >"community." That's also "state of nature." I think
> >Locke is perfectly Scriptural (except he goes on
> >to justify the collective initiation of force through
> >the "social contract.")
>
> Ok, so we're not going to resolve this unless we start a
> discussion/on-line reading of Locke. Is that something you would want
to
> do?
Sure!
Family is community. Therefore no man has ever not lived
in community. But Locke's definition of "state of Nature" is
simply the absence of "the State," and men have plainly
lived in such a State-less state. Genesis 9:6, which Locke
identifies with the "law of Nature," operates in Locke's "state
of Nature." (Second Treatise on Gov't, chap 2, ¶11)
Locke's "state of Nature" is right out of the Bible.
And I believe the Bible is a textbook of history -- and politics.
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/textbook.htm
Sounds like you believe Locke is saying that "the state of nature"
is normative or acceptable, and Aristotle is saying that
community is natural or normative. But Locke says "the state
of Nature is therefore not to be endured." (Second Treatise,
chap 2, ¶13) He concludes the chapter by saying,
15. To those that say there were never any men in the state of Nature, I will
not oppose the authority of the judicious Hooker (Eccl. Pol. i. 10), where he
says, "the laws which have been hitherto mentioned"- i.e., the laws of
Nature- "do bind men absolutely, even as they are men, although they have
never any settled fellowship, never any solemn agreement amongst themselves what
to do or not to do; but for as much as we are not by ourselves sufficient to
furnish ourselves with competent store of things needful for such a life as our
Nature doth desire, a life fit for the dignity of man, therefore to supply those
defects and imperfections which are in us, as living single and solely by
ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with
others; this was the cause of men uniting themselves as first in politic
societies."
I don't see how this differs from what Aristotle is saying.
Kevin Craig
http://VFT.isCool.net/
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7