Is Joel Belz right that the church should say more about politics?
In a recent column in World Magazine Joel Belz wondered whether churches have become too cautious or fearful in engaging politics. Belz notes that churches rightly steer away from endorsing candidates or political parties, and he agrees that Christians need to make it clear that their “spiritual and heavenly allegiance” is much more important than their “worldly character.” But he suggests that given the “radical secularization of our culture” churches may need to step up the political instruction. As would be expected in this sort of argument, Belz invokes the legacy of the pastor turned Dutch Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper, along with Kuyper’s ringing declaration of the lordship of Christ over every area of life.
What is Belz looking for in particular?
When the Bible says that “righteousness exalts a nation,” it seems minimally appropriate for churches and their ministers to help their people understand better in practical political terms what that righteousness looks like. What does “righteousness” mean when we think about tax rates, immigration, education, foreign policy, healthcare—and a hundred different issues?
Belz doesn’t answer the question but he does direct his readers to a course offered by Summit Ministries.
I agree that the church should teach its members the basic principles of Christian political theology, many of which are helpfully summarized on the website of Summit Ministries. Christians should know what Scripture says about God’s ordination of the state in the context of the Noahic Covenant, about government’s responsibility to secure basic justice for the poor and the oppressed, about the obligation to pay taxes and give honor to the civil magistrate, and about the need for the church to obey God rather than human beings when necessary. And it would be very beneficial for pastors and teachers who have the expertise to hold a Sunday School series on some of the principles of Christian political theology as taught by the tradition running from Augustine through Thomas Aquinas to the reformers and beyond.
But Belz seems to be pressing further when he speaks of what righteousness looks like in “practical political terms,” applied in particular to “tax rates, immigration, education, foreign policy, healthcare—and a hundred different issues” (emphasis added). Does Scripture really teach what righteousness looks like in practical political terms in the 21st Century United States of America on a hundred different issues?
I know some pastors who argue that based on Christian principles the government should definitely tax the wealthy at higher rates than it currently does. I know others who argue that anything other than a flat tax rate is virtual theft. Some contemporary Christians think Jesus demands a crack-down on illegal immigration. Others argue that the principles of mercy and of hospitality to strangers should temper such a crack-down. And while many conservative Christians assume that Christianity calls for a limited government that leaves matters like education, health care, poor relief and the church outside of the supervision of the state, they might be surprised to find out that a theologian like Calvin found it quite sensible that the state should have oversight over all of these matters; indeed, in his commentaries he argues that it is within the obligation of the state to establish schools and hospitals, as well as to provide for the poor and pay the salaries of the ministers of the church.
Calvin may have been wrong, of course. But how sure can we be that Scripture provides the answers for which we are looking if Calvin (and all other Christian political theologians prior to the advent of modern liberalism) came to such different conclusions than we do? Belz wants the church to recover its prophetic edge. But if the church’s hearers are not convinced that it is truly the Lord speaking when the prophet says “Thus says the Lord” the effect will be the destruction of the church’s credibility, not the recovery of such a prophetic edge. Jim Wallis and Jerry Falwell saw themselves as prophets but outside of their small group of already convinced followers few shared the conviction.
In a thoughtful review of Kenneth J. Collins’s recent book on politics and evangelicalism, my friend and former teacher Jay Green, professor of history at Covenant College, suggests that Collins comes close to conflating thoughtful Christian engagement with libertarianism. Green writes,
although Collins encourages evangelicals to move “beyond ideology” as a solution to our current impasse, the cumulative effect of his own persistent grievances against the modern secular state amounts, in the end, to a book-length argument on behalf of an almost reflexive libertarianism. In other words, the central concern that seems to animate Collins’s book isn’t the divided soul of evangelicalism as much as the moral (il)legitimacy of the modern liberal state. I waited in vain for Collins to advance (or at least acknowledge) some semblance of a Christian case for the state as a God-ordained institution, established to do his bidding, even when its goals and methods are unholy and its thirst for expansive power unquenchable. (Consider the regime the apostle Paul was living under when he penned the 13th chapter of his letter to the Romans.) Treating the robust exercise of state power as little but oppressive, or denying that participation in “power politics” can result in anything but corruption, seems to undervalue or simply ignore the extent to which all such activity is done under a sovereign God as an extension of his good government.
I sincerely appreciate Collins’s admonitions against evangelicals shilling for or baptizing secular political ideologies, as well as his warnings against confusing political movements with God’s kingdom. I do not, however, believe that his persistent libertarian contempt toward government power provides a very helpful path forward. I think he meant to gesture toward a public code for evangelicals leavened by a Wesleyan ethic of love and self-denial, which is attractive in many ways. But his analysis reads more often like a treatise on behalf of what David Brody has called “Teavangelicalism”—an alliance between evangelicals and Tea Party conservatives. If we hope to support a robust Christian vision for public life, we must be properly wary of government propensities toward tyranny. But we must also ingest a healthy dose of realism that understands coercive power not as a unique invention of modernity, but as an intrinsic and complex feature of the human condition.
I share Green’s concern. Although I agree with Belz and many other Christians that the church should proclaim the whole counsel of God, including what that counsel says about political theology, I am not very confident in the ability of most pastors and teachers to engage in “practical political terms” on a hundred different issues while at the same time rising above their own political predilections and loyalties (whether to the left or to the right). If the church wants to maintain its prophetic edge it needs to focus on what Scripture actually teaches, encouraging Christians to work out these principles in citizenship and vocation and in a spirit of service to their neighbors (think Kuyper’s distinction between the church as institution and the church as organism). But that won’t happen unless the church steers well clear of practical political matters, on a hundred different issues.
Posted on October 23, 2012, in Abraham Kuyper, Culture War, Two Kingdoms and tagged Jay Green, Joel Belz, Kenneth Collins, Summit Ministries, Tea party, World Magazine. Bookmark the permalink. 30 Comments.
I find it interesting that Joel Belz doesn’t even interact with the “Two Kingdoms” concepts.
The Carolinas are a whole different world from California; perhaps he doesn’t have people in his circles who advocate such views.
Interesting that you say that Darrell. I have found folks in the South to be much more receptive to the two kingdoms doctrine in part because they readily see how politicized the church can become and in part because they have no trouble seeing how the two kingdoms paradigm is a sensible expression of the lordship of Christ.
Greetings, Matt. The issue you raise — the risk of politicizing the church — is part of why I was surprised Joel Belz didn’t address Two Kingdoms issues at all.
Belz is Reformed. His family background is from a wing of the Presbyterian tradition — the Bible Presbyterian Church — where in the days of Carl McIntire and J. Oliver Buswell, before the rupture and mergers that formed the RPCES, and before Francis Schaeffer developed his emphasis on a distinctively Reformed and Christian worldview, a reasonable case could be made that politics **DID** trump theology. If there’s anyone in conservative Reformed circles who understands the danger of a truly politicized theology which leads a church away from an emphasis on Reformed doctrine into fundamentalism, it’s Belz.
Furthermore, from his family history with Cono Christian School, he understands the importance of maintaining an emphasis on the difference between the three spheres of family, church and state. Belz’s father fought long and hard against state control of education, and fought for the right of parents to make their own decisions on children’s education, in a day when that was emphatically **NOT** a popular view in most Reformed churches outside the CRC.
I have no way to get into Joel Belz’s mind and I’m only guessing on why he didn’t comment on Two Kingdoms issues. All arguments from silence are obviously weak, though I believe this omission is likely significant. Either he didn’t want to get involved in a Two Kingdoms fight or he didn’t consider the Two Kingdoms advocates to be worth his time, perhaps an issue of concern only to a relatively small subset of his readers.
My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that Belz knows his readers at World Magazine well enough to know what does and does not interest them. I have no doubt he’s willing to raise unpopular topics or try to get people interested in things that don’t currently interest them. However, I can say that from my experience, I have never heard anyone — anyone at all — in conservative evangelical circles ever saying anything remotely resembling “Two Kingdoms” theology outside of a relatively small number of Reformed people on the internet.
Perhaps Belz simply didn’t consider the topic to be important.
A side note here, Matt — I am most certainly aware that there are people in academic and left-wing circles who are saying things that bear a superficial resemblance to “Two Kingdoms” views, and some liberal people in Reformed circles may use that language as well. However, I don’t want to tar legitimate Calvinists with that brush since I think the agendas are very different, and stem from a desire to advocate left-wing politics or to oppose conservative religious involvement in politics rather than from a coherent theology. I’ll give the Two Kingdoms advocates credit for appearing to have sincere theological convictions behind their beliefs, and I don’t want to blame Two Kingdoms advocates for some of the nonsense I read coming out of the “religious left” movement.
Hi Matt, you make many good points here. I’m confident you’d know that I’m not a particularly sceptical reader when it comes to two-kingdoms theology. Your conclusion is clear enough – the church ought to steer well clear or practical political matters. But one may conclude this for several reasons and I would appreciate an explanation of the priority of your reasons for this conclusion. In other words, should the church stay clear of such practical political matters because of the Scriptures’ inherent ambiguity on such matters, or because of the Scriptures’ silence on these questions, or because you are not “very confident in the ability of most pastors and teachers to engage in ‘practical political terms’ on a hundred different issues while at the same time rising above their own political predilections and loyalties”?
Cheers, brother.
I’m wondering if anybody has seen where advocates of political teaching in the church have interacted with “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”
If a political point can, by good and necessary consequence be deduced from scripture, then we should listen. If it can’t, then we need to flip over to the WCF chapter on Liberty of Conscience.
I have no problem with that statement.
The question is not the principle, but rather what questions are “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” A PC(USA) liberal minister might have a much different view of what is expressly set down in Scripture than either you or me.
I can think of political questions on which I think the Bible gives guidance for what we should do but on which I would not bind someone’s conscience since I’m not sure Scriptural teaching is clear. For example, I think the extended debates during the Puritan era over whether Scripture teaches a monarchy or a republic were going beyond the clear-cut teaching of Scripture and moving into areas of Christian prudence.
To cite a realistic situation which could come up, if I knew a fellow Reformed Christian who believed it is biblically required to vote only for Christians and therefore they cannot vote for either Obama or Romney, I would point out that the standards of Romans 13 are different from the standards for elders, deacons, or church members. I also would tell him that his view is wrong and contrary to Reformed history of political engagement (think of Henry VIII, William of Orange, or any number of other Protestant rulers whose personal morality and personal faith was problematic at best). However, I would not tell him his view is heresy.
On the other hand, if one of your church members to your session and said they had Christian liberty to get engaged to someone else while being married to their wife of twenty years, you and the Bayly Brothers would make common cause and get very angry with that member — even if that church member were an elected official or a Christian college president. You would not tell him that his views are covered by liberty of conscience.
Just because someone things they have Christian liberty on an issue for which Scripture is unclear to them doesn’t mean they actually do have Christian liberty on that issue. Sometimes Scripture is clear but we don’t understand what the Bible says — or, as is more commonly the case, we understand Scripture too well and make excuses because we don’t like it.
DTM, you seem to have a much gentler approach with the conscience-binder than you do with the Scott Browns and Joe Bidens of the world. It would seem to be a more serious offense for a minister of God’s Word to bind a conscience than it is for a non-officer to express an opinion on abortion enforcement. Are “we” bringing charges against the minister who tells his congregation to vote for Romney, or are we just bringing them against men on the wrong side of the culture war?
Mikelmann, I affirm the twin principles of the regulative principle and of Christian freedom. I affirm those principles not merely because they are part of the Reformed tradition, though they certainly are, but rather because they proceed from the truth of total depravity. Because the human heart is desperately sinful and wicked, if we invent our own rules that go beyond what is written, we run the risk — nay, even the probability — of imposing rules that are sinful.
If you can’t find something mandated in the Bible, you shouldn’t find it mandated in the church.
When we move beyond the institutional church to the spheres of the family and of the state, heads of families and heads of governments have more freedom. God didn’t give the same level of specificity on how to run one’s family or one’s government that he did on how to run the church.
As a result, Christians of good will can and do disagree on important issues regarding family life and civil government. Much has to do with broad principles of Christian prudence rather than explicit commands.
But when the Bible does speak on those issues, we must speak and may not remain silent.
Mass murder of babies in the womb is one of those issues. For a Christian elected official who has the ability to vote against abortion to instead vote for continued baby killing is evil. In many and probably most cases, people who call themselves pro-choice but anti-abortion are also guilty of cowardice, wanting to be people-pleasers rather than followers of God’s Word, perhaps afraid they won’t be re-elected if they take a stand for truth.
A Christian who has the power to do something against abortion simply cannot remain silent and do nothing.
“Mass murder of babies in the womb is one of those issues. For a Christian elected official who has the ability to vote against abortion to instead vote for continued baby killing is evil.”
DTM, we must make distinctions. Only one kind of person performs “mass murder of babies in the womb” – an abortion doctor. The only other person commiting a sin of commission is the woman having the abortion.
But you are going after Joe Biden and Scott Brown for something different. Neither has had an abortion or performed an abortion. Neither was on the SCOTUS for the Roe v. Wade decision.
And we can go further. It isn’t in their power to outlaw abortion. It’s a consitutional right. So they couldn’t outlaw abortion if they wanted to.
Your position ends up being that they should be subject to church discipline for uttering a policy about the availability of abortion. You would essentially be disciplining them for uttering a theory on what the magistrate should do about abortion. So what you would do is not like disciplining an abortionist or someone who has had an abortion – it is like bringing the power of the Church against a magistrate who thinks nonmarital sex and heresy should remain legal. If you can prove one of those you can prove the others. If you can’t, then you’re likely prosecuting a violation of the culture war.
Matt, I don’t know about your distinction between political theory and political theology. I see Christian ethicists, theologians, and political theorists using Pol Theol more than others. But here’s one definition from a book at Amazon — “Political Theology is about the nature, and thus about the prerogatives, of sovereign political authority in the West.”
Sorry, but I still think this is getting us away from what the Bible and confessions teach. I see your call for instruction in political theology a green light to lots of political sermons (and it keeps Dr. K. happy — that can’t be good).
Mikelmann, I don’t grant several of your presuppositions, including that abortion is a constitutional right. If abortion really **WERE** a right guaranteed in the Constitution, it would create complications for Christians since we would be required by our oath of office to preserve, protect and defend that right. I believe Roe v Wade was an illegitimate extension of the power of the Supreme Court into a so-called “penumbra” of so-called “rights” defined not by the text or its implications but rather by majority vote of nine black-robed justices.
Let’s clarify the issue a bit. Do you believe a member of a Reformed church could be a member of the United States Supreme Court and vote in favor of Roe v. Wade?
Furthermore, there have been times in relatively modern political history when votes on abortion were clear up-and-down votes for or against murder of babies. Prior to Roe v Wade, several states and state legislatures had votes on whether to allow abortion. Do you believe a member of a Reformed church could be a state legislator and vote in favor of legalizing abortion?
I grant that questions have been more complex following Roe v. Wade. The questions have focused more on restricting and regulating abortion than on whether abortion should be legal.
However, I do not believe it would be that difficult to compile a list of votes in state legislatures where elected officials had to cast a yes-or-no vote, knowing that voting one way would mean more people would be allowed to kill babies and voting the other way would mean fewer people would be allowed to kill babies.
I do not see how a member of a Reformed church can be allowed to publicly say he’s okay with allowing people to kill babies without incurring some form of church discipline. The responsibility is even greater when the church member is also an elected official with actual authority to cast votes that increase or reduce the number of people allowed to kill babies.
“I don’t grant several of your presuppositions, including that abortion is a constitutional right. If abortion really **WERE** a right guaranteed in the Constitution, it would create complications for Christians since we would be required by our oath of office to preserve, protect and defend that right. I believe Roe v Wade was an illegitimate extension of the power of the Supreme Court into a so-called “penumbra” of so-called “rights” defined not by the text or its implications but rather by majority vote of nine black-robed justices.”
DTM, it’s hard to talk to someone who thinks his private interpretation of the law trumps the interpretation of all the Courts and legislatures in the country. It may be law based on a defective theory of jurisprudence, but “the law” it remains. Marbury vs. Madison, which says the Court may decide what is constitutional, is accepted by all three branches of government.
And, really, your cases against Biden and Brown are, in a large part, dependent upon your private rejection of the law of the land because, as you say, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Excuse me if I think the power of the church should not be based on your idiosyncratic view of the law of the land.
Can we reject any law of the land with which we disagree? Lotsa luck with that one, and the 5th Commandment wants to have a little talk with you.
Matt, if Christians need to know the Bible’s political theology (which is not at all clear to me what such a theology is), why are the Shorter Catechism and Heidelberg silent on these matters?
Hi Darryl. In response to your question I would note, first, that there is much that Christians should know that is not in the confessions and catechisms of the church. They are not exhaustive. Second, I find it odd that you say these catechisms are silent on these matters. For instance, glance through the Heidelberg Catechism on the Ten Commandments and you will find repeated references to the task of the civil magistrate or of Christians to submit to it. To be sure, it’s not exhaustive, any more than what Heidelberg says about worship is exhaustive. Remember, I’m speaking at the level of theological principles here, not policy.
Matt, this issue with two similar names — Darrell and Darryl — can get interesting. Until I saw Dr. Darryl Hart’s post, I was reading what you wrote and trying to figure out where I’d possibly said what you were responding to.
Anyway, another day, another Darryl.
Have a good day, Dr. Hart. I agree with what Matt said.
Reblogged this on Literate Comments.
Matt,
I do understand that the catechisms refer to the magistrates. But since I don’t think they are teaching a political theory, I suspect they could be read to support different sorts of political orders — think of the differences between Presbyterians and Independents in England and Scotland. And that leads to a point about the Bible. The Bible does have politics in view in various places. But that is, I would argue, not what the Bible is trying to teach. I’ve read enough political philosophers try to exegete Scripture that I am leery of deriving politics from the Bible. And if political philosophers shouldn’t do it, what about pastors who may not have the categories of political theory under their belts?
I want a pastor to show me Jesus. I’ll figure out politics for myself, thanks.
Darryl, sure, I agree with you. But political theology is not political theory. The Bible teaches a lot in terms of political theology, and I would argue that you cannot understand the gospel or Jesus without understanding at least the basic outlines of that political theology. But political theory at the level you are describing is extra-biblical.
Darryl, you may be frustrated with most preachers but you simply cannot claim that the Bible or the confessions are silent on basic principles of political theology. What about the Westminster and Belgic Confessions on the civil magistrate? What about Romans 13 and Genesis 9? You can’t excise this stuff from the Bible and you can’t demand that pastors abandon their most fundamental calling: proclaiming the whole Scriptures in light of Christ. That’s what I was taught to do at Westminster Seminary.
You may as well say that since most pastors get the gospel wrong, or the Bible wrong, or Christianity wrong, we should stop preaching about any of those things. But there is a much better solution. Preach it faithfully. That was, after all, the whole point of my article.
Good question Iwan. First and foremost pastors should be silent on these issues because Scripture is silent on them. They have no right to go beyond Scripture and the truths it presents.
The other comment, about my lack of confidence in most pastors (I would include myself in this) to speak to the practical political issues, was more of a warning that pastors need to err on the side of caution. Political theology, and the relation between that theology and political theory and policy, is exceedingly complex. If a pastor can’t address the issue carefully and faithfully, he is better off not addressing it at all. Does that help?
Matt, what I hear in your post is that the Bible teaches politics. I think that is wrong. The Bible teaches things that have implications for politics, and especially for a Christians civil responsibilities. But Rom 13 and Gen 9 hardly say anything about constitutions, monarchy, or even the responsibilities of government. In fact, when it comes to Saul as king the book describing his duties is not even in the Bible (though referred to in 1 Sam).
The reason I dig in my heels on this (not only because of Dr. K’s praise for you post) but because when you compare the Bible to Aristotle you get something very different. The Bible is about redemption. Politics is a side issue. Telling pastors they need to attend to political theology in our climate is like pointing an addict to dope.
And, since the Divines and other reformers could get the politics of the Bible wrong — why did we have to revise the confessions on the magistrate’s duties — I’m not sure that the Bible’s political theology is as clear as you say.
Matt, I’m glad to see you interacting with Dr. Hart in this way. It’s helping those of us who disagree with this “Two Kingdoms” movement that the distinction some of us have been making between “Radical Two Kingdoms” and “moderate” or “Escondido” 2K theology is a real distinction and not a distinction without a difference.
Darrell, and your interactions continue to show why the prefix in neo- is important for distinguishing neo-Calvinism from Augustianism and western political reflection on the differences between the secular and sacred spheres. You may not like the comparison, but your outlook resembles Constantine and Mohammed more than Augustine.
Who’s radical now?
Dr. Hart, I just got done writing a response to you and the whole thing disappeared into cyberspace when I tried to post.
In addition to being disgusted with my computer, I’m now out of time and need to move on to other matters. I will reply later, hopefully tonight.
You have a tart tongue, but you raise some valid points. I believe someone with your background and credentials deserves a serious response, not a snarky sound bite answer.
The bottom line of what I was trying to say is that I read much more than I post, I’ve read a lot of your work, and I think from what I read, I’d probably prefer to visit your church than the churches of a lot of politically active evangelicals, including people in the Reformed world. You and other Two Kingdoms people have done a lot of good fighting liberalism, Arminianism, Charismania, quasi-Catholic theology entering evangelicalism via ECT, and other problems.
If you’re not going to use the weapons of secular politics outside the walls of the church, that’s your choice. I respect the work that you and other Two Kingdoms people have done, spending your time using the weapons of ecclesiastical politics to fight aberrant doctrine inside the church. I just wish you would focus on doing that and stop trying to discourage those of us who believe we need to fight outside the church walls as well.
Darrell, I’m sorry if I sounded snippy, but I get really tired of the “radical” charge. It is all glitter and no substance.
Here’s the thing about fighting outside the church, where did Christ and the apostles ever do this? Could it be that they really did believe that Christ’s kingdom was not of this world? And could it be that the anti-2kers, who want to fight outside the church and often speak of Christ’s kingdom as outside the church, are losing sight of what Christ and the apostles taught? In which case, the 2k fight within the church must pinch the toes (at least) of anti-2kers, at least to the extent of making sure they don’t confuse the kingdoms or try to immanentize the eschaton.
Not a problem, Dr. Hart. My comment about being “snarky” was referring to the sort of responses I might make, not saying you had done that.
You do have a tart tongue. I happen to admire you for it. Professors are often unable to communicate their complex positions to laypeople, and unlike many with Ph.D.s, you deserve credit for “popularizing” your theological positions — the fact that I disagree doesn’t diminish my respect for your competence in communicating.
As for not seeing the early Christians involved in politics — you already know the arguments that Jesus and all but one of the apostles, as non-citizens under the rule of an oppressive Roman government, had no opportunity to be politically active. The Apostle Paul did in fact claim his rights as a Roman citizen, but those rights were rather restricted. However, I also know you have answers to those arguments.
I can’t deal with this more now. I will try to do so tonight.
My key focus will be on your comparison between my position and that of Islam, vis-a-vis Augustine. I think you’ve shot the wrong target, but I do think you’re shooting in the right direction, and if my prior post hadn’t disappeared into cyberspace, I’d have explained parallels between what I read of Two Kingdoms theology and that of Christians, Augustine included, writing at the end of the Roman Empire.
Again, I can’t deal with this now. I think you’ve hit on an important point and you deserve better treatment than I can take the time to do now.
Darrell, you say that Christ and the apostles (except Paul) didn’t have the choice to be active in politics. But you are neglecting one of the most important themes of the gospels — namely, that many of those who followed Jesus (Peter included) thought he was going to restore Israel’s political order and Jesus had to keep explaining that his kingdom was not of this world. Your argument seems to be, “because they couldn’t do it, we should.” I don’t understand the logic or the theology.
Dr. Hart, one possible response could be that none of the apostles were lesser magistrates and therefore they had no right to rise up in revolt against Rome. I think that would be entirely consistent with the explicitly political theology of Knox and Cromwell.
A second response could be that while there would not in principle have been something wrong with a revolt led by the civil magistrates, that’s not the purpose for which Jesus came. If Jesus had not died on the cross, there would have been no salvation for our sins. Certainly as Calvinists we believe all of that was predestined under the direct control of God.
A third response could be that Christ going to the cross rather than being a political liberator was a one-time event. Nobody else except Christ can ever pay for anyone else’s sins, so his example does not apply to anyone other than him.
BTW, Dr. Hart, I have not forgotten your original question. I’m dealing with chaos in one of the outlying cities in our county — the mayor, under threat of impeachment, had a special meeting called on Friday and is now probably going to resign at another special meeting called for tonight. On top of that, our county health board has a meeting today to deal with the county commission’s decision to become the first county in our state to abolish its health ordinance on restaurant inspections. On top of that, we’ve had a house burn down, probably due to drug labs gone bad, and a child has been paralyzed by what appears to be an irresponsible driver who sideswiped him. I will get back to you on your original question, but I have other problems which are quite pressing at the moment.
There was a day, decades ago, that I wanted to be a professor, probably of historical theology or church government. My career took an unexpected turn in the early 1990s and that has consequences for my ability to sit in a library doing research or writing quality articles for theological journals. Let’s just say I sometimes wish I had the time to sit back and research these questions rather than running out to car crashes and house fires, which in the long run are far less important. However, it is impossible to read either ecclesiastical or civil history and not realize that the musty books in our libraries were written either by or about men who were at times literally covered in grime and blood — either their own or that of others.
I need to be grateful that my life is a lot less dangerous or violent than the lives of men like John Calvin, John Knox, or John Witherspoon. I don’t think any of us on this thread need to fear Redcoats attacking our college and confiscating or destroying our personal papers, being imprisoned as a galley slave, or fleeing our country due to religious persecution.
The bottom line is we ought to think long and hard about why we need to be grateful for the freedoms those men did not have, and what we can do to prevent them from being taken from us. Freedom is not free.
Mikelmann, I’m still trying to catch up on old email, and I realized I never responded to this: “DTM, it’s hard to talk to someone who thinks his private interpretation of the law trumps the interpretation of all the Courts and legislatures in the country. It may be law based on a defective theory of jurisprudence, but “the law” it remains. Marbury vs. Madison, which says the Court may decide what is constitutional, is accepted by all three branches of government.”
My point was not to criticize the principle of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislative decisions. That’s a long-established principle of federal law and an explicit part of many and perhaps most state constitutions. I don’t know anyone who is making a serious political effort to overturn that principle.
Affirming the right of the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of legislative decisions is not the same as saying I agree with specific results of that review.
Your statement with regard to Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Sen. Scott Brown was this: “It isn’t in their power to outlaw abortion. It’s a consitutional right. So they couldn’t outlaw abortion if they wanted to.”
I strongly disagree with that. There are many things Biden and Brown could be doing to work to outlaw abortion. Rather than doing so, they’re at best acquiescing to abortion and arguably (in the case of Biden) cooperating with a president who wants a massive expansion of abortion “rights.”
Abortion is not a constitutional right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. If it were in the text of the Constitution we would have a much more serious problem. While you are correct that today nobody is seriously trying to overturn Marbury v Madison, it is patently obvious that both the defenders and the opponents of abortion are aggressively trying to influence the political process on the issue of abortion.
How to outlaw abortion is a valid question of political tactics. Some people will have different approaches ranging all the way from a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution to getting a conservative majority on the Supreme Court to all sorts of incrementalist and gradualist approaches. Debates over the best tactics clearly have moral ramifications but most are intramural debates between people who share the same goals but differ on how to get there.
Biden and Brown cannot fairly be described as people who share the goal of eliminating abortion, and I’m not even sure they can share Bill Clinton’s famous “safe, legal and rare” approach.
Pingback: Is Joel Belz right that the church should say more about politics? | erikcharter