September 5, 2003
INTERNALS AND EXTERNALS:
How to Really Keep the Commandments in Alabama—and Elsewhere (Joseph Loconte, 09/03/2003, Christianity Today)
Since when did the public display of the Ten Commandments become the eleventh commandment? This style of argument hints at a tension that has shaped Protestant Christianity since the Reformation.Evangelicals hardly need to be reminded that Martin Luther assailed the Catholic Church for confusing religious observances with simple faith in Christ and his death on our behalf. For every Protestant since, the gospel of grace cannot be identified with mere obedience to the law—not even the Law of Moses. Luther recovered the conviction that the righteousness of Christ belongs to the believer, that his guilt has been swallowed up in Christ, and that this is the bright truth that sets the sinner free. "What man is there whose heart, upon hearing these things, will not rejoice to its depth," he wrote, "and when receiving such comfort will not grow tender so that he will love Christ as he never could by means of any laws or works?" There is no concept more widely shared by contemporary evangelicals. [...]
Faith-based social conformity does not produce the pure in heart. Boundary markers can't inspire steadfast love and obedience to Christ. The outcome of that approach to spiritual life—the method of the Pharisee—is always the same: It crushes the soul. Only the Lord knows how many pilgrims have fallen into its deadly reef.
An unhealthy emphasis on externals also gives people an impossibly blinkered view of life. A 1934 meeting of the Baptist World Alliance in Berlin offers an extreme example. Delegates had arrived with apprehension about the new German Fuhrer and his Nazi Party. But many returned to America with favorable views. Why? As the Alliance noted: "It is reported that Chancellor Adolf Hitler gives to the temperance movement the prestige of his personal example, since he neither uses intoxicants nor smokes." A year earlier Hitler had burned down the Reichstag, declared a one-party state and imposed laws excluding Jews from government and public life. But Boston pastor John Bradbury gave the Nazis high marks for the enforcement of public morality. "It was a great relief to be in a country where salacious sex literature cannot be sold … The new Germany has burned great masses of corrupting books and magazines along with its bonfires of Jewish and communistic libraries."
Evangelicals are not alone, of course, in their tendency to choose law over grace. Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims—there's plenty of competition from the world's religious communities. More than most, however, evangelicals have the theology and the spiritual resources to resist this temptation. Resisting it, in fact, may prove to be the surest road to renewal.
Yeah, but everyone isn't going to have the internal experience of faith, while it's important that everyone recognize that the system of laws and the Republic itself are functions of the faith. Remove God and the Law from the equation and what undergirds the State except power? Posted by orrinj at September 5, 2003 11:04 AM
I think Mr. Loconte is making a theological argument, not so much a political one.
Posted by: Paul Cella at September 5, 2003 11:14 AMYes, but oj's response can be put in theological terms too: it is the Catholic emphasis on the union of spirit and body, so that the incarnational supports the spirit, and if the incarnational is absent, so too will be the spirit. We need physical observances as well as spiritual ones.
Posted by: pj at September 5, 2003 11:33 AMFor the evangelical it seems the "act"
of believing grants grace. This idea of reciprocity has become a powerful totem of their
belief system.
Modern catholic explanations of the doctrine
of grace clarify that grace is totally at the
mercy of God (thus the Catholic does not know
for certain the fate of non-believers). However
out of respect for God and (possibly as a backup)
acts and rituals are expected to be performed.
This would be similar to saying please and thank
you to ones parents when one is nearly certain that they would be taken care of anyway.
O.J., the "once saved, always saved" belief is
another error that modern evangelicals make
that would seem to logically limit God's free will.
Paul:
Yes, but the question is can the body politic survive without its theological basis--the example of the rest of the West suggests not.
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 12:36 PMJ.H.:
Excellent point. You can't force God to save you just by saying you believe.
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 12:40 PMJ.H. - Yes, grace is God's free gift, but as St Paul said "God desires that all men be saved" and therefore offers his grace to all. But men can reject it or accept it - "I set before you this day life or death, blessing or curse" - it is ours to choose. The choice is not conscious but it reveals itself in our will - thus "faith without works is dead" - because if faith, which is the gift of God that enables us to accept gifts from God, had been accepted, then we would receive from God the spirit to live well.
Though the decision to accept God's grace is unobservable and mysterious, we do believe that deciding well in little things - to affirm true moral beliefs, to act lovingly toward others - will help orient our spirit so that we become more likely to make the big decision correctly. Thus "acts and rituals" are not necessarily small things.
Likewise, saying "Lord, Lord," however sincerely, is no sure sign of faith, as Jesus himself pointed out.
Likewise
I don't have the experience of faith.
I can observe results. Which means that, for many, the system of laws and the Republic itself need not be functions of some particular set of theocratic notions.
Learning from results make it easy to resist the notion of overweening State power. Heck, its the same test you use
Posted by: Regards, Jeff Guinn at September 5, 2003 1:33 PMJeff:
Where has an American-style Republic been established and sustained without such notions?
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 2:07 PMI grew up in a formally dry county. Most people drank anyhow, but a happy alliance of bootleggers and preachers kept the law on the books.
That's where Moore and all this sanctimony comes from.
You don't have to get into the theology of it, although Paul's statement about God offering his grace to all is not Catholic doctrine -- which teaches he does not offer it to all. Theology has nothing to do with it.
But if you want the shadow of morality instead of morality itself, by all means, go with Moore.
His way is much easier, too.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 5, 2003 2:41 PMHarry,
In the sense that Catholic doctrine has no
belief in pre-destination there is the possibility of salvation for all. In other
words even for the Hindu, the "possibility"
exists. The concept of accepting or denying
this offer is long and complicated and would
get us into purgatory and original sin.
Jeff,
"Learning from results" is a lot like accepting
the laws of nature (therefore the laws of God).
This is what our Republic is founded on. It is
not about creating the world based upon new
principles, but agreeing to live as flawed
human beings (with all of the checks and balances
that go with it).
Jeff - Don't you think it would strengthen society if people not only support what works out of greed, but also because they believe what works is morally good and we are morally obliged to support it?
Harry - Of course the Catholic church believes in grace. See, e.g. Grace in Thomas Aquinas.
Posted by: pj at September 5, 2003 4:18 PMI didn't say the Church does not believe in grace. I said it teaches that not everyone is offered it.
I got all A's in religion, 14 years.
Orrin, you say hypocrisy often serves well. I'd say, rarely. In any case, not in this case.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 5, 2003 4:35 PMHarry:
Have any personal habits you warned your kids off of?
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 6:20 PMNo. I repeated to them the only advice my Dad gave
me when I left home-- If you get arrested, don't call me.
Would the ACLU have objected if Justice Moore posted the 95 Theses in the building? They are (almost) as arguably a historical benchmark as the Decalogue.
Posted by: at September 5, 2003 8:45 PM"Where has an American-style Republic been established and sustained without such notions?"
Where has a non-American Style government been established and sustained WITH such notions?
Plenty of places. All of South America for one. Spain, for another.
So maybe another set of notions is responsible, or something entirely different from notions: if the English Channel didn't exist, things would almost certainly have turned out very differently.
Correlation is not causation.
Mr. Guinn;
Your evidence suggests only that a theological underpinning is not sufficient, not that it is not necessary.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 6, 2003 12:41 AMAOG:
Absolutely true. But given the wide range of societies with a similar religious basis--18th Century Poland v. 18th Century England, for instance--then it is also entirely possible to conclude that the religious basis is far from the most important ingredient, and may even be close to irrelevant.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 6, 2003 9:25 AMWestern civilization, theistic underpinnings and all, has "evolved" in a particular fashion which has resulted in a level of liberty and respect for human dignity which has no precedent in history,( regardless of the imaginary setting for Rousseau's "Noble Savage" )
Why the desire of so many to turn their backs to that history?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at September 6, 2003 2:35 PMTom:
Was that evolution because of, or despite, organized religion?
Posted by: Regards, Jeff Guinn at September 6, 2003 9:18 PM