There’s something about “Christian” legal organizations and the like that makes my stomach hurt. I don’t always like the decisions our government makes, be it congressional, presidential or judicial. I want our government to do more to protect the life of the unborn than the convicted murderer. And because I’m inclined to think issues like abortion are quite serious, it influences my involvement in the political process.
At the same time, there are “Christian” organizations (often functioning like PACs) that would have me feel guilty if I don’t financially support their work. It’s not that I want the government to make laws and policies exactly opposite of what these “Christian” PACs are fighting for, but my deep conviction is that God doesn’t want me spending His money that way.
There is a thoughtful article dealing with this topic called Turning Faith Into Elevator Music. Here is a taste of what William J. Stuntz, Professor at Harvard Law School, has to say.
“Seeing the Ten Commandments in public spaces is a little like hearing the Miranda warnings on "Law and Order," which doesn't make anyone think about the real meaning of Miranda (whatever that is) because it doesn't make anyone think at all. It's the social equivalent of elevator music. Religious people shouldn't want their faith to be elevator music.”
Read it! It's worth thinking about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That is an interesting article, Reid. I think Stuntz makes some good points about how the gospel can become innocuous in its familiarity. I don't like his take on "Do unto others . . ." It seems to twist the intention of Christ's command. I'm just shooting from the hip though, so let me know if you disagree.
It would be a shame if it were Christians who stripped away a historical godly heritage from our country. Maybe the people who daily pass the monuments are inured to their significance, but I know that when I see the monuments it is a blessing to me.
On the other hand, I ain't tak'n no bullet for 'em.
I'm not sure what you mean by "twist the intention of Christ's command." Are there times for us to apply this principle and times to set it asside?
It would definitely be sad for Christian's to strip any vestige of our heritage. That's not what I'm suggesting nor do I think Stuntz is pleading for this either.
Do you think it's our responsibility to keep such monuments in place?
Changing history is very dangerous. I don't like seeing these reminders of our history removed. Where would we stand if historical events were simply deleted from the record?
I don't remember if it was Franklin or another of our founding Fathers who said that our government wouldn't work if the people weren't religious, i.e., didn't accepted certain moral truths that served as guard rails for society.
I'm afraid we may be at the place where our government doesn't work the way it was intended to work b/c there is no longer a moral framework undergirding all Americans. If this is true then all the monuments we can build won't change the people. This is the ministry of the church.
There aren't times we can choose to set Christ's command aside. I think, however, that what Christ meant by "Do to others as you would have them do to you" is simply "love one another."
Stuntz, however, takes the Golden Rule and makes it a biblical justification for a secular state. The Golden Rule becomes the Rule of Tolerance. The Rule of Non-Offense. But that's not what Christ intended at all when he was summing up the Law and the Prophets. His intention, I believe, was love and service.
Otherwise we end up with the following as a potential scenario: I can not proselytize the child of a Muslim, because I do not want a Muslim man proselytizing my children. Or a Jehovah's Witness's.
Now about the actual monuments - I'm not sure that it's our responsibility to fight to keep these monuments in place. As you said, the church's ministry is to love people. I just don't like the idea of Christians being the ones "rooting for the lawsuits." Of course, if we actually were loving people, maybe the monuments would be a non-issue.
I think Stuntz has some good, subversive ideas in this article about how to show Christ to a church-saturated society. I just don't like how he manages the Golden Rule within the context he frames it.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment