Separation of Church and State? Really??
The following is an excerpt from The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism, by David Tracy:"Where art is marginalized, religion is privatized. Indeed, religion suffers even greater losses than art by being the single subject about which many intellectuals can feel free to be ignorant. Often abetted by the churches, they need not study religion, for “everybody” already knows what religion is: It is a private consumer product that some people seem to need. Its former social role was poisonous. Its present privatization is harmless enough to wish it well from a civilized distance. Religion seems to be the sort of thing one likes “if that’s the sort of thing one likes.”…It is difficult to envisage [Martin Luther] King, or Niebuhr, or [John Courtney]
Now there is some good meat to chew on.
posted by John and Mag @ 8:19 AM
16 Comments:
JKB---Help!!! SLB
SLB--
He's saying that theology as a serious academic discipline and religious practice/belief as a legitimate social judge and stablizer are no longer relevant ideas. Instead, if one wants to "believe" a religion, that's his or her business, but keep it out of public discussion, because we have seen what kind of ills religious fervor can have on society (i.e., Crusades, Nazism, etc.). His point, though, is that it is impossible to divorce religious convictions from political action. As an example, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist minister who believed that the segregation of blacks and whites was wrong on theological grounds. Yet, even though his identity as a Christian was what convinced him such separation was morally incomprehensible, he stated his case to the larger public square in terms of a moral argument that did appeal to the order God has set forth for humans, but also by stating that segregation will not work for a functioning liberal democracy such as the one envisioned in the U.S. Constitution (King consistently appealed to the Constitution as proof of the need for Civil Rights). This is why his famous "I Have a Dream" speech begins with his declaration that he has come to the nation's capital to return a check from the government that has been marked "insufficient funds." But he ends his speech by declaring that "one day all God's children, white men, and black men, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic will join hands together and sing the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we are free at last.""
Overall, the passage from David Tracy is saying that religious (and not just Christian) ideas about the way the world works are of utmost and consequential import for the proper functioning of society today.
So, do we really want the separation of Church and state, or is the genius of the First Amendment that Congress will make no laws establishing religion, but that we have the freedom to voice our religious convictions in the public square as appeals to the moral sensibilities of our neighbors.
Whew, I'm a little sweaty now.
One more thing:
To read the text of MLK's speech, click here.
Just notice how many times religious imagery is used, as well as appeals to the Constitution, albeit not in the disgraceful way of the Religious Right.
Okay, I got myself going with the long response, and now I'm sitting in the New College library doing research, and I just ran across the following passage from Bonhoeffer's Ethics, which elaborates more on what I would say if I sat here and blogged all day.
"The message of the church to the world can be none other than the word of God to the world [sidenote: "word of God for Bonhoeffer is not the scriptures, but Jesus Christ. I.e., "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God"]. This word is: Jesus Christ, and salvation in this name. It is in Jesus Christ that God's relationship to the world is determined. We do not know any other relationship of God to the world apart from Jesus Christ. Therefore the church, too, has no relationship to the world other than through Jesus Christ. This means that the proper relationship of the church to the world does not derive from some natural law, or law of reason, or universal human rights, but solely from the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Now that's revolutionary.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
wow. i'm beaming with pride.
can we all agree john has found his vocation, calling, passion, telas (sp?)?
hands off, he's all mine.
i love you, john.
your Mag
I am absolutely fascinated by this discussion. I would be interested in what the church & state profs at BU would say to that. I never did read Chip Conyer's last book but I think it was that Christians today are too 'tolerant' of non-Christian ideas. I wonder if he was implying that Christian ideas should not be watered down and should influence gov social programs. Help me. Suz
JKB and Mag--Great comments on the theological Post. And what a cheerleader wife - so affirming!
Now, please answer Mrs. Waco's question for all of us. It was a good one!
Enjoyed the MLK speech. First time to have ever read it. Powerful!
SLB
Sara, Suzanne, and all others interested in this conversation--
I do not know what the BU Church/State professors would say to this post, but there is a rich tradition of church/state separation in Baptist heritage.
Conyers' last book was indeed critical of "tolerance" in the Chritian tradition. However, he was directing the attack primarily at modernity/postmodernity (the philosophy under which we currently live). Conyers was persistantly critical of postmodernism for a variety of reasons, primarily because of its emphasis on the lived experience of humans as the guide by which we make our moral judgments, ethical decisions, etc. Emphasizing experience limits the role revelation from God can play in one's theology. Further, Conyers believed that there was little difference between modernity and postmodernity (there is a lot of debate about when postmodernism was born, but it was probably somewhere in the 1960s to 1970s, and is the result largely of literary criticism, but I digress). In fact, his favorite saying was, "Postmodernity is just modernity on life support," suggesting that it was not long for this world.
Conyers would have agreed with what I have posted above about a theology of engagement with society. While I don't want to put words in his mouth, I had enough private conversations with him, as well as classroom lectures to know that he believed the role of the Christian is to be quite active in society. However, he always chose his forms of activity without much fanfare, and after having given serious thought to them. That is why he was known to present papers at pro-life rallies, or why he could be seen quietly demonstrating against the Iraq war when it broke out (though he was no dove when it came to foreign policy).
Hope this helps, and thanks for helping to keep the conversation alive.
john, a bit of a straying but along these lines, ed and i went to hear huston [pronounced "houston"] smith speak last week and both agreed you probably should have been there. if i understand these blog excerpts [both david tracy's and bonhoeffer's] correctly, huston smith touched on this "idea" of privatization of religion in modern day. his is a call for the rectification of the state of the church, for a movement back to the original church, the "trunk" of orthodox christianity made up of the incarnation, trinity, redemption. his point being that the essential root of religion is seemingly lost in our age. his book, entitled "soul of christianity" is one ed and i are going to look into. i think you would enjoy it.
now back to the original blog...how would you bridge the chasm between modern-day church and state? would you take action in a more personal way? like chip conyers' silent demonstration? or vie for a change in government? i.e. laws, such as allowing prayer in schools?
love these discussions...jick
Jennifer-
Was Huston Smith the speaker Ed had emailed me about? I like what I hear. He's actually doing what my favorite group of theologians did (Niebuhr, Bonhoeffer, Barth), which is to call for a return to the orthodox creeds of the Christian faith. Hence, they were known as the "neo-orthodox" theologians. However, it gets a little dodgy when you read some of them expand on what they mean by "returning" to the creeds, because they didn't necessarily believe the creeds in a literal fashion. They did, though, believe the creeds held significance for their present purposes. But that's another conversation.
Now, with regard to your question: it is by becoming personally involved either through direct participation in a group, donating money, spending time researching particular problems, joining a church, etc. that one actually is pushing for change in society. However, I could care less whether kids can pray in school. Do I think they ought to be allowed to? Yes. And at the moment, they are. No one is saying "You can't pray, Prissy Patty." What they are saying is that the school is not going to force the kids to pray, which is how it ought to be. I can remember plenty of times when I prayed for the legs to fall off of Cade Lutz in the middle of a kickball game.
The flipside to this is that if you make Christianity solely a religion about social change, you lose the heart of its message, which is the message of the cross. Furthermore, you end up believing that you can effect social change to a degree of utopia, which is simply not true. That is what happened with liberal Protestantism in the early 1900s, and what Niebuhr wrote against in his first works.
I'm a moderate through and through, so there has to be some balance, lest we lose the identity of what it means to be Christian by going too far in one direction or another.
So, would Liberation Theology in the predominately Catholic countries in South America be an example of taking responsibility for social change motivated by religious fervor a little too far? And how about the militant muslims in Iraq? It seems to be a
tempting thing -- to carry it a little bit too far. If a little is good, more is better.?
In America, popular opinion of the Moral Majority's mode of operendi(sp?) has caused many to not talk about their own theology as a basis for political convictions. Sometimes I feel like a wimp for not speaking up on political issues for this reason.
What say ya'll? -Wooed
Suz-
Good questions, all. I think there is some difference between the liberationists of Central and South America and the extremism of Muslims as we have seen in recent years. The central difference, in my opinion, is at least two-fold. In the first instance, it has to do with motivation. Extremists propagating on behalf of Islam do so out of spite for what they perceive as a dilution of allegiance to their one true god. Consequently, they are motivated to take up arms on behalf of their ideology and to force into submission or eradicate those who disagree with them. The liberationists, however, were (and are) reacting to the actions of an unjust government who had sent in guerrillas to kill priests (Oscar Romero for example) and to continue the systematic destruction of poorer Latinos and Latinas. As a result, Liberation Theology was born and did advocate violence as a means to self-defense. The second point of difference is in the message. In the case of Islamic extremism, it seems that most involved believe they are acting in the only way possible to appease their god. In the case of Liberation Theology, they are acting out of a need to represent the poor, a condition they believe God despises (there is an idea in Lib. Theology that God has a “preferential option for the poor,” made manifest by the incarnation of Jesus Christ). However, Liberationists tend to believe that their actions aren’t necessarily right, but an unfortunate choice. Gustavo Gutierrez, the father of Liberation Theology (and a man who spoke at Truett during my senior year), once was asked the question, “Father Gutierrez, will Liberation Theology last?” He responded by saying, “No, it will not. It is made by humans, and Jesus Christ is the only one who lasts.” Now, that’s pretty insightful. I don’t want to sound too sympathetic to Liberation Theology, because I think there are a lot of problems with it. However, I have respect for contexts and recognize that it is impossible for me to commiserate with those who lived in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s.
On your final note regarding the Moral Majority: I think you hit the nail on the head. Most Christians with enough sense to appreciate the embarrassments that are Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell, Richard Land, et al., do not want to be associated with those people and, in turn, try to sever ties between their faith and public choices. But that’s a false separation because the Christian faith was never meant to be lived out in isolation and is, in fact, instrumental to how we make our moral decisions. I’m with you on feeling like a wimp, though. It’s easy for me to sit in the library and type these words and read my books and write about those who challenge me the most. But at the end of the day, do I really have the courage of a Bonhoeffer or MLK, Jr. or Reinhold Niebuhr, or Karl Barth? I’m not so sure. Heck, it takes courage to be a Pat Robinson or Jerry Falwell, misguided and delusional though they are.
Just a note---I realized tonight that I spelled it "Robinson" and not "Robertson" as it should be. Sorry.
I see the big difference in motivation between the radical Muslims and the Liberationists. So I guess the Crusades of Medival times were more motivated along the lines of the radical Muslims or did they just use religion as an excuse to conquer for political gain? - Wooed and Curious
Suz-
As they would say over here, "Spot on!!!" I think it's probably both/and. What we see with extreme Islamic activity is eerily reminiscent of the Crusades, and they used violence for political gain.
You are all excellent students. A's for the class, all the way around.
Post a Comment
<< Home