Church and State Habits II

Last Sunday the pastor completed a short series on Jonah. He called the series, “Intervention.” When he introduced the series he related a conversation he once had about the God of the Old Testament vs. the God of the New Testament. Well, the Intervention series was about the God the Old and New Testaments who intervened in the life of Jonah and who intervened for Ninevah. So the pastor demonstrated that there isn’t a God who speaks words of judgment in the Old Testament and words of grace in the New Testament. As he said, “His words of judgment are words of grace.”

So I’ve been musing again about the topic of an earlier post on Church and State Habits. How often is the idea expressed that judgment can be grace? And how does it get expressed? Don’t we usually say that being judgmental is bad? Does freedom breed the idea the judgments are bad?

I suppose the hellfire and brimstone crowd hears plenty of judgment. (Is there a hellfire and brimstone crowd anymore?) And judgments are heard in courtrooms. But are those gracious judgments?

Well, it seems to me that any righteous judgment, any judgment according to God’s law, is a gracious judgment—or “words of grace.” If it’s His law, it’s His judgment, and His words of judgment “are words of grace.”

But one might question whether this is anything more than a mere assertion that the words spoken are God’s words, and is merely a formula for blaming God. That hellfire and brimstone preaching does get criticized and blamed for making God look bad and for turning people away from God. Saying that “words of judgment are words of grace” may not be a sufficient defense to the criticism that some preaching is not gracious. Someone’s preaching may not be according to God’s words, despite the preacher’s assertion that it is. Legalism seems to be the preacher’s will, not God’s. And with the recent marking of the 30th anniversary of Jonestown, we have been reminded that skepticism is not necessarily a bad thing.

And yet, I suppose preachers, like politicians, are too frequently easy targets of our criticism and we may think of them as enemies, like Jonah thought of the Assyrians in Nineveh. However many there are who criticize preaching because of someone’s bad preaching, some “words of judgment” may indeed be “words of grace” even if they’re not expressed by one who walks on water.

A preacher who asks, like Jesus asked his disciples, whom do you say that Jesus is? is no mere judgmental preacher just because he is no moral relativist, says all have sinned, and we all have the task of searching for “words of grace.”

So don’t we all have a task of sorting words, searching the scriptures, and looking for the “words of grace”?

Do some avoid their responsibilities by blaming judgmental preaching? It seems to me that a criticism for being judgmental may be a tactic for avoiding a search for “words of grace,” a way of telling someone to quit speaking, rather than a well-founded criticism of a Jones-like preacher who is willing to impose himself on people.

Like any category of people, some preachers are good and some not. And given there are some autocratic preachers, thank God we’re free to attend this or that denomination and follow this or that ritual as we think best. Thank God we’re governed by our own consent.

Maybe that’s the problem some people have with “words of judgment” being delivered by some preachers. Maybe some preachers are presumptuous and would deny us the freedom to go elsewhere. Maybe some preaching is seen as usurping our own task of searching for the “words of grace.”

Is the problem that some judgmental preachers don’t respect freedom? Is the problem that some don’t respect the freedom of the minds or the conscience’s of others? Can we say that some don’t respect the work of the Holy Ghost to convict the souls of men? Would some preachers deny to others the freedom to find “words of grace”?

Thank God for laws that protect the freedom of religion. Thank God for that law of the First Amendment and those words of grace.

At times we may be like Jonah and not like it when our enemies find words of grace but may we not forget that good laws, like “words of judgment” from friends, are words of grace for us as well as them. May the license of some not breed in us a contempt for freedom. May we not forget that our freedom to speak “words of judgment” exists not for license but for good.

Church and State Habits

Habits are tough to break, and a bad habit is a tough problem to overcome. And problem solving is great when problems are solved, otherwise problem solving can be fatiguing, if not depressing. And it’s easy for tired problem solvers to quit and say there is no solution. But quitting is not proof there is no solution to a problem.

Following the election my pastor made a couple of comments, to encourage a proper perspective and keep our eyes focused on Jesus. And indeed, we need to keep a proper perspective, and doing so is difficult when wrapped up in the passions of party politics.

Dealing with “church and state” seems to be an ongoing problem, or, rather, a recurring point of discussion–as though there were a problem every two or four years. But the regularity of the discussion may be evidence of the lack of a real problem, and so evidence there is a solution, a proper perspective.

As a People we’re never directly involved in our national government, in actual governing. We don’t make laws, or vote to approve laws, or vote to approve or disapprove Roe or even Supreme Court Justices; we only choose representatives. And we’ve been doing that with great regularity, in times of peace and war since the beginning of the nation.

Still, there’s a suggestion that there’s a problem. And sometimes the suggestion, like my pastor’s, is that the problem is secondary. In a way, that’s fine. We shouldn’t fret about politics, particularly if it’s working. But if the suggestion is that we shouldn’t fret about politics, not because the problem is minor, but because politics is unimportant, then I’m skeptical. Perhaps I, the political philosophy junkie, like the pastor, am overtaken by bias but I’m skeptical about discounting the work of politics.

It’s quite true that no politician is going to usher in the kingdom of God and no politician is going to usher it out. But were I more like the skeptical Lincoln, I might respond by saying that no preacher is going to usher in the kingdom, and no preacher is going to usher it out.

God will have his glory. God will save his people. But, as with Esther, it’s better for us to do the job we’re given. Like Mordecai said to Esther:

Do not think to yourself that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. 14For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

It seems to me that, like Esther, we each have a job to do, even if it’s not in a palace. Of course, voting in a little booth is a lot less scary than Esther’s approaching the king to speak the truth. But although our involvement in politics is limited, can our involvement be anymore unrelated to God’s plan than Esther’s? Can speaking the truth be secondary to “kingdom” work? Can the administration and execution of justice be secondary? If faith without works is dead, what is faith without a concern for justice?

Some have taken up justice as a mission. “IJM’s work is founded on the Christian call to justice articulated in the Bible (Isaiah 1:17): Seek justice, protect the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.”

At times, however, I wonder about the commitment of churches. This past election, a number of pastors have said that the Bible applies to politics and have refused to speak in generalities. They’re breaking with a habit that’s formed since the 1960’s when tax exemptions were threatened. At times, I wonder about the habits of churches and the influence of laws and “secular” ways of thinking.

You see, sometimes I wonder if moral relativism doesn’t creep into the church. It seems that preaching against sin, necessary for preaching the gospel, is acceptable, as long as it doesn’t mean being serious about applying it and confronting public life….

Consider Prop 8 in California. Preaching against sodomy was okay, or um, preaching against “sexual sin” was okay, until it meant something real. Now even the moral relativism of “personal” religious beliefs comes in for criticism for donating money to support “traditional” marriage. A theater director gave money to the “wrong” side and has now been forced to resign. See LA Times story here including this:

he basically gave me that thing we’re just sick of hearing — ‘these are my religious beliefs, but it’s nothing personal’ ” against gay people. “I don’t want to hear that anymore. I just told him I’m disgusted at that use of money that came in some way from a show I created.

And see the director’s blog and his resignation letter here.

Here’s the LAtest:

Yes on 8 forces plan a Friday news conference to decry the “outrageous campaign of blacklisting, harassment, and intimidation against supporters of the Yes on 8 Campaign. Churches have been defaced. Employers of donors and volunteers for Yes on 8 have been intimidated into firings, and forced resignation of employees who simply exercised their constitutional right to participate in the political process.”

Some poor woman made the mistake of opposing some protesters in Palm Springs.

And even the “N-word” came out of the closet in some instances because blacks supported Prop 8. Can the church take the heat? Can it do so as a matter of course? Can it stay out of the closet?

Opportunity

Obama is for “spreading around opportunity.”

That’s his interpretation of spreading around the wealth.

But let’s look at this “opportunity” based on spreading around the wealth. Consider two questions: what’s the opportunity for? and how does one get this opportunity?

Obama says that by spreading around the wealth, a waitress can “can put a roof over her head.” Well, I suppose that’s a possibility. But aren’t there other possibilities as well? Obama hasn’t specified that. At least he hasn’t done so yet. But I suppose the law could require “tax refunds” to be spent on government housing. On the other hand, maybe the waitress will spend the money on cigarettes. Then we would have the “opportunity” to spend more on her healthcare. This, no doubt, could provide her more “opportunities.”

And how does one get Obama’s “opportunity”? Well, it appears to require merely a vote for Obama and his fellow travelers. On the other hand, there are other ways to get “opportunity.” Just ask around. Some might say work. Others might say beg. Some might even say steal. Those ways might get you a roof, or a cigarette or two, or a new HD television or GPS system, or even a set of wheels.

An old-fashioned scrupulous fellow who clings to God might insist on discriminating. He might insist that the American way has something to do what’s right and “opportunities” by theft are no “opportunities” at all. He might say that theft by government is wrong too.

But can we say that anything the government does is wrong? If it’s legal isn’t it right? Well, some might say it’s right or wrong, or even patriotic, depending on whether Bush or Clinton or Obama is responsible for it…..

If we do insist on a standard of right and wrong above formalities, we might need to re-examine this “opportunity.”

We seem to have forgotten that “opportunities,” (or, in that old-fashioned language, liberty) means not being forced to do wrong and not being prevented from doing what’s right. So I’m reminded of the “opportunity” of the widow. She didn’t receive her mite from the government but she was more charitable than everyone else.

What we need for opportunities to succeed is not someone else’s money, but faith that right makes might. And what’s right is to work to be able to give as God shows us those who truly need help.

I’d prefer to help my church help more those in need (like the orphans in Zambia), rather than see more tax money go to CEOs of Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN. :sigh:

The Dream

Dreams can be powerful.

Consider the power of the communist vision on one man Sam Herman and his son Victor. Sam was a gunrunner and a Communist organizer in Detroit. In 1931 Sam and his family went to the Soviet Union. Victor says he followed his father; he did what sons do. Sam obeyed a dream that had captivated him. Sam Herman was going to help make the world a better place. After all, doesn’t Socialism mean, as Victor would later write, “the good of everyone everywhere … fairness for everyone and the good life for all?”

Victor tells of his life in the Soviet Union in his 1979 autobiography, Coming Out of the Ice. He tells how he was sent to prison and of his suffering in prison. He learned to like rat to survive prison. He tells about life in Siberian exile and how he described America to his hungry daughter like a fairy tale place where she could have “two potatoes.”

He wrote that he’d follow his father again. And of the Socialism of his father, in which all are rich, Victor saw nothing wrong.

The dream of life with no suffering is powerful. Who doesn’t want to rid the world of hunger and orphans? Who wants to see his child suffer? Socialism is captivating.

Victor reflected on consequences for decisions:

How does a father reckon up accounts when he buys and his child pays? But does not every parent make choices for himself that prove decisive in the life of his child? Isn’t this what history is?

We might say that Victor’s father Sam exercised his right of the “pursuit of happiness.” Like Sam, we might have too narrow an understanding if we think of the pursuit of happiness as the pursuit of material wealth rather than a right way of life.

Being poor didn’t make Victor less American. But you might not know that listening to politicians today. We hear politicians talk about the American dream or the promise of America, and it’s all about how much we’re going to get from the government. The right way to live seems to be defined as getting the most from government.

But if we misunderstand the pursuit of happiness, we may not be pursuing a better world. Unwittingly we may be pursuing the gulag.

Victor had insisted on the truth. He was an American. He refused to deny that. When offered the opportunity to return to America, if he came as a Russian, he refused. When given a Russian pension, he refused to give up his goal. He returned as an American. As Reagan would say of him and those like him, they became the “rulers of the guards.”

Truth is liberating.

There’s nothing wrong with being rich, and there’s nothing wrong with everyone being rich, but we can’t deny the truth and be free. We can’t believe that government can fix everything. We can’t deny that people are endowed with different talents and abilities and some are better equipped to make money than others. We can’t deny that some deal drugs or steal, rather than work.

If we have liberty, some will have more than others; and if we try to make all people the same, all “rich,” we have the gulag.

What was once sold as “socialism with a human face,” a new and improved socialism, was understood by the French philosopher Bernard-Henry Levy as “Barbarism with a Human Face.” As he said, “The dream was not born yesterday, then, but … it always turns into a blood bath.” He, rather like Victor, insists on thinking — even without believing — “the impossible thought of a world freed from lordship.” Well, rather like Victor, he sees possibilities in America.

But do we still think it’s possible to live without the lordship of big government? Once the government owns our income, our homes, our healthcare, and our retirement, what’s left of freedom?

What choices are we making for our children? Will our children know the language of freedom? Or will they only know a “socialism with a Christian face”?

Public Prayer

So now Virginia Chaplains are not to pray publicly in the name of Jesus, and six have resigned.

What’s wrong with the view of Sam Adams? From the journals of Congress it is recorded:

That Samuel Adams asserted he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country; and nominated Duché.

Has prayer in the name of Jesus made Christians unpatriotic? Do we now have bigots objecting to prayers? Does anyone still speak of “piety”?

I ask you, what’s wrong with what Sam Adams said?

9/11

Remember 9/11 when you vote….

(Hey, I know 9/11 was a week ago, but if I post before the election, it’s timely enough, and this is a rather broad reflection on the serious topic of defense. )

My “serious” interest in politics antedates 9/11 by about two decades, but my introduction was related to “9/11″ issues of peace and safety.

My “serious” introduction to politics was with a couple of books in a class taught by a professor who became a mentor. The first book, The Concept of the Political, was used as a brief introduction that went way over my head, and which I didn’t study seriously until later. The book, first published in a preliminary form as an essay in 1927, was written by a scholar who eventually supported the Nazis, Carl Schmitt. The edition we used in class also contained an analysis of Schmitt’s essay by a Jewish scholar, Leo Strauss, who later fled the Nazis. At the heart of Schmitt’s work, Strauss saw the basic question, is government necessary? The critique reportedly was well-received by Schmitt.

If the answer to the question, is government necessary? is in the affirmative, then it seems an explanation is required. Why can’t we live without the overpowering force of government? One might say government is necessary for defense, because we have dangerous enemies. And this is how Strauss describes Schmitt’s “first word against liberalism.”

Schmitt’s work considers the nature of politics and focuses on the distinction between friend and enemy. Politics is not just about philosophic abstractions, but concrete oppositions that result in the identification of the enemy. Schmitt wanted to understand the “state” by understanding the nature of the political. He thought the common definitions and usages of “state” were inadequate. His thesis is that “the concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political.” So he aimed to understand “the political.”

9/11 illustrates that we live in a dangerous world. We are opposed by enemies. As Schmitt writes in his essay:

It is irrelevant here whether one rejects, accepts or perhaps finds it an atavistic remnant of barbaric times that nations continue to group themselves according to friend and enemy, or hopes that the antithesis will one day vanish. . . . The concern here is neither abstractions nor with normative ideals, bit with inherent reality and the real possibility of such a distinction. . . . But, rationally speaking, it cannot be denied that nations continue to group themselves according to the friend and enemy antithesis, that the distinction still remains actual today, and that this is an ever present possibility for every people existing in the political sphere.

Then, using distinctions in Greek, he distinguishes between personal enemies and public enemies as he considers the “often quoted ‘Love your enemies’ (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27).” He then writes:

Never in the thousand year struggle between Christians and Moslems did it occur to a Christian to surrender rather than defend Europe out of love toward the Saracens or Turks. . . . The Bible quotation touches the political antithesis even less than it intends to dissolve, for example, the antithesis of the good and evil. . . .

Strauss understands Schmitt’s polemic against pacifist humanitarianism to be directed against liberalism, against its lack of seriousness, or its attempt to make politics into something that’s merely entertaining.  Without serious disagreement, there is no conflict.  Without conflict there is no war.  Without war, we have peace.  And peace is the unquestioned goal of pacifist humanitarianism.

Schmitt understood there was a threat from modern liberalism.  He argued that a nation, not even a superpower, can “eliminate the distinction of friend and enemy.”  He concludes his line of thought about liberalism’s goal by writing:

It would be ludicrous to believe that a defenseless people has nothing but friends, and it would be a deranged calculation to suppose that the enemy could perhaps be touched by the absence of resistance. . . . If a people no longer possesses the energy or the will to maintain itself in the sphere of politics, the latter will not thereby vanish from the world.  Only a weak people will disappear.

While Strauss credited this “first word,”  he also critiqued Schmitt’s “seriousness,” his affirmation of the political, as merely a preliminary critique of liberalism. Strauss says that the affirmation of the political, the willingness to be serious and respect “all decisions leading up to the real possibility of war” is no different in kind than liberalism’s respect of all who “acknowledge the sanctity of peace.” Strauss says this affirmation of the political, this willingness to be serious and face conflict, has no name, at least not in the way that pacifist humanitarianism has the name of liberalism. But both liberalism and this “serious” approach to politics are mere affirmations, and are lacking a sound basis. The one affirms the goodness of avoiding conflict, while the other affirms the goodness of confronting the conflict, but neither has a foundation.

Strauss doesn’t read Schmitt’s affirmation of the political, of respect for a decision that may lead to war, to be Schmitt’s “last word” against liberalism. Strauss points toward Schmitt’s reference to “unpolluted knowledge” that “is never, except accidentally, polemical.” This knowledge is not to be gained from “political existence,” from the fact of political divisions in the world, but only by returning to “undefiled, not corrupt nature.”

This knowledge of nature stands in contrast to understanding that “an ever present possibility” of war “is the leading presupposition which determines in a characteristic way human action and thinking and thereby creates a specifically political behavior.” That is, a presupposition is not knowledge; it is only the “first word” in this argument.

Beyond the tentative character of the presupposition stands the question of whether existing states actually demonstrates that the “ever present possibility” of war “determines in a characteristic way human action and thinking and thereby creates a specifically political behavior.”

Government may be necessary, but not just because our enemies are dangerous, because man is dangerous. Government and politics may necessarily be the characteristic way of human action and thinking, without war being the underlying cause.

Consider again this election. Yes, we’re in a war. Does that determine how we think and act? Should war determine our actions?

Consider an issue that is not part of the war on terror,  but is part of a debate that reveals something of how we see ourselves and how we think and act.

Obama is said to support the barbaric action of denying care to babies that survive abortions. We tend not to think of abortion in terms of war (although Schmitt’s “first word” says that were we to think clearly, we would). Schmitt would say that the question does divide people and potentially could divide us into warring sides. But does that possibility of war determine how we think about abortion?

Does the possibility of war determine how we understand ourselves as humans?

I’m back to asking, as Schmitt did, what is man? Reagan said he believed that man is good.  While I don’t read Reagan’s words to mean that man is good enough for heaven, I do think that the innocent are good enough for protection and that we should not be prevented from doing what’s right–and we should be prepared to do what’s right.

Our elections are serious, but not just because we face dangerous enemies.  Rather, elections are serious because we face questions that challenge us to answer, who are we? Are we made in the image of God? Are we prepared to do justice? to defend ourselves and the innocent from the wicked?

The Rich

Who are the Rich?

I think a couple of threads are lurking here. First, one question lurking behind the question is, who should pay the taxes? Second, who is the “them” to our “us”?

Were we to face the question directly, I suspect those questions might be clarified. So, who are the “rich”?

Have you seen that email(s) talking about how rich Americans are? You know, haven’t you heard how many people throughout the world could live on the loose change in your pocket? And shouldn’t you be grateful to be an American? I think it’s true that Americans are quite prosperous.

But there’s even another sense in which some who don’t make $5million per year, or even $150,000 per year are rich.

My old pastor used to speak of “soul prosperity.” And that’s the title of a book by William Benn published in 1683 with an introduction by John Owen. (It’s also the title of another book by an antebellum Southern preacher Charles D Mallary published by my old pastor.)

The text for “soul prosperity” is III John 2. It’s worth contemplating. How does your soul prosper? Do you have “soul prosperity”? Are you indeed “rich”?

So it seems to me that the question about identifying the “rich” is distinguishable from the question about the best way to raise revenue. And the “best way” is “best” for the nation. And that addresses the second lurking question. So I think we can do away with class language and implications if we’ll get our priorities right. If we really do trust in God.

Aristotle thought a big middle class was best for mitigating the conflict between the “rich” and the “poor.” We’ve got that middle class, but I think we have it because our founders understood “soul prosperity” and doing justice. That makes the difference in politics.

Have a prosperous day.

Saddleback (Pt. III)

Okay, that last post, and especially the part about peculiar failures, really wasn’t finished….

So, what kind of thief says, “I’m a thief”? Well, a show Jen and I watched together was “It takes a thief.” So there’s a confessed thief who really can help you. Of course, even with reformed thieves, I think trust but verify is a good policy.

And why do I think that America’s failure is peculiar? Well, see, we’re taught what’s right and wrong. We’re taught: All men are created equal and that America failed with slavery, with that peculiar institution…. But isn’t that teaching also a success?

And that teaching is not a success that is new to America, or that is part of a “converted” America. We were taught from the beginning by the slave-holder (and slave-freer) George Washington that slavery is wrong and freedom is good–that self-government is good.

Nothing in America teaches us to look for a messiah to save us from governing ourselves–we’re democratic. We’re confessed moral failures. We don’t walk on water and we don’t expect our representatives to either. We don’t trust our Representatives with too much power, and we verify every two years.

So is that a failure? or is it a success to understand the fallibility of man and to prefer a rule of law to the rule of man?

Yes, we’re all sinners in America, but Americans don’t settle for that. We still insist on good judgment. We insist on a rule of law. And that requires good judgment.

See, Obama says he needs forgiveness of his sins. He knows he’s a sinner. And he knows he needs to act for the “least” by “acting justly, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God.” (He follows Jimmy Carter’s verse, Micah 6:8.) He knows he needs to be “humble.” And so when addressing genocide he says, “one thing that’s very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn’t always mean that we’re going to be doing good.”

See, something doesn’t sound quite right here, and this doesn’t produce confidence in me that we’ll be getting good judgment from Obama.

The repentant thief, if he’s truly repentant, knows that thievery is wrong; he can make that judgment and is free to act on it–like the prisoner in Dark Knight. His judgment and actions should have put the “good” “free” people to shame. He wasn’t “humble” and uncertain about his intentions and whether or not he was doing good. Sure, he and everybody else on the ship might have died as a result of his judgment, but he did good. America is constituted for such “sinners.”

So if the Representatives of the free people, the good people, of the U.S. declare war, why isn’t that good enough for Obama? Why does he need some kind of international sanction before he’ll use the military?

Saddleback (Pt. II)

The exchange with Beth, Pop, and Barb in Pt. I persuaded me that “doctrines and philosophies” of the candidates is better than “worldviews” or opinions. And all things considered, I think Carter’s “I’m a sinner” doctrine is predominating over Reagan’s doctrine that government should be limited to protecting us from each other, not from ourselves.

Everyone seemed to agree. We all sinners. We’re all moral failures. We’re failures because we don’t care enough for the least of us, for the orphans, or for some cause greater than our self-interest. Nobody said man was good, or America was good, or that government was the problem, not the solution. Nobody said freedom was good–and threatened by government.

And okay, we’re all sinners and we all have to try harder. Fine, that’s a nice “worldview,” but I don’t think it clarifies much about good government without something more. See, saying we don’t walk on water doesn’t seem to say much about what our representatives are doing right or wrong. I suppose one might presume that because they’re sinners, what they’re doing is wrong….

It seems to me, however, that our country’s “moral failure” is a peculiar moral failure, just like it’s a peculiar moral failure to say that I’m a sinner…. No, really, think about it. What kind of sinner says he’s a sinner? and why? I mean, what kind of thief says to you, “I’m a thief; I steal cars. Your car looks nice. You should do more with it; I can help you.” And what kind of person would listen seriously to that? Thieves actually are smart enough not to say such things….

I almost thought we were being advised to listen to how sinners can help us out. Really. Didn’t you hear it? They’re all sinners. And Obama was explicit. He was being humble, kinda like the honest “thief.” Obama is a sinner who can’t be certain about his motives in ending genocide or about doing good, despite trying. And are we to give him money so we might be more likely to think we’re humble too?

I’m not so certain about all this politician talk that “we’re sinners” and “we know how to do government with your money” stuff. Oh, I don’t doubt the former, but I certainly do the latter, especially given the former. So, I’d have benefited more by hearing about their “doctrine and philosophy” of keeping government from running my life rather than their “worldview.”

Clarity and “Worldview” at Saddleback (Part I)

Rick Warren aimed at clarity. He wanted us to have a better understanding of McCain’s and Obama’s “worldview.” As part of his opening he said that everyone has a “worldview.” Okay, everyone has one. But what’s the point?

Everyone has opinions and he asked the candidates about their opinions on abortion, orphans, Supreme Court justices et cetera. So why not simply say he was asking about their opinions?

Consider this statement:

we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just a world view, and everybody has some kind of world view. It’s important to know what they are.

Does it make just as much sense to speak simply of opinions? Consider the following:

we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just an opinion, and everybody has some kind of opinion. It’s important to know what they are.

That statement seems to make as much sense, and more clearly, than the first. I certainly agree it’s important to know the opinions of the candidates. And the forum allowed the candidates to express their opinions on a variety of public questions.

So what’s the point? Why did this Christian leader talk about “worldviews”? Was he concerned about mixing faith and politics? He did, you know, make it a point to have the candidates respond to anonymous critics of the forum, and assure all that there was no mixing of church and state. All that was happening, Rick assured us, was an expression of “worldviews,” which everyone has. This was not to be understood as a religious test for office.

But on the other hand, how should the faithful understand the statement that faith is just another opinion? I don’t thinks so…. Faith is not just another opinion in the Bible. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” And Obama expressed his faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins. Was that just another opinion for Rick? This doesn’t seem to make sense.

So, if substituting “opinion” for “worldview” doesn’t make sense, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Rick was not aiming for clarity about opinions. But that doesn’t make sense either.

I’m not sure Rick made sense with a needless justification for asking candidates about their opinions.

But tell me, why do think Christians talk about “worldviews” instead of opinions, or instead of faith, or instead of Truth? What’s wrong with good old fashioned English? Why use this translation from German of an amalgamation that originated with Immanuel Kant?