Christian Right confuses Creation and Redemption

[AlanH]

I have a keen interest in politics and religion. I'm very concerned about the approach of the Christian Right to the public square. It appears that the Christian Right has a serious problem in properly distinguishing God's rule as Creator and His rule as Redeemer and thus the proper role of the Church and State in society. Let me lay out what I think are proper Christian principals to guide Christrians when engaging in debate in the public square.

1. We are all sinners.
2. As sinners living in a sinful world all we do is tainted by sin.
3. All people (believers and non-believers) have knowlege of God's Law.
4. God as creator bestows wisdom and knowlege on believers and non-believers alike. Christians have no moral superiority over non-believers in the debate in the public square.
5. Christian's are called to work with people of good will no matter what their religious beliefs to raise the level of justice in society.
6. The role of the State is to enforce God's Law and provide for justice.
7. The role of the Church is to proclaim the Good News.

Based on these principals Christians can not appeal to religion when debating in the public square because the participants in the debate are not all Christians. Instead Christians must appeal to reason and the knowlege of the Law known to all people in order to build the possible best consensus on the issues. In fact appeals to religion are counter-productive to building such a consensus. (This explains in large part the "backlash" to the Christian Right.)

 

[Puffy2]

But that would take entirely too much thinking for most of them.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Unfortunately, the "Good News" does not appeal to reason, nor should it, because belief in and acceptance of the Good News requires the individual to exercise faith, which requires us to move beyond what reason can deduce. Faith requires belief in some things that cannot be proven or seen.

Further, if we fully accept/believe in the Good News it will impact our interactions with those we meet in the public square. The Good News offers a radical concept of justice -- one that comes not from Reason, but from God. Christians cannot be required to divorce themselves from their faith solely for the benefit of building a consensus. Do you require the same of every other religion/belief system? Would you require those whose belief relies on Reason alone to divorce themselves of that belief in order to build a consensus? What you are requiring is that part of the population abandon their beliefs, principles, values in order to appease another part.

Common ground is not found in the requirement that individuals betray or deny who they are and what they believe. Consensus is not found in identifying those things that make us different and then requiring that we somehow strip these identifiers away.

We find common ground by recognizing and accepting that we are all different, and allowing those differences to inform our dialogue. We look for those things where we can agree and in those areas where we disagree we seek tolerance and freedom. It is the great tension that our 230 year old experiment in democracy creates each new day.

We would never think of denying some minority group the right to freely exercise their beliefs/faith in the public square. Why, then, is it acceptable to suggest doing so for Christians (a belief/faith that over 80% of Americans identify with)?

 

[AlanH]

Tigger Magic:

I agree with your first paragraph. However, I would like to point out that reason is not excluded just because things can not be proven or seen. Reason has its place in theological reflection.

When I use the term "public square" I am refering to one of the original activities that used to take place in public squares. That is debate of issues of public concern. Certainly our beliefs inform the positions we take, but we live in a pluralistic society where not all persons share our religious beliefs. Imploring our religious beleifs will not sway them. In addition it is not responsible because it closes off debate.

God calls Christians to be responsible. Therefore, if we who live in a democracy are serious about raising the level of justice, it is more responsible to appeal to people of good will who do not share our religious beliefs though reason and their God given knowledge of His Law than by appealing to our religious beliefs. This is not appeasment but a responsible way to build consensus for the highest level of justice attainable at any time. It is precisely because of our beliefs that we are called to try to build the best consensus possible. I agrue that an "all or nothing" approach is irresponsible. The role of the State is not to promote religion. We must draw a distriction between God's rule as Creator and God's rule as Redeemer. When adressing the State and issues of public concern we are in the realm of God as Creator.

By the way this debate is a Christian one. What other belief systems do is their business. I believe that drawing the proper distinction between Creation and Redemption is true to the faith because it properly gives God His due as Creator and Redeemer. It also provides a framework for Christians to be most effective in the public square. It seems that Jimmy Carter in his latest book is hitting precisely the same issue although he uses different language.

Cerainly we are called to bear witness to our faith. But this is in the realm of Redemption. The State also should not prohibit or restrict our right to witness.

Because we are sinful people living in a sinful world there are no perfect results.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I don't believe one can dichotomize God they way you suggest. God exists as the total of all His attributes, including those of Creator and Redeemer. These cannot be compartmentalized for the convenience of consensus building in the public square. The universe itself is unable to contain God, yet you would try to dissect Him into separate parts?

The God who created is the God who redeems; the two are inseparable parts of the whole. A Christian should not attempt to set aside his faith in some attempt to build a bridge/relationship with another person, especially for temporal/political benefit. To do that is to violate one's faith because our faith is supposed to infuse and inform all aspects of our life. Jesus did not call upon His followers to be salt and light in and to the world, but only so far as it does not offend someone else's delicate sensibilities. We do not practice our faith hidden in a closet, shrouded in secrecy. We should not wear our faith as a garment that is easily shed because someone else does not appreciate/approve/like our "fashion" sense.

We are left in the world specifically to change the world; to deliver the Good News to everyone, not just to those who want to hear it, but to those who don't also. You issue a call to responsibility, yet it sounds like a call to abandon one's faith in some vain attempt to achieve a benefit that is useful in this life only. In essence, you are asking people like me to throw away the eternal riches of heaven for some table scraps here on earth. That's hardly a fair trade.

Your call is one of appeasement because you would too easily toss aside the very essence of what God wants to accomplish in this world and substitute it with the tainted, sinful replica that man is able to create with his own hands. In the end, it will not accomplish what you hope for, because without redemption man cannot find true justice. God's redemptive process shows what true justice is and is the only model capable of working perfectly in this world. Man is able to cobble together some bits and pieces, but cannot hope to achieve real justice on his own, apart from God's help.

If God created us, then only He can redeem us to the position where we can truly live and act in true justice with one another. To toss aside that redemptive process is to guarantee failure because throughout history man has proven repeatedly that by his own ability he is unable to act justly or do justice in a perfect way.

I agree we will never achieve perfect results in this world. However, we are guaranteed absolute failure if we attempt to tear apart our faith and cast redemption aside in some act of appeasement.

This is an interesting discussion and I wish I could continue it. However, I am due to leave for a WDW vacation at 7:05 a.m. tomorrow and alas, I've not started packing yet... and there's a ton 'o laundry still to be done. I hope when I return I can dig this up from the CB graveyard and continue it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. It's interesting, even if I don't agree.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

This is a section of a paper written by John Fischer about a book by Francis Schaeffer titled "The God Who Is There." (BTW, if you've never read that book, I highly recommend it.) Fischer's paper is an analysis/comparison of Schaeffer's book with another one written by Bill Hybels titled "The God You're Looking For." I thought this section of the paper was particularly pertinent to this discussion. I leave it for your consideration. (I highlighted some very intriguing points.)

The God You're Looking For

We now live in a generation that lies beyond the rational boundaries of Schaeffer’s day—even beyond despair. Hope is fantasy. Truth is whatever anyone wants to make it. God is a concept to be used only when useful. Religion is a preference. There is nothing beyond self to appeal to; only the subjective desires and felt needs of human existence are left. The God Who is There is about as relevant to today’s thought processes as Francis Schaeffer’s knickers. Not that the truth is no longer true, it is just that the postmodern mind does not possess the thought-forms necessary to grasp truth as absolute. Announce the God “who is there” today, and people will want to know which God you are talking about. On which channel? Representing which ethnic group? Which religion? And if he is “there”, just where is he? Is he out on video? And before anything else, people would want to know what this God could do for them, for whether God is or is not there, the operative question is, what can belief in God do for me?

In this context, The God You’re Looking For is a fitting title. There is simply no other way to address a postmodern mind except by way of the expressed needs, longings and desires of people. And the churches who are adopting this approach are currently finding much success. But in doing so, are we not now facing a new dilemma for ministry?

Schaeffer himself has stated that each generation of the church “has the responsibility of communicating the gospel in understandable terms, considering the language and thought-forms of that setting.” [Escape from Reason, p.94] But what if the language and thought-forms of a generation are inept at holding the kind of belief systems necessary to sustain a relationship with God over the long haul? Then we will have to teach people to think in thought-forms that are foreign to them—that are outside their cultural experience. To some degree then, in teaching people how to follow God, we must now teach them how to think all over again.

For instance, we keep hearing how the postmodern mind cannot grasp the idea of absolutes. Well then, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the postmodern mind is incapable of grasping the idea of God. Something has to give here: either the postmodern mind, or the God we preach, and I don’t think God is very interested in making too many adjustments in his nature or his character in deference to our inadequate minds. People, in order to grow in their understanding and relationship with God, are going to have to somehow graduate from a God they once met on one level, to a God who demands they stretch their minds in order to meet him in ways they have never thought of before.

Actually, this process is not unlike one common to all believers. We all begin a relationship with God on a subjective level through our own personal salvation. But our growth (or sanctification) is the process of discovering that God does not exist for us; we exist for him. “True worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth (John 4:23)”—speaking not of my truth, but of his truth to which I adjust myself and my thought processes. New believers have come to God because he has met their need; mature believers come to God regardless of their need. They come because he is God and he is worthy of their worship and allegiance.

The Current Task

If I am right about this, then the current task that faces the church is a difficult one that poses some rather ticklish questions. Having convinced people to embrace a God who is relevant and contemporary, will Christians still love God when they find he can also be irrelevant and old and sometimes difficult to follow? What do we do when the God who is there is not the God anyone wants? Do we still preach him? Will we be tempted to continue giving people a God they are looking for when the God who is there no longer holds their interest?

One can readily see how addressing this generation with the truth about God is a more formidable task than it was thirty years ago. If people no longer have the thoughtforms to grasp absolute truth, then we have to teach and challenge them until God forms in them a new mind. “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Romans 12:2)” takes on new significance in this regard. It will take a new mind to even believe.

In reality, both these titles are true and necessary. The God You’re Looking For is a good way to start people thinking about God today, but at some point, the God you are looking for has to become The God Who Is There—the God who was there all along, and the God who will be there forever. He is the absolute we will all eventually bump into, regardless of our ability or inability to conceive of him. This is the God who deserves our praise whether or not he fits our description or meets our needs. Somewhere in me, I hear God saying to us all today, “If you are looking for God, I am the God you get, because I am that I am.

May we not shrink from telling the whole truth.

©1999 John Fischer, all rights reserved

 

[manchurianbrownbear]

Well done gentlemen! I sincerely hope this discussion is continued when Tigger_Magic returns.

 

[ford family]

Certainly we are called to bear witness to our faith. But this is in the realm of Redemption. The State also should not prohibit or restrict our right to witness.

Have to disagree.
What you coyly describe as witnessing, I consider harrassment, and I would expect the state to protect me from it.
My protection becomes your prohibition or restriction.

ford family

 

[AlanH]

manchurianbrownbear: Thank you for your kind words. Tigger Magic's last two posts have given me a lot of food for thought. I hope to post a reply by the middle of next week. I also thank Tigger Magic for his thoughtful and civil posts.

ford family: I'm sorry that attempts by Christians to witness to you have offended you. No Christian's witness of the faith to others should rise to the level of harrassment. I hope you do not consider any attempt to witness "harrassment" which in the US we define as "to annoy persistently".
Once it is obvious that a person does not want to hear a Christian's witness to the faith, the Christian should cease his or her efforts. From a purely pragmatic view to continue is counter-productive.

 

[AlanH]

First Article of the Apostle’s Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,

First Article of the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen.

A portion of the Athanasian Creed:

And within this Trinity none comes before or after; none is greater or inferior, but all three persons are coequal and coeternal, so that in every way, as stated before, all three persons are to be worshiped as one God and one God worshiped as three persons. Whoever wishes to be saved must have this conviction of the Trinity.

I understand your concern about separating God into two parts. I am not trying to do that. After all it would be a denial of the Trinity. However, I do argue that the distinction between God as Creator and Redeemer is implicit in our confession of a Triune God. God has chosen to deal with us in two ways. (As far as I know no one has developed a very complete theology of the Holy Spirit.)

Also, I appreciate the paper by John Fischer. It appears that the primary concern of the paper is the issue of how to communicate the Good News both to believers and non-believers in our contemporary society. I don’t think it directly addresses how Christians should work in society for the common good.

What are some of the implications of our confession “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, …”?

1. God not only created heaven and earth, but he continues to sustain it. If He did not continue to sustain it, his creation would cease to exist.

2. God’s creation is not limited to the material. He also has created human society, which includes politics.

3. Because human society is part of God’s creation, it is good (although corrupted by sin).

4. Because creation is corrupted by sin, God as Creator gave the Law in order to restrain sinful people from acting on their sinful impulses so creation would not descend into chaos. He gave knowledge of His Law to believer and non-believer alike. (Romans 2:15)

5. God as Creator has ordained that the State is the institution in society to enforce his Law and provide for the common good. (Romans 13:1-4)

6. God as creator who sustains human society continues to work in human society. He gives unique gifts and abilities to believers and non-believers alike. He calls believers and non-believers to use their unique gifts in service to society (vocation). Among these are calls to service in various roles as part of the State (which includes elective office).

A few further thoughts:

1. Since all persons of the Trinity are coequal, we cannot put Redemption over Creation or Creation over Redemption.

2. The primary role of the Church is to proclaim the Good News and administer the Sacraments.

3. God has redeemed His Creation through the Cross. His redemption of His Creation will not be made known to all (manifest) until Christ comes again.
4. There is no such thing as a “Christian” (redemptive) agenda in society. God has an agenda as Creator that is known to all people in His Law. We are not called to build a “Christian” society or a “Christian” nation. No Nation-State can lay claim to be the People of God.

5. The Church, either directly or indirectly through “Christian organizations”, must not seek power for itself. To do so would be to abandon its call to servanthood and usurp the role of the State.

6. Christians are not called to “build God’s Kingdom on earth”. God already has brought in His Kingdom that will be made manifest when Christ comes again. In the Lord’s Prayer we do not pray, “Help us to bring in your kingdom on earth.”, but rather “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.

7. Being a Christian is not a qualification for public office. We put in public office those best qualified for the task. “Better a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.” (Luther).

8. Christians are to be “in, not of” the world. (John 17)

I’d like to elaborate on the implications of the last statement, but I think I’ve written enough for now.

 

[manchurianbrownbear]

I'm going to steal some of this for a Bible study I facilitate at our church!