response to Herb (Political Theology)

[George Demetrion]

Herb: Michael Sandel has a wonderful little book on Justice and its many faces. He writes what may define our time, “asking democratic citizen to leave their moral and religious convictions behind when they enter the public realm may seem a way of ensuring toleration and mutual respect.  In practice, however, the opposite can be true.  Deciding important public question while pretending to a neutrality that cannot e achieved is a recipe for backlash and resentment.  A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civil life.  It is also an open invitation to narrow, intolerant moralism.” 243.   In a sense this may define where we are.   I could define justice as a farmer who plants a vineyard and reaps the  benefits.  I believe with Niebuhr that justice occurs where to fairly equal powers of forces compromise.

George: John Rawls has written two very important books (Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism) where he takes a Kantian view in support of the universal moral imperative. he spells out a view of justice broadly analogous to the US constitutional and republican tradition, In this he argues that we should take positions on what contributes most to justice in any context through, what he calls a "veil of ignorance," where we hold our own (narrow) interests at bay, while, through the veil, fairly adjudicating for the common good, as defined in any context. Clearly, this is an ideal, which has potentially formative implications in getting us to base our notions of justice in ways that transcend the immediacy of out self interest. I believe Sandel was responding to Rawls in the statement you provide.  I am not a strict Rawlsian, but I believe his work holds a valuable key in the development of a viable of a US-based political theology for our times. Perhaps an essay could be written titled, "Reading Rawls Through a Niebuhrian Lens." For an extensive overview of Rawls, go here:  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Herb:  Finally if the Word becomes flesh and Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine the political and sacred are related, the curtain is torn in the temple.  Jesus and Paul are both involved with the political, the State kills both Jesus and Paul.  Jesus Christ is a threat to the state, “where is the king of the Jews born?”  Jesus is defined on the cross as a political person, “King of the Jews.”  There is a lot of politics here and a longing for the new creation, where the suffering of this time does not overcome the glory we shall share” Rom 8.  Now if you disagree with me.  

George: Yes, agreed on the significance of politics in Jesus and Paul.  Perhaps they were both goof Niebuhrians.  New creation was at the heart of them both--a creative transformation that, while transcending individuals, very much worked through individuals, as was much of the ministry of both in addressing individuals--more Jesus than Paul, since Paul's mission to building up the early church was foundational to his ministry. The question is that of focus. Concretely, what would Jesus be doing if he were living in the US in the era in what is likely to be called, The Age of Trump? How would what he be doing be related to issues of social justice and confronting the power structure. For example, how would he react to the threat to sanctuary cities that Trump's intended policies will likely bring forth?  What about Paul?  For one reaction by one of our local governmental officials, see the following  (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/01/27/boston-mayor-vows-to-open-city-hall-as-safe-space-after-trumps-crackdown-on-sanctuary-cities-n2277655).

Of course, we don't know the answers to these questions, but grappling with these hypotheticals have the potential of extending our own thinking, and possibly our praxis. 

 

[Herb Davis]

Dear George,  Thanks for you response.  We need to discuss our understanding of justice.  I always hear clergy talking about justice but seldom hear any discussion of their theory of justice.  I certainly need help with this.  Thanks for bring up Rawls.  He is a thoughtful, gifted thinker on justice.  His two principles in relation to the veil of ignorance are helpful.    We don’t know where we will end up.  We might end up as a religious minority so we want to make laws that protect one from persecution or racial discrimination.  He suggest we don’t support utilitarianism (what's best for the most of the folks, as common good) but support equal liberties and freedom of thought  for all citizens rather than maximize the common good.  This is why we should support Muslims in their excise of faith.  This also works for how we design an economic system.  Since we might be poor and if we were poor we would want an economic system that helped the least of a society.  Would the system allow some to be rich but tax the rich to help the poor?  My problem with Rawls veil of ignorance is my sense of sin.  Can we live behind the veil of igroance or do we really think we know what is best for us and act on our best interest.  That is why I support a system that support opposition institutions, corporation and unions, mediating institutions, family, churches, media, vs govt.  Maybe Rawls and Niebuhr. 

 

You keep asking the question what would Jesus do or Paul do?  Your reference to the Mayor of Boston supports resistance, but we will see how that resistance hold up against lost of funds.  I think Boston has strong institutions that can resist.  Paul had a great deal of confidence in Roman Law, so maybe the response of SF of going to the courts, supporting ACLU, supporting the rule of law might be Paul’s response.  I was delighted with the response of the Christian Churches in rejecting the ban.  Jesus I think provided resources to the church so that is could be in but not of the world, be fully engaged but not ruled by the political or cultural forces.  I would think that we should be working to strengthen main line congregations so that they can process political issues, and not be controlled by democrat or republican dogma.   Finally Jesus came to save the sinner, the lost, who is the sinner and lost today.  I would suggest those who do not do well in school, those who are not life time learners, those who work with their hands.  I would suggest the mainline churches at least the Methodist should find a ways to love these sinners, not to treat them as objectives of mission and to give them a voice other than the alterright.  Herb

From: George Demetrion

Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 9:42 AM

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: response to Herb (Political Theology)

 

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Confessing Christ Open Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to confessing-chr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Martha Cohen]

The church in the town square?  

Sent from my iPad

--

[George Demetrion]

Thanks Herb,

All excellent commentary.

Many within the mainline denominations are struggling with how to respond to the new political realities and also are some evangelicals.  Rachel Held Evan's blog post, "Life After Evangelicalism," as well as the posted comments merits much reflection. (https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/life-after-evangelicalism)

I do think there needs to be serious mainline/evangelical dialogue on the nature and focus of political theology on our times. including the role of justice within the context of Christian theology, biblical studies, and ethics. On this, I think Brueggemann is as prescient as always. His short collection of essay, The Covenanted Self: Explorations in Law and Covenant has something to offer on this. https://www.amazon.com/Covenanted-Self-Walter-Brueggemann/dp/0800631765

George