Something of a problem. First, a short piece from Christianity Today drawing some conclusions about the relationship between patriotism and religion in America. While most Americans believe the United States is the best country on earth, the answer to the question of whether there are other countries that are even better breaks down along religious lines ranging from "unaffiliated" of which perhaps 20% believe there are countries better than America, through black Protestants, white Mainliners, Catholics, and ultimately white Evangelicals of whom only 3% report that there are countries better than the United States. (The writers give us only line graphs with no numbers except for the 3% figure so the rest is a bit impressionistic. Nor do folks at the Pew Research Center break out data for that painfully small group, confessional Protestants. But I digress.)
Interesting, but so what? Given Evangelicals' high view of the Bible, one might reasonably conclude that their belief in America's superiority is in some way grounded in that text. Not directly, of course; I'm not aware that any Evangelical believes that America is mentioned in Scripture. But indirectly, as a matter of application. In other words, America is best because it is the most biblically-compliant (my term) nation on earth, so Evangelicals generally argue.
But was does it mean to be biblically-compliant? Here's where Darryl Hart's recent piece gives one pause. Hart is an amateur curmudgeon and professional provocateur. (Or, is it the other way around?) Actually, Hart is a scholar of American Presbyterian church history and has taught at a number of institutions. In a radio interview promoting his most recent book, From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin, Hart reports that the discussion revolved around the offense that many conservative Evangelical take when, for example, Michelle Bachman is asked by the mainstream media about the relationship between the biblical teaching of wifely submission and the exercise of constitutional executive powers.
The MSM is primarily interested in "gotcha" moments but nonetheless the question is legitimate. Just how do Evangelicals parse what parts of the Bible are directly relevant to the modern civil polity and which are not? I don't know about Michelle Bachman but most Evangelicals haven't given the question much serious thought. They tend to operate with the presupposition that there is a simply one-to-one correlation between contemporary conservative politics and the Bible and so simply take the passages from the Bible that support their political views as the ones that are binding and that otherwise they are not.
Harts runs to the opposite extreme and apparently believes that Christians should never or at least almost never make appeals to the Bible in public discourse. Arguments from "natural law or the light of nature," he thinks, will do all the the necessary work. Never mind apparently that in the post-Kantian and post-Darwinian (and let's throw in post-modern, for good measure) world most people don't believe in natural law or that nature has any light to shed. And I suspect that, given the weaknesses of modern education, most people couldn't follow one of Robbie George's recondite natural law argument even it if meant qualifying for a reality TV show.
Of course, well-developed arguments that do not begin and end with Bible verses are very important. But one should not rule out of bounds arguments in the public square that do appeal to authority, including the authority of the Bible. But if Evangelicals wish to make such arguments, they would be well-advised to be able articulately to answer the question why the modern state should enforce the prohibition against theft and not the commandment forbidding idolatry.
Interesting, but so what? Given Evangelicals' high view of the Bible, one might reasonably conclude that their belief in America's superiority is in some way grounded in that text. Not directly, of course; I'm not aware that any Evangelical believes that America is mentioned in Scripture. But indirectly, as a matter of application. In other words, America is best because it is the most biblically-compliant (my term) nation on earth, so Evangelicals generally argue.
But was does it mean to be biblically-compliant? Here's where Darryl Hart's recent piece gives one pause. Hart is an amateur curmudgeon and professional provocateur. (Or, is it the other way around?) Actually, Hart is a scholar of American Presbyterian church history and has taught at a number of institutions. In a radio interview promoting his most recent book, From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin, Hart reports that the discussion revolved around the offense that many conservative Evangelical take when, for example, Michelle Bachman is asked by the mainstream media about the relationship between the biblical teaching of wifely submission and the exercise of constitutional executive powers.
The MSM is primarily interested in "gotcha" moments but nonetheless the question is legitimate. Just how do Evangelicals parse what parts of the Bible are directly relevant to the modern civil polity and which are not? I don't know about Michelle Bachman but most Evangelicals haven't given the question much serious thought. They tend to operate with the presupposition that there is a simply one-to-one correlation between contemporary conservative politics and the Bible and so simply take the passages from the Bible that support their political views as the ones that are binding and that otherwise they are not.
Harts runs to the opposite extreme and apparently believes that Christians should never or at least almost never make appeals to the Bible in public discourse. Arguments from "natural law or the light of nature," he thinks, will do all the the necessary work. Never mind apparently that in the post-Kantian and post-Darwinian (and let's throw in post-modern, for good measure) world most people don't believe in natural law or that nature has any light to shed. And I suspect that, given the weaknesses of modern education, most people couldn't follow one of Robbie George's recondite natural law argument even it if meant qualifying for a reality TV show.
Of course, well-developed arguments that do not begin and end with Bible verses are very important. But one should not rule out of bounds arguments in the public square that do appeal to authority, including the authority of the Bible. But if Evangelicals wish to make such arguments, they would be well-advised to be able articulately to answer the question why the modern state should enforce the prohibition against theft and not the commandment forbidding idolatry.
No comments:
Post a Comment