What?! How Dare You or Just Scroll To The End

You really need to read previous posts and the comments to get what's going on here.

This is my blog- how dare you challenge anything I say?! Ever!

Actually I appreciate responses. These posts tend to be rough drafts of my thoughts... well... no I guess my thoughts are the rough drafts. What would the actualized thoughts be? Nonsense?

Anyway I appreciate the responses. I throw something out and someone else comes along and says "Do you really believe that?" That's good, except when I have papers due. You got that Dbravo and Paddy O? Save your thoughtful responses for when I don't have something to do! Oh wait- I don't want that- I need you to feed my narcissism. This has been gnawing at the back of my head and I had two papers due yesterday. What could I do?

That said...

It's not trollish to talk about politics. I think. I take trollish to mean "wanting to eat goats or possessing the quality of one who eats goats" - in which case I am trollish, but I don't think you said anything in your post that suggests you are. I guess you could be trollish. Do you like goat?

In any case, it's okay to talk about politics. In fact it's necessary, not in the "Why do you hate America, fag?" kinda' way but in the being political is a part of who we are kinda' way. Politics is usually narrowly viewed as just what deals with government or policy issues. But, that's boring and not all there is to it. Our lives are political, that's not all they are, but in our relationships and decisions where questions of right and ought come into play there is the political. "But those are moral decisions," one might say. They are, but our moral decisions have broader implications, especially as we do not live isolated lives. "Well then those are social concerns, not political," is the response. I say, "They are social concerns but they are also political becau- "No, no, no, the political only has to do with questions of governance." Well, "stop interrupting," I say.

Maybe this will help: Ms. Rosa Parks. Now I am not going to sully her memory by claiming she is on my side or anything like that. What I will do is suggest she offers an example of how the boundaries between the personal, social, economic, political et al are not so clear or are at least permeable. Her decision to not give up her seat was a moral decision in that she acted on the basis of a certain value. It was a social decision in that it was related to the larger society. It was a political decision in that it was designed to challenge the standing policy. It was even an economic decision in that it was connected to a planned bus boycott which itself was a political move. (Unlike the popular myth suggests she was not just too tired. It was a planned event which itself was a political, moral, social... act). It was all of these things and more. To see it as only one of them is to not see the decision and event as it is. To limit who we are to one of these categories, or to eliminate one of them is to not acknowledge fully who we are. As another example, take the social, moral, spiritual, political, et al act of confessing Jesus is the Christ. To keep it in bounds, all one has to do is confess with their lips and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord. In context, all one has to do is challenge the accepted political order that claimed another Lord and say Jesus is Lord. All one has to do is come to the spiritual realization that Jesus is Lord. All one has to do is etc... This doesn't mean it's all just one big thing- or it means it is one big thing with many properties.

So this only explains why I see the political in things, now whether or not my words may be more or less Christian than the words of people who get into bed with the president is something else.

I wouldn't answer that specific question because I don't think I see degrees of Christianity in things or characterize things (other than people) as Christian. I might say my words are more truthful than those of some of the people who get into bed with the president. I would say that tentatively though.

I too was bothered by some of the attacks on the Clintons from Christians. It wasn't that Clinton was above criticism nor is it because of the NT admonition that Christians be subject to the government. I don't see subjection precluding speaking honestly to what is wrong. It's because a lot of the attacks on Clinton were not honest. A lot of the attacks on this president are not honest.

It was okay to say Clinton's lustfulness and adultery were wrong. It was okay to say his lowering the poverty threshold to manipulate poverty rates and boot people from welfare roles was wrong (not many people did though). It was also okay to say that the era of economic prosperity he oversaw was fundamentally flawed in its exclusion of an entire class of working people. It's okay to say that W's pridefulness and inability to admit mistakes are wrong. It's okay to say his lying to push for a war is wrong too. It is okay to say his approach to global security is wrong because it is more likely to create regions of intense instability and the growth of insurgent/terrorist groups. These things matter. They affect real people.

But now there are other things to consider. The government is not the church. No matter how many 18th century Natural Law deists are quoted, the state, even the United States, is not the Assembly of Yahweh. Wrong is wrong, but what guides the state is not the same as what guides the Body of Christ.

I will differ from some other Quakers in this, (oh that's right, everybody, I'm a Quaker) I do think the state will differ greatly from the church in how it exists. A sovereign state will have enemies and destroy them. The church will have enemies and love them. The state operates on a principle of parochial or internally guided interest (if the state were a person I'd say self-interest), The church is guided by an externally directed love. A state would not last very long as the church and the church would not last very long as a state. I say this completely aware of what this implies for the last 1700 years of Western history.

What I do think passages like Romans 13 say is that Nero had as legitimate a claim to power as Jimmy Carter, a fascist regime is as valid as a democracy. That's a tough pipe to smoke but that's what the passage seems to say. It doesn't say Nero is good because he is an authority, or that anything he does as an authority is good. His authority is legal but this does not vindicate what he does, it just explains my subordinate position to the state. I can critique the state and I would hopefully use a method understood by the state (not that I imagine my words reach "the state," I'm speaking generically.)

I can critique the church and the standard should be how well we bear witness to the reality of Jesus Christ. Rather than a critique though, I would like to think of my words as inspired, sometimes corrective, sometimes encouraging, always directed as much at myself as to other members, and developed in connection with other members...

...what was I saying...? Oh, we are necessarily political, it's okay to critique the state and its members, it's okay to critique the church and its members but this occurs differently... This is too much, I must interrupt me.

...

Here's a nutshell:

I'm glad W is a Christian, I'm glad Clinton is a Christian. I shudder to think how much worse their behavior would be if they weren't. Whether or not we identify with them is not the issue. Will we identify with the church, will we be a body the testifies to Jesus? Those are my words to a church that too easily cozies up to the powers of the world- those were the words in my previous post. I'm trying to heed those words myself.

My critique of the state is different. W may be a Christian, Clinton may be a Christian too. Pray for them, absolutely pray for them- but this is a democracy and we needn't let anyone get away with murder. That was also a message of the post.

So now, the brilliance of its title is seen. My grandfather was a big old pinko leftist, hence the critique of the state. I am a Christian- there's the source of my warning to the church.

And last but not least- DBravo- a response to your post is coming too.

I Wanna Be Your Lover- Prince
Shining Star- Earth, Wind and Fire
Man In Uniform- Pete Yorn
Now's The Time- Charlie Parker
Strange Fruit- Billie Holiday
Don't Give Up- Peter Gabriel
Sensation- The Who
Motivation- Tripping Daisy
BBF3- Godspeed You! Black Warrior
Santo- The Pixies
Venus- Air
Sweet Talkin' Woman- ELO
Italian Leather Sofa- Cake
Luz Azul- Aterciopelados
'Tis Autumn- Stan Getz
I Can't Explain- The Who