Some Challenging Thoughts on Poverty

I don't check it everyday, but I should. Scot McKnight's blog, jesuscreed.org, is fantastic. Check out this challenging and, I think, pretty spot on post about dealing with poverty as believers:

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=4415

The Classic Separation Perspective (Derek Davis) #4: Some Concluding Thoughts

There was much I enjoyed in this perspective and it is, actually, probably my default position, though that is probably changing as more social issues get raised these days. I didn’t note any critiques of the Catholic perspective, but a couple questions/issues came up in this one that are worth noting. Not long critiques, but noteworthy…

· The Catholic critique here notes how Davis’ study is more individual oriented and doesn’t speak to our social responsibilities.
· The idea of a civil religion is why I’m not terribly offended that they’ve taken prayer out of the schools and why there are some ways I’d like to be more than a “Classic Separationist.” It isn’t that I want to avoid all of it; it’s that I don’t want the US church to become Europe.

The Classic Separation Perspective (Derek Davis) #3: The Rules of Classical Separation

OK. I'll quit whining about lame Seattle sports. Back to the different church-state relationships from a Christian perspective. This is the last installment of the Classic Separation Perspective. There are three distinct, yet related rules when it comes to Classical Separation, according to Davis.

1. Separation of Church and State.
There are clearly ways where there is no separation (“In God We Trust”). The issue is more of an institutional separation. That means “church and state in American society not be interconnected, dependent on or functionally related to each other.” The idea is that they will both function better if they function independently (e.g., government appointing clergy or the church dictating laws like the Middle Ages).
Davis seems to be skeptical even of partnership of church and state when it comes to social programs because religions have been historically considered “pervasively sectarian” (p. 104). Whether it goes this far or not, Davis’ concern is that “making religion the servant of government would likely inaugurate the decline of religion’s current role as the nation’s ‘prophetic voice’ and conscience against ill-advised governmental policies. Religion with its hand out can never fulfill its prophetic role in society” (p. 105).

2. Integration of Religion and Politics.
While the official separation is clear, religious voices are encouraged in politics. Whether it be the individual citizen, or lobbying, religion does play a role in the political arena – and should. Religious people can enter into the process just like anyone else and it is expected, or at least understood, that those running for public office can speak about their faith.

3. Accommodation of Civil Religion.
Classical separation also recognizes a civil religion under the generic terms of “God” and it allows symbols that have been around for a while to stay prominent in a given community (Nativity scenes, menorahs, etc…). This ends when it will make an impression on the young, which is why they still pray in Congress, but not in schools.

Conclusion of Classic Separation
Separation is important for the purity of the church, but it has had great benefits. There is no country as religious as the USA – and with such broad respect for so many different faiths. The church and state can pursue doing good to all (Gal. 6.10), but it is the role of the church to make disciples of the nation (Mt. 28.19-20) and the state can’t do that.

Can it get any worse?

Of course it can. It's only sports, but this has to be the darkest season in my Seattle sports memory.

Seahawks whacked again ... at home: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawks/2008259176_webhawk12.html

Mariners 100+ losses ... and no new GM in sight yet.

Sonics are no longer.

Cougars embarrassed ... big deal.

Huskies only avoid losing because they have a bye.

Rough year.

Too long without Eugene Peterson: contra spiritual elitism

I’m making myself stop. I just started reading Eugene Peterson’s Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places. He’s been one of my favorites over the last few years, but it’s been too long since I last read him (a year ago or so, I think). I started reading Christ Plays (because my amazing wife gives me Saturdays to relax, recharge, and read) and wanted to pound through the first section of the book because that’s what I do with books, but I made myself stop. Too good. I need to think about it.

I can’t begin to capture how good Peterson is because it’s mostly in how he says it, but I’ll at least let you think about what I’m pondering to see if it is worth you pondering, too. He’s “clearing the playing field” for Christian spirituality to get rid of distractions. The first he’s dealing with is the myth of spiritual elitism, that spirituality is for a special class. He debunks this brilliantly by contrasting two consecutive stories in John 3 and 4 – Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. The stories show that Jesus shows no preference and, in fact, it is the “less respectable” one who gets what Jesus is talking about and. Notice the contrast:

A man and a woman.
City and country.
An insider and an outsider.
A professional and a layperson.
A respectable man and a disreputable woman.
An orthodox and a heretic.
One who takes initiative; one who lets it be taken.
One named, the other anonymous.
Human reputation at risk; divine reputation at risk (p. 18).

Ultimately the point of each doesn’t revolve around the person, but Jesus and the work of God. Peterson states, “Jesus is working at the center. Jesus is far more active than any one of us; it is Jesus who provides the energy” (p. 19). In removing the clutter around spiritual formation and the issue of elitism we see:

spirituality is not a body of secret lore,
spirituality has nothing to do with aptitude or temperament,
spirituality is not primarily about you or me; it is not about personal power or enrichment. It is about God (p. 19).

What a great reminder. God doesn’t care where we are or where we come from, but He cares about where we are going and wants to work in our lives. What a great reminder that, ultimately, the pressure’s off. God’s at work. Not because of who I am or what I’ve done, but because He is and He loves me and wants to change me to become like Him.

Nice. Encouraging.

The Classic Separation Perspective (Derek Davis) #2: Classic Separation is not Anti-God

The separation was not given to inhibit religion, but to “energize religion to supply the moral virtue in the citizenry that the nation would need for success” (p. 94). The Enlightenment rationalism wasn’t secular; God was behind the scenes as the providential hand in the universe. After noting the Baptist contribution towards separation (he’s from Baylor – he’s gotta give some love to the home team!), Davis discusses the contributions of religion to the new system. Religion contributes by creating a pious and moral people upon which freedom stands. This is whey there are so many great quotes from founders about faith – without saying the government might “promulgate religion.”

The Classic Separation Perspective (Derek Davis) #1: The Basic Debate

Derek H. Davis lays out the “classic separation” perspective by citing how religious liberty is America’s gift to the world. While most of his essay discusses the American Founders’ rationale for “classic separation,” he starts by mentioning the theological foundation of church and state, which is that all are created in the Image of God. Image bearers must be honored and belief and practice cannot be coerced. The difference between the classic and “strict” separationist view is that in Davis’ model, there can be some interaction between church and state.

The Basic Debate: The Meaning of the Religion Clauses
The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first clause means the government cannot establish a church, but the second clause, the “free exercise clause” leads to much debate. I’ll save the debate, but Davis believes it refers to “classic separation” because direct/financial support of religion compromises the religious mission and its ability to be a prophetic voice.
While he admits it is difficult to determine from the Framers of the Constitution whether it should be separate or whether it accommodates partnership, he opts that, based on the founders’ deliberations, the separatist view is preferred, particularly since “nonpreferential” language toward religion was rejected up to five times in the process of writing the Amendment. If the framers thought it was an issue of fairness, they had ample opportunity. Since they didn’t, it seems they were aiming at separation.

Classic separation has been an historical process. Many colonies supported churches, but most stopped around the time of the Revolutionary War. After that, religious tests for holding office ended, and then finally they decriminalized religious behavior (e.g., being Catholic, etc…).