Category: Politics

John Rawls is considered by most Academicians to be the greatest Political theorists of the 20th century. Naturally, I find that to be bollix. It is likely that Rawlsian theory  somewhere along the line influenced R2K thinking because John Rawls political theory sounds like R2K minus the ham handed R2K interpreters of Rawlsian thought. You see, Rawls , in his  “Political Liberalism,” proposed a solution to this dilemma of religion in the public square that has sparked a vigorous debate among political theorists. Rawls’s proposal is a conception of public reason that allows citizens to base their political views in their religious doctrines, but insists that religious reasons are not sufficient justification for those views under some circumstances. Thus, religion can be the basis of individual political conviction, but it is excluded from the public political forum.

Here is a bit of interaction with Rawlsian political theory

“Public reason, then, requires citizens (under certain conditions to be specified later on) to seek and offer properly public justifications for their political positions — a responsibility that emerges from their commitment to the liberal principle of legitimacy. For Rawls, this minimally entails a good-faith effort to employ only principles that we believe our fellow citizens can, at least in principle, accept. We should not appeal to our own religious, moral, or philosophical worldviews (“comprehensive doctrines” in Rawls’s terminology) since in a pluralistic democracy many of our reasonable fellow citizens will not share these views. Justification in terms of any particular comprehensive doctrine therefore shows deficient respect for fellow citizens and constitutes a violation of the duty of civility. In other words, public reason only allows justification based on what we all share as reasonable citizens.”

1.) According to Rawls what standard is used to determine what is a properly public justification for a political position?

2.) How could we ever know what principles our fellow citizens find acceptable and why should the principles of our fellow citizens be the guiding principle that controls our principles?

3.) Rawls invokes his own comprehensive doctrine to make sure that no one else invokes their own comprehensive doctrine.

4.) Why would any Christian think that our responsibility unto the Rawlsian duty of civility is higher than our responsibility unto God?

5.) By what standard is “reasonable” measured in the idea of “reasonable citizen?”

Florida megachurch pastor Tullian Tchividjian has said that the increasing association between evangelical Christianity and the religious right has had a negative effect.

In an interview published Friday, Tchividjian warned against bonding political views with religion.

“I think the impression that most non-evangelicals have is that [evangelicalism is] a political movement — it’s a culturally warring movement,” he told The Blaze.

“Closely associating the core message of the Christian faith with a political ideology has always been a huge mistake.”

McAtee responds,

1.) This is merely an appeal from the political left, of which Tullian is a member, to disassociate Christianity from its moral base. The truth of the matter is that the Christian right has merely stood for issues like “babies being born,” “men not marrying men,” “Christians not sending their children to government schools,” and “The State not stealing from the public via Marxists religion.” Is Tullian really suggesting that it is wrong to advocate for God’s mind when the political realm starts leaking into the Church. You see the problem with Tullian’s thinking here is that it is not the case that the Church is butting into the political realm but rather it is the case that the political realm is butting into the bailiwick of the Church as it pertains to Christian morality.

2.) Of course, with this misguided statement, Tullian has indicted Calvin’s Geneva, Knox’s Scotland, and Kuyper’s Holland. Tullian has also suggested that the work of Thomas Chalmers was a huge mistake, the work of William Wilberforce was a huge mistake, and the work of John Witherspoon as a huge mistake. The fact of the matter is, is that it is Tullian and his non Biblical opinion on this matter which is the huge mistake.

3.) If it is true that culture is but religion externalized then it is obvious that Biblical Christianity should war against the culture where the culture is an expression of a pagan externalized religion. Of course the foundation of such warfare is the finished work of Jesus Christ. Because of the finished work of Jesus Christ, and His following Resurrection and Ascension the Lord Christ has every intent to make war on those cultures that are organized in defiance of Him.

The Christianity today article offered,

Tchividjian, who is the grandson of famed evangelist Rev. Billy Graham, said that the use of Christianity in politics has damaged the religion.

“My take on it having grown up in the evangelical world … the sort of rise of the religious right and its close association between the church and politics has done big-time damage to the brand of Christianity in the public sphere,” he stated.

Ask someone what it means to be an evangelical, he said, and their answer would likely contain views on political issues.

1.) First, can we just observe that it was Tullian Grandfather who was forever being seen with Political figures. If Tullian is going to disavow the nexus between politics and religion let him disavow his Grandfather who was seen with every President from Truman to Bush II. Second, let us not forget how political his Grandfather’s decision was to go to the former Soviet Union when so many people begged him not to because of the political message it was sending.

2.) Of course we must lead with Christ crucified but to suggest that there is no relation to Christ crucified and Christ risen, Ascended, and ruling is to abstract the Gospel to make it a antinomian Gospel. What shall we say? Shall we go on preaching Christ crucified without preaching Christ Resurrected, Ascended, and Ruling?

3.) Of course pagans are going to charge Christians with the most unsavory untruths. Why should we think that they would ever do otherwise? Does Tullian think that when we ask a pagan what it means to be an Evangelical, they are going to say, “Oh, Evangelicals, why they want me to understand that Christ died for me. I don’t like the Evangelicals who expect repentance but I sure like Tullian because he never says anything about the necessity to repent.”

Christianity Today as channeling Tullian continues,

“As important as those things might be to discuss, that’s not the central message of what it means to be an evangelical,” Tchividjian said.

“Historically speaking, evangelicals were good news specialists and because we’ve become so closely aligned with political ideologies and culture warring issues, what’s been lost is the core Good News message of the Christian faith.”

The Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church also urged pastors not to discuss politics in their churches.

“I have lots of opinions … on just about anything,” he said. “I basically almost refuse to make any kind of public commentary on anything other than the gospel [from the pulpit].”

He concluded, “For the last 40 years we’ve talked more about what’s going on in our culture … than we have preaching Christ and him crucified.”

Bret responds,

1.) The Good News is that “there is no other name under heaven by which ye must be saved.” I agree. We must herald that.

But saved from what? How can we talk about salvation without talking about sin? And how can we talk about sin without talking about God? We command all men everywhere to repent and be Baptized. But repent from what? From sodomy? From a lack of compassion? From preforming and submitting to abortions? From Statist Marxist theft as against the 8th commandment? How can we apply Christ Crucified unless we talk about these sins which the political realm has forced upon the Church by its seeking to try and reshape our message?

It looks to me that Tullian wants all the image with none of the substance. He wants a Crucified Christ to preach without the ethical substance that a Crucified Christ looks to forgive.

2.) Even with Tullian’s comment that we should not comment on politics from the pulpit he has made a political statement. He is telling us we should not raise our voice against those sins for which Christ was crucified. Tullian is being extraordinarily political in desiring a closed lip policy against the States interference with Christian morality.

For a couple decades now I’ve believed that the political system, especially on the Federal level is rigged. Which is to say I believe that most candidates on each side of the ballot are going to implement much the same agenda. I believe this because the money behind the candidates is largely coming from the same sources. I believe this because of the consistent track record which finds candidates excoriating incumbents only to turn around, upon being elected, to pursue the exact same policies, at a factor of 10, which they previously excoriated with relish during the campaign.

To support this conviction I offer some quotes from an American Governor from 1930. This Governor was hammering away at the proto-Keynsian policies of President Hoover. This Governor eventually ran against Hoover as a Democrat and defeated Hoover in the 1932 Presidential election and turned around and made Hoover’s proto-Keynsian policies look like the kind of stuff that children might do with a Lemonade stand.

This 1930 Governor makes Ron Paul sound like a collectivist and a Statist.

I submit to you he knew when making these speeches he was going to pursue the very same Economic policies that Herbert Hoover was following. In point of fact he made Hoover look like a neo-phyte when it came to Government largess.

I provide a few of the quotes from his March, 1930 speech. If someone didn’t know in 1930 that the system was rigged even then they would have voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt for President thinking that they would be getting a small Government conservative.

“As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.”

“Thus, it was clear to the framers of our Constitution that the greatest possible liberty of self-government must be given to each State, and that any national administration attempting to make all laws for the whole Nation, such as was wholly practical in Great Britain, would inevitably result at some future time in a dissolution of the Union itself.”

“Now, what are the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution? First of all, the National Government is entrusted with the duty of protecting any or all States from the danger of invasion or conquest by foreign powers by sea or land, and in return the States surrender the right to engage in any private wars of their own. This involves, of course, the creation of the army and navy and the right to enroll citizens of any State in time of need. Next is given the treaty-making power and the sole right of all intercourse with foreign States, the issuing of money and its protection from counterfeiting. The regulation of weights and measures so as to be uniform, the entire control and regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, the protection of patents and copyrights, the erection of minor Federal tribunals throughout the country, and the establishment of post offices are specifically enumerated. The power to collect taxes, duties and imposts, to pay the debts for the common defense and general welfare of the country is also given to the United States Congress, as the law-making body of the Nation.”

“On such a small foundation have we erected the whole enormous fabric of Federal Government which costs us now $3,500,000,000 every year, and if we do not halt this steady process of building commissions and regulatory bodies and special legislation like huge inverted pyramids over every one of the simple Constitutional provisions, we shall soon be spending many billions of dollars more.”

“On such a small foundation have we erected the whole enormous fabric of Federal Government which costs us now $3,500,000,000 every year, and if we do not halt this steady process of building commissions and regulatory bodies and special legislation like huge inverted pyramids over every one of the simple Constitutional provisions, we shall soon be spending many billions of dollars more….”

“The doctrine of regulation and legislation by “master minds,” in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last ten years. Were it possible to find “master minds” so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost god-like in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.

Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government. The individual sovereignty of our States must first be destroyed, except in mere minor matters of legislation. We are safe from the danger of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the States is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever it seems in danger.”

“But what are the underlying principles on which this Government is founded? There is, first and foremost, the new thought that every citizen is entitled to live his own life in his own way so long as his conduct does not injure any of his fellowmen.”

The point is folks, that the whole election process on the Federal level is a tissue of lies. These people are not going to overturn the general direction of the deification of the State. I could provide quotes from LBJ decrying Civil Rights which he later supported. I could provide quotes from Obama bashing Bush for Bush’s practice of Executive power and now Obama makes Bush look like milquetoast.

The election process is a ruse folks to make you think that you have some kind of authority.

You don’t.

Here is a link to the whole Governor FDR speech,

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/fdr_address.htm