The Obvious
Jun 30th, 2005 at 9:27 pm by Susie
George W. Bush is not Lord. The Declaration of Independence is not an infallible guide to Christian faith and practice. Nor is the U.S. Constitution, nor the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights. “Original intent” of America’s founders is not the hermeneutical key that will guarantee national righteousness. The American flag is not the Cross. The Pledge of Allegiance is not the Creed. “God Bless America” is not the Doxology.
Sometimes one needs to state the obvious—especially at times when it’s less and less obvious.
Christianity Today, via Slacktivist.
If you’re not knowledgable about Christianity but recognize its political importance, you could do worse than to start reading Fred Clark’s Slacktivist. From his witty theological dissection of the “Left Behind” series, to the latest in evangelical politics, he’s worth regular visits. Here’s what he has to say about this editorial:
It’s remarkable not because of what it says, but because of who is saying it. CT is the journal of record for the mainstream evangelical establishment. The editorial goes on to criticize recent comments from Pastor Ted Haggard, whom we met earlier, and from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. It also includes this belated, but very welcome, dismissal of the “Wallbuilders” crowd:
And for some time now, we’ve been hearing from David Barton, Peter Marshall, and James Kennedy, among others, about “renewing the vision of our founding fathers, as expressed in America’s founding documents,” and the need “to defend and implement the biblical principles on which our country was founded.”
The not-so-subtle equation of America’s founding with biblical Christianity has been shown time and again to be historically inaccurate. The founding was a unique combination of biblical teaching and Enlightenment rationalism, and most of the founding fathers, as historian Edwin Gaustad, among many others, has noted, were not orthodox Christians, but instead were primarily products of the Enlightenment.
Coming from the reserved elder statesmen of CT’s editorial board, that’s pretty much a smackdown.
wow, cool. it bugs me how the founding fathers’ vision of America is often invoked to support current political desires. if we were still following the founding father’s visions to a Tee, black people would be private property, women would not be able to vote, etc etc. The FF knew the constitution would need to be flexible, hence the allowance for Amendments.
btw, MIT is taking a survey of bloggers:
http://blogsurvey.media.mit.edu/help#about
Okay, I’ve put Slactivist on my daily-read list. Did you happen to see this piece on Jerry Doolittle’s blog about the treaty George Washington negotiated with Tripoli in 1796?
http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/002654.html
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
Folks, don’t the the other guy define the rules. Stand up, pick your ground and defend it. Don’t back off, don’t give anything. Better yet make them defend their position by showing it in writing (e.g. the constitution of the US).
Remember, silence is implied consent.