“Evangelicals In The Public Square” – A Continuing Book Discussion – Part 5
It must be remembered that at its core, this book is an argument by Budzisewski for more in-depth consideration of a political philosophy for Evangelicals, and specifically consideration rooted in "natural law." Budzisewski lovingly points out that the Bible, the source of almost all evangelical thought, is remarkably silent on many, many issues that confront us in daily living.
There are two general results from this phenomena. One is that Evangelicals withdraw from public life, staying in small communities and addressing themselves to things directly mentioned in scripture. We looked at this from a different angle in the second post out of this book, quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The other is that Evangelicals engage in politics and governance only on issues directly addressed in scripture, and then do so in a fashion that is unconvincing, dogmatic, and could be described as "clumsy."
"Natural Law" is essentially the path the Catholic church took through this question of social and governmental engagement in areas where scripture is silent. Simply put, natural law is the law that governs the operation of the world that can be observed without supernatural guidance and intervention. It is from this concept that, for example, the idea of "science" came. Science is the study of the created order and as such reveals much about the Creator.
Protestants tend to be happier discussing the concept of general revelation rather than natural law. In part because Protestants like to do as much as possible distinct from Catholics, but also because is the term general revelation emphasizes the differentiation from special revelation, that is to say, God's direct revealing of Himself in scripture, or Christ.
The two terms are also differentiated in that "natural law" has generally be carried farther into developing ethical and political systems, while "general revelation" tends to be limited to the area of apologetics. The oft-most quoted source of both approaches is the Apostle Paul's argument in the first chapter of Romans:
Rom 1:20-27 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
This idea is remarkably important when one wants to look at the issues confronted on this blog. That is to say whether a creedal Christian can, in good conscience, cast a vote for for someone of another faith. In general, that question is far more problematic than it is in the creedal/Mormon Christian case, and the reason lies here in the concepts of general and special revelation.
It must be remembered that Mormons and creedals begin with the same basic special revelation – the Bible. Both groups, like all humanity, share the same general revelation. Note that the Romans passage cited above contends that when it comes to public conduct, EVERYBODY should have the same basic ideas, regardless of the particular special revelation they hold. This commonality of values should be reinforced by the commonality of special revelation amongst creedals and Mormons.
Indeed, Mormons have additional special revelation when compared to creedal Christianity – and yet, that special revelation cannot contradict general revelation, or the common special revelation, or a religion will be in defiance of reality, which frankly is where things like Islamic terror find their root. To deal with the cognitive dissonance that would arise when special and general revelation are in contrast, a religion is forced to reduce itself to strict dogmatics and spreading itself by strength of arms or other coercive technique.
I have to agree with Budziszewski when it comes to the results of immature Evangelical political thought. We tend to engage only on certain issues, and because we largely disregard general revelation in our religious thought, we tend to become dogmatic and politically clumsy. Such limits our effectiveness to be sure, but it also borders on the coercive means of spreading our faith because while our special revelation is not in contrast to general revelation, we just ignore it and are left without resort when it comes to defending our positions.
When we understand that our positions on issues are rooted both in special revelation and in general revelation we find that we can make common cause with many other religious viewpoints, Mormons among them.
[tags]revelation, special revelation, general revelation, natural law, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Mormons[/tags]
Posted in Book Reviews, Issues, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post