catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

sacred vs. civil in the public square

Default

kirstin
Aug 12 2004
08:30 am

whether we agree with his premises or not, Michael Moore illuminates in his last two films the epidemic of fear in our country, especially since 9/11. honestly, i’m much more frightened by the militant tone of evangelical Christianity since the attacks than i am of being attacked by terrorists.

with all of the talk among evangelicals regarding the heroic faith of our founding fathers and the God-ordained license of the U.S. as a military superpower, how can we practically understand the difference between sacred and civil in the public square, rather than forcing a sacred state as a fear response?

Default

dan
Aug 12 2004
12:50 pm

I’ve also picked up on increased anti-Muslim “chatter” among evangelical Christians. There’s lots of eye for eye talk, and not much cheek turning. That’s natural I guess, but I’d like to hear more about how Jesus would respond to the threat of extremist Islam.

Default

anton
Aug 13 2004
05:08 pm

Kirstin, I think you’ve brought up a crucial issue, an issue the church and the U.S. could understand better. There is a difference between the church and the U.S. This distinction, which the church recognizes, is also one difference between the church and Islam.

One differences is that while in both sacred and civil realms, the central problem is clear (sin), the solutions to civil problems are much more difficult to discern than the one clear solution in the sacred realm (Christ and him crucified). God has not given us as clear a guide as the Scriptures are for the sacred realm.

Another difference between the church and civil government is that the church is not to take up the sword, while civil government is to take up the sword: The government official is “God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:4). Wrongdoing here is not transgression of God’s law, technically, but civil disobedience, as guided by natural law.

The government is for our good. It bears the sword to punish wrongdoers, who are, in this case, largely radical Islamic fundamentalists. As a country, we don’t bear the sword against Muslims because they reject Christ, but because they are terrorists who commit acts of civil disobedience. Technically, it has nothing to do with their beliefs, as I think Bush has made clear. In reality, though, terrorists are motivated by their beliefs. We show our enemies no respect when we ignore their viewpoint, which they explain with significant reference to Islam.

I think it is important for us as Christians to explain to people this distinction, which distinguishes us from Islam, which has no such distinction between church and state. Islam is a triumphalistic religion which asserts that there will be one Islamic world this side of the grave. Hence, many Muslims are willing to take up the sword against the infidels they hate. But Christians have this difference, that they would not take up the sword. Instead, they would preach the gospel and seek nonviolent means of making disciples, out of a basic motive of love, not hate. Also, Christians in the civil realm will not discriminate based on belief; Islam, on the other hand, will discriminate based on belief. This discrimination reflects their belief that eventually there will be one Islamic world this side of the grave.

Default

dan
Aug 19 2004
11:54 pm

Anton I’m amazed at your optimism about Christians and your negative generalizations about Muslims. Christians in the civil arena are often, both now and in history, the first to discriminate based on belief. Some do, some don’t. Christians are people like everyone else who disciminate against, hate, and falsely-suspect people who don’t deserve it. At other times Christians are loving, inclusive, and fair. Christians are not always motivated by love, as you suggest. Christians are no better or worse than anyone else, or did I miss something?

Also, your generalization about “the” muslim belief system are hard to believe considering the diversity of viewpoints that exist in Islam.

Default

laurencer
Aug 20 2004
08:13 am

in any discussions regarding the differences between christianity and islam, particularly the differences in how each approaches political scholarship, i think it is terribly important to bring an historical analysis to the table.

so here’s a [i:838cc8cdf9]very[/i:838cc8cdf9] brief outline: islam was founded in the 7th century, approximately 600 years after christianity (1st century). christianity, after being intertwined with political empire for 1300 years or so, finally distanced itself from government and empire in 1648 with the treaty of westphalia, during the reformation. islam, after being intertwined with political empire for about 1200 years or so, finally distanced itself from government and empire in 1918 with the fall of the ottoman-turk empire after world war 1. interestingly, islam is currently going through its own period of reformation, with reformers taking up their cause all over the world.

islam, then, is following a very similar historical trajectory, making a comparison between 17th century christianity and modern islam a more accurate juxtaposition. and i’m pretty sure we wouldn’t hold up popular christian social thought from the 17th century as a model for christian political involvement (think spanish inquisition and salem witch trials).

does that make christians better than muslims in regards to the question of engaging political systems? no, it simply means we’ve had about 350 more years of practice figuring things out. while we don’t often like to admit it (or, more accurately, we don’t often recognize it), God is a God who works through history to make God’s purposes clear.

but this diversion hasn’t addressed the main issue of the post at all and i’d rather not derail that discussion, so …

Default

laurencer
Aug 20 2004
08:41 am

while dordt alumni might groan at the mere mention of it (worldview, worldview, worldview), i think the best model for approaching this question is the concept of sphere sovereignty developed by abraham kuyper.

here’s the essentials of sphere sovereignty, borrowed from redeemer’s web site:

Sphere sovereignty implies three things: (1) ultimate sovereignty belongs to God alone; (2) all earthly sovereignties are subordinate to and derivative from God’s sovereignty; and (3) there is no mediating earthly sovereignty from which others are derivative.

and here, because i’ve run out of time for posting this morning, are some other resources:
[list:a87da1c880]:a87da1c880]Kuyper’s Stone Lectures: Calvinism and Politics
[
:a87da1c880]The Center for Public Justice[/list:u:a87da1c880]

Default

anton
Aug 20 2004
09:20 pm

Dan, you make a good point: Christians do not necessarily live more godly lives (this is lamentable since they alone have the Spirit). There is diversity of practice and belief among Christians and Muslims.

Nonetheless, I would challenge you. Because of all the diversity, can we say nothing about the differences between Christianity and Islam? Is there no difference between them? I was trying to argue that as Christians we need to be able to explain these differences because there are those who are saying that there really is no difference. Both are exclusivist and thus lead to violence, they say.

It is helpful to note, for instance, that Christ was not a statesman; he did not take up the sword against those who did not believe in him but was crucified by them. Mohamed was a statesman as well as a religious leader; he did take up the sword against those who did not follow his beliefs. In part this explains why Islam is triumphalistic, as I have already explained. It also helps to expalin why Islam is more than a religion (it reaches into the civil realm). Bassam Madany’s articles on his site www.levant.info are useful. He knows Islam well: he grew up in the Middle East, speaks Arabic, and has interacted with Muslims in the Middle East for most of his life.

Default

anton
Aug 20 2004
09:39 pm

Laurencer, Luther once said that he’d prefer a good pagan ruler to a bad Christian ruler. I’m probably botching the quote, but it’s something to that effect. A Muslim may well make a better civil ruler than a Christian, owing to God’s widespread distribution of gifts. The difficulty has to do with the way Islam enters into politics, as opposed to Christianity, for instance. You speak of a reformation in the Islamic world with respect to separation of civil and sacred spheres. This is hopeful, but there is more than merely 350 years that distinguishes Christianity from Islam with respect to the civil realm. Again, consider Christ and Mohamed for starters (no pun intended!).