Moral Authority - Anyone to Stop Genocide?
In response to “Wayward Christian Soldiers” a friend raised questions, and requested the comments not be published. I highly respect my friend and honor the request; however, since the answers I gave to this response are very relevant to the main thrust of the initial message, Separation of Church and State (and moral discernment), I will give a condensed paraphrase of these fair questions to preface my response.
- The article I included by Charles Marsh quoted John Stott for which the writer states: “Surely this is a prime example of the confluence on Church and State, not the separation of it”: John Stott: "Privately, in the days preceding the invasion, I had hoped that no action would be taken without United Nations authorization," he told me. "I believed then and now that the American and British governments erred in proceeding without United Nations approval." Writer: “I think Stott is mistaken and the United Nations has no moral authority to authorize war on action of any kind.”
- Larger question of separation of church and state: “Is there really any Biblical basis for the modern day insistence on separation of church and state in a democracy? If the will of the people is expressed in democracy it would seem logical to me that religious will would likewise be expressed in the public forum of ideas as well and through our elected leaders and laws instituted by them. I am reminded of the 13th Chapter of Romans in which we are urged to obey the civil authority and Paul refers to them as ministers of God. I would be interested to hear from a Biblical perspective your thoughts on the need for complete separation of Church and State. It seems to me that we can never completely separate the secular and religious without making the first the master of the second.” Writer references Romans 13: 1-7
Complete separation of Church and State! NO. As stated before I am not for removal of references to God on money, pledge, or government structures that are historically a part of our founding or currently exist. If I were to choose a biblical reference to support separation, I would select from the ultimate moral authority, Jesus: Mathew 22: (15-25)) “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
St. Paul’s excellent writings (and others of his) you reference from Romans 13, is subject to many interpretations by clergy and laity. Therein lies the problem, as with much of the bible. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to obey the civil authority of a Hitler, and I don’t think all civil authoritative leaders could necessarily be considered ministers of God. People pick verses and render their self-serving interpretation, which has, in my opinion, served unjust and immoral causes, such as excluding women from the pulpit. Oh, we know the great divide between Catholic/Protestant and moreover the divide between the untold Protestant denominations. Under whose moral-authority interpretation should I put my trust?
Last evening I was watching Larry King’s interview with George H Bush. Bush commented that Kafi Annan, Secretary General of UN, called him to go to Pakistan to collect unpaid pledges ($8B I believe he said.) for earthquake relief. I think that was moral authority demonstrated on the part of Kifa Annan and President Bush. Following the interview with Bush were Robert Schuler Sr. and Jr. Doctor Schuler reminded President Bush that he had prayed with him in the oval office just prior to desert storm. That’s as it should be, the minister’s role, as has been, at least, throughout recent history, evangelist such as Billy Graham, Robert Shuler or a Tony Campolo praying with our leaders for moral discernment. That’s not amassing political power, and I think Jesus would have a lot to say about Christians amassing political power, in the most hyperbole expression to make his point. I can imagine what some of his parables and admonishments would sound if He were speaking today, even though His message would not change. And I believe He would agree with John Danforth: “People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics, but not to approach politics with a certainty that they know God’s truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action.”
In Larry King’s interview, both the Schulers emphatically condemned the recent irrational, zealous statement of Pat Robertson.
In the separation statement, I was not trying to suggest that one group had moral authority and another did not. However, in my opinion, it’s a dangerous and slippery slop we find our government teetering with the sway of extreme political-religious right’s influence to amass excessive political power. I would feel the same way if it were the fanatical left. All that said, who does have the more authoritative “moral authority”, is it the judgmental evangelicals who spoke from the pulpit supporting the war; the less judgmental moderate evangelicals, Pope, and clergy who said lets not go or at least wait on UN; or those clergy who remained silent?
“Moral authority” is subjective. Does moral authority come only from God? If so, who can we trust to reveal God’s will of what’s moral? Who is God’s spokesman? Is moral discernment more in the mind of the beholder? If so, then it would be integral to one’s conscience and principles. Does God create all people with a conscience capable of discerning right from wrong? If moral discernment sends military action to one country for protection, freedom and justice, is it immoral discernment NOT to send military action to any number of other countries where genocidal inhumanity is even more deplorable/evil and greater masses of people affected by tyrant governments?
Most of the time I think I know right from wrong. But there are some things I just don’t know about. Thanks for getting me to think deeper about these matters.
Does the United Nations have the clout and a moral obligation to improve the plight of humankind? Kenneth Bacon in this article has suggested that it does have that responsibility:
“28 Days to Save Darfur” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/opinion/31bacon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
- HOW can the United States best use its month-long turn as president of the United Nations Security Council, which it assumes tomorrow? It could start by devoting itself to ending the violence in the Darfur region of western Sudan — violence that President Bush has characterized as genocide.
1 comment:
Cornell,
First, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about the separation of church and state-- only that the government will not grant favor to any particular religion (ala Great Britain, Saudia Arabia, etc.). It is not the government's business to promote any religious preference NOR to prevent anyone, including its own employees, from expressing their own.
As to the U.N.-- It has so badly strayed from its original purposes as to have grown to be a mockery. To speak of Annan and moral authority from him is a joke. The U.N.'s primary duty was to be as a safety valve in the prevention of war. When that safety valve is institutionally corrupt, the valve becomes rusted and is not taken seriously by its member states. It permitted the Sadam Hussain regime continued free reign until an american president (G.W. Bush) decided to actually enforce U.N. resolutions long since approved by that international body.
Governments can only be as compassionate as its respective leaders. Keep in mind that bueuracracies by nature are sensitive to the human condition as much as their stipulated regulations permit. For us to expect moral, ethical and sympathetic action to be taken by government entities, those codes must be changed. That can only be accomplished by the election of good moral people to lead and to re-write those regulations. Until this occurs at every governing level, the moral authority of those in political power is to be taken with a very hefty grain of salt.
Regards, Jeff Stern NC
Post a Comment