From Orthodoxy to Orthopraxis

From Orthodoxy to Orthopraxis

Thank you James, (James’ response to my Founders, Religion and State is printed below this writing.)

You so eloquently express your views with substantial knowledge of judicial works and history.

Perhaps you took it as a rhetorical question, but would you like to answer the question of what’s more important in God’s Kingdom? It seems to me that until we put “tending the sheep”, “caring for those of the least of us”, “saving the Darfurians,” etc. on, at least, the same moral equivalency as abortion, we are missing the larger point of Jesus’ Greatest Commandments:

Matthew 22: 37 Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” John 13: 34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

I contend you can’t do the first without first doing the second and third, which includes doing unto the sheep, the lowest, and the vulnerable as Jesus would have us do. Therefore, in His words, when we fail the standard He set, we fail “His salvation test.” Of course we know the Church Founders, St. Paul and the Bishops, let us off the hook. And I must confess, it’s a relief because I fail the “Jesus Test” so miserably, as I believe most people do. Granted we cannot “save” ourselves, but we (you and I) can do something, however small, for what I call the “corporate salvation of humankind.” Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or the people now operating the Robin Hood Foundation ( http://www.robinhood.org/home/home.cfm ) may come closer to Salvation in God’s Kingdom, if based on Jesus’ words. (See today’s Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201384.html?referrer=email .)

On your question of my view on Faith: I made a profession of faith in the Jesus that calls me to service, including, forgiveness of my sins, a faith held for 56 years. But in addition, my faith may be more encompassing, more universal, reaching out to all peoples, not necessarily to proselyte, but in recognition that the God of Abraham (that the overwhelmingly number of religious people profess as Creator), created all 6.5225 billion people on this earth; it’s a faith that acknowledges that over 4 billion people may never be introduced to Christianity and, further, that my Christian belief may be merely integral to additional plans God may have for the salvation of others in this world. I believe that when the Church nudges from orthodoxy (true doctrine), more to orthopraxis (true practice), it will be more in tune to Jesus’ call and become not a faith without works.

Thomas Friedman in the N Y Times on Sept. 8th related: Early in the Iraq war a prominent Sunni Arab leader said to me privately, “Thomas, these Shiites, they are not real Muslims.” Perhaps too often as self-righteous Christians, we also have the propensity to believe that “we” are the only real Christians. But in United Methodist, as the ad says, “We all believe in God, even though we have different beliefs.”

I think each person who has a strong desire to bring religion closer to state, should first answer the question: What am I willing to give up, yield to other Christians (World Christian Encyclopedia: there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world today http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi.htm.) who believe differently and to other faiths (over 9,900 religions in the world), who would propagate their religious brand by doctrine or etched on state porticoes?

Are we closer to making a case for “separation of religion and state”?

I leave you with a poem, “God To Save His People,” I composed subsequent to 911, which expands on my religious worldview.

God To Save His People

In this world there are many creeds,
Faithfully sowing devout seeds.
But let the world not be torn apart
By divisions of faith we all impart.

Religions are many, some I recall.
Nearly ninety-nine hundred in all,
Too little time to measure each’s worth,
God will be judge of all religions of earth.

The Islam Nation from Abraham and Hagar –
Ismail to Muhammad great numbers in the world,
Will not get to all mankind of earth.
God, Allah, to save all people, He gave birth!

The Jews by Abraham and Sarah gave -
Isaac by God’s covenant a nation be saved,
Will not reach all people on earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

Christians through Isaac, a Savior, believe-
Jesus Christ from grave saves all who receive,
Will not reach all inhabitants of earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

Zoroastrian may be the oldest of all,
Having great influence on many to call,
Will not ring forth for all people on earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!


The Buddhist from Gautama Buddha convey
Four noble truths of suffering to obey,
Will not reach all populace of earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

The Hindu of India, most ancient may cry,
Some yoga to obtain the spiritual high,
Will not reach all masses on earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

Confucian, Jain, Shinto, Taoist, and Sikh,
All have their solemn way of life,
Will not reach all societies of earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

While for me in my faith, I will abound,
And with God, Son, and Holy Spirit I resound,
It is this creed for all that now I cite:
Let no one persecute or differ to fight!

God willing, His people to freely sow,
Except fanaticism be the extremist foe.
Let not prejudices and intolorances grow,
And we not judge by what we do not know.

We are all from the one Divine Creator.
God, by great miracles of birth, our Grantor,
Endowed life to all His children on earth.
Pray, God will save all people, He gave birth.

Cornell Cox
Monday, March 04, 2002

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
James’ response to Founders, Religion and State:

Thanks Cornell,

I agree that most of the early founders were Deist, not Christians per se. However, I don't know that original intent as it relates to the constitution is really that much in vogue for determination of issues today. Yes, there are strict constructionist such as Robert Bork that believe in this approach to law but even the most conservative of jurist seem to apply the law in light of recent precedent. However, it is interesting to study what the founders meant. Overall I don't think could have envisioned a secular nation. The constitutional prohibition against congress establishing a state church in general was not applied to the states. Of course neither was the rest of the bill or rights, until later years when the courts ruled that most if not all of these rights bound the states as well as the federal government. However, I think it is a big, big stretch to take this prohibition against a the US congress establishment of a state church to the level of "separation" in which simple displays of historical articles like the Ten Commandments and Nativity Sets are somehow now seen as illegal. Surely this view would not have been shared by any of the founders, given the intertwined nature of religion, both Deism and Christianity in the day they lived.

However, to the more important moral question of abortion, I don't think the issue will be decided by the courts, but by the people. Which means to win the hearts and minds of the American public on this moral issue is as important in winning the issue as it was for the abolitionist to win the minds of the public in bringing an end to slavery. As you recall from history, there was a group of strong anti-slavery people for many years but through the impassioned preaching of those like Henry Ward Beecher they opened the minds of the nation to the great evil and prodded the conscience. Martin Luther King Jr. did the same thing in the 60's and through taking the moral high ground and framing the debate, not in the context of politics alone, but by appealing to the soul he brought change in the political arena. I am convinced that Abortion will one day be ranked as one of the great moral issue in our country, on par with Slavery and Civil Rights. Increasing we have seen the public move from the position of "Abortion on Demand" as a "Woman's right" with many saying this is a simple surgical procedure having no moral consequences to the position held by many Americans that, though it may be a necessary evil, it is never the less very evil. For Evangelical Christians the concept of necessary evil is hard to reconcile with there world view and therefore they put very few things in this category (I.e. war, capital punishment, abortion in cases of endangerment of the mother's life)

However, having said all that the courts have decided the issue for now with no vote or input of the people, all state laws were struck down by Roe v Wade. Since that time they have allowed the states to decided some of the issues such as parental consent. However from a legal stand point most scholars think that Roe v Wade is on shaky footings. To couch the debate in terms of privacy only is held by many even on the extreme left (Al Gore, for instance) to be wrong place to put this decision, even though they desire for abortion to be legal. In the end, I think most of the Abortion law will get pushed back to be handled by the states.

On the other two items you mention Money, Money, Money in politics and Salvation by Faith. Well, a person could right a book about either and not even get close to covering the territory. However, I strongly agree with your opinion on the first one and will have to know more about your views on Faith to understand if I agree or disagree on the second one. Anyway I am coming back from Philly today and getting close to landing so I will have to say so long for now good friend.
Thank you, James

PS. There is a beautiful sky outside my window. What a blessed sight.