RSSA Hole in the Wall?
Darryl’s introduction seems like an odd place to begin for a conservative. His defense of the “seperation of church and state” seems so late 20th Century. I guess that Darryl is just being true to his Jeffersonian tendencies. After all, it was Jefferson who gave us the wall of seperation metaphor. I appreciate Jefferson’s localism and agrarianism but find that their are more orthodox defenders of such notions.
I was most concerned by the linking of the American War for Independence with the French Revolution (again the ghost of Jefferson). Darryl links them together writing, “The local congregation, the synod or assembly of a denomination, a parochial school– these are all private institutions, and their seperate status from public bodies is an important contribution of the dissolution of Christendom that the American and French revolutions heralded when they disestablished the church.” (pg. 15). I wonder if these events should be spoken of in the same sentence? The French Revolution despised Christianity and sought to replace it with a cult of reason. The American’s were content to preserve and defend the world they had inherited. Sure, the 1st Amendment forbid an established church but left state and local establishments in tact. Most of these more local establishments were abolished by the state constitutions and did not live much beyond 1830. Yet, the principle was vastly different from French radicalism. In fact, Christianity flourished in a system without where it was legally favored but not established. Expounding the First Amendment, Joseph Story wrote in 1833, “The general if not universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragment from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship.”
W.H. Chellis
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
A further comment on chapter one. Darryl comes close to giving away his argument on page 10 where he writes, “This does not mean that Christianity has nothing to say. Clearly, certain notions about men and women being created in the image of God, or about the sinfulness of human nature, or even about legitimacy of personal property, have implications for politcs.” (pg. 10).
Here Hart has hedged his bet. Still, he fails to tell us the how and the who of making these implications relevent for politics. Are Christians allowed to advocate policies founded upon these implications? Hart correctly notes that when the rubber meets the road these implications might suggest various policy alternatives. This is an important warning against baptising our policy preferences but does it not suggest a role for Christianity in the public realm?
brentski76
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Perhaps. I’m interested to see what he says about practical implications, if indeed he touches this matter in the rest of the book. If I have any concerns about his argument, and the larger argument in general, it is that it tends to isolationism and political inactivity, neither of which I would advocate.
D Hart
March 24th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I do see a difference, Bill, between the French and American Revolutions, but it’s not as obvious as folks like Kuyper and the Federalists argued. The Founding Fathers liked Christianity, but in St. John’s terms they would have been fairly Laodician — neither hot nor cold. I’m not sure that kind of lukewarmness is a model for Christian life. For political life it beats an anti-religious one. The problem is that Kuyper and other Protestants have defending the American founding as springing from Christian motivation. If so, can Christian motivation really be partial? I seem to recall that the Covenanters weren’t so wild about a founding that left Christ as king out of the Constitution.
W.H. Chellis
March 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Darryl, I agree with your with what you say of the American founders. Laodician is a fair criticism and reflects the Covenanter’s problem with the American federal settlement. Yet, to note continuity with the French Revolution only affirms the danger of subverting Christendom. It seems to me that the West enjoys few choices. We either restore Christendom, convert to Islam, or burn at the hands of the red revolutionaries.
Weaknesses of the Constitution aside, with Kirk I will declare the American War for Independence “a revolution not made but prevented.” The Constitution, although silent about Christ, was an essentially conservative document (possibly in contrast to the Declaration of Independence).
Yet, the founders made a mistake by not making our allegiance to Christ (in legal and constitutional continuity with the tradition of Western Christendom) specific. This mistake is the real “hole in the wall” that the Founding Father’s left us.
brentski76
March 24th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Hypothetically, let’s say the founders made their (i.e., not our) allegiance to Christ specific. Would there then be no hole in the wall?