The Church, The State, Progressives and Conservatives

The Church has been understood as a universal community, at least by the apostle Paul. Perhaps a better terminology is the household of God, as Ken Schenck uses in Quadralateral Thoughts.

But, how is this universality understood today? Conservatives of course point to Scriptures, while the Progressives point to science. Conservatives believe that God made one humanity in Christ, while progressives believe that we are one humanity.

Conservatives do things for the glory of God, while progressive do things for the "common good", the betterment of mankind. Conservatives tend to understand their identity in specified and special terms. Progressives understand this tendency as group identification. Group identification distinctifies one group from another, as this was what has transpired throughout the course of history with any kind of group; religious, political, cultural, etc. Humans love to create an identity by maintaining their distinct boundary markers. But, progressives question whether some boundary markers are healthy to maintain.

The question of mental health and "the common good" is the question of one's reason for boundary markers. What is a healthy boundary marker? Both conservative and progressives would agree that a good boundary marker would be the personal convictions, or commitments of a person, or the laws that define a nation's culture. Laws define what is deviant. While deviancy is an important value to uphold in a civilized society, what defines unhealthy reasons for boundary maintainence?

When one describes an individual commitment or conviction, or a nation's laws, both conservative and progressives agree that these should be respected. But, religious identifiers or boundary markers are harder to rally full agreement. Religion defines itself upon the "rules of faith", but progressives question the "rules" as being "right" in describing faith, as faith is a personal commitment to value. Religion, on the other hand, has many ways of maintaining its group identity.

Religion bases its claims of identification of beliefs, a divine figure, a culture, group "rules". Religion delights in coformity and thinks of itself in conservative circles, as exclusivist. Relgion colors one's perception and perspective and breeds prejuidice, and the prejuidice is reinforced by sacred texts, or sacred persons. Progressives are more open to define religion in objectified terms.

With many distinctions between the conservative and progressive, there has been an attempt to unify both through "purpose" or "teleos". In Chrisiian circles, this attempt has been based on "the Kingdom of God" and the "common good". The public square meets the Church on the Church's "terminology' , while using the Church's gifts for "the common good" of humanity. There is nothing wrong with this unity of purpose, as long as all individuals that are affected are informed of the specific requirements upon their life. If a "purpose" is useful for the "common good" (pragmatism), especially if it is underwritten in the conservative's mind, by "God", then the State can bring about its plans in a peaceful and unified way.

True progressives, though, would question the wisdom of combining Church and State in this way, as it brings about an intrusion of government into private lives. Privacy is a value in American culture for it repects the individual. But, both conservative and progressive moralists bring "the rule of law" upon others in the "name of God" (reconstruction, restoration, or social gospel), to teach others about God's rule. I question how this is anything other than Shai ria Law, or Constiantine's Empire...

Although I am not clear as to how I view Church and State, I question the ways in which moralists understand themselves as a "superior" breed of humanity. Whether one rules as the Taliban, or "legislating the Pentateuch", both do not breed tolerance for difference, or an openness to intepretation of that law. Laws define a nation's values, and America was founded on freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State. This separation was not to be a "wall", as a Founding Father claimed, but was to maintain the boundary of public/private, so that individuals could come to their own convictions, values, and faith, which is found within the culture's social structures of family, church and comminity. Objectifying morals transgresses the universal ethic of "doing unto others", "the categorical imperative", even when the moralists is convinced of their "rightness" of conviction. The battle of morality should be for the conservative in love from a pure heart, while the progressive should use reason to explore morality's reasonableness in scienctific discovery and philosophical discussion.

The Church and Discrimination

Historically, the traditional Church becomes discriminatory. Discrimination among Christians is based on many authorities. These authorities are limiting factors in understanding the universal principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Many Christians would say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were misguided goals of an individual's life. I would like to take them one by one and discuss what I believe is the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

Life. Life is a human universal. Without life, we can not pursue any other opportunity. Life is experienced by the individual. Therefore, individual life must be protected, first and foremost. But, how is life defined? Life can be defined by it's physicality, as well as it's "abundance". If life is limited to the physical aspects, without supporting its abundance, life seems futile. The futility of life is found when man ceases to have "rewards" for his labor, or hope for his goals. While life's rewards and goals are aspects of a flourishing life, life cannot be realized apart from proper government that recognizes the individual's right to pursue his own ends.

Liberty. Government, such as we have in America, encourages engagement and recognizes everyone's right to pursue life's abundance as they deem fit, within the boundaries of law. This is how liberty is defined. But, traditional Christians do not support an individual's right to pursue his own ends, as Christians define life as a commitment to the "cause of the Kingdom of God" (how is the Kingdom defined?), or as a self abenagtion of life, itself. Life cannot be enjoyed for its own sake. It must have a purpose (or function of the church?)! Liberty is not the message of traditional Christian faith, as it is always about God's will and not the individual's will.

Happiness. As Christian faith is about "loving God first", Christians do not affirm seeking "happiness". Happiness is based on circumstances in the material realm, which undermines "faith" in a trascendent reality. The transcendent reality is more important than the real world and life of the individual. Acesticism has been understood as a form of "sanctification" by some, just as it did in Judiasm and other religious faiths. Ascesticism does not affirm the life of the material, but the spiritual. In fact, asceticism denies affirming life's "here and now".

Christian faith has been defined by tradition's doctrine, by Scriptural texts, and by Church authorities, but has never affirmed tolerance of individual difference. This is the reason why so many churches split over how they understand their faith and its commitments. This has happened historically and is still occurring. Churches are defined by their definitions of right (and wrong), while individuals seek after what is true for themselves. What are the values that are most important to uphold and seek?And Why? These are important questions for the young adult to evaluate in coming to terms with what his own passion is and what he wants to commit to.

Progressive Christians are more open to change than the traditional ones. The dilemma for progressives is where to draw the line to maintain a "group identity", where the traditional Christian has all of the elements of his faith defined for him. Progressive Christians base their faith on reason. Traditional Christians base their authority outside of themselves. The question for the Church is whether the Church should see itself as an institution established by God that is not to be questioned, or as a social structure that needs to challenge itself often in its understanding of faith, reason and what that means....otherwise, Christians will be discriminating and not even recognize it, until much too late....