Faith Works 7-22-22

Faith Works 7-22-22
Jeff Gill

Everyone doesn't agree with you (or me)
___

I closed out last time asking "What other assumptions were we making, then or now?" Because I think we really need to question some of our assumptions as members of faith communities, for those who participate and attend, and even for those who are seekers but don't have a stake in a particular tradition or institution.

Recently a member of Congress said that the government shouldn't be telling churches what to do, but that churches should be telling the government how things should be.

While this is not a Representative I agree with on much, if anything, I can take that point and agree in a certain way. Churches should, and do, tell governments what the Realm of God is, and how we should be bending the arc of history in that direction. If we have any integrity in our worldview and epistemology and metaphysics, heck yeah we should ask our elected representatives to follow truth, and not lies. I'm all in for that.

What the person in Colorado was implying, though, was that not only should the idea of a wall between church and state be dismantled (oh, so many columns there, past and future), but I heard her asking that we "return" (again, ?) to having Church tell State what to do. And that's where I hear some big ol' assumptions rattling around.

Sure, let's see how that plays out. If the Black Church is in charge of federal policy, I'm thinking we would move quickly to more support of child care, parental leave, and increased child tax credits. Was that what the member of Congress was asking for?

Or my good friends in the Anabaptist Churches, Mennonites and Amish and Hutterites, let alone the Church of the Brethren: if they are telling the government what to do, then the military apparatus isn't just going to get defunded, it might be closed and the bases not just renamed but repurposed into farms and fellowship halls. Was that the point?

Even more to the point, you could put the Catholic Church in charge of civic affairs. Political conservatives may be pleased about the stance on abortion and Pro-Life causes, but the economic policy positions may surprise them. Try reading papal encyclicals from Pope Leo XIII's 1891 Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno of Pius XI in 1931 or even John Paul II's 1991 Centesimus Annus. I'll be here when you get back.

Obviously my point is this: which church, or Church? The good Representatives who want "the church" to tell the state what to do are assuming most people are thinking of the same church and Christian positions as they are.

This is what democratic pluralism is all about, and why even the most conservative and committed person of faith is well advised to celebrate the freedom to be wrong in a place like America: because, news flash, many people out there think WE are wrong. So let's get about the work of convincing others of the truth we hold, and less emphasis on mandating everyone act and even think as we do, because victories of a coercive sort are always short-lived. Always.


Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and preacher in central Ohio; he's still not done on this subject. Tell him how you convince those around you of the truth you affirm at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack on Twitter.