From the Study Guide for Chapter 2, Pless says: Discuss Benne’s statement: “Serious religion inevitably has a public dimension” (15). Also see Article 16 of the Augsburg Confession.
Here's what Benne says on page 15 of his book...
The dominant American religions – Judaism and mainstream Christianity – insist that the God they worship and to whose will they strive to conform is a God of the whole world, not just a God of the inner reaches of the human heart. God is sovereign over creation and history. Worshippers of such a God pledge themselves to follow his will in their private and public lives, though admittedly it may be more complicated to do so in public life. Serious practitioners of these religions are obligated to do the right or the good in all of life, not just private life. Thus, they seek political parties and policies that they believe are most continuous with their own self-interest and conceptions of right, good, and just, and that are also practical and feasible. Asking them to drop their religious convictions as they enter into public life is asking them to ignore the source of their moral principles.Here's what Article 16 ("Of Civil Affairs") of the Augsburg Confession states...
1) Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that 2) it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage.In other words, Christians have a responsibility to speak up on some political issues. However, there are other political issues that do not have a Christian "solution."
3) They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians.
4) They condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for 5) the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such 6) ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates 7) and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29.
Mr. Bennes' last statement I feel is misleading, in the U.S.A., even though Christianity and Judaism may be dominant, it doesn't give the political power of the dominant masses the right to implement laws based on various religious dogma as national laws that can and do infringe on other peoples rights who do not believe in either religion or don't believe in any religion at all. This is the tyranny of democracy as understood by Jefferson. That's why we live in a constitutional republic. The USSC has the final say-so as to what laws are legal and stand, and which ones are bad and fall. All these decisions being based on the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. The bible is NOT the supreme law of the land. If enacting religious tenets could exist in this country, you can bet that the religious massacres that occurred in pre-Enlightment Europe would have started up between the numerous religious factions that existed in the American colonies when our country had been founded. It seems that the religious politicians all agreed among themselves not to enact laws that would harm or hinder other followers of the various sects. Any laws passed would be done equilateral across society without respect favoring any one particular faith. You can practice your faith as your conscience dictates privately , but your freedom to practice it publicly will be limited if it is found to be infringing on the rights of people who wish to live by a moral code different than you. I think you and I know every politician operates from some sense of morality but an issue arises when a group decides they want to enact a law that is prejudicial and or fair towards others who choose not live by that same morality.
ReplyDeleteAn unidentified reader of this blog post had this to say:
ReplyDeleteMr.
Bennes' last statement I feel is misleading, in the U.S.A., even though
Christianity and Judaism may be dominant, it doesn't give the political
power of the dominant masses the right to implement laws based on
various religious dogma as national laws that can and do infringe on
other peoples rights who do not believe in either religion or don't
believe in any religion at all. This is the tyranny of democracy as
understood by Jefferson. That's why we live in a constitutional
republic. The USSC has the final say-so as to what laws are legal and
stand, and which ones are bad and fall. All these decisions being based
on the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. The bible is NOT the
supreme law of the land. If enacting religious tenets could exist in
this country, you can bet that the religious massacres that occurred in
pre-Enlightment Europe would have started up between the numerous
religious factions that existed in the American colonies when our
country had been founded. It seems that the religious politicians all
agreed among themselves not to enact laws that would harm or hinder
other followers of the various sects. Any laws passed would be done
equilateral across society without respect favoring any one particular
faith. You can practice your faith as your conscience dictates privately
, but your freedom to practice it publicly will be limited if it is
found to be infringing on the rights of people who wish to live by a
moral code different than you. I think you and I know every politician
operates from some sense of morality but an issue arises when a group
decides they want to enact a law that is prejudicial and or fair towards
others who choose not live by that same morality.