A 'Moral' War

[Team Hesse]

But when it comes to living here on earth, where we're stuck until the Second Coming, we have to somehow muddle through the best we can. Knowing that we aren't perfect, and that we cannot ever truly be "good" in an absolute sense, we still can make the best effort we can to be as close to "good" as possible.

If we know that we aren't perfect, then let's stop pretending that we are.

When you are finished beating on the straw man of your own expectations prior to experiencing the horrors of Vietnam, we could maybe talk about the one who said "in this world you will have tribulation, but take heart, I have overcome the world."


This country, like all countries has always been a mess. And it has been getting considerably messier since we have embraced the Wilsonian idealism that we are somehow to be "the nanny of the world" as Pastor Culler put it.


In his book "Diplomacy" Henry Kissinger had a great deal to say about the uncompromising idealism which has been a problematic feature of our country's relations with the world for over a century. That idealism has done some good (the destruction of Hitler, our efforts against apartheid, come to mind) but it has also led us into some very problematic stances in the eyes of the rest of the world.


"Place not your trust in Princes" from the scripture remains sound admonition.


Sales of Orwell's "1984" have seen a recent spike as people contemplate the path our country is turning to. Things are getting messier by the day....


Lou

[D. Engebretson]

Being able to acknowledge our blessings as a nation is often the main thing that many of the people in the pew wish to do.  It probably depends on what part of the country you are from, but I suspect that in rural areas, like mine, national pride and patriotism are higher.  Although the discussion on this board helps us analyze where a balance may be found between a so-called 'blind patriotism' on the one hand and an anti-American rhetoric on the other, the reality for many average people in the church is far much simpler, where criticism of the government may more often come in criticism of local government and its policies that affect them most directly.

Israel was blessed to be a blessing to others.  Israel failed in that calling.  If we believe that the United States has been blessed by God (notice I used "G"), then don't we, as Christians, have a duty to be critical of our nation as we use those blessings to further our selfish interests?

Patriotism, especially when take to the level of walking on the right side of Merle Haggard, is idolatry!

What I am envisioning is simply the average Lutheran parishoner and average small town citizen (among whom I live and work).  Neither of these would say that our country is perfect.  Many are critical of its mistakes, but again, more often than not on a more local level (school board issues, for example, and, as of late, on state level).  That said, I think that these folks would say that we have a duty to be more than critical of our nation.  In fact, our duty to serve the people of the nation is a heavier responsibility than our duty to criticize.  It can become easy to criticize from the sides and never become involved in this imperfect system long enough to accomplish any good. 

[D. Engebretson]

In light of my last comment, I am wondering how we might describe a "Christian" statesman?  How does a Christian live out his or her vocation in service to their nation, especially through service in the government, and yet retain their Christian witness and conviction? What does this 'balance' look like in reality?

[peter_speckhard]

Saying America is a great country, even saying jingoistically and with blaring trumpets and/or jet fighter sound effects that it is the greatest nation that has ever existed anywhere on the planet is far from saying it is an absolute good, its people free from original sin, and that its laws and customs trump conscience.

It is a nation. It can only be compared to other nations by the criteria of what nations are supposed to do. That fact that all of them are by definition fallen is moot. When Charles says he is proud of the ELCA and thinks it is a good church, is he saying it is flawless? No. Is he saying that it corporately has never done anything wrong or that its members have never sinned? No, of course not. What he is saying is that it is a good church and in his eyes in many ways the best church of the feasible options for him out there. He prefers it to the WELS, for example, and could give you reasons why. I disagree with him about the ELCA, but I don't accuse him thinking the ELCA an absolute good just because he says it is good. I don't demand that he acknowledge that the ELCA is evil because it is a human institution-- such thinking is silliness. So why can't someone think the same about America as a nation compared to other nations without being accused of thinking it an absolute good and more important than conscience, etc.?

A: "Boy, that Joe Montana was great. Greatest quarterback ever."

B: "You're blind. He was a sinner from birth and by nature an enemy of God and therefore evil."

A: "um, okay, that's true, but as far as evil things go, he was a great quarterback."

B: "Open your mind. I could show you a highlight reel an hour long of nothing but him making bad decisions or making bad throws. Interceptions even! Do you Montana-worshipers even acknowledge that he threw interceptions?"

A: "I'm not worshiping him per se, I'm just saying..."

B: "Oh yes you are! You're saying he is perfect and denying that he ever made a mistake!"

A: "No, it is just that compared to the guy they had in S.F. before him, he really..."

B: "So we're agreed Joe Montana is evil and a very flawed quarterback. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?"

A: "I really think as quarterbacks go the Super Bowl rings outweigh the interceptions and matter more to the discussion than the state of his soul."

B: "See? You're saying other things matter more than salvation by grace. Look, all the posters of him, the media fawning over him, he and other football stars are idolized and become false gods. People have to quit focusing on how good they are at anything and start focusing on their sins and failures in order to see clearly."
 
A: "Soooo....how 'bout them Cubbies?"

b: "Finally a topic we can agree on!"

[pearson]

All authority goes back to God as source, doesn't it?  And if that is the case why wouldn't anyone in position of authority be placed there with the source of that authority coming from God? . . . Or am I reading too much into this?   Any other source than God would be atheism, no?

I've never quite understood this argument.  I know this discussion revolves around poltiical authority, but it seems here to extend to all authority.  Was Julia Child an authority on the culinary arts?  Was her authority in the culinary arts directly derived from God?  Is Peter King an authority on NFL football?  Does authority with respect to the workings of NFL football derive straight fom God?  Peter Brown is an authority on Augustine, Frank Senn is an authority on the western liturgy, Robert Kolb is an authority on the Lutheran confessions.  Does their respective authority have God as their immediate source?

It sure looks like there are multiple sources of authority, depending on the social practice in question; so perhaps it would help to clarify what is meant by "authority" in the context of those secular practices (including political practices).  I'd suggest that "authority" within creation resides in the mastery of the tasks and responsibilities -- the goods -- inherent in our various vocations; and we have been installed in those vocations by God.  So it seems to me that we might speak of divine action as a secondary source of secular authority, with the primary source located within the dynamics of our vocations, in that God has called us to those vocations.  But I sure can't see that God directly imparted "cooking authority" to Julia Child, or "football authority" to Peter King.  If that's atheism, call me an atheist.

Tom Pearson

[readselerttoo]

All authority goes back to God as source, doesn't it?  And if that is the case why wouldn't anyone in position of authority be placed there with the source of that authority coming from God? . . . Or am I reading too much into this?   Any other source than God would be atheism, no?

I've never quite understood this argument.  I know this discussion revolves around poltiical authority, but it seems here to extend to all authority.  Was Julia Child an authority on the culinary arts?  Was her authority in the culinary arts directly derived from God?  Is Peter King an authority on NFL football?  Does authority with respect to the workings of NFL football derive straight fom God?  Peter Brown is an authority on Augustine, Frank Senn is an authority on the western liturgy, Robert Kolb is an authority on the Lutheran confessions.  Does their respective authority have God as their immediate source?

It sure looks like there are multiple sources of authority, depending on the social practice in question; so perhaps it would help to clarify what is meant by "authority" in the context of those secular practices (including political practices).  I'd suggest that "authority" within creation resides in the mastery of the tasks and responsibilities -- the goods -- inherent in our various vocations; and we have been installed in those vocations by God.  So it seems to me that we might speak of divine action as a secondary source of secular authority, with the primary source located within the dynamics of our vocations, in that God has called us to those vocations.  But I sure can't see that God directly imparted "cooking authority" to Julia Child, or "football authority" to Peter King.  If that's atheism, call me an atheist.

Tom Pearson

Perhaps with the authority issue a distinction needs to be made (at least when talking about it and not extrapolating that into the sphere of the ontological) between source and derived authority.  But even making this distinction places God at the periphery.  But for the sake of conversation let us say that Julia Child indeed has authority as a culinary expert.  However does that mean that she is the sole source of her authority and that it simply is a matter that her self-possessed authority is inherently borne in her and with her?  That is to place too much credit to her nature as her own.  In Judeo-Christian parlance that would be denying what Luther claims as a biblical concept:  "I believe that God has created me together with all that exists..."   These issues are somewhat plain to me as someone who believes that it is God who is Creator, Preserve and Judge (talking within the limits of the God of history only).

Again it may be differences of worldview which come into play when talking about science and religion.

[scott8]

Saying America is a great country, even saying jingoistically and with blaring trumpets and/or jet fighter sound effects that it is the greatest nation that has ever existed anywhere on the planet is far from saying it is an absolute good, its people free from original sin, and that its laws and customs trump conscience.

It is a nation. It can only be compared to other nations by the criteria of what nations are supposed to do. That fact that all of them are by definition fallen is moot. When Charles says he is proud of the ELCA and thinks it is a good church, is he saying it is flawless? No. Is he saying that it corporately has never done anything wrong or that its members have never sinned? No, of course not. What he is saying is that it is a good church and in his eyes in many ways the best church of the feasible options for him out there. He prefers it to the WELS, for example, and could give you reasons why. I disagree with him about the ELCA, but I don't accuse him thinking the ELCA an absolute good just because he says it is good. I don't demand that he acknowledge that the ELCA is evil because it is a human institution-- such thinking is silliness. So why can't someone think the same about America as a nation compared to other nations without being accused of thinking it an absolute good and more important than conscience, etc.?

A: "Boy, that Joe Montana was great. Greatest quarterback ever."

B: "You're blind. He was a sinner from birth and by nature an enemy of God and therefore evil."

A: "um, okay, that's true, but as far as evil things go, he was a great quarterback."

B: "Open your mind. I could show you a highlight reel an hour long of nothing but him making bad decisions or making bad throws. Interceptions even! Do you Montana-worshipers even acknowledge that he threw interceptions?"

A: "I'm not worshiping him per se, I'm just saying..."

B: "Oh yes you are! You're saying he is perfect and denying that he ever made a mistake!"

A: "No, it is just that compared to the guy they had in S.F. before him, he really..."

B: "So we're agreed Joe Montana is evil and a very flawed quarterback. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?"

A: "I really think as quarterbacks go the Super Bowl rings outweigh the interceptions and matter more to the discussion than the state of his soul."

B: "See? You're saying other things matter more than salvation by grace. Look, all the posters of him, the media fawning over him, he and other football stars are idolized and become false gods. People have to quit focusing on how good they are at anything and start focusing on their sins and failures in order to see clearly."
 
A: "Soooo....how 'bout them Cubbies?"

b: "Finally a topic we can agree on!"

I've always loved your analogies (and am insanely jealous that I can never come up with one half so good).  Nicely said.

Going back to a previous point, I really think that there is a generational thing going on here.  If folks of the older generation would look and see what younger people have been taught regarding America in high school and beyond in many locations across the country (but of course not everywhere), perhaps there may be more understanding.  We were taught the flaws of America repeatedly, and this new millennial generation even more so.  Profs in many history departments revel in teaching pretty much solely America's sins because it's simply the thing to do in American education under the rubric of phenomena such as colonialism, to choose just one.

So if there is push back regarding this incessant drumbeat of how awful America is (while hundreds of millions [if not billions] of folks the world over desire to come live here with millions risking much by doing so illegally), it is not due to ignorance.  It is from a desire for a realistic balance.

In any case, reading over this thread is like reading Peter's tedious conversation regarding Joe Montana with very little of interest being said when it comes to America's sins / relative desirability and how they should be viewed.  I doubt that will change, however.

[Robert Johnson]

If we know that we aren't perfect, then let's stop pretending that we are.

Straw man argument.

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Engebretson writes:
What I am envisioning is simply the average Lutheran parishoner and average small town citizen (among whom I live and work).  Neither of these would say that our country is perfect.  Many are critical of its mistakes, but again, more often than not on a more local level (school board issues, for example, and, as of late, on state level).
I comment:
Why do you think attitudes among "small town" folk are any different from suburban and urban people? That just doesn't bear out in statistics, but it plays into a certain romanticizing of the "small town."

Pastor Engebretson:
That said, I think that these folks would say that we have a duty to be more than critical of our nation.
Me:
No argument from me there; so long as it is understood that we have a duty to be more than "patriotic" in the usual sense. We, abetted by a media enthralled with military service, think that to put on a uniform and to kill or die is the only way one serves the country or makes a sacrifice for the country. We who criticize and act politically, sometimes against the grain of public opinion or present policy, also serve.

Pastor Engebretson:
In fact, our duty to serve the people of the nation is a heavier responsibility than our duty to criticize.  It can become easy to criticize from the sides and never become involved in this imperfect system long enough to accomplish any good.
Me:
So some of us argue, write, try to inform ourselves and the people around us about issues and policies, and support those people and organizations that reflect our views. That "involves" us, does it not?
    And who the heck is Joe Montana?  What is a quarterback? 
    Sports imagery just doesn't play with everyone.
 

[John Mundinger]

When you are finished beating on the straw man of your own expectations prior to experiencing the horrors of Vietnam, we could maybe talk about the one who said "in this world you will have tribulation, but take heart, I have overcome the world."

I absolutely agree with advice, in bold, Pr. Hesse.  However, I am having difficulty understanding how it is that, on the one hand, you can share that advice while, on the other, criticize me for being critical or our nation's many failings.  You seem to be contradicting yourself.

In his book "Diplomacy" Henry Kissinger had a great deal to say about the uncompromising idealism which has been a problematic feature of our country's relations with the world for over a century.

The problem with our nation's idealism is that we have never been uncompromisingly committed to it!

[John Mundinger]

What I am envisioning is simply the average Lutheran parishoner and average small town citizen (among whom I live and work).  Neither of these would say that our country is perfect.  Many are critical of its mistakes, but again, more often than not on a more local level (school board issues, for example, and, as of late, on state level).  That said, I think that these folks would say that we have a duty to be more than critical of our nation.  In fact, our duty to serve the people of the nation is a heavier responsibility than our duty to criticize.  It can become easy to criticize from the sides and never become involved in this imperfect system long enough to accomplish any good.

I don't have a problem with any of that, Pr. Engebretson.  However, I do not think duty to country includes either aggrandizing our strengths or rationalizing our nation's obvious faults.  We cannot escape having to live in a very imperfect world.  But, we do not have to celebrate its imperfections.

[Team Hesse]

The problem with our nation's idealism is that we have never been uncompromisingly committed to it!

sigh.......as if fallen humanity is capable of such a thing....


spinning in circles


Lou

[pastorg1@aol.com]

As a police chaplain, I saw America and its ideals nicely viewed from the police line while protecting President Bush.

Our unit was the outer perimeter facing the protesters who were on a lawn.

I recognized my Christian friends in the police line as well as some parishioners going to the reception for the President. I was at once surrounded by the Church and the best of American freedom, while protecting those freedoms.

Peter (Waving and smiling in riot gear) Garrison

[revklak]

A: "Boy, that Joe Montana was great. Greatest quarterback ever."

B: "You're blind. He was a sinner from birth and by nature an enemy of God and therefore evil."

A: "um, okay, that's true, but as far as evil things go, he was a great quarterback."

B: "Open your mind. I could show you a highlight reel an hour long of nothing but him making bad decisions or making bad throws. Interceptions even! Do you Montana-worshipers even acknowledge that he threw interceptions?"

A: "I'm not worshiping him per se, I'm just saying..."

B: "Oh yes you are! You're saying he is perfect and denying that he ever made a mistake!"

A: "No, it is just that compared to the guy they had in S.F. before him, he really..."

B: "So we're agreed Joe Montana is evil and a very flawed quarterback. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?"

A: "I really think as quarterbacks go the Super Bowl rings outweigh the interceptions and matter more to the discussion than the state of his soul."

B: "See? You're saying other things matter more than salvation by grace. Look, all the posters of him, the media fawning over him, he and other football stars are idolized and become false gods. People have to quit focusing on how good they are at anything and start focusing on their sins and failures in order to see clearly."
 
A: "Soooo....how 'bout them Cubbies?"

b: "Finally a topic we can agree on!"

I've always loved your analogies (and am insanely jealous that I can never come up with one half so good).  Nicely said.

I agree too... however, when Peter started with the Joe Montana conversation, my mind went back to a FAVORITE Saturday  Night Live bit when Joe Montana was hosting... he played "The Man Who Said Exactly What Was On His Mind."  The skit featured each person "thinking" what they really thought, followed by the speaking "acceptable and polite" comments.  Not Joe, his "thoughts and words" matched.... sometimes raw, sometimes raunchy, sometimes r-rated, but it was funny nonetheless. 

This conversation reminds me of that, except sometimes its hard to figure out who really believes what they're saying and who is simply spouting the "acceptable" party line.....

Just a thought from this tired old man   

[John Mundinger]

Pastor Speckhard - did you take a class in strawman construction at seminary or are you just naturally gifted?