I concluded quite some time ago that it will take an institution
or institutions that have the ability to stand up to the state if there is to
be any hope for individuals to live a life moving toward
liberty. Historically, in the West, that institution has been the
Church. Remarkably, this institution played just such a role –
sometimes for better, sometimes for worse – for the better part of a thousand
years.
We see today the complete failure of this institution (broadly
considered as “Christianity” today, as there is no institutionally unified
church) in standing up to anything of state authority. Giving up
Holy Week and Easter; need any more be said?
Yet, this institution is more likely to play such a role than is
the other possible player in this game: the university. There is no
real history of the university playing such a role. More
meaningfully, there is no real reason for the university to see a picture
larger than that which it finds available to it. In other words: the
Christian church has a picture of an authority higher than the state (despite
its abject failure to recognize this, it remains
true); the university has no such picture.
C. S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, offered what seems to me to
be the common core – the bare minimum requirements – for one to understand
Christianity. First, and foremost, is the death and resurrection of
Christ, and that somehow this act puts us right with God. Yes, I
know that the “somehow” gets a little controversial the deeper down the theological
rabbit hole we go, so it seems “somehow” was a good word choice on Lewis’s
part.
We read in Acts 2, regarding Peter’s preaching to the
crowd:
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses
of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the
promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in
the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and
for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with
them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his
message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that
day.
Peter preached the resurrection, and 3,000 were saved.
Lewis offers, further:
There are three things that spread the Christ-life to us:
baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by
different names – Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper.
He notes that there are variations in practice regarding these
three things, but these three things are common to all who profess to be
Christian.
I started down a path of examining a book by Brett
Salkeld, Transubstantiation: Theology, History, and Christian
Unity. This as a step toward looking for avenues of
unity. To summarize: the author, a Catholic theologian, walks
through the actual teaching of Thomas Aquinas and compares it to the thought of
Martin Luther and John Calvin – finding that the Protestant reaction was not to
Aquinas, but to what had become almost the opposite of Aquinas’s
views. The three were much more aligned than different on what
happens during the Eucharist.
Unfortunately, the word transubstantiation carries baggage for
Protestants and Catholic alike. With many Catholics accepting the
wrong meaning, and Protestants rejecting the wrong meaning that many Catholics
hold.
After writing a few posts on it, I decided that I had taken on
too big a task. The language and concepts were too much for me, and I did not
feel I was doing justice to Salkeld’s work. From this, however, I
really gave thought to what, exactly, I was after regarding Christian
unity. Was it in these doctrinal nuances, or was it something
else? For Christianity to play an institutional role as a check on
the state and to therefore afford individuals room for liberty, just what would
this look like…at least in my mind?
Well, as you will see, this may be a more difficult hurdle to
overcome that the doctrinal issues that have torn Oriental Orthodox from
Eastern Orthodox from Catholic from Protestant – and Protestant from
Protestant, until we find a countless number of these. More
difficult, as will soon be clear, but it should be spelled out.
I find these necessary common features in two categories: first,
those actions that can be taken without any recourse or pleading with the
state; second, those which require a unified voice against state action.
So, what of these independent actions? These seem
easy enough to identify: merely take on the charitable work that has been
abandoned, because “the state does that now,” or, in some cases, the state does
the opposite and Christians haven’t put up enough counter-action.
For example: feed the poor, care for the homeless, visit those
in prison. Provide a vision contrary to that which society offers:
one of love, of meaning, of purpose. Hold meaningful conversations;
don’t be afraid of exploring faith and reason. Paul VanderKlayoffers an excellent example
here.
Further, do something about abortion. I don’t mean
lobbying. I mean open and support crisis pregnancy centers, support
young women struggling with this decision; where necessary, ensure the
possibility of adoption. In other words, take action, don’t wait for
the state to solve this crime. Act first, don’t wait for the state.
Finally, stop sending your young men and women overseas for war. Just
stop it. None of these wars are in defense of this country; the act
of these wars destroys lives of millions who were of no risk to the United
States or any other western power.
All of this can be summed up in one word: act. Love
is to be found in the doing. The first book after the four gospels
is The Acts of the Apostles, the key word being “Act.” The earliest
Christians acted this way, and conquered Rome – the mighty state of the
Mediterranean world.
Now, where and how to confront of the state. A
unified voice is necessary to end overseas adventurism, put a stop to torture
and indefinite detention, end the incarceration of non-violent criminals, stand
up against the horrendous federal court system, put and end to the robbery of
central banking, maximize the opportunity for parents to educate their children
as they see fit.
Christian barely touch any of these, and to the extent they
do…well, they are on the wrong side.
Conclusion
Yes, I know, not a simple list – actually, the more I look at
it, the more depressing it becomes. But there it is, all
well-grounded in the Christian gospel and in Christian ethics. All
achievable if a unified voice is actually raised, and if unified action is
undertaken. All are also actions in support of liberty, an
individual liberty protected by the one institution perfectly suited to play
this role.
I suspect many churches will lose an audience by following this
path, yet I do believe that overall many more people will be drawn to such
messages. The hypocrisy of the west is overwhelming, and today many
people rightly see Christian churches feeding into that
hypocrisy. Is it any wonder that overall church attendance is on the
decline?
Church membership in the United States is
down from 70% twenty years ago to 50% today. Perhaps it is precisely
due to the loss of just what I outline here (that, and the end of the Cold
War). Still, 50% is a large number. With half the nation
speaking in a unified manner on these topics, liberty stands a
chance. Unfortunately, too often those who have attempted some
version of a moral majority took the fight in the wrong direction.
So, that’s it. Not “that’s it” like my lists are
complete, as I am sure there is more. But that’s it in terms of
something like this framework. For those of you who have been
regularly reading this blog through this part of my journey – the search for liberty, there it
is. This is where the real fight for liberty is – within our own
churches.
I hate to be the bearer of such bad news…. made even worse with
events in recent weeks.
Epilogue
“Can’t we just convince the people with our
ideas? The non-aggression principle and private property; these
should be sufficient, and so easy to understand.”
There is no doubt that such education is necessary and beneficial. But
is it sufficient for liberty? The simple answer is…no. I
will write something more on this topic in the coming days.
