A post wherein the Jollyblogger sticks his nose some place where it doesn't belong . . .
Apologies to those of you who have heard all of this from me before, but for new readers I'll explain why I say I'm sticking my nose in a place it doesn't belong. The reason is that I generally stay away from politics here and there are two reasons for this.
The first reason is that I am the furthest thing in the world from a political insider - I have very limited knowledge of politics and I am afraid of getting too deep into the partisan stuff simply because this is not an area of expertise.
The second reason is that I subscribe to Jacques Ellul's notion of the political illusion - the illusion that the most pressing and important issues facing our day have political solutions. I don't believe that, and in this highly politicized world we live in I think its healthy for some of us to not take politics too seriously.
Having said that, at the risk of talking out of both sides of my mouth, I do believe that politics plays an important role in our world today. I agree with many who say that one of the main reasons our country is in the shape it is in is because of a pietistic withdrawal from the world which characterized evangelicals over the last century, or maybe century and a half. The reason we see so much godlessness in politics is not necessarily because evangelicals were overwhelmed by the forces of secularism, but rather because we withdrew from the political realm. And, you know what happens when there is a vacuum. Christians withdrew from politics and whoosh, the secularists came in just doing what secularists do. So, all of the political activism over the last several decades has been playing catch-up for evangelical Christians.
I also subscribe to Kuyper's notion that there is not one square inch of creation where Jesus Christ doesn't say "this is mine." This certainly applies to the area of politics.
And so, to balance my views, I think there are two extremes we have to avoid. The first extreme is the ultimization of politics, where we fall for the political illusion and begin to see all of life through a political lens. That is the import of my first two points above.
But the second extreme is that of pietistic withdrawal, where Christians act as if politics are inconsequential. To say that politics is not the most important thing is not to say that politics is not a very important thing. Indeed, the political realm is a very important venue for Christian involvement and activism. I lean toward the belief that politics is more a reflection of culture than anything else, but I also know that this can reflect culture as well as shape it.
And with that in mind, Christians do need to pay attention to what is going on with the nomination of Harriet Miers to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy.
I have certainly not exhausted the information out there on Harriet Miers, in fact I have barely scratched the surface, but from everything I have read it seems clear that she is a woman of noble character, and a sister in Christ whose integrity is not in question. But as others have brought up, these things, in and of themselves do not qualify her for the position. She may be qualified, but these are not the only factors in it.
But there is one line of argument that I have seen a good deal of lately that is a bit troubling to me. That is the "trust me," or "trust George," line of argumentation. In several places I have heard that we need to trust the president on this. While not dismissing the criticisms Hugh Hewitt has been asking us to trust the president on this. And, Dr. James Dobson has asked Christians to trust him in his support for Miers.
It would be a caricature to suggest that either of these men, or others who are supporting Miers, are asking us to stick our heads in the sand, turn off our brains and take their word for it that she's qualified. I think these "trust me" statements are something more akin to "let's give the President and Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt."
I think that is a legitimate point insofar as it means "let's reserve judgment until we have given the president a chance to make his case." My only concern is that we not take "trust me" too far and fail to demand that the President does make a case.
In that regard I would like to offer an analogy that I hope will have some traction with evangelicals. This is the story of Paul and the Bereans in Acts 17:11:
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
One thing to notice is that the Bereans were commended for, in a sense, not trusting the apostle Paul. Yes they gave him the benefit of the doubt - "they received the word with all eagerness." But they didn't merely take him at his word - they examined the Scriptures daily to verify if he was speaking the truth.
In matters of eternal consequence Paul never played the "trust me" card. Rather, it was the "examine me to see if what I am saying is true" card he played. I, and many preachers I know, have made statements to our congregations that they ought not to trust us in the sense that they simply take our words for it when we preach. They need to examine the Scriptures to see if what we are saying comports, and if not reject it and offer us brotherly correction.
And so the analogy is that, if a divinely ordained and inspired apostle didn't ask people to merely trust him on matters of eternal import, and if this same apostle commended those who carefully examined and verified what he said, ought we not to do something similar on lesser matters, like the President's nomination of a Supreme Court justice.
I'm not arguing for a "hermeneutic of suspicion" here, just saying that the President and his supporters ought to take upon themselves the burden of proof in showing that Harriet Miers is qualified for this position. This is especially true in light of the reticence expressed by many conservative luminaries, particularly someone like George Will.
In a situation like this, Martin Luther's famous quip comes to mind that he would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian. Of course the best option is to be ruled by a wise Christian. Miers is not a Turk in Luther's sense, and she is a Christian, we need to know that she is a "wise" Christian in the sense of having the wisdom she needs to sit on the Supreme Court.
By all means I am willing to trust the President and people like Hugh and Dr. Dobson, but give me a reason to. This is not a case where these folks ought to be telling us they have inside information, withholding it, and then asking us to trust them. And evangelicals are the last people who ought to buy into this line of reasoning. The nomination of someone for the Supreme Court is too important of an issue to ask us to trust and not to verify.
As for others who are speaking about this, check out . . .
Terry Mattingly at Get Religion
Charmaine Yoest at Reasoned Audacity - here, here and here. BTW - congrats on your 100,000th visitor Charmaine!
Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost - here, here, and here.
Will at Dignan's 75 Year Plan.
LaShawn Barber, is past the point of caring but provides a bunch of links for those who do.
Recent Comments