Still, might be worth amending the argument to observe the distinctions in play more carefully - though even if we accepted the narrower definition, the doctrine still reflects an aspect of the larger idea of God as the god of all and the one and only god, so universal, transcending borders and time, meaning that the essence of love is a godly essence, expressed for Christians as of Christ, wherever it authentically arises. There may be some Christians who interpret the notion in the exclusionary mode that Savage attributes to all Christians, but it's not a necessary interpretation nor how I believe it's intended. There does often appear, however, to be a point at which one either would have to accept the idealization and de-literalization of belief (anismism) or accept some version of "essentially-better-to-be-a-Christian-than-not." I think there is more to it than any simple or generalized binary, but the complexities tend to look esoteric, don't feed the "hungry sheep."
Voegelin, interpreting Aquinas, would, in my reading, differ - or maybe it's a matter of perspective. He specifically and very strongly faulted the Catholic Church of his time for accepting a relatively narrow and defensive version of the doctrine, as though the Church really is responsible only or primarily for Catholics, or the German Catholic Church for German Catholics, etc., and can afford to ignore the fate of others - meaning, in fact, that it could eventually become complicit in the Nazi crimes, including by offering justification for complicity in crimes against "humanity" as long as the particular victims were not Catholics as Catholics, or not German Catholics. In the more universalist and "catholic" view, the "Church" aims to encompass all humankind on behalf of all humankind, though the Church itself will be made up of less than the entirety, by the same definition. Or, Christ died for all of us, whether or not we profess to be Christians. So in a material sense, the Church encompasses less than the whole, but in a "mystical" sense, it already encompasses the whole in principle and without exception, just as God would be in truth the God of all, whether or not recognized by those outside the Church.
Weak, indeed. It doesn't work unless you can demonstrate, as seems unlikely, that prayer in schools is the sine qua non of John 3:16 Christianity - as if believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God absolutely requires prayer in schools, or not favoring prayer in schools is some kind of denial of John 3:16. Reasonable, or faithful, minds might disagree. However, I think we can certainly recognize that Engel is one piece of evidence among many that the expansion of the political-administrative state on the national level in the 20th Century was accompanied by a more encompassing negation of religious expression. If we conceive of secularism or church-state separation as requiring the negation of religious expression within the state, and if we conceive of the nation state as implicated in and therefore responsible for expressions within all of its appendages including the public schools, in other words if the local public school is bound to the nation-state (or, as some have proposed perhaps more accurately, the "state-nation"), then the negation adopted on the national level becomes obligatory on the state and local level as well. If the kids are pledging allegiance to the flag of a secular state, then that allegiance displaces the religious allegiance, or, as I have often argued, it occupies the place of a religious allegiance under a different name. The alternatives would be to re-define the requirements of secularism or to re-define the state, but realization of either or both aims would be a complex operation, and bring different elements of the conservative movement especially into conflict with each other.
Not sure what that's a reply to, don miguel. I'm wondering what you believe occurred 50 years ago that changed things in this fundamental way - turned us from a John 3:16 people to something else.
Not a fan of Savage, I think I've made it clear, but surely there's a better comparison than the Westboros. Maybe Erick Erickson - well-known, but not a celebrity, similar distribution of rational, tiresomely ideological, and self-consciously provocative.
Still, might be worth amending the argument to observe the distinctions in play more carefully - though even if we accepted the narrower definition, the doctrine still reflects an aspect of the larger idea of God as the god of all and the one and only god, so universal, transcending borders and time, meaning that the essence of love is a godly essence, expressed for Christians as of Christ, wherever it authentically arises. There may be some Christians who interpret the notion in the exclusionary mode that Savage attributes to all Christians, but it's not a necessary interpretation nor how I believe it's intended. There does often appear, however, to be a point at which one either would have to accept the idealization and de-literalization of belief (anismism) or accept some version of "essentially-better-to-be-a-Christian-than-not." I think there is more to it than any simple or generalized binary, but the complexities tend to look esoteric, don't feed the "hungry sheep."
Voegelin, interpreting Aquinas, would, in my reading, differ - or maybe it's a matter of perspective. He specifically and very strongly faulted the Catholic Church of his time for accepting a relatively narrow and defensive version of the doctrine, as though the Church really is responsible only or primarily for Catholics, or the German Catholic Church for German Catholics, etc., and can afford to ignore the fate of others - meaning, in fact, that it could eventually become complicit in the Nazi crimes, including by offering justification for complicity in crimes against "humanity" as long as the particular victims were not Catholics as Catholics, or not German Catholics. In the more universalist and "catholic" view, the "Church" aims to encompass all humankind on behalf of all humankind, though the Church itself will be made up of less than the entirety, by the same definition. Or, Christ died for all of us, whether or not we profess to be Christians. So in a material sense, the Church encompasses less than the whole, but in a "mystical" sense, it already encompasses the whole in principle and without exception, just as God would be in truth the God of all, whether or not recognized by those outside the Church.
Weak, indeed. It doesn't work unless you can demonstrate, as seems unlikely, that prayer in schools is the sine qua non of John 3:16 Christianity - as if believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God absolutely requires prayer in schools, or not favoring prayer in schools is some kind of denial of John 3:16. Reasonable, or faithful, minds might disagree. However, I think we can certainly recognize that Engel is one piece of evidence among many that the expansion of the political-administrative state on the national level in the 20th Century was accompanied by a more encompassing negation of religious expression. If we conceive of secularism or church-state separation as requiring the negation of religious expression within the state, and if we conceive of the nation state as implicated in and therefore responsible for expressions within all of its appendages including the public schools, in other words if the local public school is bound to the nation-state (or, as some have proposed perhaps more accurately, the "state-nation"), then the negation adopted on the national level becomes obligatory on the state and local level as well. If the kids are pledging allegiance to the flag of a secular state, then that allegiance displaces the religious allegiance, or, as I have often argued, it occupies the place of a religious allegiance under a different name. The alternatives would be to re-define the requirements of secularism or to re-define the state, but realization of either or both aims would be a complex operation, and bring different elements of the conservative movement especially into conflict with each other.
Not sure what that's a reply to, don miguel. I'm wondering what you believe occurred 50 years ago that changed things in this fundamental way - turned us from a John 3:16 people to something else.
Not a fan of Savage, I think I've made it clear, but surely there's a better comparison than the Westboros. Maybe Erick Erickson - well-known, but not a celebrity, similar distribution of rational, tiresomely ideological, and self-consciously provocative.