This Approach, Wise I Don't Think
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
I like Hugh Hewitt. I have enjoyed one of his books, and his web site is a good go-to place for a discussion of some of the nuts and bolts of the political battles we are in. He does good work.
But . . .
But here is an example of why my concerns (expressed repeatedly) about American exceptionalism and Christian refusals to acknowledge Christ in the public square are not concerns about a bunch of nothing. In a recent post explaining why he is opposed to the building of the Cordoba Mosque near Ground Zero, Hewitt said some things that make it obvious why the apostle John had to warn Christians to keep themselves from idols (1 Jn. 5:21). John had to warn us because it is a thing that Christians might not want to avoid.
As an aside, before proceeding to the argument, for those who don't know, Cordoba is a Middle Eastern word meaning "here's a burnt stick in your eye."
Hewitt said that he does "not believe the Ground Zero mosque should be built." The emphasis following is mine.
"I oppose it because the land and buildings damaged by the assault are now part of the sacred space of America's great civic religion. I would oppose the construction of any sectarian project there that wasn't a rebuild of an existing sectarian use for the same reason.
There is no formal designation for the sacred spaces of America's civic religion though they extend from the Mall to the Arizona Memorial. The land around Ground Zero is very much part of that space, and any project that politicizes it or brings a religious purpose to those sites should be refused."
There are three basic problems here, and they are really basic problems.
The first is that a conservative Christian is using words and phrases like sacred space and religion, without scare quotes, in order to describe spaces and a religion that are not Christian. And he is not describing them as sacred to the use and understanding of others, but sacred to us, as Americans. This means that he is saying that American Christians can lawfully belong to two religions, one civil and one up in the sky somehow. American Christians can worship in two different kinds of sacred spaces, one in which God is triune, and in the other where he isn't anything of the kind. It also means that patriotic Americans who are not Christian have an area of "worship overlap" with those who are Christian. We share sacred space, as sacred space, with people who don't love Jesus. The question really ought to arise -- how did we get here?
This is the sort of thing that gives theologians like Yoda plausibility. This is the kind of that makes you want to cite Yoda about the dangers of Constantinianism. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will." Yoda, Yoder, whatever. This is the kind of political analysis that a freshman in the Eusebian School of Panegyrics might have written for his first homework assignment, late in the evening and after a couple of beers.
The second problem is that to recenter America's public space like this means that manifestations of the Christian faith become "sectarian" with reference to it. And this is precisely how Hewitt argues. This mosque and Tim Keller's church in Manhattan are both "sectarian" in reference to this new sacred space. The fact that one does not worship the true God and the other does is irrelevant to this relativization. This space is now sacred because it is the place where some terrorists blew themselves to Hell, and so ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ must consider themselves to be outside that Established Church. All Christians, who worship the God who made Heaven and earth, and who worship God through His true and only Son, are placed by a Christian political thinker on the same footing as Melanesian frog worshippers. We, and they, are Dissenters when it comes to this American sacred space. Well, we are Dissenters only if we dissent -- which consistent Christians must do.
The third problem is that no idolatry can be internally self-consistent, and so a weird contradiction appears immediately. Hewitt objects to any project that "politicizes" this sacred space, but all we have are politics down here now. The sacred space was formed by a political, terrorist act, and it was defended by those who were defending a particular political order. How can we object to the politicization of politics? This is all happening in the earthly city, in the polis. If this polis is being lifted up above the roil and rack of earthly commotions, then it has to be done arbitrarily, like the apotheosis of some dying Caesar, coughing up blood. Even Vespasian knew better than this with his famous last words -- Vae, puto deus fio. "Dear me, I must be turning into a god..."
Nature is not the only thing that abhors a vacuum. Religion abhors a vacuum. If you banish all religious trappings from the public square, all you have done is swept and garnished the room in preparation for the new, seven-fold religion that is now on your doorstep, with the creepy music playing in the background. And this is why exorcists who have no gospel are just an advance team for more demons. This is why R2K theologians are not doing what they think they are doing.
God has placed eternity in our hearts, and we behave like religious beings (because we must) wherever we go, and whatever we do. This is why Christian ministers must proclaim the crown rights of King Jesus everywhere, and over everything. All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Him, and this means that Jesus Christ owns Lower Manhattan, having purchased it with His precious blood. No other blood can be allowed to trump this, or compete with it, not even the blood of courageous firemen. We cannot give "this part" to Jesus and the remainder to nobody in particular, or to Mr. Neutrality. All attempts to "divvy up" are simply negotiations with idols. But we are Christians and are not allowed to parlay with idols.
Given what has gone before, Hugh Hewitt is simply being consistent in his use of words like sacred and religious. But it is a consistency we must turn back from. In order to do this, we have to reject Americanism, an ism every bit as ugly as all the other isms out there. I give way to no one in my love for my country, my nation, and my people. But it is a nation, for pity's sake, not a god. It is a country, a fine place to shoot off firecrackers on the Fourth, and to eat hot dogs. But if you want me to trot out divine honors along with the flag, then my response will be a thoroughly American one. "What, are you nuts?"
No comments:
Post a Comment