Michael S. Kogan, a Jewish professor of comparative religion attributes most of the theological differences between Jews and Christians to their respective approaches to the problem of sin. I would take that further and assert that many, if not most, of the political differences between conservatives and progressives derive from their respective approaches to sin.
In his book Opening the Covenant, Kogan asserts that for orthodox Christians, the problems of sin, that is, the rebellion against God which started in the Garden of Eden, demonstrates that human beings are so evil in their very nature that there is nothing they can do for themselves to resolve the problem of their sin. Thus only God can resolve the problem by sending His Son into the world to suffer and die for the sins of mankind, and be resurrected to eternal life so that those who have faith in Him will be saved. This doctrine, of the utter sinfulness of man, while common to orthodox Christians of all denominations, is most closely associated with Calvin and Reformed Christians. The Reformed, Scotts Confession puts it this way:
"By this transgression [rebellion against God in the Garden], generally known as original sin, the image of God was utterly defaced in man, and he and his children became by nature hostile to God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin. And thus everlasting death has had, and shall have, power and dominion over all who have not been, are not, or shall not be born from above. This rebirth is wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit creating in the hearts of God's chosen ones an assured faith in the promise of God revealed to us in His Word; by this faith we grasp Messiah Jesus with the graces and blessings promised in Him."
The Lutheran, Augsburg Confession goes further to condemn "the Pelagians and others . . . who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason."
Kogan also asserts that, unlike Christians, Jews today believe that God, through the Law, provided the means whereby Jews first, and ultimately all humans, could be reconciled to God through obedience to the moral aspects of that Law. Sin was a problem, but one to which God had left the solution with us. It did not require the radical solution Christians believed was necessary, the coming of Messiah Jesus and his death and resurrection.
Interestingly, the Apostle Paul writing in the Ninth Chapter of his Letter to the Romans, says much the same thing, that the Jews who were not being saved were pursuing righteousness by their own efforts and not by faith in Messiah Jesus. For Jews, God sent the Law, obedience to which would bring righteousness. For Christians the Law, which cannot be obeyed perfectly, only shows our own sinful nature. Salvation comes, to those who have faith, from the Act of God in sending His son. Christians, grateful for salvation then seek, as best we can, to follow God's desires for our lives as expressed in the Law.
But what of Atheists? While they might not call it sin, Atheists still, for the most part, see injustice in our world and seek to remedy it. But I think they see injustice not as a problem within human beings, but rather a problem with institutions, systems and cultures and, if those things can be fixed by a benevolent government, the problem of injustice can be fixed. So if only we, that is the enlightened elites, can marginalize or reform institutions that teach the wrong things (such as the churches), abolish or transform evil systems (such as capitalism), and take over the cultural education of children from their parents, we can establish a new, Utopian society where injustice will be a thing of the past.
Our Founders, although not all Calvinist Christians, shared the Calvinist view of the depravity of mankind. Madison, one of the principal authors of the Constitution and one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers wrote, in Federalist 51:
"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances in and limitations on government] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Most conservatives, I believe, tend to have the Madisonian, Calvinist view of mankind and thus favor limited, restrained government. They reject Utopian schemes and seek rather to strengthen institutions which can form a counterweight to government, uphold systems which preserve political and economic liberty and leave cultural education to the people themselves. Faith based institutions, for conservatives, are essential to the preservation of "ordered liberty" - that is an orderly society without government coercion and oversight into every aspect of life. And government, being made up of sinful men and women, is always subject to suspicion.
Few Christians who have a Calvinist view of mankind will be progressive politically. Rather progressives will tend to be atheists, secular or nominal Christians and Jews, or Christians who reject the doctrine of the depravity of man. Once mankind is viewed as perfectible, or perhaps fundamentally good but oppressed by systems and institutions, there is room for all sorts of grand schemes to "fix" everything - like ObamaCare, the Common Core curriculum, universal pre-school and so on. Government should have no limits because only government can work these schemes and make sure everyone is forced to go along.
No comments:
Post a Comment