tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post1746110495716685983..comments2010-11-26T08:02:02.343-08:00Comments on civitas terrena: Does Religious Speech Belong in Public Discourse?John Seniorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05348327401215014629noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-73872184969996382322010-11-12T13:48:37.107-08:002010-11-12T13:48:37.107-08:00I think a solution is found when we ask fundamenta...I think a solution is found when we ask fundamental questions about religious discourse in public conversation. First, what is the purpose of it? And second, how is that purpose then met? In my opinion, today the purpose of religious discourse within a secular context is at least twofold- to represent Christian theology, and to serve the community by reminding them what is right (preserve "prophetic Christian voices"); however, these two purpose should actually be one and the same- traditional theology and doctrine should align beneath 'what is right' instead of declaring the Church's stance on specific, political issues. This opinion leads to an answer for the second question, now phrased as: "How do we teach the general public what is right?" I propose the fundamental guideline to what is right is unconditional love. <br /><br />Unconditional love, rather than hope for salvation, is more effective in solving the problems being addressed today. Salvation in an afterlife is useless to homosexuals that are "violently" resisted and apparently suffer from a higher rate of mental health problems than other groups. Salvation on Earth is what is really needed, and religious voices crying out against bullying and advocating compassion can actually give someone real hope and demonstrate he or she is not alone in their struggle. Someone needs to stand up for those being bullied. Sadly, offering hope for forgiveness to homosexuals does just the opposite- it adds weight to bullies' taunts. Now is clearly not the time to re-iterate crusty theology on a person's sexuality; rather, these incidents should prompt the Church to remind us to love unconditionally. Had the individuals who killed themselves been loved, they would have learned to love themselves, and then others- perhaps even their bullies. <br /><br />To this end, Perkins- and others adding to religious discourse in public light- would serve the religious community he represents and the public one he addresses best by reminding everyone that bullies need to be loved, too. It is ironic that bullies and those being bullied are very alike at the core- they both need love desperately to learn to care for themselves.<br /><br />Lastly, it is a myth that religious discourse is sacred- nor should it be. God himself is sacred, and anything uttered by man surely falls short. Moreover, religion should bring humans closer to God, and is thus fundamentally rooted in human issues! I agree religion should not 'rely on the interests of the world' or make alliance with any political power- but it should absolutely proclaim its own ideas to influence the former. The Church- and all people claiming to be religious- should be the MOST involved with humans, especially those in need! Who else is here to care for others? Who else has responded to a call to love? Who else was Jesus referring to when he said you are the "salt of the Earth" and the "light of the world?" (Matthew 5:13-16)Ours is a distinct voice that has the right to discuss virtue and ethics because it is religious. No other voice has the right to give guidance like this. I think the Bible makes our purpose clear with the story of Jonah and the whale- sent to Nineveh to speak, ran away, swallowed up, and spit back out to share good news! <br /><br />I think this discussion leads to larger questions- what is religion? What is its purpose? How is it different from but related to culture? politics? Where are religious trends headed, and how is theology changing? Or is it? Should it? I think so- obviously there is great danger in getting bogged down with doctrine, and the point of Christianity can be missed completely. I think reference to religious right and left (while certainly accurate!) underscores this problem- the Body of Christ is to have one head...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13100179518291602715noreply@blogger.com