January 03, 2005
Introducing The Middle Way
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater, quoting Cicero (1964).
When these words were spoken at the 1964 Republican National Convention, many Americans panicked, thinking that Sen. Goldwater was a madman who would tear up Social Security cards and lead America to a nuclear war. Today, in a society that apparently values neither liberty nor justice, these words sound like -- a call for a Middle Way to bring reason back to a nation that has been polarized by extremism.
The 2004 election produced a record turnout, energized by two distinctly different candidates; but for both the President and Sen. Kerry, enthusiasm, while broad, was very shallow. This fact, coupled with the even split in the vote, suggests that many are hungering for a better approach to solving political problems.
This polarity in politics reflects a similar polarity in American Christianity, which has drained the energy of the "mainstream" Protestant churches (such as the Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches, and the United Church of Christ). Just as the political extremes took over their parties last year, so the leadership of these churches have often promoted liberal doctrines that were at odds with their laitys' understanding of the faith. Those who were disgruntled with "mainstream" Protestantism found a home with the Evangelicals -- who have produced an extremism of their own.
It seems that the spirit of the day has caused people in many parts of the world and of many faiths to question the relationship of their faith with the political system -- thus we see fundamentalism grow stronger in American Christianity and in the Islam of many Middle Eastern countries. The West promotes the separation of church and state, a doctrine with which I agree; but Sen. Kerry's clumsy attempts to relate his Roman Catholic faith to his pro-choice politics demonstrates the absurdity of trying to separate church and state within our own hearts.
Using labels like "conservative" or "Evangelical" to describe political or religious positions is resented by many; for as children of God, we are complex beings, whose beliefs usually do not fit neatly into a label; yet, in discussions, the labels do provide a useful shorthand for summarizing worldviews. Because such labels deal in generalities, I need to share with you my understanding of each:
Politics
In politics, a liberal is an advocate of government as an agent of change; particularly in issues related to health and poverty. In foreign policy, a liberal tends toward pacifism and wants to restrict the role of the military in foreign policy. In social issues, liberals resist governmental involvement in issues of personal morality (e.g., homosexuality and abortion). In fiscal policy, liberals want to resolve deficits by raising taxes, reflecting a view of the world as a class struggle.
There are actually three kinds of conservatives: the libertarian who resists governmental involvement in society almost to the point of anarchy, the traditional conservative whose wariness of governmental involvement is reflected in a strong emphasis on the balanced budget, and the neo-conservative. Since neo-conservativism appears to be the dominant strain, I shall herewith define conservative in neo-conservative terms.
A conservative, so defined, is an advocate of government in the maintenance of the status quo, especially in economic issues; a position justified by an emphasis on personal responsibility. In foreign policy, they favor a strong military as an active component of foreign policy (while this is usually called a strong national defense, one can argue that the conservative view of the military really goes beyond that, making them in the liberal view "policemen to the world." In social issues, such conservatives favor active governmental intervention in areas of personal morality (such as "defense of marriage" and restrictions on abortion). In fiscal policy, conservatives tend to keep the budget unbalanced by setting taxes at an unreasonably low level, justifying same as a control on the growth of government (which it clearly has not been) and as beneficial to the economy (read, large corporations).
Liberals and conservatives both tend to view budget deficits as a necessary part of conducting government, at least at the Federal level.
Religion
The polarity of politics is reflected in Christianity by a dualism that may be described as liberalism vs. evangelicalism. Politically, theological liberals tend to be political liberals; and Evangelicals tend to be political (neo-)conservatives.
Theological liberals tend to grant considerable license in the interpretation of Scripture (in the most extreme cases, rejecting it entirely, even questioning the divinity of Jesus). Liberals tend to emphasize the mercy of God at the expense of His justice, and social morality at the expense of the personal. Government, to the theological liberal, is a means of spreading God's love to the needy and oppressed.
Evangelicals (as I am defining them here) insist on a narrow interpretation of Scripture, in the most extreme cases, insisting that every word be taken literally. This can result in a rejection of reason as a gift of God that leads to (in my opinion, artificial) conflicts between the teachings of faith and those of science. Most evangelicals take a balanced view of God's mercy and His justice; but a few at the very extreme will stress His justice at the expense of His mercy. Personal morality is stressed at the expense of the social. Government is a means of enforcing personal responsibility, with personal morality being more important than the social.
The Middle Way
I suggest that the Middle Way in politics and religion supports traditional American views of both. It should not be viewed simply as nostalgia for the past; for every generation has new issues and new challenges, but it does reflect views and attitudes that have maintained our freedom and prosperity.
In politics, the role of government is to protect individual and group freedom, and to maximize opportunities for individuals to grow and contribute to society (and not solely through making money). The Federal government should be limited to the purposes expressly stated for it in the Constitution: national defense, protection of interstate commerce, enforcement of the Constitution, and, where necessary, to provide help for poorer states to grow economically. However, the bulk of governmental power should rest, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, with the states and with the people. Observe how this simple idea at once addresses the Federal problems of overly powerful lobbies, campaign finance reform, and the myth of "Federal funds" (which are nothing more than returning fewer taxpayers dollars to the States than the taxpayers paid in). A philosophy that favors localized government states that in many areas, a national policy is not necessary - local variations in social policy respects local culture.
In foreign policy, the Middle Way desires a United States that seeks cooperation between nations in the resolution of global problems by seeking and promoting win/win solutions. Military force may be used for peacekeeping and self-defense, but is not used proactively in the resolution of problems abroad. The United States seeks to export its best ideas through information and persuasion; and supports the right of every people to enjoy the same liberties that we do, even when the result may be distasteful (This is to say, for example, that we should support the independence of Taiwan and Kurdistan, and accept at least temporarily the results of a free election that establishes an Islamic fundamentalist or a socialist state).
In religion, the Middle Way views Scripture as the revelation of God's will to humanity; but acknowledges that we live in a very different society from the ancients, so that interpretation is necessary. However, just as the Constitution should be interpreted by the courts by rules of strict construction, so the Bible should be interpreted as conservatively as possible, consistent with its application to our reason and our experience.
Separation of church and state is desirable. It is, in fact, the bedrock of the Protestant Reformation which ensures that the power of the state will not corrupt the church; and that the moral influence of the church will not corrupt the state. In the Middle Way, government is neutral toward all faiths, but will protect the rights of all faiths including our own, to make its doctrines heard in the public square and the media, but in no event should government attempt to achieve by force what religion is designed to accomplish by persuasion.
I suggest that the ideal agents for promoting the Middle Way are the mainline Protestant churches; but to do so successfully, the laity must be energized by the Holy Spirit through prayer and meditation; and they must be vigilant in the activities of their clergies and bureaucracies. This work has already begun through such organizations as the Institute for Religion and Democracy
and denominational renewal movements, such as Good News in the United Methodist Church.
In future (and shorter) installments, and through your input, we shall discuss how these ideas might be translated into policy.
Please e-mail me if you would like to be added to a list when new entries have been added to this blog.
Post a comment.
Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided both conditions are met: (1) Credit is given to the author, and (2) the use is not for profit.
When these words were spoken at the 1964 Republican National Convention, many Americans panicked, thinking that Sen. Goldwater was a madman who would tear up Social Security cards and lead America to a nuclear war. Today, in a society that apparently values neither liberty nor justice, these words sound like -- a call for a Middle Way to bring reason back to a nation that has been polarized by extremism.
The 2004 election produced a record turnout, energized by two distinctly different candidates; but for both the President and Sen. Kerry, enthusiasm, while broad, was very shallow. This fact, coupled with the even split in the vote, suggests that many are hungering for a better approach to solving political problems.
This polarity in politics reflects a similar polarity in American Christianity, which has drained the energy of the "mainstream" Protestant churches (such as the Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches, and the United Church of Christ). Just as the political extremes took over their parties last year, so the leadership of these churches have often promoted liberal doctrines that were at odds with their laitys' understanding of the faith. Those who were disgruntled with "mainstream" Protestantism found a home with the Evangelicals -- who have produced an extremism of their own.
It seems that the spirit of the day has caused people in many parts of the world and of many faiths to question the relationship of their faith with the political system -- thus we see fundamentalism grow stronger in American Christianity and in the Islam of many Middle Eastern countries. The West promotes the separation of church and state, a doctrine with which I agree; but Sen. Kerry's clumsy attempts to relate his Roman Catholic faith to his pro-choice politics demonstrates the absurdity of trying to separate church and state within our own hearts.
Using labels like "conservative" or "Evangelical" to describe political or religious positions is resented by many; for as children of God, we are complex beings, whose beliefs usually do not fit neatly into a label; yet, in discussions, the labels do provide a useful shorthand for summarizing worldviews. Because such labels deal in generalities, I need to share with you my understanding of each:
Politics
In politics, a liberal is an advocate of government as an agent of change; particularly in issues related to health and poverty. In foreign policy, a liberal tends toward pacifism and wants to restrict the role of the military in foreign policy. In social issues, liberals resist governmental involvement in issues of personal morality (e.g., homosexuality and abortion). In fiscal policy, liberals want to resolve deficits by raising taxes, reflecting a view of the world as a class struggle.
There are actually three kinds of conservatives: the libertarian who resists governmental involvement in society almost to the point of anarchy, the traditional conservative whose wariness of governmental involvement is reflected in a strong emphasis on the balanced budget, and the neo-conservative. Since neo-conservativism appears to be the dominant strain, I shall herewith define conservative in neo-conservative terms.
A conservative, so defined, is an advocate of government in the maintenance of the status quo, especially in economic issues; a position justified by an emphasis on personal responsibility. In foreign policy, they favor a strong military as an active component of foreign policy (while this is usually called a strong national defense, one can argue that the conservative view of the military really goes beyond that, making them in the liberal view "policemen to the world." In social issues, such conservatives favor active governmental intervention in areas of personal morality (such as "defense of marriage" and restrictions on abortion). In fiscal policy, conservatives tend to keep the budget unbalanced by setting taxes at an unreasonably low level, justifying same as a control on the growth of government (which it clearly has not been) and as beneficial to the economy (read, large corporations).
Liberals and conservatives both tend to view budget deficits as a necessary part of conducting government, at least at the Federal level.
Religion
The polarity of politics is reflected in Christianity by a dualism that may be described as liberalism vs. evangelicalism. Politically, theological liberals tend to be political liberals; and Evangelicals tend to be political (neo-)conservatives.
Theological liberals tend to grant considerable license in the interpretation of Scripture (in the most extreme cases, rejecting it entirely, even questioning the divinity of Jesus). Liberals tend to emphasize the mercy of God at the expense of His justice, and social morality at the expense of the personal. Government, to the theological liberal, is a means of spreading God's love to the needy and oppressed.
Evangelicals (as I am defining them here) insist on a narrow interpretation of Scripture, in the most extreme cases, insisting that every word be taken literally. This can result in a rejection of reason as a gift of God that leads to (in my opinion, artificial) conflicts between the teachings of faith and those of science. Most evangelicals take a balanced view of God's mercy and His justice; but a few at the very extreme will stress His justice at the expense of His mercy. Personal morality is stressed at the expense of the social. Government is a means of enforcing personal responsibility, with personal morality being more important than the social.
The Middle Way
I suggest that the Middle Way in politics and religion supports traditional American views of both. It should not be viewed simply as nostalgia for the past; for every generation has new issues and new challenges, but it does reflect views and attitudes that have maintained our freedom and prosperity.
In politics, the role of government is to protect individual and group freedom, and to maximize opportunities for individuals to grow and contribute to society (and not solely through making money). The Federal government should be limited to the purposes expressly stated for it in the Constitution: national defense, protection of interstate commerce, enforcement of the Constitution, and, where necessary, to provide help for poorer states to grow economically. However, the bulk of governmental power should rest, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, with the states and with the people. Observe how this simple idea at once addresses the Federal problems of overly powerful lobbies, campaign finance reform, and the myth of "Federal funds" (which are nothing more than returning fewer taxpayers dollars to the States than the taxpayers paid in). A philosophy that favors localized government states that in many areas, a national policy is not necessary - local variations in social policy respects local culture.
In foreign policy, the Middle Way desires a United States that seeks cooperation between nations in the resolution of global problems by seeking and promoting win/win solutions. Military force may be used for peacekeeping and self-defense, but is not used proactively in the resolution of problems abroad. The United States seeks to export its best ideas through information and persuasion; and supports the right of every people to enjoy the same liberties that we do, even when the result may be distasteful (This is to say, for example, that we should support the independence of Taiwan and Kurdistan, and accept at least temporarily the results of a free election that establishes an Islamic fundamentalist or a socialist state).
In religion, the Middle Way views Scripture as the revelation of God's will to humanity; but acknowledges that we live in a very different society from the ancients, so that interpretation is necessary. However, just as the Constitution should be interpreted by the courts by rules of strict construction, so the Bible should be interpreted as conservatively as possible, consistent with its application to our reason and our experience.
Separation of church and state is desirable. It is, in fact, the bedrock of the Protestant Reformation which ensures that the power of the state will not corrupt the church; and that the moral influence of the church will not corrupt the state. In the Middle Way, government is neutral toward all faiths, but will protect the rights of all faiths including our own, to make its doctrines heard in the public square and the media, but in no event should government attempt to achieve by force what religion is designed to accomplish by persuasion.
I suggest that the ideal agents for promoting the Middle Way are the mainline Protestant churches; but to do so successfully, the laity must be energized by the Holy Spirit through prayer and meditation; and they must be vigilant in the activities of their clergies and bureaucracies. This work has already begun through such organizations as the Institute for Religion and Democracy
and denominational renewal movements, such as Good News in the United Methodist Church.
In future (and shorter) installments, and through your input, we shall discuss how these ideas might be translated into policy.
Please e-mail me if you would like to be added to a list when new entries have been added to this blog.
Post a comment.
Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided both conditions are met: (1) Credit is given to the author, and (2) the use is not for profit.
Copyright © 2005-2006, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided this copyright notice is shown and the use is not for profit.
The Middle Way posted by Harold Thomas @ 9:20 PM 
