<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/8/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael</b> <<a href="mailto:metzler@moscow.com">metzler@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Dale Wrote (see his link):</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The U.S. Supreme Court held in <em><i><font face="Times New Roman">McDaniel
v. Paty</font></i></em> (1978) that ministers may serve in <span id="st" name="st" class="st0">state</span> legislatures
<span id="st" name="st" class="st0">and</span> hold public office. If a minister may serve in a public office, certainly
he may testify as an individual before a public office. Just because you are a
pastor doesn't mean that you lose your rights to speak. But that doesn't keep
zealots from fighting for that result. </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Me:</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I just called Wilson
to confirm what I thought his position on this is. Generally speaking
(i.e. with qualifications regarding abnormal times, etc) Wilson is very sympathetic with law not
permitting an active minister to also hold public office. <span id="st" name="st" class="st0">And</span> I know I
don't think a minister should be permitted to hold public office while
they are actively serving as a minister (although Dale's statement of the
ruling is ambiguous here). Wilson
can testify as an individual, <span id="st" name="st" class="st0">and</span> I'd think he could even testify as a
prophet from God, but I don't think that MCDaniel v. Paty is a good
justification for it, although it certainly seems to legally justify it. Separation
of <span id="st" name="st" class="st0">Church</span> <span id="st" name="st" class="st0">and</span> <span id="st" name="st" class="st0">State</span> is a wonderful fruit of Christianity. </span></font></p></div></blockquote>
<div><br>
Michael --<br>
<br>
You're being slightly disingenuous here. 'Separation of Church and
State' does not mean the same to many Kirkers -- and I assume you -- as
I assume it does to most other Americans. Feel free to interrupt me if
I've gotten this wrong: this is a patchwork quilt of Wilsonian
sociotheology that I've picked up from email correspondence, personal
conversations, and Wilson's writings. Still, I've gotten this argument
several times: "we believe in separation of Church and State," and at
first I assumed it was a lie. Then I realized that it was true, but
none of the words meant what I thought they meant.<br>
<br>
To most Americans, "Separation of Church and State" means that there is
a state monopoly on coercion: the state can force you to give taxes,
the state can compel you to join the military, the state can authorize
you to kill people in war. The state considers religion to be a matter
of personal conscience -- that an individual has their relationship
with the holy and the state may not interpose. <br>
<br>
First, let's start with what 'Church' means to Wilson. The 'Church' is
the entirety of Christendom, consisting, under the New Covenant, of all
those that have been baptized. I have been baptized, and am therefore
part of the Church, though I do not consider myself a Christian. The
point is that I am not the one who decides that I am a Christian: that
decision is made by my baptism. As a presuppositionalist, he also
believes that I know that God exists and am denying his existence
because I hate Him. I am therefore, despite my protestations, not an
atheist but an apostate Christian. As a side note, this is the backing
argument to Wilson's suport of paedobaptism: a proper baptism is a
precondition to election (insofar as there can be a 'precondition' to a
predestined event).<br>
<br>
Wilson believes that God has a relationship with the Church in which
the state cannot interpose. The relationship between God and any one
individual is secondary to the relationship between God and,
essentially, the whole of Christendom. The Church therefore has a
divinely ordained right to certain forms of coercion: the Church is to
maintain the moral order of the world. That means that the Church,
within the sphere of moral order, is divinely ordained to have the
power of coercion, including lethal coercion. When Wilkins (the
co-theologian of the Auburn theology) defends Cotton Mather in the
Salem Witch Trials, he is defending the right of the Church to maintain
moral order by executing those who break it. Presumably, the Church is
also endowed with the right to supervise those activities which are
demanded by the Bible -- charity, theological education, and whatnot.
The Church may also, if it pleases, demand a tithe. Those powers that
are not endowed to the Church belong to the heads of households, who
are men.<br>
<br>
The state is therefore almost vestigal; an appendage that maintains the
roads, civil order, and the military. It can probably still levy fines
and make certain laws (those that do not infringe on the Church's right
to enforce moral order) but it otherwise is subject to the moral
supervision of the Church. Ever wonder why Dale could belong to
such an authoritarian church yet claim to be a Libertarian? It's
because many of the things we think of as the responsibilities of the
state, he delegates to the Church.<br>
<br>
Many things about Wilson's theology that are confusing to outsiders can
be resolved simply by asking what those words might've meant to a
twelth century theologian rather than yourself.<br>
<br>
As for freedom of conscience -- which is what I believe 'Separation of
Church and State means' -- -- it is specifically repudiated by Wilson.
The best one might hope for is something like the Turkish millet system
or the Malaysian system where Muslims are punished under sharia and all
others are tried by the civil magistrate. As an apostate Christian,
though, it doesn't particularly matter to me: I have been baptized, and
am thus subject to severe Church discipline.<br>
<br>
-- ACS<br>
<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now we can all be friends
<span id="st" name="st" class="st0">and</span> start talking about sex again. :-)</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Thanks!</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Michael Metzler</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<br>_____________________________________________________<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br>
<br><br></blockquote></div><br>