Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
Man, I don't know where I am on this topic.
Theologically, I probably agree on most points. But as a result of believing that man was created in the image of God, I see each person as having value and worth--not dependent on their theology, but simply as image-bearers of God. It is the duty of each Christian to explain, as well as they can, to the people with whom they interact, the truths and implications of Christianity. But it up to the individual to choose, to believe, or not.
I would agree that the basic tennants to Law as given in the Bible are good guidance for all civil law. Obviously, Old Testament, ceremonial laws are not universal; but Do Not Murder, Do Not Lie, Do not Steal, etc and " Love your neighbor as yourself" are a pretty good starting point for any society. How can anyone object to them? Keeping the Sabath is, in my view, outside the purvue of civil government.
I don't see how education can be neutral. Either everything flows from a universe created by an orderly God, or we are the product of random chance. I do not see much middle ground. If you want to teach ethics in a moral vacuum, you must end up with moral relativism. The problem I have with the way I see Creationism taught is that it is often used simply as a tool for Christian evangelism. ( Not that I think that in itself is bad--but I object to the deception.) I think there is a way of presenting Creationism and Dawinism in an objective manner--I just haven't seen anyone do it.
|
I think Rushdoony is mistaken on some issues but correct on others. For instance, much of education, while not neutral on questions of truth and falsity has very little implication for religion or theology. Math is a good example. It is just stupid to have to call Euclid a Christian in order to account for the truth and usefuleness of geometry.
However, Rushdoony is correct that education in a democracy is a direct threat to his philosophy and theology. For instance, in a democractic discussion of ethical questions such as abortion, the death penalty, homosexuality etc, the humanist and secularist must be given equal voice with the Reconstructionist. Since democracy values the wills and minds of everyone, there is no justification for excluding sinners from the discussion, nor from lawmaking.
One might think that Rushdoony would be happy with this open discussion because the truth and rationality of his own religious views would prevail in an open discussion. But he doesn't think this. There is no rational evidence, choice, or proof of the existence of God, or the superiority of Rushdoony's religion. Knowledge of these things is only found by submission of one's will to God, and not by an act of unaided reason. Submission to divine authority precedes knowledge of divine truth. To put it another way, his political fascism is based on an intellectual fascism. (He follows a strange and deviant form of Christian Apologetics rooted in the philosopher, Cornelius Van Till, (and the dutchman, Herman Doeyweerd sp?) called Presuppositionalism)
The system is built from top to bottom on submission to divine authority. There is no access to intellectual or political goods except thru the expressed will of God as found in the Bible to which we must all submit. People who have not done so, have no standing in the system.