Friday, August 16, 2019
Christian realism Essay
Ã¢â¬Å"This meant that human wars do not accomplish divine righteousness. They are not holy. They belong to the real world of politics with all its tensions, paradoxes and contradictions; He called his position Ã¢â¬ËChristian realismÃ¢â¬â¢. There can be some reconciliation between the church and state if the people are spiritually prepared. The more spiritual Ã ° people, the more they are able to rule their own affairs and the less they need the heavy hand of government to keep them in line. The Puritans prepared the national soul of their country for liberty and democracy as their congregations, beginning with the work of Robert Browne and Robert Harrison, spread this gospel throughout England and later in America. They planted churches that advocated the autonomy or liberty of each congregation from outside interference and the right of the people to select or depose their own ministers and members. Each of these congregations was forged together by the consent or covenant (foedus) of its members and so became the catalyst behind the move toward federal government in the modern world. By the time of the Puritan Revolution of 1640Ã¢â¬â 60, the Levellers, who grew up with these congregations, became the most strident advocates of congregational principles on the national scene. They rejected the Machiavellian world of depraved government. Their most eloquent spokesman, William Walwyn, rejected the pessimism and resignations of MachiavelliÃ¢â¬â¢s policy in the hope of creating Ã ° Christian view of government, where the love of Christ would guide all private and public undertakings with its tolerance and impartiality. The prospects for peace in Iraq and the Middle East has much to do with the type of people with whom we are dealing. H. Richard Niebuhr felt that it was most essential to ask the question, Ã¢â¬ËwhatÃ¢â¬â¢s going on? Ã¢â¬â¢ in Ã ° particular situation before formulating Ã ° coherent response. This war too, Washington advises us publicly and in advance, is Ã ° war of global proportions. It is an open-ended war with the world as its battlefield. The enemy assumes two general forms. One part is visible, above ground, represented by evil governments and reminiscent of the old Soviet bloc. So far only four of the enemy governments in the new war have been identifiedÃ¢â¬âthe former governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and two remain Ã¢â¬Å"axis of evilÃ¢â¬ governments in Iran and North Korea. The other enemy component is invisible, consisting, we are told, of cells in some 50 or 60 mostly unnamed countries. These are not the cells of the communist party, but the underground organizations of what Washington chooses to call Ã¢â¬Å"terroristsÃ¢â¬ Whatever its form, whether bearing the legitimacy of government or existing underground, the enemy must be destroyed. To do this, we must sometimes act alone, unilaterally. Other times we can act with our allies. (Frederick 2004 191) Ã¢â¬Å"An ethical judgment serves as Ã ° second stage, addressing and reacting to Ã ° specific set of circumstances. of course, Ã ° discussion of this type could prove endless in Ã ° relative universe, where every element of Ã ° situation is the product of the complex interactions of all things, But Ã ° discussion must limit itself to what is more proximate to the situation at hand and stands neglected or misunderstood in the public forum. Among these elements the matter of religion seems to qualify in the present circumstance. It is most essential to the people of the Middle East and misunderstood by our Ã¢â¬ËsecularÃ¢â¬â¢ government, which fails to understand the potency of its ideas. This failure is Ã ° product of recent times with its emphasis upon church/state separation but does not represent the verdict of scholars throughout the ages. In former days the role of religion was more appreciated for the part it played in ruling and understanding Ã ° people. Tocqueville said that religious customs of Ã ° people are more crucial than the physical circumstances or governmental structures surrounding them. Montesquieu believed that the one who conquered Ã ° people must bow before the conquered in ruling the land, if one wished to maintain some semblance of order. The religions and customs of Ã ° people were considered most essential in forging Ã ° sound policy. The prospects of peace were related to the fundamental Geist of those who must respond to outside forces. No policy could expect to find success without considering this most essential ingredient. Ã¢â¬ (Paul 2001 38-77).