Open Theism Discussion Board

There are a lot of philosophical issues that you are talking about here that I don’t really deal with. Just a few things.

1. I’m not saying that you don’t agree with such a thing as “society.” What I’m saying is that I think “society” is secondary in your thinking. As you said before, “It is individuals all the way down baby!”

2. I don’t really have any thoughts on whether society has a mind or will of its own. I’m more interested in what is called, “civil society.” That is, all areas outside of government, ie., schools, families, businesses, unions, doctors, skill trades, etc. Not that government is not important, (as it is) but rather how these different spheres of authority intermingle/interact between themselves and between government and how government intermingles/interacts with them. Because they are their own authority they then have their own rights. That is, because they have responsibilities they have rights.

3. I’m thinking that you even interpret “civil society” in terms of highly autonomous individuals while on the other hand, though I acknowledge individuals, I deal with the politics of the differentiated spheres of authority. In saying that…

4. I’m saying that there are a couple of different understandings of what we might mean by the “city” or by “society” (though I’m using city and society interchangeably to some extent here). There are two definitions: Koyzis says: A. a political definition: a municipality, a differentiated, explicitly political subcommunity within the larger body politic. As such it is governed by a constitution of its own, consisting perhaps of a mayor, city manager, city council, and a variety of related institutions, including police and fire protection. Education, garbage collection, water supply and sewage treatment may fall under the jurisdiction of the municipal or another government, or some of these services may be provided by the private sector.” Definition B. says: “a city is a multifaceted network of local, differentiated communities—a community of communities—defying easy identification along social, economic, political or religious lines.”

Now, the core task of the city in sense A is to regulate or support the complex social fabric of public interdependencies (civil society) that constitute the city in sense B. And that’s the thing. There is a role which government plays in order to nurture civic life and these interdependencies ie., privately owned pubs and coffeeshops, or publicly owned parks, museums, and libraries, etc. What are referred to as “third places” by some poli sci scholars.

Anyhoo, the point for me is that this is what I’m concerned about mostly when talking about politics. The question doesn’t have much to do with individuals or individual rights and duties, though those questions certainly are very important? My concern mostly has to do with sphere sovereignty (which can include individuals, ie., parents, teachers, policemen/women, doctors, etc). As Gideon Strauss says: "To achieve justice, city governments must concern themselves not only with their own functional tasks, or with the direct relationship between government and citizens, but also with the built fabric that serves the emergence and nurture of a vibrant civil society—and this is very much also a matter of bricks and mortar, zoning laws and building regulations. Christians who want to engage in slow politics must learn to care, and care skillfully, also about these matters."

Also, something that is surprising to me and most of what I’ve seen in your writings here on these boards is that there is absolutely no mention of at least one of two long held views on politics in Christianity: sphere sovereignty and subsidiary (held mostly within the Catholic tradition). The silence is deafening to me. This is what bothers me about Greg's writings on politics. He doesn't deal at all with these traditions. Simply ignores them for his anabaptist leanings.

Lastly, at the base level, I tend to see politics as very spiritual in nature. I like what Peter Leithart says: “From the viewpoint of the gospel, globalization is a religious AND political trend, just as the Roman empire was a religious as it was political. Rome was important for the early Christians, however, not because it threatened local cultures but because it was a counterfeit world-empire which is to say, a counterfeit church. Today, McDonalization is a challenge to Christians because it involves the spread of Western idolatry of mammon on a global scale. The United Nations is a threat because it is a false church, claiming a false catholicity. Globalists are enemies because they preach a false gospel, an eschatological message of international peace and plenty that will be achieved through liberal political and capitalist economic institutions.” Of course, Stephen Evans said something similar, “And before claiming that Communist societies, past and present, are truly “secular” we ought to ponder carefully the extent to which Marxism itself can function lie a religion, replete with veneration of the tombs of “saints” such as Lenin.”

Anyhoo...carry on your conversation. I think I'm pretty much on a different page than you guys.