blip : Basic Living Instruction Protocol :

Telford seems to revel in creating out-of-the-ordinary assignments. They end up being fun but it sure hurts to write in a new genre when I’m used to writing straightforward, analytical, “thesis, body, and conclusion” papers! As part of our study of the reformation Telford asked us to write a reflection on Bush’s 2005 State of the Union and Inaugural addresses. The paper was to bring in the perspectives of two of the major Reformers. So, given that much of my day is spent instant messaging people, I began to think about what it would look like if Martin Luther and Menno Simmons were on the line…

Jason Rust: This week’s online discussion takes place with two pivotal leaders of the reformation: Martin Luther and Menno Simons. I managed to get in touch with them via HIM (Heavenly Instant Messaging) and they graciously agreed to discussing Bush’s vision for America in 2005, with emphasis on his foreign policy, as outlined in his State of the Union and Inaugural addresses. Luther, we’ll start with you. What are your thoughts on Bush’s proposals?

Martin Luther: I saw in Bush’s speeches two recurrent themes around which he orients his policies: security and freedom. Those are two values that square nicely with the Romans 13 prescription for what a government is to look like. I would phrase the government’s duty as an obligation to provide ‘justice, order, and tranquility’ (George, 101) for society, but his values are similar enough that they work as well. Thus, I was pleased to hear of his continued support for homeland security. In fact, I would go so far as to urge my fellow Christians who are qualified to join Bush in aiding America’s government by doing such things as joining the police, seeking government positions, or enlisting in the National Guard.

Menno Simons: Luther, I must interject, for I’m hearing that familiar strain of argument that you and I have argued about for so long. You imply that the state and the Church are mutually supporting, intermingled spheres of life (George, 100). Yet, this cannot be for the Church is the fellowship of those that have renounced the world in order that they might be united to God (Hillerbrand, 132). A Christian who joins the forces of the state inevitably becomes sullied with the sin of the world thus endangering their salvation.

Rust: Menno, if the Church has nothing to do with the state then do you have any critique of Bush’s proposals?

Simons: You jump to conclusions too fast, Rust. The two worlds have a connection, but that does not mean the worlds intermingle as Luther supposes. Christians will obey the state so long as it does not demand something contrary to the will of God. Additionally, we will seek to tell the state how it might wield its ‘secular sword’ in a way that honors God (George, 286). It is here that I am afraid Bush is wrong, because his proposal for the ‘expansion of freedom in all the world’ (Bush, Inaugural Address), presumably through war in those nations that oppose this vision, is not a just use of the government’s sword. A government has the duty to protect its citizens, but it does not have the authority to pre-emptively wage war on foreign governments.

Rust: Luther, do you agree?

Luther: Surprisingly, yes, but for very different reasons. I cannot accept that it is right for America to use its force to spread democracy to other nations. While Bush claims that America ‘has no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else’ (Bush, State of the Union) he is nevertheless clear that the only form of government he will support is a democracy. Yet, it is not upon a people’s consent to a ruler that a government is founded but upon God’s ordained will (George, 100). If America opposes those governments which are not democratic she will be opposing God for ‘those authorities that exist have been instituted by God’ (Rom. 13:1).

Rust: What if the government America opposes is an unjust one?

Luther: Then the churches of America should join in prayer with the churches of that nation to do what Lot did for wayward Sodom: pray. What Bush fails to realize is that not only are all governments ordained by God, but also that democracy is no better, and perhaps is worse, than most other forms of government. The Peasants of my day also sought to govern themselves, but such a denial of hierarchical political authority leads only to chaos, bloodshed, and revolt (Hillerbrand, 74).

Rust: Your thoughts on that, Menno?

Simons: I am more sympathetic to the cause of the Peasants. The Peasants realized that the radical egalitarianism of the Gospel abolished worldly hierarchies (Matheson, 56). In the churches I pastored a Prince was accountable to a Peasant for his actions and both had to obey the command of Jesus to wash each other’s feet. The false dichotomy that Luther poses between a Christian’s ‘public’ and ‘private’ life cannot be held when one realizes that the life and structures of the Church are as separate from the life and structures of the world as Athens is from Jerusalem. So while I can sympathize with Bush’s commitment to see democracy spread, I still cannot justify the wars he thinks go hand-in-hand with that commitment. For while democracy might be a fine form of government it is by no means ‘the only force powerful enough … to replace hatred with hope’ (Bush, State of the Union). Jesus Christ is the world’s only sure hope from terror, tyranny, and sin. Bush’s hope for a Utopia reliant upon the power of human freedom to govern itself is not a grand dream but a terrible nightmare (Matheson, 50). The road of Providence leads not to ‘freedom’ (Bush, State of the Union), but to the church which is the only true ‘free’ society. In short, waging a war to reform other governments in hopes that it will bring peace is no hope at all.

Rust: Wow, you two are never ones to shy away from a strong opinion! And I do thank you both for your honesty and insightful comments. I tend to agree with your general assessment that Bush often comes perilously close to creating an idol out of democracy. Anyhow, I’m sure we could go on for hours discussing Bush’s 2005 proposals, but airtime on HIM isn’t cheap. The comments section is open so feel free to join the discussion!