1. In every great tradition and in many indigenous religions,
too, certain values DO emerge that seem to go beyond anything
we might come up with on our own using our ordinary moral and
practical reasoning. Beyond mere justice, some would practice
mercy and not merely because it has often proven to be a
prudent strategy of good jurisprudence. Beyond the market
mechanics of supply and demand and prevailing work ethics,
some would practice compassion for the poor and not just
because it might otherwise be necessary to prevent thievery
and other societal ails born of resentment. Beyond the need to
defend oneself, some would even embrace nonviolence to the
point of martyrdom and not because they imagine that 72
virgins await their seduction. Beyond the universal norm of
doing unto others as we'd have them do unto us, some would
even go so far as to love their enemies, even doing good to
those who hate them and not because they fear the fires of
hell otherwise.
Now, some would dismiss such values as ideals expected to be
realized not now but in the future when the Kingdom has fully
unfolded (and so they call them "eschatological" ideals). But
doesn't that sound like a wimpy cop-out that Bill Maher and
his ilk would cynically characterize as a "lawyering" of the
Bible? Others have suggested that the Gospel's imperatives (do
this!) and injunctives (don't do that!) apply only to personal
vocations and were not intended for political statecraft. But
doesn't that sound oversimplified and doesn't it leave
Warren's question left begging: " ... wouldn't effectiveness
in one sphere carry over to the other?"
So, on one hand, sound Biblical exegesis is called for, which
is to say that the Bible must be carefully examined from both
literary and historical perspectives. On the other hand, is
there really that much ambiguity and nuance in such concepts
as mercy, compassion, nonviolence, forgiveness and love?
I have wrestled with these questions over the years and have
not fully resolved them to my satisfaction. My own spiritual
sensibilities lead to me to suggest that we do not really
ever want to say that such Gospel values are intended to be
realized either in the past or future but not NOW; or there,
in that aspect of our lives but not HERE! So, too, with
healings and signs and wonders! It seems to be too neat, too
facile and too much of a rationalization to suggest that we
live here or now under one so-called dispensation and there or
then under yet another. Instead, I like to imagine that, as
beautifully put by Max Ehrmann in the Desiderata: "...
whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is
unfolding as it should."
No doubt, as St. Paul observed, the whole creation and
ourselves are groaning every day in one great act of giving
birth. But there can also be no doubt that we are being lured
forward, mostly gently coaxed but occasionally more coercively
cajoled (or, we might even say, aggressively seduced), by the
Spirit, Who respects our freedom because it is so very
integral to authentic love. Often enough, we do enjoy what can
1

2. be called "proleptic" or anticipatory realizations of Kingdom
values, where we experience consolations, healings, signs,
wonders, mercy, compassion, forgiveness and love to a degree
that is extraordinarily FULL, even to an extent that we could
only describe as COMPLETE. And this should, at least, arouse
our sneaking suspicions? or gift us with that measure of
faith that is sufficient for the day?
Such Kingdom values, then, present in degrees of realization
and not as simple either-or realities. And why should we not
expect to realize their efficacies, as Warren asked, in one
sphere as well as the other? So, I believe that it is a
fitting aspiration to desire (again, in Warren's words) an
"affirming, freedom enhancing polity." But I would not
characterize that particular value as one that goes beyond
anything we might come up with on our own using our ordinary
moral and practical reasoning. But those were not your only
words, Warren. You also invoked some that do clearly go beyond
the simple demands of justice when you expressed an interest
in what "love" would look like "in a civil government."
And I want to say that love could, in theory, make its way
into a civil government in varying degrees. Further, we can
recognize that the government optimally exists as an
expression of the will of (hopefully, most of) the people and
is constrained by certain checks and balances to limit the
degree of its coercive influence precisely because coercion
runs at cross purposes with freedom, itself. To the extent,
then, that a government is ever to a very significant degree
expressing the will of a substantial supermajority of its
people in a way that goes beyond the simple demands of justice
and the essential task of maintaining the public order in
order to effect what are clearly Gospel-informed values like
mercy, compassion, forgiveness and love ... ... well ... ...
that government would be on the verge of putting itself out
of business because there would be little need for coercion in
such an ideal situation. We would still have social and
cultural and other institutions because Homo sapiens is a
radically social animal but these institutions would operate
on a wholly voluntary basis (conforming with subsidiarity
principles, which state that higher levels should never
unnecessarily coopt the prerogatives of lower levels) with no
need of coercive governance. So, as Floyd pointed out, the
Myth's premise is that dark influences make a govt fully
informed by Gospel values impossible. The way I would frame
it is that our radical human finitude, fallibility and
sinfulness are what make a government necessary in the first
place and that, absent those, we would not need or desire
this "necessary evil" called government because, otherwise,
coercion is not a value we would ever choose to place in
competition with freedom.
The more we would become able to express love through any
given civil government, the less we could justify that
government's existence.
2