INCLUDE_DATA

Dec

9

We are to be the Salt of the Earth!

Filed Under Uncategorized 

I believe in ecumenicism, that not all of the ontotheological beliefs that comprise our belief systems are fundamental and that we should be open to learning from others. As someone who roots himself in Swedish-Baptist-Pietism, I acknowledge that my spiritual ancestors in their poor, politically oppressed state did rely on others’ theological reflections to a great extent, such as the reformed theology of Calvin. But I need not commit to drawing on just that other tradition. I can even learn from Catholicism and draw from pre-Protestant-Catholic schism tradition/experience to assist me in my ongoing deliberation on the importance of Church-State relations as part of Christianity’s public witness to the world.

That is why I’d like to suggest taking Catholic Social Thought seriously. When I was in graduate school, studying the history of economic thought, my professor Warren Samuels remarked about how similar my views were to Catholic Social Thought(CST). He, as an agnostic jew, also paid Catholic Social Thought the compliment of saying that it was a valid way to answer the problem of order: the need to work out the tensions between order and freedom, hierarcy and equality, continuity and change. CST presumes that all the parties involved in a conflict have a valid interest and what is of primary importance is to work out solutions that allow the maintenance of the social relationships. Or, in other words, that will not create or sustain longstanding acrimony between the conflicting parties.

And so with that end in mind, I’d like to point to the Claretians as a source for us to learn from, including their Salt of the Earth publication.

I’ve got no time to comment on their actual articles, but I would like to draw more from their publications in future posts.

dlw

Comments

4 Responses to “We are to be the Salt of the Earth!”

  1. Anonymous on December 12th, 2004 12:30 am

    DLW:

    Have you in your travels happened upon Distributism, as an economic 3rd way (between Capitalism & Socialism)… good stuff. It seems to have gained traction in the great Catholic social renaissance in the early 20th century. (I’m sure many of your readers will know more about it than me…)

    A lot of us (Evangelicals) out here are taking Catholic Social Thought pretty seriously. So seriously, in fact, that I wonder if we still “look like” Evangelicals. I, for one, refuse to believe that true Evangelical “habits of thought” owe anything to the Republican party platform for the past 24 years… but, alas, it’s an uphill battle.

    BTW, I’ve lurked for a while. I greatly appreciate your perspective on a variety of topics. I’d quite like to compliment you on this idea of “detente in the culture war”. Not sure it’s original with you, but it’s a succinct way of saying something that is growing ever more needful.

    Cheers!
    Steve Nicoloso

  2. DLW on December 12th, 2004 9:50 am

    Thankyou Steve.

    No, I wasn’t familiar with Distributism. It sounds like a set of ideas that will be very relevant for the learning economy. Its also important to remember that the debate is not between Capitalism and Socialism , but rather what sort of Capitalism we want to have. If you compare the US, Germany and Japan, you see that there is room for considerably different approaches to Capitalism. The whole Capitalism-Socialism debate has not been especially productive given the tendency to use the categories invectively. It is more important to refocus debate as on the collective reformulation of the rules of the game.

    Its also important to remember that what it means to be an evangelical has always been contested. I give my def’n from Gary Dorrien’s history of evangelical theology here.

    Thankyou for the encouragement. The notion of Cultural Wars preexisted me and of course Detente was used in other settings. I can’t be 100% sure I’m the one that put them together for the first time, but I agree the combination is important and very relevant. Although, it can become over-used, which is why I’ve shifted recently to reducing the faith-based political acrimony.

    dlw

  3. Anonymous on December 12th, 2004 2:17 pm

    “It is more important to refocus [Capitalism-Socialism] debate as on the collective reformulation of the rules of the game.“

    I think that this one this Distributism does very well. It starts with a premise (Prime Directive) that wealth should maximally distributed to private individuals. This is a bit hard to swallow, obviously (for Capitalists AND Socialists), but it says a very Christian thing (IMO): that large wealth differences have an almost inexorable tendency to corrupt (whether that wealth is held by the state or by individuals). What we can do about this on a national scale? Heckifiknow…. but I can say that the principle is a major factor in how I vote….

    “Although, it [Detente in the Culture Wars] can become over-used, which is why I’ve shifted recently to reducing the faith-based political acrimony.“

    Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to… it’s the thot that counts ;-)

    Best regards,
    Steve Nicoloso

  4. DLW on December 12th, 2004 3:51 pm

    I don’t think it is wise on this side of eden to seek to ensure a completely homogenous distribution of wealth among individuals.

    I would recommend for you to look into and share with others about the Basic Income Guarantee idea that I have as part of my plan to depoliticize and prevent abortions. The BIG is a way to reduce income differences. We can continue to reduce wealth-differences by keeping the estate tax and guilting the wealthy into giving more of their wealth away on a regular basis.

    I also have some ideas in my party platform you might like to pass along information about to others.

    dlw

Leave a Reply