THE PROPHETIC
RAMROD
By
Robert M. Price
(Author's Response)
I was very gratified at the response to my recent
article "A Fundamentalist Social Gospel?” even though every letter was
negative! This really wasn't too surprising since mine was the sort of
piece that is liable to hit a nerve. On the whole, I noted that
respondents did not attempt to challenge my main contention, that Young
Evangelicals often unwittingly read their politics into the Bible, or
alternatively apply biblical commands in politically unrealistic ways.
Of course I have not claimed that all Young Evangelicals engage in such
"hermeneutical ventriloquism" and "political snake handling,” or that
any of them do it all the time.
Some objected to the admittedly charged terms used
in the article and again just above. Well, sensibilities will differ,
but personally I like to have a little fun when I write, and I think
picturesque terminology helps to drive any point home. But I want to go
on to some of the more serious criticisms in the recent crop of letters.
First, let me point out that I do not mean
to paint the Young Evangelicals as either fools or villains. I wish them
well. In fact I see in them the only hope for the future of
Evangelicalism as an intellectually respectable force. I’d even be
willing to add that "some of my best friends are Young Evangelicals,” if
it didn1t sound so cliché!
A related misunderstanding needs to be clarified.
While I am not impressed, at least, not positively, by their strategy, I
do admire the Young Evangelicals' goal of politicization. Some
respondents seemed to think that I scorn the notion of making faith
socially relevant, or that I deny that the advent of Jesus makes any
difference for life today. Far from it. But it seems to me that for
someone to draw such conclusions from my critique of the Young
Evangelical platform, shows the very "intolerance for pluralism" of
which I am accused. Is the Sojourners option the only one? But
now we are getting to some real issues. What is my alternative?
Justifiably some readers wanted to know.
Incidentally, I am about to prove that I do not
have anything against unpopular theological perspectives per se.
Not only do I commit the sin of finding cogent the "interim ethic"
theory of Albert Schweitzer (and more recently Jack T. Sanders), but I
now have to admit to agreeing with Friedrich Schleiermacher that
religion and ethics are logically distinct, and should be kept so. Both
are necessary, but neither can substitute for the other. This means that
I feel it is fundamentally inappropriate to settle political questions
on the basis of revelation or exegesis. I regard such a maneuver as
"fundamentalist" (or as one perceptive respondent suggested "biblicistic")
no matter who does it, whether Yoder, Stringfellow, Wallis, Carl
McIntyre, Jerry Falwell, or Ayatollah Khomeini. Instead, I agree with
Jose Miguez Bonino (at least on .this point) that "there is therefore no
sacralization of an ideology, no desire to 'theologize' sociological,
economic, or political categories. We move totally and solely in the
area of human rationality - in the realm where God has invited man to be
on his own" [Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation;
emphasis his] In other words, with Harvey Cox, I call for the "desacralization
of politics." We must resist imposing the heteronomous dictates of a
"sacred scripture" onto the political realm. (Scripture, I feel, has a
much different function. "Man, who made me a judge or an arbiter between
you?" Luke 12:14.)
How then are we to calculate politically?
Personally, I would recommend some variety of Natural Law ethics. You
see, I am afraid of the implicit arrogance of what passes nowadays for
"prophetic" politics. It sounds like "God is on our side" all over
again. Let me take a few moments to develop this. When someone thinks it
over and announces that "so-and-so political stance is God's will" (for
example, no-nukism, according to Sojourners), they are
perpetrating what I like to call the old "prophetic ramrod." Who is
going to disagree with God? But I am not so sure that such an individual
has a more direct hot-line to heaven than I do. I am willing to admit
that my political analyses are merely human and probabilistic, but is my
"prophetic" friend so willing? His/her opinions are no more infallible
ex cathedra than mine or Jane Fonda's or William F. Buckley's.
Why can't he/she admit it? This virtual claim to prophethood shields
such people from criticism in another way. Those who take such a line
are not liable to be prodded by criticism into rethinking and
rechecking. .It is too easy to assure oneself that "prophets are always
in the minority, naturally most people are going to disagree!” Of
course, it is quite true that upholders of the right often do form a
"majority of one." I am not advocating truth by majority vote here. I
only want to point out a serious temptation to dismiss all criticism out
of hand.
Along the same lines, a couple of letters invoked
the Pauline dialectic "divine wisdom/worldly foolishness." "For the
foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God
is stronger than man's strength." "But God chose the foolish things of
the world to shame the wise.” (1 Corinthians 1:25, 27a). Of late, this
slogan has been invoked to justify various unpopular positions, rejected
by the evil "mainstream" as imprudent or impractical. I want to caution
user s of this rationale. You can pretty much prove anything you want
(and several things you wouldn't want) with it. Once it becomes a virtue
on principle to do what most people think is foolish, we are in
big trouble. The Apostle Paul was referring to the particular instance
of the crucified Christ. In this case he had good reason for
saying that what seemed foolishness to the world turned out to be God's
wisdom.
In conclusion, I want to repeat that I hope my
observations will be constructive. One might see fit to adopt my own
approach (though I am not asking anyone to do so), or one might continue
to try to relate scripture to politics in a more direct way. It seems
most probable to me that Young Evangelicals will choose the latter
course. In my original article I referred to the extensive rethinking of
hermeneutics now occurring in their circles. I would be greatly pleased
if my observations have helped clarify things so as to facilitate this
process.