| Becoming Caring Christian solutions to life's tough problems Programs of Family Life, Personal & Spiritual Growth, Study Skills, & Educational Enrichment 600 North 7th Street Crockett, TX 75835 |
| Valuing a Secular State |
Religious individuals live in the context of community, and communities (religious and secular) exist in the context of the state. What sort of state governs best and offers religious individuals and communities a positive role in creating a livable society? As the world shrinks through rapid travel, economic interdependence, and instantaneous communication, secular states (with certain rights guaranteed for citizens) will govern more effectively than ideological states.[56] Although I am concerned in this essay primarily with religious issues, I believe that democracy works better than other forms of government. Social chaos can be avoided when votes replace bombs. Economic policy works better in a society where people express opinions through elections. In addition, democracy becomes a kind of information system in which corrections in government policy, adjustments to economic conditions, and reconciling social issues are more easily made than in a repressive society.[57] The information system concept also bears on the epistemological question. In arriving at good government policy, feedback avoids the problems of isolation for the state as well as for the individual discussed earlier. A dictatorship, for example, places one leader (theoretically) in the decision-making position whereas a democracy encourages feedback. A theocracy also places a limited number of people in key positions. The religious elite in the theocracy receive feedback on a more limited scale, and the leaders make decisions dominated by ideology. In a later discussion, I will clarify the interaction of pragmatism and idealism. I am, of course, assuming the existence of civil rights, human rights, and religious freedom in such a secular constitutional democracy, using the constitution of the United States as my working model. We must also be aware that no constitution is more secure than the commitment of the military to uphold the constitution. The military in any secular constitutional democracy must be politically neutral, follow the orders of the elected government, and support the rulings of the courts. George Washington set the tone for America by not using the army to become King George following the Revolutionary War. Given my previous discussion on the differences in religious experiences and on the nature of religious institutions, religious freedom must be guaranteed in the constitution in order to avoid destructive conflict among adherents of different religions (and subgroups within different religions). Religious experience is private and personal by definition, but religious experience tends to be a powerful motivational force in the life of the individual. Thus, a state is wise when it allows passionate religious individuals to express their faith short of overthrowing the government or violating the rights of others. In the United States, freedom of speech is protected. If some religious institutions desire to become partisan political centers, they can do so by renouncing their tax-exempt status and operate under laws governing political organizations. However, once a religious institution becomes a political institution, the focus changes from God to political action, with religious leaders claiming a mandate from God. The epistemological question applies to all such pronouncements. Over time, the focus on the political agenda will become central, and God will become the public justification for ruthless political action, clouding the clear proclamation of the gospel. This is not the place for a detailed and technical discussion, but of course religious freedom and public good encounter gray areas. To point out complications, suppose a religion involves human sacrifice within its worship. The laws of a secular state would undoubtedly forbid that practice. In addition, the morality of individuals within a democracy will affect their votes, the laws they support, and the limits they place on law. In reality, the line between church and state will always be blurred and will consequently need constant redefinition. One current example of the unclear border between church and state involves the practitioners of Christian Science. Due to religious beliefs, parents may refuse medical treatment for a sick child. Courts have on occasion intervened and ordered treatment. Another example is the use of illegal drugs in some Native American worship ceremonies. Borderline areas will exist, but such issues are best sorted out in a democracy with a constitutional commitment to religious freedom. We need to remember that religious institutions (like any other institution) develop a survival instinct. Religious institutions are composed in part of sincerely religious people who see the institution as indispensable. These individuals have experienced an encounter with God closely linked to the institution. In Christian circles, a person may have experienced an encounter with God in worship or in some other institutional session. Another possibility is that a person encountered God outside the institution yet sees the institution as essential. In addition, religious institutions are also made up in part of some who were born into the religious institution, who understand God through the teachings of the institution, and who are thus committed to the preservation of the institution. A government remaining neutral (secular) in matters of religion promotes religious freedom while avoiding the quicksand of sectarian conflict. Because religious language and values are emotionally compelling, public debate is better carried on without religious language. Words like good and evil introduced into a political debate raise emotions to a fever pitch and preclude rational solutions. How can you negotiate with someone or with a group who is evil? Politicians who turn to religious language to incite support will find that they have released an evil genie they cannot put back in the bottle. For example, if I am running for mayor of Appleville, I should explain my vision for the public good. My motivation may be religious (i.e., in my time of prayer I may have experienced the Presence of God and the accompanying thought that I should run for mayor). I can enter the race believing (possibly correctly) that I have to do so as an act of faithful obedience to God as I understand God. However, for me to say "God told me so" is to end debate. The only possible response is "God did not tell you so." Put diplomatically, "You are mistaken." Less kind is "You are insane." Now the focus ceases to be on the issues. Now people are forced to decide on the truth of the proposition "God told me so." An issue of character replaces an issue of fact. The debate on character will run like this: If you are a good, spiritual person who is in touch with God, then you will vote for me as mayor of Appleville; if you don't vote for me as mayor of Appleville, then you must be spiritually depraved. A pseudo debate may give lip service to issues, but the real issue is spiritual enlightenment vs. spiritual depravity. However sincere my religious motivation, people have a right to hear me put my vision into words, present facts, and deal with issues. I may be sincerely motivated by religious experience, but I need to put into words what specific actions I will take and policies I will follow if elected. If a stove is hot, the stove is hot whether the person touching the stove is a theist or an atheist. Belief (or non-belief) in the teachings of a certain religion does not change the fact that the stove is hot. I firmly believe "all truth is God's truth." Thus a truth derived from scripture or religious experience should be able to be stated as a proposition and defended through logic or scientific evidence. If one has a religious experience that reveals that the stove is hot, the stove should prove to be hot in fact. The "slippery slope" argument is to be rejected categorically: If we do this then that might follow; if we do this we have started down a slippery slope. Such reasoning, if followed, would preclude any change in the status quo. Scarcely any advance in scientific knowledge has occurred without opposition from the Institutional Church using the slippery slope argument. All too often, the Institutional Church is conservative because the status quo favors the institution politically or economically (i.e., favors those who control the institution). My own personal philosophy of life might be described as existential pragmatic idealism. My existential concerns have already been spelled out in that each individual is inevitably caught up in his/her egocentric predicament (limited by cognitive patterns that determine perceptions). Furthermore, many concerns can only be understood within one's own existence. For example, empathy for the unemployed is different from the existence of the unemployed. Note the difference in the following statements: A child was killed in a car wreck; your child was killed in a car wreck. My idealism is drawn from Christianity, although I must also answer the epistemological question. Nonetheless, within my existence, I must decide. Not to decide is to decide. Each morning I must get out of bed and proceed through my day. My existential ideals will affect my judgment, the use of my time, my relationships, and how I spend my money. In matters of existence, suspending judgment is not an option. One of my existential ideals is the reality of sin. I am following here the New Testament concept of sin "as missing the mark." A person of good motive can aim at the bull's eye and miss. One can attempt to do the right thing (motive) and create unintended results. Sin (as missing the mark) is a given in human existence. The need for grace is another ideal that permeates my existence. Grace (God's unmerited love and favor) expressed in Christ allows us to deal with our sinful existence and accept forgiveness. We have some choice in our conscious motives and in our actions. We can choose to aim at the bull's eye (do the right thing). Fortunately, God judges the heart (our motives) rather than unintended consequences of our actions. If a child brings you a glass of water, trips, and spills the water on the floor, the motive is to do you a kindness. If a child brings you a glass of water, becomes angry, and throws the water on the floor, the motive is less noble. In each case, the water is on the floor. If I say to you that a man just cut open another man with a knife, you would probably be repulsed. If I told you that the man with the knife was a surgeon removing a cancerous growth, your reaction would change. The difference is in the motive of the man with the knife. We can try to do the right thing, but the truth is that the water all too often ends up on the floor. Only grace delivers us from despair. The ethic of love and the limits of law have already been discussed in depth. The ideal of love also is a part of my existence, guiding my decisions. The worth of each individual is also an ideal. I am aware that in a discussion of a draft of the European Constitution, the debate questioned mentioning God. Someone pointed out that God was a recent convert to human rights. In the light of Christianity in European history, a case can be made for such a view. However, as I read the New Testament, I find that Jesus dealt with individuals, treating the blind, the lame, the poor, and the widows as persons of worth. My ideals are my assumptions (presuppositions) that become the filter (cognitive pattern, lens) though which I perceive reality, thus affecting my values, my goals, and my daily approach to life. In my opinion, ideals are best served if they are recognized as ideals, put into words, and rationally considered. Subconscious ideals (assumptions, presuppositions of which one is not aware) nonetheless act as a filter, determine values, dictate goals, and trigger automatic actions without the benefit of rational considerations: Is it true? Will it work? What difference does it make? My pragmatism requires a more detailed explanation. One of the just criticisms of pragmatism is that, taken alone, almost any action can be considered to work. For example, if a rival is creating uncertainty and anxiety, murdering the person would remove the problem. Thus, pragmatism can be seen as immoral. However, carried a step further, laws against murder discourage murder as a solution, making us wonder if it will work in the long run (if we are caught), so one must consider the probabilities of being caught. To some individuals, no doubt, murder will seem to be a workable solution to removing a rival, and they will be willing to take the risk. The problem of pragmatism vs. morality is removed when one realizes that pragmatism and morality are two different factors in the existential equation. In other words, murder is wrong not merely because a law forbids murder, but because murder violates the ethic of love (Golden Rule). Simply put, would I want to be murdered? Most of us would say no, and if a person said yes, we would question the person's mental stability. Murder is ruled out, therefore, not because of pragmatism (it might conceivably work to solve a limited, specific, and short-range problem); murder is ruled out on the basis of morality (a violation of love as expressed in the Golden Rule). Consider the previous discussion in which I point out that empathy is the basis of all morality. In other words, our existence demands empathy. We are not concerned about questions of morality (ethics) as a pastime; questions of morality arise because no workable relationship or human community can function without empathy. As someone put the idea, we are indebted that every stranger we meet does not kill us. Put plainly, human life is not possible without cooperation among individuals, without trust among individuals, and without a community (which demands a level of trust in order to function). A law against murder trumps individual judgment because collective wisdom realizes that no society can function over time where murder is ignored. Consequently, pragmatism and morality are two different factors in the existential equation, and both pragmatism and morality are essential. Idealism removed from pragmatism leads to dangerous error. No matter how noble the ideal, one must ask the pragmatic question: Will it work? An ethic of love should also be a part of the decision. Pragmatism allows an interaction between two valid principles (free market economy AND ethic of love) while idealism alone (free market economy OR ethic of love) becomes either ruthless of unrealistic (i.e., will not work). Any ideology is doomed to fail if divorced from pragmatism. What precisely is pragmatism as I use the term? Pragmatism is a way of looking at the world and a way of approaching problems that incorporates to some extent the scientific mindset. The definition of "working" relates to the general scientific mindset: A proposition, if true, will produce an expected result. For example, if an economic theory works, then the economic policy produces the expected results. If not, the theory does not work and something is wrong, requiring further refinement or outright rejection. However, to continue to impose an economic ideal even when the evidence mounts that the expected effect is not forthcoming (it does not work) will lead to disaster. In addition, pragmatism cuts through redundant rationalism: If you are walking in the woods and a squirrel disappears behind a tree, did the squirrel go around the tree or behind the tree?[58] What difference does it make? If it does not make any difference, perhaps we are not talking about anything. In my theological studies, learning to ask pragmatic questions freed me from rationalizations about fine points of irrelevant details. I learned to ask what difference a belief makes to an individual. In many cases, the various points in question make no difference in how an individual deals with his/her existence. For example, is one predestined to be saved, or does one have freedom of the will? However important for theology, the individual must arise every morning and trust God. If he/she has been predestined to be saved, then the individual must trust God. If the individual must make decisions, then the individual must trust God for guidance, wisdom, and care. For the individual, questions of existence differ from questions of theology that entertain the Institutional Church. I have never been able to remain long focused on how many angels (or demons) can sit on the head of a pin. If it makes no difference for the individual in dealing with existence, then probably we are not talking about anything. Also, pragmatism allows us to focus on a problem, work through the problem, solve the problem, and move on to the next problem. If the car will not start, then we focus on the immediate problem of starting the car. Perhaps the solution is to telephone the garage to send a wrecker. Now we can move on to the problem of how we are to get to work. A problem is not a bad thing; a problem is limiting focus in order to bring intelligence and resources to bear on finding a solution. Although pragmatism must ask about the morality of the solution, pragmatism inevitably assumes an often unconscious idealism. If I were running a wrecker service, would I want to be paid? If I had a car that needed a wrecker service, would I want the wrecker driver to arrive in a timely manner and charge a fair price? The ethic of love (Golden Rule) is the ideal affecting my perception. Idealism, in the pragmatic sense I am using the term, always assumes a perfect state not necessarily in evidence. I expect my car to run. My car ought to/should run. If my car does not run, then something is wrong. I am discussing an existential, pragmatic idealism that must become conscious and rational in order to be most effective. By conscious and rationally determined idealism, I simply mean a goal, a vision of a perfect future. I want to make a million dollars and retire. I want to write a novel. I want my car to run. The ethic of love becomes the moral test for the conscious and rationally determined ideal. So how do I introduce a truth derived from my religion into a secular society? In a secular democracy with a constitution that guarantees religious freedom, human rights, and civil rights, I am free to use reason and evidence to support my religiously motivated views in public debate. "All truth is God's truth" in my opinion, so if my religious view (stated as a proposition) is correct, I should be able to find evidence and develop reasons that appeal to the public interest. If not, I still can practice my religious view without the state imposing on my individual freedom, or imposing on the freedom of my religious community (allowing for borderline issues). A secular democracy whose constitution includes human and civil rights as a basic ingredient and which guarantees religious freedom (defined as the state being neutral in matters of religion) has the ability to harness religious visions and passions to enrich life while demanding that evidence and reason (not religious dictums) be the language of public debate. Yet, even in a secular constitutional democracy with constitutional guarantees for human rights, civil rights, and religious freedom, a balance of power is the only way to ensure workable resolutions of conflict. Without a balance of power, we simply do not listen and take other opinions seriously. Whoever first wrote that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" got it right. Under the pressure of time and circumstance, we only listen when we must, and we only adjust our actions when others have power. Even an ethic of love is strengthened by a balance of power. Although I am concerned primarily about religion in this discussion, one should not exempt secular ideologies. The problem is not religion or religious institutions. The problem is idealism devoid of pragmatism and applied apart from the ethic of love. A secular ideology can be as ruthless, unethical, and destructive as any religious ideology. The writers of the Constitution of the United States saw the wisdom in creating a balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Granted, a constant struggle and redefinition takes place in determining and limiting the balance of power, but the concept is essential. The importance of a balance of power is not limited to branches of government, however. For a society to resolve conflicts, a balance of power is necessary among groups in society. Thus, a balance of power among business, government, labor, and other interest groups in a society means that we must listen and respect other views. Democracy helps create and adjust various balances of power among groups in society. Where power is concentrated, people grow deaf and ignore other points of view. In addition, all organizations and institutions function best if an internal balance of power is created, forcing cooperation and communication. Even in family life a balance of power improves communication and leads to the resolution of conflict. While small children need more directive guidance (some things cannot be explained to a five-year-old), older children need to be brought into the process of decision-making and the determination of family policy. If parents take such an approach, a child is taught to think, taught that authority is a functional concept, taught to see the value of discussion, and taught the value of cooperating with democratically arrived at policies. The fact is that a child becomes bigger, faster, smarter, and more mobile year by year. Parents cannot effectively discipline a child of sixteen in the same way they discipline a five-year-old. If the child ever decides that the parent is the enemy, then a power struggle begins that ends badly for everyone involved. Either the child is beaten down (and thus does not know how to function in the real world), or the child rebels (and acts irrationally and destructively). While the parent should never give up authority (the parent can always fall back on "because I said so"), there is a difference in authority and power. Many parents assume that authority equals power and are dismayed to find that their sixteen-year-old has considerable power if he/she decides to use it. I am speaking, of course, of American society. Many teenagers drive and many have their own automobiles. Even if a teenager has no automobile, once he/she walks out the door, a parent loses control. In American society, it is especially important to teach a child to think, to function independently, and to use good judgment. A balance of power between a husband and wife also leads to respect and conflict resolution. In my work, I am constantly bombarded by situations in which conflict has never been resolved. Couples who claim they have no conflicts only mean that they do not have heated arguments. An argument, if the conflict is truly resolved to the satisfaction of each partner, does no harm. The point is conflict resolution (i.e., that each partner is satisfied with the solution). Trouble occurs when either partner feels he/she has given in. Suddenly, someone wants out of the marriage because the load has become unbearable and resentment has mounted over the years. If either partner possesses a dominance of power (i.e., command of the finances, physical violence, emotional bullying, better debate skills, etc.), then conflict is not likely to be resolved. We simply will not take the time to listen, take time to understand, and take time to reach an agreement with our mate. All of us become impatient under pressure, and only if our mate has power equal to our own will we negotiate. Recently I ran across an article in which the psychologist actually used the term "balance of power" in referring to the best situation for resolving conflict in marriage, confirming a view I have long held. In addition, a balance of power among nations will lead to better conflict resolution. Homo sapiens are creatures of time and space, and Homo sapiens are territorial. Everything previously discussed deals with existence in time, but existence in space must also be included as a factor in the existential equation. Conflicts are about physical or psychological territory, about existence in space. We possess a sense of physical territory (my yard, my house, my room, and my car) that relates to our existence, and we possess a sense of psychological territory that relates to our existence. When we feel someone is butting into our business, we are offended because he/she is invading our sense of psychological space (territory). In fact, our sense of self is involved in our psychological sense of territory. When someone does work assigned to us, when someone without authority gives us an order, or someone intrudes upon our authority, we feel he/she is infringing on our psychological territory. The sense of psychological territory is neglected in conflict resolution, whether the issue is a question of authority on the job or a question of disputed land. We may be aware in general that a conflict between two ethnic groups is about the possession of land (physical territory), but we miss completely that the conflict is also about psychological space. Psychological territory (involving the sense of self) includes respect, security, and identity. Conflict at home over space in the bathroom may seem merely pragmatic. However, consider the conflict between siblings over personal space: He/she went into my room. A violated personal space arouses territorial rancor because of the sense of self and because of the symbolic meaning attached. We may forgive children for such an overreaction, but less forgivable are governments who react to a boundary violation by scrambling fighters, firing shots, and launching diplomatic protests. Conflicts among nations are conflicts about physical and psychological territory, rooted in part in biological history, cultural history, and the fact that two bodies cannot occupy the same physical space at the same moment. Once we understand the need for psychological territory, however, we can move beyond automatic, archaic reactions to more rational solutions. For example, we can stop seeing ethnic disputes as disputes over land (physical space) and include the need for psychological space in the proposed solution. Unless a proposed solution to any conflict at any level includes respect, security, and symbols of identity, the conflict will remain unresolved. Nations from time to time feel that they are favored (of God, history, and/or destiny) and should dominate others. Such a national outlook leads to violence. We live in a day in which war as an instrument of state policy is becoming ineffective. We can expect to see more nations go nuclear, and the use of nuclear weapons is not an option. In addition to the devastating suffering involved, the future of the environment on Spaceship Earth is at risk. Chemical and biological weapons carry the same unacceptable risks. In resolving international conflict, the United Nations is weakened by lack of an army to enforce any resolution, but that weakness is a positive rather than a negative. A United Nations with an army of its own (i.e., a world government) would concentrate power. The United Nations as a place for the peaceful negotiation of conflict is a much better solution. In much the same way, the Institutional Church (in a constitutional democracy with guaranteed rights and religious freedom) can become a place to call people of different viewpoints to the highest and best while focusing on God (Truth). Both the United Nations and the Institutional Church lose their unique function and identity when power trumps truth/Truth. Nations will continue to develop armaments, and if armaments are a deterrent to the use of force, so much the better. The problem with armaments, however, is that limited armaments are used in regional conflicts. Moreover, weapons of mass destruction will eventually be used, perhaps by accident. The international goal, therefore, should be to create a balance of power apart from weapons of mass destruction even though nations now tend to feel that only such weapons will give them the potential to create a balance of power. I know that I will be considered naive, but only an ethic of love (as defined in the Golden Rule) infused into relationships among nations can defuse the situation. Law has limits (as previously discussed), and the power to dominate (economically, culturally, religiously, or militarily) only leads to destructive conflict. Policies developed with attention to an ethic of love can create the trust necessary to create livable societies. However, unstable regimes and even human error must be factored into the equation, especially where weapons of mass destruction are concerned. A new factor in the equation is terrorist groups using weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist groups pose a risk to civilization (if not all life) by using human beings as the delivery system. Weapons of mass destruction so delivered do not invite immediate retaliation (as against a state launching an ICBM). Also, certain states may seek to use terrorists as a means of national policy, the terrorists being an untraceable delivery system. Such a nation may develop a nuclear, chemical, or biological capacity and simply empower terrorists against a mutual enemy. The real danger is that both the terrorist groups and rogue states may not fully appreciate the threat of the unleashed destruction to all life on the planet. Thus, they see weapons of mass destruction as a viable option. In any society, violent solutions relate to radical elements that either have little power or desire absolute power. Ideologies lead to war, for pragmatism is ruled out in the name of the core ideal. The ideology may be liberal or conservative, religious or secular. The fact is that a pure ideology must (by definition) purge dissent, rule out pragmatism, and seek to impose its ideal. Pragmatic Idealism will lead to workable solutions; pure Idealism, if successful, leads to a concentration of power that can only be maintained by repression. In conclusion, the search for truth proceeds by asking the right question, not by finding the right answer: Today's answer only leads to tomorrow's question. Certain questions emerge in a historical context in a society and are not likely to be repeated. Our forefathers answered the question, "How shall the government of the United States relate to religion?" They responded with an answer that has been interpreted as the separation of church and state, with the state remaining neutral in matters of religion.[59] The question has come to the fore again in our day. As long as the power elite in the United States was composed of Anglo Protestants, certain tensions did not arise between church and state. The Anglo Protestant dominant religion blended into the culture and into at least local government. When a wave of immigrants of Roman Catholic faith arrived, insecurity among the predominant Anglo Protestant population developed. Now the influx of people of non-Christian religions creates insecurity. I recently read an article that reported that if "none" were a religious category on questionnaires, "none" would be the fastest growing religion in America. The predominant Christianity is being challenged as never before, and the separation of church and state is being pressed to its logical conclusion, creating a backlash among the Anglo Protestant power elite whose power is increasingly declining. In pressing for a removal of the separation concept, the Anglo Protestant elite have yet to face how they will react to a Satanic cult receiving tax dollars to provide tutoring in a local public school. Perhaps the real goal is to establish Christianity (as defined by the government they control) as the state religion. Would one really argue that the Congress of the United States is a supremely moral institution because the sessions open with prayer? Would one really argue that a football team mumbling the Lord's Prayer as a meaningless mantra (barely understandable, certainly not prayed with a focus on God) is thus religious? Cultural Christianity produces empty churches (maintained by the state as little more than museums in many European countries). Constantine's glue has come unstuck. Constantine could use Christianity as the glue to hold his ungovernable Roman Empire together because all over the empire sincere believers already met to worship with a faith that empowered their lives. If one desires to quote the Old Testament as justification for a cultural Christianity, one should reread the Old Testament. The prophets often confronted cultural religion in which people performed religious rituals apart from sincere devotion and obedience to God. How often the prophets pointed out the difference between the mouth and the heart.[60] In my opinion, the current attempt to redefine the separation of church and state in such a way as to produce an official cultural Christianity is misguided. Cultural Christianity is no Christianity; faith cannot be forced upon a population; religious conflict among competing religions and among competing subgroups of religions will result from efforts to receive tax money, from efforts to use public institutions for sectarian purposes, and from efforts to curry favor with the administration in power; and the failure of evangelism cannot be remedied by top-down solutions in matters of religion any more than in any other area. You cannot have a Christian nation without Christians. For my part, I prefer a secular state neutral in matters of religion where I have the opportunity to share my faith and can seek to persuade others. If any state favors a particular religion, the result will be either a meaningless civil religion or a ruthless religious conflict. Once the state ceases to be neutral, religious institutions will squander resources on attempts to take over the government, will alienate segments of the population against their religion, and will simply become another special interest group with a political agenda. In my opinion, religious institutions and political institutions should remain separate, although religious people will, as a matter of applying faith to public policy, become involved in the secular political process. The political process is not well served in a democracy by introducing religious language into public debate, for such language polarizes the electorate along absolute terms in which compromise and negotiation are not an option. The evil genie of religious conflict, once released from the bottle, will not return to the bottle on command. __________________ [56] More about ideology later. [57] The above assumptions are based on a lifetime of general reading and reflect my deeply held opinions but are obviously not original with me. I am, unfortunately, unable to credit sources. [58] I seem to remember reading this illustration somewhere in the writings of William James, but I have been unable over the years to find the reference. [59] See Matthew 22:20-21 for a biblical basis of the concept. [60] See Isaiah 29:13, for example. Also, see Matthew 15:15. (C) 2004, Don Mize |