Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) — A legal battle over a tough Arizona immigration law appeared certain after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday that blocked the most controversial parts of the law a day before it was to take effect.

The injunction means that, at least for now, police are prevented from questioning people’s immigration status if there is reason to believe they are in the country illegally.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers or “for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work,” and a provision “authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person” if there is reason to believe that person might be subject to deportation. . . .

Other parts of the law will go into effect Thursday as passed. This includes a ban on so-called sanctuary cities, and the criminalization of hiring day laborers who are in the country illegally. The parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants also withstood the first legal test.

In reading about this judgment, the reactions have actually been predictable. The Tea Party people are upset that they cannot simply do anything they wish to do. The folks on the other side are lamenting that the whole law did not get overturned. But, there are some good analyses that point out that the decision actually upheld what each side believes.

The Tea Party claims that the Constitution must be enforced, and that any powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government belong to the States. Those who are in favor of massive changes in the Federal law insist that the States should not interfere in Federal responsibilities. And, that was precisely the ruling by the judge. Both sides actually won their point.

The parts of the Arizona law that were overturned by the judge were those parts that had to do with immigrants and enforcement of immigration law as relating to individuals. The ruling was that the Constitution specifically gives the area of immigrants and foreign policy directly to the Federal government. Therefore, all the provisions that had to do with stopping and checking (harassing brown-looking) individuals were overturned. But, a State does have the right to govern the industry within its borders. So, all the provisions that had to do with businesses were upheld. In other words, the ruling was based on a Constitutional interpretation of the balance of powers. It was, actually, a rather strict interpretation of the Constitution. What is given to the Federal government belongs to them. What is given to the States belongs to them. That is a strict Constitutional approach and we should not miss that.

But here is what may surprise you. According to the Washington Times, President Obama is actually on track to deport about 10% more people this year than President Bush did in 2008, an election year in which he was trying to garner support for Sen. McCain by enforcing immigration law. Of course neither Fox News nor Republican Congressmen have in any way admitted that. Rather, the constant drumbeat of the conservative media and congressmen is to openly say that he is not enforcing immigration policy. In fact, support among Latinos has fallen by nearly 20% since last year, largely as a result of the increase in deportations. So, why is this not being stated by the conservative media, or the Tea Party, or conservative Congressmen? Well, because as we saw in the recent Breibart affair, truth is the first casualty in politics.

Related posts:

1. Arizona, Gov. Brewer, and stereotypes
2. Xenophobia in Arizona
3. Jaime Escalante and the problem with Arizona

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Germany in the years immediately preceding World War II and into the beginning of the “Reich” was a terrible place. In fact, Europe was a terrible place during this time. Statism in both its left and right wing forms was winning the day. In every country in Europe and in the USA, racism and xenophobia were openly and strongly expressed, even by churchmen. In Germany out of that hellish cauldron came the Barmen Declaration and the Bethel Confession, the statements of Christians trying to live out their lives under horrific circumstances.

Recently I looked at the Barmen Declaration and gave my opinion that it reflects a “special” time in the life of the Church rather than the “normal” way in the Church relates to the government. However, since then I have been doing some thinking, and I will make a different point at the end of this post. But, on to the Bethel Confession.

Frankly, the Bethel Confession is a classical Protestant document with regards to the Church. It has a naïve view of the Reformation and a thoroughly Reformed view of history. That is to say, it does not believe that anything post-Apostolic can speak to us and can be a better way to express truth than the view of people who live 2,000 years later. Ultimately, the Bethel Confession follows the classical Protestant line of backing up its statements by disbelieving that the people living closest to the Apostles could possibly have correctly remembered the teachings of the Apostles. I will not post the counter arguments, as they are the classical counter arguments of the Orthodox as over against the Protestants.

Nevertheless, the Bethel Confession does make an interesting statement with which I mostly agree:

The national character of a church is limited by the content of the proclamation. Based on it alone, only by the church itself, can the manner and form of its entry into time be determined.

This is actually mostly correct. Sadly, the proclamation goes on to say:

Secular authority and church are both from God. They are separated from each other by insurmountable boundaries and yet dependent on each other.

The two statements are actually contradictory. First, nowhere in either Old or New Testament do you find the Church and the secular authority, “separated from each other by insurmountable boundaries.” Rather, the Old Testament prophet, the Old Testament priest, the Old Testament King, John the Baptist, Christ himself, Saints Peter, John, and Paul, and the hierarchs of the established Church are pictured as interacting with the State and even giving the State directions and yet being responsible citizens of the place in which the Church finds itself. I have already pointed out in previous posts how there was an interaction and interpenetration between the Church and the State that is more than simply speaking from one independent sphere to another independent sphere.

But, the Bethel Confession does speak accurately when it says that only by the Holy Spirit and the  Church, “can the manner and form of its entry into time be determined.” Uhm, but the Barmen Declaration does not actually mention the Holy Spirit, but rather mentions the Scriptures. What is correct is the explicit admission that the Church adjusts itself to the culture which it encounters in a particular place and at a particular time in order to make decisions about its particular practices.

That is, when I look at the Church in time, there appear to be a variety of ways of relating to the State. More than that, even the same Church in the same State can vary in its relational practices in accordance with the cultural time slot in which it finds itself. The principle is that there is no strict rule regarding how the Church ought to relate to the State. Rather, when the Church (or the Old Testament community) is unable to exert much influence it goes into a survival mode in which the preservation of the faith becomes of paramount importance. When the Church is able to fully express itself openly (Roman Empire, Nehemia, Ezra), it becomes a participant part of the State and takes up the role of being the conscience of the State.

In other words, there is no strict separation of Church and State, but rather the determination to be able to express the fullness of the Church (and the Gospel) as much as the Church is able to. When it is not able to, it becomes a secretive society which separates itself from the State. When it is able to, it becomes a partner with the State in the building of a culturally appropriate Christian expression.

In other words, my final thought is that there is no one doctrine of Church and State that can be stated as a propositional truth. Rather there are a set of behaviors that vary according to the openness of the State to an expression of Christian doctrine.

Related posts:

1. Bethel Confession, Barmen Declaration, and Christian duty
2. Government, Church, and relationships
3. Thanksgiving is for confession and giving thanks

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Yesterday evening the Air Force notified my brother-in-law and his wife that their son, our nephew, had been killed. At this point we do not know the details. We do know that the whole family is heart sore over the news. My brother-in-law and his wife have another son in the military. He is in the Navy. This is so typical of brothers, if one goes into one service, then the other has to go into another service.

As the regular readers of this blog know, our family has a strong tradition of service to their country. In part this is what gives me the freedom to post strong critiques of the government (federal, state, or local) at times or strong support of the government at times. Our family has “earned” the right to make our criticisms and give our compliments. My father-in-law was a “lifer” who served in Viet Nam; my wife’s uncle served in Viet Nam; I was drafted; another brother-in-law served over a decade in the Army, coming out as a Major; our son-in-law is currently in the military and has already served in Iraq, while his wife, our daughter, is currently a First Lieutenant in Iraq. All of us have served and are serving with honor.

Up until now, all of us have served and none of us has paid the ultimate price. But the thing about military service is that ultimately it is dangerous. Sometimes the price comes due in combat, sometimes during a training exercise, sometimes in an unexpected military accident. We do not know yet how our nephew has paid the price of honorable service. But, this we know, he served honorably and even while heart sore we are a family that continues to believe in service to our country.

President Kennedy had it right, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

From the Trisagion Prayers of Mercy:

O God of spirits and of all flesh, who hast trampled down death and made powerless the devil and given life to thy world: Do thou, thyself O Lord, give rest to the soul of thy departed servant Daniel, in a place of brightness, a place of verdure, a place of repose, whence all sickness, sorrow, and sighing have fled away. Pardon every sin which he hath committed, whether by word or deed or thought: for thou art good and lovest mankind, for there is no man who liveth and sinneth not, for thou only art without sin, and thy righteousness is to all eternity, and thy word is truth.

For thou art the Resurrection and the Life and the Repose of thy departed servant Daniel, O Christ our God, and unto thee we ascribe glory, together with thine unoriginate Father and thine all-holy and good and life-giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. . . .

May the immortal King, who hath dominion over the living and the dead, and who rose again from the dead, Christ our true God, through the intercessions of his all immaculate and all-blameless holy Mother; of the holy, glorious and all-laudable apostles; of our venerable forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; of the holy and righteous friend of Christ, Lazarus of four-days, and of all the saints, establish the soul of his servant, Daniel, departed this life, in the dwelling-place of the righteous, give him rest in the bosom of Abraham, and number him among the righteous, and have mercy on us, and save us, foreasmuch as he is good and loveth mankind.

May thy memory be eternal, O our ever-memorable brother who art worthy of blessedness.

Related posts:

1. On decisions and memories
2. On military science fiction
3. On honor among soldiers

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Father Orthoduck is on the road, so he is printing below parts of a post from Pithless Thoughts. Please do follow the link and read the full post. Father Ernesto hopes to be able to blog again tomorrow.

It is no secret to those who know me that I aspired to the priesthood for about 50 years of my life. For 30 of those years since I got fired from my one “full time ministry job” I’ve been a construction worker to put a lot of food on a large table under a large roof for a large family.  Since I became Orthodox almost a dozen years ago, I’ve been “THIS close” to being ordained a few times, but by God’s grace it hasn’t happened. Now I know… well, actually it’s more like “now I can admit”… why. [Snip by Father Orthoduck]

There are stories of men who were forcibly dragged to the altar and ordained. I have been forcibly dragged to my true altar. I now wear the vestments of my true priesthood willingly. These are the vestments of a true priest. These are the most difficult to wear because they have a hidden glory.

If a man will not wear these in peace, with joy, diligence and gratitude and offer himself to put bread on the altar of his family’s supper table, he is not fit to wear the gold vestments and offer the bread of the table of the Lord.

Oops, did Father Orthoduck leave out a bunch of important stuff in the middle?  I guess you will just have to read his post.

Related posts:

1. Speaking the truth in love — Pithless Thoughts
2. Some unpolished thoughts on the Middle East
3. Intersex medical thoughts

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As I have been posting the short series on government, I received the following question:

What are your thoughts on the Bethel Confession and the Barmen Declaration, Father?

First let me comment that if Dietrich Bonhoffer had been Orthodox, he would have probably been Saint Dietrich. There is no doubt that this was a man fully committed to serving the Lord Jesus Christ under terrible circumstances. I know that Karl Barth did much of the writing on the Barmen Declaration, but certainly its heart had to be Dietrich Bonhoffer.

Having said that, after 1945 the Barmen Declaration was critiqued, even within Lutheranism. For me there is an important sentence in the Barmen Declaration:

Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the interrelations of the Confessional Churches.

The Barmen Declaration was written at a time of special need and special trial. The Declaration itself states that the leaders of various of the confessions involved were in agreement with the “German Christian” movement, so that this ad-hoc group of leaders was forced to issue this declaration in opposition to both Church and State leaders.

In opposition to what was happening, these leaders make a ringing statement about the place of the Church and the State. Speaking 27 years after the death of Abraham Kuyper, they follow various of his points. Kuyper, as I mentioned earlier, foresaw the rise of statism and thought to neutralize its claims by positing the idea of sphere sovereignty. These leaders were writing after the worst had come true. Fascism was winning throughout Europe. Italy, Spain, and Germany had already fallen under its seductive philosophies. Stalinist Communism, the other face of statism, controlled the Soviet Union. Japan was under its own form of statism, built around ancient traditions of emperor worship and the shogunate. Both fascism and communism were making inroads in the United States. It was a bleak time for people of good will. It was 1934, and within five years World War II would begin. Two of its ringing statements were:

8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.

8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

When I read the above statements, I find myself in substantial agreement with the first one (8.23). But, I sigh at the second one, because so much depends on how the phrasing is interpreted. Moreover, the words about the “special commission” bear also some definition. A little more definition is found in the Bethel Confession that I will touch on tomorrow, God willing.

But, today I will say that part of the danger of confessions written in extreme times is that they are reacting against a particular set of problems that need to be dealt with. But, the solutions to the problems may actually be only applicable to the emergency. They may not actually be good statements of how things are supposed to function in the long run. To put it in a silly way, one may be able to use duct tape as a temporary fix for a particular problem, but generally only until one can do a permanent fix.

As over against “German Christianity” and the fascist Nazis who controlled both Church and State, the only solution for the Confessing Church was to declare their refusal to cooperate with either the State or with the Nazi-controlled church authorities. A similar situation existed in the Stalinist Soviet Union, where the official Church was under the coercive control of the communist State. In both cases, the only possibility was a strict policy of non-cooperation and outright opposition, and a ringing declaration that the Church could not and would not submit to a statist control that would force the Church to violate its own life-giving principles.

But, during more “normal” times, when the climate was either that of a godly State or of a State that was open to input from the Church, the relationship of Church and State can be and was quite different. For instance, look at the books of Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah, and Ezra for a State that would swing from “open to input” to hostile. Look at the relationships between State and Temple in Israel during various times and of Church and State in the Eastern Roman Empire after the Edict of Toleration by Constantine. There is a set of interrelationships and interpenetration that go against the Barmen Declaration.

===MORE TO COME===

Related posts:

1. Bethel Confession of the Confessing Church and government
2. Assorted news stories about Christian suffering
3. Orthodoxy, Bonhoffer, and cheap grace

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Father Orthoduck wishes that he had known that it was this easy years ago. It would have certainly saved him fasting, prayer, Bible study, etc.

But, there are definitely mornings  when the statement above sure seems like a true statement!

Related posts:

1. Morning people and monks

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Let’s recap, a lot of very conservative Americans have bought into a concept proposed by Abraham Kuyper at the beginning of the 20th century. That concept is that each facet of human life has its own “sphere of influence” within which it is sovereign and capable of acting without interference from other spheres of influence. While recognizing that there are areas of overlap, the theory is that while the government may overlap with the Church in some areas and with the family in others, and so on, there are parts of the “sphere” that are solely the domain of the State, or of the Church, or of the family, etc. Within those areas, the other “spheres” have no right to and ought not to interfere. I had also mentioned that one of the biggest criticisms of that theory is that it leads to a vertically stratified society. But, there are other criticisms.

Frankly, my personal strongest criticism is that it does not match either the actual Old Testament record nor the Christendom record. What do I mean? When you read the Old Testament, you do not really see sovereign spheres. Rather you see an interpenetration of all the areas of life by all the other areas of life. While there is no doubt that certain areas of life mainly are under the responsibility of the responsible party or parties, under certain circumstances, any area of life can speak into any other area of life. Thus a prophet can come to a king to accuse the king of a secular crime (Prophet Nathan and King David). A king can go to the temple and eat the bread of offering in certain circumstances (King David). A private individual may raise up an army to resist an invasion (Gideon). An individual may lead a rebellion against the legally established government, with the support of the prophets (both King David and King Jeroboam).

You see the same pattern in the post-Constantine world to this day. Justinian gave bishops the right to go inspect jails in order to ensure that the emperor’s dispositions regarding correct prisoner treatment were being kept. Emperors called Ecumenical Councils as needed and ensured the possibility of bishops traveling to that Council. In the Spanish New World, the archbishops, bishops, and priests often reported secular violations of civil rights, in particular, to the competent civil authorities. While many medieval hospitals were run by the Church, they were heavily underwritten by State money. To this day, Anglican vicars in England have the legal right to go into the State schools and walk around caring for the students and teaching religion there. In several other European (and South American) countries, the established church has rights viz a viz the State and the State provides partial support for Church projects. That is, this idea that is proposed that the Church has the responsibility for certain areas and that the State ought to keep out of them is simply not found as the common historical pattern in either the Old Testament or the established Church.

In times or areas in which the Church was not in a Christian country, one finds that the Church is much less involved in the type of works that are nowadays argued by the Religious Right as being part of the function of the Church. Even the quotes by one or two Romans about the amazing social works being performed by the Church had to do with how the Church in that locality was actually spending more than the State in social works. However, neither the Church of that time nor the State claimed that the Church should have the charge of social work. Rather, the Church, in its apologetic to the Roman Empire, even claimed that their works showed the lack of fulfillment of the responsibility of the State to care for its poor and needy. The Patriarchs of Constantinople more than once lambasted the State on the grounds that the Church was having to take care of part of the responsibility of the State to both provide for and defend the poor and the needy. NO argument is made that the Church has the sole responsibility for some of these areas.

In fact, the consistent witness of both the nation of Israel and the Church is that when there is a godly country, there is an interpenetration of the different areas of responsibility so that though there may be a responsible group, yet that group is not fully sovereign, but rather is part of a community (an economia) to which it is responsible. In times when there has not been a godly country, the Church simply does what it can in social areas and only insists that there are certain areas in which it must follow God. The exile books of Daniel and Nehemiah are good examples of what happens when God’s people are a non-controlling minority, so is Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans in chapter 13. In all cases, whether Israeli or New Testament, the believer is encouraged to be a godly law-abiding citizen, except in certain clearly defined areas where God must be obeyed rather than man, and there are not many of those areas. They are often limited to preaching, evangelizing, and personal holiness.

Therefore, the Religious Right argument about the government not having responsibility for certain social areas, and that those areas are the province of the Church is simply not found in the bulk of either Israeli or Church history. What is also not found is any claim by the Church that it can speak into the State, but that the State cannot speak into the Church. Yet, that is the claim of the bulk of the Religious Right. The claim is that the State may not say anything to the Church, may not tax the Church, may not require a group to formally register, etc., but that the Church can require the State to not allow civil unions, or to not sell alcohol, or to have Sunday blue laws, or to not allow certain books in school (or even public) libraries, etc. That is neither what historically has happened, nor it is actually Kuyper’s argument about spheres of sovereignty. It is rather an ugly hybrid of extreme right wing thinking and half of the Christendom model, the half which keeps the State from speaking into the Church while allowing the Church to force the State. So the State has its authority to do good (see Romans 13) wrested from it as well as its historic right to speak into the Church as much as the Church is allowed to speak into the State.

This is very convenient for the Religious Right, for it frees the Church from any responsibility to listen to the State, forbids the State from doing good, yet forces the State to be a partial arm of the Church. It is no wonder that so many Americans reject that model and fear that the Religious Right may indeed take this country back (not that they ever had it, which is a myth).

Related posts:

1. Bethel Confession of the Confessing Church and government
2. Church, State, and Kuyper’s Sphere Sovereignty
3. On healthcare and the Church

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A week ago, before all the computer problems started, a person made the following comment:

I also think there is a debate to be had regarding the form and function of institutions (Kuyper’s Sphere Sovereignty) – Church, State, Family, etc.

This comment fits nicely into the government series that I had started and was delayed by lightning. Of course, this makes one wonder whether there is an editor from on high that was concerned about my thoughts. 

OK, let me briefly explain what Kuyper’s Sphere Sovereignty is. An extremely gross oversimplification is that Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper of the Netherlands (b 1837 – d 1920) very strongly emphasized the Biblical phrase that each creature reproduces after its own kind and that each people was also meant to function that way, as was each area of life. He argued that each sphere of life (i.e. family, government, church, individual, country, agriculture, artistic expression, etc.) has its own area of competence within which it is sovereign, that is, it has the right to make decisions that should not be gainsaid by another sphere of life. One commentator says:

For instance, the different God-given norms for family life and economic life should be recognized, such that a family does not properly function like a business. Similarly, neither faith-institutions (e.g. churches) nor an institution of civil justice (i.e. the state) should seek totalitarian control, or any regulation of human activity outside their limited competence, respectively.

This idea has had a strong resonance in USA culture in particular. We love to talk about separation of Church and State, thus the idea of spheres that are sovereign in their area appeals superficially to many, even if they do not know from where the idea comes. But Kuyper has had many critics, I would argue that among them would be the Old Testament. Among the biggest criticism of Kuyper is that, as happened in the Netherlands, sphere sovereignty leads to a fragmentation of society, called pillarization in the Netherlands, in which each group has its own institutions such as schools, news media, hospitals, etc. As a result, the Netherlands is almost a confederacy that manifests, “a roughly tripartite ideological divide between Catholics, Protestants, and Humanists.”

I would point out that the British Muslim request that their groups be allowed to function under sharia law for certain issues is actually an application of sphere sovereignty in that they are arguing that within certain parameters the State should allow them to regulate their own internal life. Whenever you see a seminary in the USA (or elsewhere) arguing that they do not need State accreditation because they are a religious institution, they are arguing a form of sphere sovereignty. Of course, you are likely to find that you degree from one of those institutions is not likely to be recognized by anyone other than the small group that supports or agrees with that particular institution.

I pointed out the British Muslim example in order to point out that supporters of sphere sovereignty tend to agree with it only as long as they are using it to defend themselves. Thus, we cheer a Braveheart movie and speak eloquently about the right of the Scots to have their own currency and some of their own laws and even their own language. However, as with the British Muslim case, the moment another “sphere”, i.e. Muslims in Britain in this case, tries to argue that there are parts of their life in which they should be sovereign, suddenly we find many reasons why both the State and the Church should intervene to forbid them to express that sovereignty.

In the USA there have lately been to court decisions that should have gladdened the heart of every defender of the 10th Amendment and of sphere sovereignty, as they placed limits on the federal government. The reason that there is no rejoicing is because both of those decisions were decisions with which most conservatives do not agree. One federal judge struck down the Federal law that prohibited the federal government from paying benefits to domestic partners on the grounds that only the individual states have the legal right to define the legality of marriages and civil unions. Thus, the Federal government must now give full benefits to domestic partners in those states in which domestic partners have legal standing. Needless to say, this has quite shocked supporters of the 10th Amendment, who are against civil unions and who now must argue against all their previous arguments.

Kuyper was reacting against the old medieval Roman Catholic claim that the Church, through the Pope, had the right to speak decisively into every aspect of human life. He was also reacting against the statist claim that the State should have the right to speak decisively into every aspect of human life. Because many Protestants in the USA are so afraid of both Papism and statism, his solution looked wonderful.

But, that philosophy has many other problems, and one of the biggest ones is the Old Testament.

===MORE TO COME===

Related posts:

1. Government, Church, and relationships
2. Separating Church and State
3. Bethel Confession of the Confessing Church and government

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Well, here I am at Antiochian Village for the annual clergy symposium. I had to rebuild two computers and reload their software, then get in the car and dash up here for the symposium. However, here I have my laptop, so hopefully there will be an actual new post tomorrow.

Hello muddeh, hello faddeh,
Here I am at Antiochian Village.
What a trip it was, to get here.
But, at least I did not hit a deer.

When I got here, it was late out.
All the doors, kept me right out.
So I went to the local hotel.
And spent way too much money.

My brother clergy, are so nice.
I enjoyed seeing them all again.
But, it was tough to remember them.
They were all dressed in the same black.

Our hierarchs, are all here now.
So I must behave and play nice now.
Otherwise I may end up.
In Alaska with Saint Herman.

Related posts:

1. His Eminence Metropolitan PHILIP Announces the Establishment of the Convent of St. Thekla at Antiochian Village
2. Did you ever . . . .
3. Is there a place for tough love?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.