I wonder if writing in the dirt had some special significance to ancient people; I suppose it means “I don’t care what you’re up to” now too

Typical accounts of the history of theology note that the focus of theology dramatically shifted with the influence of Kant. Whereas theology was treated properly as the study of God, knowledge of whom we gain through his revelation, after Kant, especially with the Kantian theologian Schliermacher, theology becomes a subdivision of anthropology. It ceases to be the study of God, since in a Kantian epistemology true knowledge of the neumenal is beyond us, and thus theology is demoted to merely the study of man’s search for God.

Hancock’s critique of Christianity is really of Kant and Kant’s influence on Christianity, particularly it’s Liberal German variety first formulated by Schliermacher.

Doctrinal Christianity understands that Christian love is simply the expression of the spirit of God’s law and not at odds with his Law. In Kant, God’s law is unknowable, and so any notion of law is reletavized into “what’s true for you and what’s true for me.”

Doctrinal Christianity affirms the importance of civil order, it’s institutions and its laws as order enforcing instutions over man, as clearly formulated in Augustine’s treatment in City of God. With Kant, Christianity has no purchase on our civil institutions since everyone has their own Christianity.

Doctrinal Christianity doesn’t reletavize moral-political-authority but understands ethics as establishes in a clear teleology grounded in a moral order established by God in His creation. To the extent political institutions acknowledge and obey this order they will prosper, to the extent they fail to acknowledge it they will whither away. It’s true Christian’s are first and foremost citizens of the Kingdom of God and are, as it were, visitors of this temporary Kingdom, but our charter is to be salt and light in this world which entails political as well as personal obligations.

Kant on the otherhand imposes what is really a gnostic structure of religiosity, everyone has their own right to what they believe and how they want to believe it, but since it is all relative, it has no purchase on public affairs and so is properly limited to the transcendant having minimal application to moral-political reality.

I would recommend to Mr. Hancock that if he would like to better differentiate these two versions of Christianity he would do well to read J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism.

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Liberalism-John-Gresham-Machen/dp/1115666274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355238607&sr=8-1&keywords=Christianity+and+Liberalism

Machen was a 20th century Presbyterian who did battle in theological circles in American Presbyterian instutions which in his time were becoming increasingly dominated by this particular brand of Christianity. The book is a classic on its topic and would be worthwhile reading for any Christian or Commentator on Christianity.

*Disclaimer: Or did you mean that these are the essence of what most Americans perceive as Christianity? If I missed that point I’m happy to withdraw my comment and offer my total agreement.

And as Ralph knows better than anyone, as shown in his excellent book on Calvin’s politics, a key barrier to thinking that his statement conveys the essence of Christian moral practice, and especially that one should apply it directly to politics is that Christianity does have some political teachings. It gives a reason for the governing authorities holding a sword, and for leaving the things of Caesar to those authorities. These teachings turn out, as Ralph shows in his book, to be harder to apply than meets the eye, but still.

So, why is Ralph setting things up this way? That, Philip, is the question. A lot is going on in that “seems obvious” he slips in there.

And his stress (really over-emphasis) upon the way Christianity “relativizes” civic moralities is an interesting rhetorical choice also. I don’t like it, and Ralph knows that many wise people, especially from Thomistic traditions, such as Robert George, have plenty of reasons not to like such a formulation. C.S. Lewis wouldn’t like it either.

I for one, look forward to how he is going to develop this, and am very pleased to have Ralph again contributing his meaty philosophic posts to pomocon, if that is what this portends.

“The problem is, though, that, in relativizing political morality, Christianity is always at risk of undermining its own moral basis, and thus its own practical meaning. ”

Which, for me, raises the question I’ve been putting to my Democrat-Christian acquaintences: How can a “Christian” be a registered/card carrying member of the Democrat Party considering the Party’s position on abortion?

There is so much wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to begin. So, lets start at the beginning. The essence of Christianity is as you said, but is love God first, love others as self (Mt. 22:37). Having neglected the first command, everything else falls apart. You have essentially begun as a liberal and ended up confused.