AKMA posted today on being irked at WH Spokesman Tony Fratto’s comment: “Every day this Congress gets a little more out of control”.
AKMA recalls what he learned in grade school :
in the U.S.A. the three branches of government function to limit one another’s powers. Congress being “out of control†is a good thing for U.S. democracy — I would have thought.
What intrigued me about this post is how it began:
I try to keep my mouth shut about the U.S. government, but…..
My question is “Why? Isn’t it a blog you have here, and isn’t it part of the nature of blogs to be somewhat ‘stream of consciousness'”
One answer to that question: “Isn’t it the nature of blogs to be ‘whatever you want it to be’?…….in which case, restraint is permissible. After all, AKMA is probably one most supremely qualified to blog theologically, since he is one of the world’s most experienced theological bloggers.
But it raises for me something I often feel myself complaining about (sometimes only internally, sometimes externally on my blog): There seems to be a “disinclination” to blog about things which concern us about our government, as if we’re afraid that perhaps we might get lumped in with “progressives” or something, or that we might get unduly associated with the idea that much of consequence can be ultimately achieved by “political involvement” where that involvement lies pretty squarely within the bounds of the “rules of discourse for the public square” or some such boundaries.
I’ve had this issue lingering in my thoughts a lot , probably most since 11/4/04, when I determined to blog more theological/ecclesially and less “politically”. I have posted a bit more (er….a lot more) lately (since Memorial Day) on stuff about Bush and company, and I don’t usually qualify it with a “I try to steer clear of this kind of stuff, but……..”* well, that’s not quite true, I often feel a desire to self-edit/censor such posts (my un-published drafts have grown in number: ie., things I have posted to draft with a “Blog-this” feature for later comment and publishing is a testimony to the increase of such self-reflective censoring)……and sometimes I have written a “qualifier” or “semi-apology” for my rant, acknowledging or claiming to “be aware” of how little confidence I have in any purely political solutions (political in the “progressive politics” sense……anyway, it’s thing I find myself going back and forth on……and the compromise I make here is to just let it go; let it all hang out.
* Far from this being a “complaint” about AKMA or any bloggers who show such inclinaitons or “dis-inclinations”, it is more of a “Sometimes I miss the sense of having a shared concern which is instilled from the same source: from a shared commitment to the Church as a people who are to live as People of God; in a “peaceable Kingdom”. The opportunities to find such shared, articulated concerns makes it all the more important to me to have a surrogate community online, as insufficient as this is.
This is NOT meant to be any kind of a call to others to “break through” their reticence to voice concern about The U.S. government. I guess the only reason I say anything is to say that I feel as if this act separates me at times from BOTH sides (my Progressive friends AND my friends who want to, or just naturally, “restrain” themselves from such matters).
How do we as Christians perceive the phrase “We the People”? Which “People”? We view our citizenship differently; indeed, the primary citizenship is to the “called apart” People. I should perhaps devote myself to more Yoder, where I might find further insight into this (I even have a small volume written by him called The Christian Witness To The State)
When I read “We the People” I think that it actually means “We the Peephole” and that it is just misspelled.