(Or,  “The theological challenge of Wikileaks, part 2”)

The WikiLeaks issue in our country has brought to the fore,  for me,  how there is in operation a “theology” in the opinions expressed re: Wikileaks and the “security” vs “transparency” arguments.  Whether or not someone identifies their opinions as having a “theological” base,  they nevertheless do.  It varies as to what they call it; “principles”, “what is right”, “truth”,  or similar “ultimate” appeals.  Everyone has a “compass” that they tend to follow,  or aspire to follow.  So even atheists have a “theology”.  They resist the idea that there is a  God,  but they have a communally built system of principles or beliefs about what is right.  And sadly,  as I said in my earlier post,  come out with a “system” that is much more inline with my Christian theology than many self-professing Christians are expressing.

There is this disturbing inability to recognize the difference between “American values” and “Christian values”;  indeed,  have welded the two together so intricately that extraction seems to be impossible.  It seems they begin from Conservative,  and often right-wing political values and build and shape their Christian theology around that,  instead of the other way around.

The result is often that  political critique is taken as some kind  of theological heresy.  Or that some abstract notion of “national security” is considered more sacrosanct than whether or not the government is being straight with us.

So what bothers me is that there is little that I have seen from church related folks on this issue.  They have seemingly just ignored  it.  Or am  I missing something?  Isn’t it a GOOD thing that SOMEONE is trying hard,  at great risk from those who consider them “dangerous”,  to help us find out things we SHOULD have known about what our governments are doing (specifically here,  the USA).  Isn’t it important for us to know what our government is doing “in our name”.  Isn’t that somehow related to “security”;  to give us an opportunity to say “NO,  that’s not what we elected  these folks to do,  and NO,  we do NOT approve” ?

There are “good theologies” and “bad theologies”.  One cannot claim that all are “equal”.  Simply assigning the word “Theology” (literally “words about God” or “conversation about God”)  to a set of principles doesn’t necessarily give it a superior status or importance,  but what IS important to us IS our theology.  If we have adopted the priorities of certain economic principles/ideologies,  then that becomes a part of that conversation and outlook which makes up our theology.  We imprint that on  our understanding of Salvation History (the story of God’s dealings with humanity).

But there are different stories,  even within the community of those who say that their story IS God’s story,  or that they seek to let their story become consumed with God’s story.  And on the outside,  to those who say that their story and God’s do  not intersect,  there  is still that “spark” I can identify in those who never invoke God or the church,  that tells me there  is an operative force that seeks truth and community,  even though they may not call it “God”,  or REFUSE to call it God.  And in many cases,  given the conceptions they have about God,  mostly given to them by religious people,  I cannot blame them.  If that were my experience of God and Christians,  I may have chosen to ignore their “God”.

So there is a “theology” operative in athiests , agnostics, secular activists,  and many “Progressives” (“Progressives” are often a united form of resistance to entrenchments of status quo that block “Progress” in human flourishing.  So there are many Christians, Jews,  and Muslims that call themselves “Progressive” because they emphasize and work for those things which enable wider human flourishing).