How many kinds of wrong can we see in the news today?
Let’s start with wrong theology.
On Thursday Neumann, who is 47 and studied in the past to be a Pentecostal minister, said he thought God would heal his daughter.
“If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God,” he said. “I am not believing what he said he would do.”
Umm… No.
The next time you hear someone ask why you should bother with theology, whether it really matters… Just point them to this story.
Bad theology kills people. Based on the few paragraphs I’ve read, if I were on the jury, I’d have convicted this fellow.
At the same time, however, I’m deeply uncomfortable with this decision, because it highlights the farce that is the separation of Church and State.
In what way is this not a religious ruling?
Maybe, just maybe… the father was doing the best, the most responsible thing he could have for his daughter. Maybe he wasn’t being reckless, negligent or callous. Now I don’t think so, but the only reason I feel justified in saying that is that I believe his theology is bad. I’m willing to judge it.
I guess I’m saying, “His actions were reckless (all intent aside) because they were out of sync with who God is.”
And you know what? The justice system said essentially the same thing. Calling his actions reckless means making a decision – a judgment – on the nature of the God he was praying to. Maybe they thought that his God didn’t heal people. Maybe they thought his God didn’t exist. I don’t know.
But the point is, you can’t maintain a separation between church and state, because it isn’t there.
I know, I know, the ready made answer is that the state is perfectly separated from the church because the standing policy is that religious defences need not apply. Any of them. The jury weren’t really making a judgment on his God because they weren’t allowed to consider the possible existence of God.
That’s the principle of the separation of church and state.
But it’s wrong.
“Does God exist?” is a question the state is not allowed to ask. And this means the state no longer operates in the real world, because in the real world, it is a fair question.
But guess what? The state doesn’t exist. There are only people; and we can’t live outside the real world, no matter how much we pretend we can. It may be a useful facade; but a facade it remains.
Maybe it’s a generally a good thing that we’re not allowed to argue about God in a judicial context, but…
Doesn’t this story emphasize that arguing about God in a judicial context is sometimes relevant and/or necessary?
The U.S. have snuck arguing about God into just about ever political context imaginable, but they’ve had to do it under the covers every time, and sometimes it’s pretty ugly and pretty farcical.
Can’t we all just stop pretending and start talking?
You said “Does God exist?” is a question the state is not allowed to ask. And this means the state no longer operates in the real world, because in the real world, it is a fair question.
And theology, that doesn’t function well in the real world is salt without savour and we know what happens to it.
More than that, if theology doesn’t function in the real world, that seems to indicate that it’s broken somewhere
Of course, we always have to be careful in labeling things ‘broken’, because knowing what is really broken is difficult. Appearances can be deceiving.
In this case, however, I think the appearance is pretty indicting.
If you can’t look at the man’s heart, it’s a hard call. Maybe his lawyer is right:
‘Neumann’s lawyer said he had been convinced that his “faith healing” was working, and that he had committed no crime.’
For me it’s just a question of, “Was he negligent?”
I don’t think intent is a factor in negligence; I would say his heart is largely irrelevant.
I think what is at stake here is the true nature of God, which is the basis for his being either negligent or diligent as the case may be.
I just don’t see how the court can make a ruling on this without making it a ruling on the nature of God.