Rule of Law and Sin

In "A Tale of Two Moralities" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html) Paul Krugman writes: "Today’s GOP sees much of what the modern federal government does as illegitimate; today’s Democratic Party does not. When people talk about partisan differences, they often seem to be implying that these differences are petty, matters that could be resolved with a bit of good will. But what we’re talking about here is a fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government."

Krugman concludes: "We all want reconciliation, but the road to that goal begins with an agreement that our differences will be settled by the rule of law."

Civility alone will not yield a common morality. Because, as David Brooks reminds us: "Civility is the natural state for people who know how limited their own individual powers are and know, too, that they need the conversation." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14brooks.html). "The problem," as Brooks sees it, "is that over the past 40 years or so we have gone from a culture that reminds people of their own limitations to a culture that encourages people to think highly of themselves." Using theological language, Brooks asserts that "over the past few decades, people have lost a sense of their own sinfulness."

For guidance, he turns to Reinhold Niebuhr: "Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope. ... Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness."

A common morality that embraces the rule of law requires both an awareness of sin and faith in the power of love.