In the wake of such a socio-political tsunami, Christians would be wise to withdraw from shore, regroup, and carefully plan how to respond to the aftermath, rather than rush headlong into the tide, spouting choice prooftexts or joining in the chaos. Instead, they should reflect upon the Church's historical teachings and ponder the whole of Scripture; usually they will find that the "Christian solution" is equally multi-faceted.Does this speak to an axiom of inaction for Christianity? If this only a specific case where reflection is warranted, what are some that do not require it? Materially, there is nothing multi-faceted about the Christian solution: you will either participate in the celebrations out of patriotism, or choose not to out of apathy or disagreement. Even if sober reflection is an ideal to pursue, this seems a situation where it is difficult to implement.
With "Interpreting Walsh," I understand the figure-ground issue, interpreting some passages in light of others, but fail to understand how this puts infallibility at the center of the discussion. Is this an issue inherent in interpretation that cannot be escaped? By this I mean, are we forced to elevate certain passages as the ground of interpretation? If not, it seems the infallibility debate is between elevating certain passages and not elevating certain passages. If so, it seems we have a descriptive account of one way amongst many to worship god, one way to interpret the scriptures among many--which if I understand from previous discussions, is what sacraments can be understood as.
Finally, with the "Libertarianism" piece, I would like an elaboration on the kind of force it is wrong to initiate against others. Christianity would seem to have injunctions to exhort brethren, rebuke sin, kick out unrepentant, and otherwise initiate plenty of force and influence on the lives of others. Is this initiation against others purely a shared Pacifist understanding, then? Or is something else afoot?
You'll both have to forgive any novice misunderstandings, if this truly is to represent collaboration in spite of our various disciplinary backgrounds, such clarification will be part and parcel.
