Faith, fundamental truths, and the political process

"We need separation of church and politics" declares columnist Anthony Westell in a CBC News Viewpoint posted at the CBC web site. He is concerned because evangelicals, though still "a minor factor" seem to be "growing rapidly." Why does that growth concern him?

People like US President George Bush show what can happen when evangelicals get into power.

Bush claims to be guided by Jesus when he makes political decisions, including, presumably, the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Such conviction is beyond debate, which is why I think that public declarations of faith should have no place in politics. Democracy is all about debate on policy, about the best way to define and solve problems and advance the public interest.

When there is no possibility of persuading an opponent who claims to know the will of God the process becomes pointless. Who can debate with God?

Unfortunately, there are more kinds of fundamentalists than Christian fundamentalists. For instance, in Canada, one could just as easily speak of Charter of Rights and Freedoms fundamentalists.

The Canadian Parliament is considering -- under pressure from a series of court decisions -- Bill C-38, a bill that would change the national definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of two adults.

Prime Minister Paul Martin and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler seem to regard this Bill C-38 regarding Same-Sex marriage as "beyond debate." Substantial questions remain regarding the Same-Sex marriage bill. Chief among them is whether there is a compromise possible that would preserve the civil rights of same-sex couples and the religious exercise rights of those who hold the historic Christian teaching on this subject. For months, Justice Minister Cotler had argued their bill protects religious freedom. Now he admits it does not.

But this does not matter. They (and other supporters of the bill) are certain the bill must pass in its current form. There is no need for further substantive discussion because no amendment is possible. This is the way it must be. They know the will of the Charter and the subject is not open for discussion. No other interpretation of the charter is possible. This is what must be done, no matter what the cost.

To paraphrase Westell, "when there is no possibility of persuading an opponent who claims to know the will of the Charter, the process becomes pointless.

Westell suggests "values derived from religion" are admissible to political debate. But those values alone can not decide a question.

The point is that faith alone cannot be a sufficient reason to demand that government permit this or forbid that. If there is to be useful debate there have to be practical arguments unrelated to religious belief.

Of course. "I believe it therefore you must do it" is no way to make political policy decisions -- no matter what kind of fundamentalist is making the demand. Politics is about persuasion and debate. It's about making honourable compromises and meeting people half way. It's about being willing to do what is possible, rather than stubbornly holding out for what is perfect.

And it's about discussion and debate. It's about an exchange of ideas, opinions, and evidences. And it depends on the free flow of information and perspectives in those debates. Only someone who is omniscient has no need to listen and learn. But it also means I should be willing to teach, to share, to explain. To borrow the phrase from Peter's letter, to be willing to give a reason for the hope I hold.

I believe the Christian faith offers the way to a truly abundant life. It shows the way to the true fulfillment of people's deepest desires. But I ought to be able to tell people how that works. I ought to have some reason to believe what I believe.

But if I have no reason to believe what I believe, not only should I not expect others to believe it, but I ought to think long and hard about whether I should believe it either.

Of course that applies to any faith. It applies to faiths that believe we must follow "God's word." And it applies to faiths that aren't sure whether there is any word from any God for us to follow. Every citizen deserves a hearing. No one should be silenced with a label like "godless heathen" or "hate-mongering fundamentalist." Those sorts of labels are just a form of demonizing. What a truly inclusive, democratic society needs is debating and discussing, not demonizing. By any side.

The best gift the church can give the culture

Continuing from the conclusion of my last post, "People may call it circling the wagons, but churches are strongest when they are who they were meant to be, a firm place to stand on the faith delivered to the saints," note this comment from Dale Price on his blog, "Dyspeptic Mutterings":

...the greatest risk to Catholic thought is to downplay, secularize or attempt to harmonize it with the zeitgeist....

And it's the greatest risk to the important role the Roman Catholic Church -- or any church -- has to play in society. The more a church is harmonized with its culture, the less relevant or important it is in its culture.

Many years ago, David Neff at Christianity Today challenged me with this historical insight: the churches which had the most influence on their cultures were those that focused on what made them unique and different from those cultures. Churches which focused on being part of a particular culture usually wound up being co-opted by that culture.

The church is, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 (NRSV) Its ministers should be seen, again according to the apostle, "as servants of Christ and stewards of God's mysteries." 1 Corinthians 4:1 (NRSV)

There are many good humanitarian things the church can do in society. And the church needs to do them, because we appreciate the value of each human life. But there are many institutions that can do the humanitarian things. So if the church falters in caring for people, it will hurt the church, but other civic and humanitarian groups can care for those needs.

A society that loudly echoes Pilate's question "what is truth?" needs the church to be the church. It needs the church to be the bulwark of the truth. And only the church can be the church. So if the church falters in being the bulwark of the truth, if the church falters in caring for the mysteries of the gospel, there is no one who can take up the task.

The best gift the church can give society is to be the church. To care in the name of Jesus Christ. To stand up and defend what is true. To proclaim faithfully the gospel of grace. It may not be popular, and it may not be welcomed. But this is the best service we can offer our culture.