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.

An echo of Henry Higgins: Why can't churches be more like us?

Remember the moment in My Fair Lady when Prof. Henry Higgins wonders with great frustration "why can't a woman be more like a man?" A recent column by Richard Amrhine in the Free Lance-Star posted at Fredericksburg.com sounded a little like that.

"Catholics don't rock the boat," the headline for Amrhine's article declared. After suggesting the election of Benedict XVI as pope presented Roman Catholic dissenters with a "love it or leave it" choice, he commented:

It is a curious position for any organization to take, especially one that thrives on expanding its ministry and increasing its numbers. But perhaps it sees a payoff in the long run--that those who adhere to church doctrine, and those who now join the flock knowing its direction, will make it an even stronger, if more compact, institution.

His column offered an alternative strategy for changing times: changing. Changing like his paper changed, for example, from afternoon to morning publication. The paper embraced the change,

...even if it meant sacrificing some longtime subscribers accustomed to receiving an afternoon newspaper. Some readers did say goodbye, but in the long run that decision is paying off with growing circulation numbers and a bright future.

But such a change is not likely to come in the Roman Catholic church, he laments. Instead, the church is intent on "pursuing its circle-the-wagons mentality to ward off even fellow Catholics with differing views." Rather than being open to dissent, he writes, the church "will instead remain true to its doctrine no matter what."

For Amrhine, doctrine seems to be just one of those details, very negotiable in the interests of broadening participation. Which completely misunderstands the place of doctrine in the church.

Amrhine's illustration of positive change involves an incidental detail. A paper published at 6 a.m. is not qualitatively different from a paper published at 4 p.m. Time of publication would dictate the exact details of items included, but not the nature of the paper itself. A comparable choice for a church would be the decision to hold worship at 9 or 11 a.m.

But what if the Free Lance-Star began to think more radically about bringing in more readers? Maybe devoting page six to celebrity gossip. People like to read that kind of thing. A regular lucky number contest would also generate some new interest in the community. People love those kinds of contests. Maybe a glamour shot on page 3. Cheesecake and beefcake photos are great draws, and surely nobody would have a problem so long as it was tasteful and artistic.

Of course, newspapers have limited news holes, so some features and analysis would have to be dropped to make room for the new features. But surely the trade off would be worth it if it brought more readers to the reporting that remained.

But the trade off begins to change the nature of the paper. Step by step, our imaginary makeover of the Free Lance-Star changes it from a serious newspaper into something like a supermarket tabloid. It may save the paper by bringing in more readers, but the process of change would have, to borrow the classic military phrase, destroyed the paper in order to save it.

Just as the true value of the newspaper is diminished by compromising the news hole, no matter how many people it brings in, so also the true value of the church is diminished by compromising its beliefs, no matter how many people that compromise brings in. Christians are members of "God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) A weak, shifting foundation is a sign to get out of a building, not rush into it.

And that is what has been happening. Those churches which have the most relaxed approach to doctrine, to truth and belief, are the churches that have suffered the most precipitous membership decline. On the other hand, those which have been stronger in their sense of confessional identity have had more stable membership.

Ironically, Amrhine offers evidence of this in his own column. He notes some information Pat Buchanan found in "a book titled Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II." For example, "in 1958, three in four American Catholics attended Mass on Sunday, but only one in four do so today."

But what was Vatican II but an attempt by church leaders to shake off some accumulated historical and traditional dust and become more relevant today? Why would someone expect the even greater compromises with culture Amrhine proposes to do anything other than push the church even further down that declining path?
Amrhine suggests,

Any church is at its best when it welcomes with open arms, then uses those arms to reach out and help others in need. ...

Whether it does this in the name of a particular God or not is not as important as that it is done in the name of love.

Which I guess means Amrhine finds churches most valuable when they're humanitarian organizations like the charities he supports. But that reduces the church to a social service agency with a few devotional thoughts thrown in. And it diminishes the thing that makes the church unique and valuable in society, its presence as "the pillar and foundation of truth."

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.

Law & Order examines law and grace

Law & Order offers stories "ripped from the headlines" and certainly unafraid of controversy. The episode that aired Wednesday, May 11, on NBC certainly deserved to provoke conversation. In it, the detectives reopened a nine-year-old cold murder case, and tracked down a promising suspect. And the accused admits to the crime and is prepared to literally throw himself on the mercy of the court. But, at the last minute, an outside group hires an attorney who tries to get the charges dropped.

He is a changed man, the lawyer argues; confronted with the horror of what he had done, he had a moral awakening and became a born again Christian. "O great," someone said, "another 'bash the Christians' show…"

That's how Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online took it. Kathy Shaidle linked to his article in a Friday, May 13, post at her "Relapsed Catholic" blog. She quotes Goldberg's description of the accused as someone

who, in shame and remorse, subsequently found Jesus and was born again. In the nine years since he dedicated himself to Christ, he has led an exemplary life. But his guilt is discovered, and he decides to confess and show true contrition.

Some of the leading characters in the show found this defense convenient at best. And it was an occasion for several cynical comments about "what's happening in this country right now." It did have its share of anti-Christian prejudice. But it also had lots more.

The character turned almost overnight from a self-absorbed upwardly-mobile urban professional to a simple-lifestyle model of community service. He left a high paying job to work at a community service agency. He became a faithful member of an inner city black church. From every measurable view, the man's repentance and reformation was genuine.

We call them correctional instutitions, one character says, and this man's life has been corrected; he's done more good for society in the last nine years on the outside than he could ever have done locked in prison. Perhaps, another character answers, but there are other reasons for prison than rehabilitation.
That's just the first and simplest issue the story raised.

Far more interesting to me was the complex interplay between finding forgiveness and facing consequences. Often Christians rather sloppily speak of being justified as meaning something like "just as if I'd never sinned." But we can never truly find that place. The sin happened, and there are consequences that abide. The accused never denied his guilt, nor tried to avoid facing the consequences. He never argued along the lines of "since Christ washed my guilt away and declared me innocent in his sight, the state of New York should do so as well."

Other people made the appeal to dismiss the charges on his behalf. People who had been touched by the love and compassion the accused had learned to show. People like the african american pastor who testified the gospel taught him to forgive those who repent -- even those who repent of a terrible hate crime.

And there is the father whose son was killed, who knows he should forgive, but just doesn't have it in him.

Any one of these themes opens up lots of avenues for serious faith discussions. No, this was far from just another "bash the Christians" show. The trial part, anyway, was actually was one of the better examinations of the questions of redemption, atonement, punishments, and justice that TV has done.