Legislating Morality/Faith
Revisiting and updating a blog from January 8, 2020: “We live in a globalized world where partly overlapping and partly contradictory visions of flourishing life coexist in the same public space.”[1] (Emphases mine)
If the above quote accurately
describes the reality out of which today’s social interaction emerges (and I
believe it does), then the choices and challenges are clear.
1. We can choose to do nothing: continue living in a
pluralistic environment in which some are comfortable, some are uncomfortable
and impoverished, and some are fearful because they can neither tolerate nor
control the differences.
2. We can choose the fight/flight response: declare our vision
of flourishing life as the only right vision and demand that everyone else
agree and conform. If there is resistance, we can choose either to fight to
inflict our vision on everyone else, or we can retreat from society and
congratulate one another that we’re the only ones who are right.
3. We can raise the reality to a new level: we can enter
conversation with these “partly overlapping and partly
contradictory” visions. Conversation! Not
verbal war to be won or lost! Not verbal attacks! Not juvenile
name-calling! Conversation! Genuine dialogue in which I
listen respectfully while you speak, and you listen respectfully while I speak—not
to win an argument but to understand each other. Agreement may not be possible;
indeed, in today's belligerent culture it's unlikely. But genuine dialogue with
true and active listening can lead to mutual understanding that can lead to
mutual trust.
It is more than evident that our
current socio/political/religious intolerance of difference is not working. It
is not producing a society of peace for anyone and there seems to be little
intention of working together to create such a society. The general approach
appears to be “there can be no peace unless my side wins.”
While humans may never be totally
reconciled or united; nevertheless, the Christian faith is that “God has, in
Christ, reconciled the world to God's self, and has called all God's people to
join the work of reconciliation.”[2] If
God is reconciled to the world, and if we are reconciled with God, then we also
are reconciled with each other. Our lack of reconciliation—at whatever
level—is evidence of incomplete reconciliation with God.
The option of raising present reality
to a new level through respectful dialogue provides perhaps the
only context in which any level of resolution and/or reconciliation
can happen.
One counselling model calls this
context the “no-problem area” of human relationships. In education it’s called
the “teachable moment.” A teacher may work all day (administrative, legislative,
and parental intrusions notwithstanding) to produce a five-minute window of
eyes widened in wonder, brows furrowed in contemplation of new understandings.
It is the only context of human relationships in which effective teaching,
learning, playing, productivity, growing, and loving can happen; otherwise, the
accepted focus is conflict.
It’s a starting place. Even if we
assume ours is the only valid vision of flourishing life, and even if we feel
compelled and led to establish our vision as the basis and norm for all human
society, this third option is the only context in which there is any hope of moving
off dead center. Current strategy isn’t working and in the current adversarial atmosphere,
where fear and mistrust dominate, none of the desirable ends described above
can emerge. EVER!
Focusing strictly on Christianity, one
reason the church has declined in the last seven decades is that evangelism and
witness grew increasingly confrontational and coercive—even to the point of
attempting to inflict sectarian morality and doctrine through legislation, despite
the fact that coercion or legislation of any specific faith model is
counterproductive to the values and teachings of Jesus, not to mention it is
forbidden by the 1st amendment of the Constitution.
While confrontation or legislation with
punitive consequences may in some instances generate conformity to a specific
standard of behavior, it rarely, if ever, creates a change of values or a
change of heart. The more likely fruit of confrontation and coercion is
resentment, anger, retaliation, and revenge.
Most certainly, moral and ethical
norms are valid and necessary within the Christian faith; indeed, Jesus set
clear standards for human interaction. But there are effective ways,
ineffective ways and counterproductive ways to present our testimony and
address differences in articulating and applying those standards. Too many in
the church have been and continue to be counterproductive in addressing those
differences.
To be fair, there is merit to the
evangelical critique that progressives too frequently represent (intentionally
or unintentionally) a moral anomie in which “anything goes.” On the other hand,
evangelical Christians increasingly turn away from the ethics of Jesus and toward
and ends-justify-the-means ethic that replaces witness with (attempted) control.
In an NPR interview, former Southern
Baptist pastor and denominational leader, Russell Moore, described how conservative
pastors are receiving serious pushback when they preach about the ethics and
values of Jesus.
For example, one pastor preached
Jesus’ admonition to turn the other cheek and love your enemy, and afterward an
angry parishioner raged, “Where’d you get all those liberal talking points?” When
the pastor replied, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus from the Gospels,’ the
response was, “Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak.”
Moore concluded, “When the teachings
of Jesus are seen as subversive, we’re in a crisis.”
I believe much of the church is in
crisis, not only regarding the content of the various Christian expressions
(too much ethics/not enough ethics) but also the unwillingness to respect any faith
that differs. In too many cases the issue is control rather than witness;
enforcement rather than invitation.
Instead of coercive pontifications, we
are called to “lift up Christ,” trusting that it is Christ, and not our doctrines
about him[3], that
will draw all people to him. [NOTE: “To Him,” not to the
church, per se.]
“The problem is, many of the people in need of saving are
in churches, and at least part of what they need saving from is the idea that
God sees the world in the same way they do.” ~ Barbara Brown Taylor
That’s how it looks through the Flawed
Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
Comments
Post a Comment