Today was Ash Wednesday, inaugurating the Catholic season of Lent with the ritual laying on of ashes. It is a time of reflection and abstinence, as the solemn time of Easter approaches for Christians. However, it so happens this week there has occurred a minor set-to between the Reverand Jerry Falwell and the Jerusalem Post, regarding which Rev. Falwell released a statement this day.
The point of contention is the oft-debated one of whether members of the Jewish faith must convert to Christianity first, before being able to go to heaven. A front page column in the Jerusalem Post by an evangelical pastor and an orthodox rabbi had claimed to "have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity."
Falwell's statement today was a blunt, and categoric rejection of this claim, saying in part:
""While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.
"Dr. Hagee called me today and said he never made these statements to the Jerusalem Post or to anyone else. He assured me that he would immediately contact the Jerusalem Post and request a correction."
But it is not this rejection and clarification that really is pertinent to this writing. For purposes of this post, it doesn't matter which view one believes regarding salvation. Rather, the point of interest is what Falwell said next, for hidden in it is a factor that this blog has long considered crucial to understanding the current clash dubbed by some, `the culture wars'.
Falwell said this: " "In this age of political correctness and diversity, the traditional evangelical belief that salvation is available only through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is often portrayed as closed-minded and bigoted.
"But if one is to believe in Jesus Christ, he must believe in His words: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by Me' (John 14:6). I simply cannot alter my belief that Jesus is The Way to heaven, as He taught."
A straight-forward declaration of belief, itself hardly surprising. But the key is the phrase "in this age of political correctness and diversity" --- the traditional evangelical position (and a closely related Catholic one for that matter) that maintains that the way to salvation is through Christ is now painted as "closed-minded and bigoted."
Given the strong underpinnings and legacy of Judeo-Christian faith in the history and building of the United States, this shift in thinking continues to baffle and perplex, yay, even anger, many. However, it is submitted that a very basic collision of values underpins this whole debate, and whose pervasive presuppositions are often overlooked. This does not refer to the oft-cited clash of cultures of permissive vs discipline, liberal vs conservative, theists vs atheists, or even good vs evil. If it were just those, the lines would be more clear in their separation, somewhat less ambivalent confusion, and the divisions relatively unblended. But one encounters today several contradictory strands even among believers, regarding some of the apparent demands of scripture and tradition, and what it has to say about right and wrong. A good example is the portion of the Catholic vote that supports abortion rights. On its face, this seems an impossible contradiction. Another would be the Episcopalians ordaining of an openly gay bishop. What makes these signficant is they take place among the groups in question, not are an outside force imposing. How so then?
The reason is something of an elephant in the room: it has not been fully realized how much certain traditional beliefs and habits, no matter how well grounded they may have seemed, quite frankly now appear to contradict American ideals. This is because of the rise of Egalitarian ideals and frames of thought. Yet both liberal and conservative Americans generally (and rightly) see egalitarian views as noble and ideal, differing more on points of detail like whether outcome-based assessments should guide, or instead, emphasis be placed on opportunity and equal consideration. But they tend to agree on the ideal itself, that `sanctioned persecution and marginalization' -- tacit or overt, is not to be advocated or abided. It no longer seems rightly American to judge another's actions. This is carried to its most numbskull extreme by the apologists for foreign enemy actions in wartime, but is found throughout if one just listens and looks.
Enter the real force of several of today's hottest debates on the "values battlefield". The blunt truth is, that as stated and handed down, many religious views and beliefs, as they tend to be expressed, simply don't hesitate to condemn or censure certain behaviors. This is obvious. Its usually called morality in the overall sense. However of late, this same point has come into increasing conflict with the already pre-supposed ideal of Egalitarianism and equal protection. From gay marriage debates to the abortion controversy debacle, we see time and again traditional faith blocks crash headlong into the ideals that instinctively want to limit, reverse, or reject persecutorial or judgemental sounding paradigms.
The problem is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of certain postmodernist attitudes and opinions, which openly subscribe to the self-evident folly of holding all opinions and choices of equal value. Reducing things to a `point of view' perspective against which neither faith or even science can often make a reasoned argument. It needs to be emphasized, however, that as a paradigm, the concept of egalitarianism is not only good, but is what helped make America great. By upholding the dignity of individuals, it gave the necessary room to achieve and innovate that they demonstrably often are denied in more conformist systems of thought -- whether in theocracies like Iran or or super-statist regimes of social engineering like the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, or Communist Korea and China today. Such states tend to go for a one-size fits all, and overall collective at the expense of the rights or even opportunities of any `square pegs' of faith, capability, or orientation. For this reason, to be American is to have an `instinctive' favor toward Egalitarianism, and its correct to do so.
However, of late, the egalitarian concept has become distorted and twisted, to function more as a way to build walls around behavior or practices. The central egalitarian ideal, which drove and animated the nation's spiritual aspirations (in the conventional experience) in terms of "all men are created equal" has moved down that line to a form not far removed from `all choices, cultures and lifestyles are equal' --- and this is especially true if the aforementioned do not `harm another'. Naturally, carried to its extreme, this means any moral judgements or even criticisms not based on truly criminal and hostile behavior cannot be voiced, and that is exactly the trend we are seeing today.
It is proposed that such a `value-free' standard by nature, cannot easily co-exist with, and certainly can rarely agree or give sanction to, any moral judgements, especially those imposed by faith and tradition, which rampant egalitarianism and postmodernism both see as suspect. The basic point is that some of the angst of Christians and Jews in this country, and of theists in general, is driven by the fact they see the culture increasingly modified to accomodate and even normalize some of the most questionable practices in the name of `avoiding bigotry or judgementalism'. Yet what is not realized is that the confusion comes from the fact of failing to recognize that the American ideal has become Egalitarianism (with a strong dose of the work ethic and capitalism still central) and is no longer even paying much lip-service to religious values that are seen as judgemental, seen as not fully inclusive, for precisely the fact that they indeed are not.
Falwell's statement clashed with the built-in desire to believe all faiths are equal. And in some vast omniscient galactic sense, they might objectively be. But that is not the starting point of most doctrines of faith. To understand the current conflict that is growing (and even the war on Islamo-terrorism has some connection) between faith and secular, it helps to to first notice and admit that most religion, by its very dogma and nature, does not, and cannot embrace full egalitarianism. Christians in America need to realize that in some ways, they must choose --- not all or nothing, but *which* view to hold: biblical doctrine OR egalitarianism. America is no longer `a Judeo-Christian' nation in govt and intent (IMO, it indeed was at some time in the past, arguments of revisionists notwithstanding) , but more a secular hegemon. The real key is, things are similar to what they were in the time before Constantine's conversion in the Roman Empire, but when Christianity was a large and influential minority. The culture, the laws, were pagan. It fell to Christians to try to model a better way and witness with their lives and gospel. Not expecting the secular arm or values to reflect them.
When seen against this backdrop, clashes like Falwell's and the attempts to `drive God out of schools' that seem to be going on, make perfect sense, and even show a new way to relate to it. They are in fact attempts to remove any `judgements' that might make for an `unsafe mental' environment for - fill in blank. Because the truth is, yes much holy writ, whether scripture or doctrines, does make judgements and render verdicts on right and wrong. Since it does, it has become ironically less tolerable by the very `tolerate all' culture now extant. So set aside the lingering assumption about the character of the culture being Judeo-Christian (it isn't - especially in the legal and judicial realm), and stop expecting it to reflect those values, and thus mistaking `what's in vogue' for what should be. Failure to keep this distinction in mind is what really makes for the `slippery slope'. There have always been people who will make self-destructive choices; danger only arises when the majority loses sight of what is indeed, self-destructive. Christians and Jews (or any theists) who fail to see the change in paradigm emphasis that has taken place risk losing their distinctive message in attempts (by some) to mandate some legal conformity. Instead, model anew and witness to those values to move hearts as those in other pagan lands did and do.
Some musings pondered as the Lenten season begins.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Falwell makes the common evangelical mistake of interpreting John 14:6 to include the words “belief in” thereby changing it to “No one comes unto the Father but by belief in Me” and failing to realize that that’s a different statement than the biblical one. Of course, this is an inevitable outcome when private interpretation is paramount and one is allowed to read into a text.
Would Falwell admit he is in error in his interpretation of that passage? Why should he – is his opinion not as valid as anyone else’s, and does it mean nothing that the two oldest Christian traditions, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, disagree with him?
My purpose is not to engage in a discussion of the fallacies in a vein of Christian thought, but to demonstrate how such thought gives rise to egalitarianism and its unfortunate neighbor, relativism.
Egalitarianism, in its extremist form, proposes that we share in common human dignity, but we share nothing fundamental in common as a people believing in the same values, even though to arrive at the conclusion that we all share similar dignity came out of a sharing of similar values.
Let’s accept the following Western-biased summary to contain some truths: Judaism taught that there was a structure to the universe and a purpose in life: one of transformation of the world. Christianity added to this a transcendental element with its focus of union with the Divine, accomplished through the individual joining his/her divinely given gifts to the community. With Judeo-Christian emphasis on personal achievement and responsibility designed to enhance the life of the community and the adoption of the ancient Greek respect for reason and Roman respect for law, Western civilization flourished. Over many centuries, it kept its strength in part through its regard for its own relevance and its glances backwards to its core values.
Now we live in an age where many Westerners don’t recognize what the core values are and have disdain for the notion that we are the inheritors of a civilization whose most frequent intellectual and artistic contributors were the now-accursed “old white males,” much less that a number of its values arose from Judeo-Christianity.
Radical egalitarianism allows for a re-ordering of our civilization, a new kind of tribalism where we identify only with those who share the EXACT same views as we do and discard the rest, regardless of whether those views are informed or not. Nevermind that a tribal mentality formed by categorization of “things I am not, therefore I am…” is a regression, not a growth for civilization; the most damaging aspect currently is that there is competition for official government endorsement of all of these new “thought-tribes” (there’s clearly still strong support for that old Roman respect for law) manifest as outright protections or censures for a range of behaviors, as you argue. Where does this need for “official” endorsement arise from? Are we desperately trying to achieve the support of our tribe, having lost all sense of all we have in common? The word ‘tolerance’ is thrown around when what is really meant is ‘acceptance,’ but why should anyone care whether someone else ‘accepts’ him or her or not, as long as there is no harm? (Perhaps the psychological “harm” of non-acceptance is harm enough for some.)
Perhaps we recognize that to NOT be part of the group means to be sub-human at the same time as we rebel against any views that may restrict the various possibilities of human experience because of a distortion in our definition of freedom. The tensions between individual freedom and communal living have been there a long time and are now largely off balance, with the community existing to justify the individual too heavily weighted. Shoring up those common values through education seems to be the first line of attack.
Post a Comment