The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it.
G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 1905
How often are Christians or Atheists or Buddhists unnecessarily offended by the mere mention of someone else's worldview? How often do we hear of the need for "pluralism" when so often that becomes a euphemism for elimating the Christian view in any conversation? How often must Americans be subjected to a secular and naturalist worldview in the television media and the public schools?
Remember that no one can escape their own worldview. Everyone has one. Insititutions have them too. So let's not pretend there's no such thing so that we can just go on having a conversation removed from religious or philosophical influences.
We have beliefs. All of us. Let's discuss them. For pete's sake, let's use our liberty to debate ideas in the public sphere.
Posts
2 comments:
While not directly replying to Dave's plea for the openness of our culture--those for and against open dialogue, each side often oversating the "problem" with the other--I did want to offer a suggestion for all who might read this and the writer, my friend Dave, on an excellent resource for this topic: Lesslie Newbigin and, in particular, his book, THE GOSPEL IN PLURALIST SOCIETY. Here's a taste:
“If this biblical interpretation of the human story, with its center in the double event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, is our clue, then it will follow that we are called neither to simple affirmation of human culture nor to a simple rejection of it. We are to cherish human culture as an area in which we live under God’s grace and are given daily new tokens of that grace. But we are called also to remember that we are part of the whole seamless texture of human culture which was shown on the day we call Good Friday, to be in murderous rebellion against the grace of God. We have to say both ‘God accepts human culture’ and also ‘God judges human culture.’ There will have to be room in the Christian life for the two attitudes which Von Hugel used to call the homely and the heroic. Christian discipleship can never be all homeliness nor all heroism…It is right for churches to be dissenting communities challenging accepted norms and structures. It is right also in other circumstances for the Church to be the church for the nation or the parish, the cherisher and sustainer of the ordinary work of the farmer, the judge, and the soldier. What is wrong is absolutizing one position against the other and the corresponding ex-communication of those who take the other role. What is needed is the discernment to know, from day-to-day and from issue to issue, when the one stance is appropriate and when the other."
Thanks, Dave, for throwing it out there...
Doug,
That is a perfect articulation of the Christian's role in culture and government. Thank you for sharing it. Another great resource oft-commended to me is the great Catholic writer, Richard Neuhaus and his book called, "The Naked Public Square."
Too often we settle for cliches. "What about the separation of church and state?!" or "You cannot legislate morality" or "I'm just gonna vote for the Christian."
We miss the important of dialogue about historical, philosophical, and religious positions, all of which have a place in the scope of public debate.
How ironic it is that those who most wish to include all ideas are the the ones who also censor the ones they dislike the most.
Post a Comment