Cultural Renewal

I came across a pretty awesome lecture series (this one is the first of the series) given by Tim Keller, author of The Reason for God. He is discussing Christian Cultural Renewal and what it does and doesn't look like. The first eight minutes or so are great (It's all great, but the first section is devoted to how to respond to the critics of Christians who are trying to change culture). 

Everyone has a worldview. Every opinion, decision and action is informed by that world view. People that propose segregating one's world view into personal and public are imposing their world view on others. There is no escaping the subjectivity, and yet there is a strong expectation that people ought to do just that. Put aside your personal, religious beliefs—those should be kept private—this is a public concern.... and so on... education, politics, foreign relations, healthcare, etc.

Given that this is a tumultuous season—not just in the US with the elections, but also in the various economic, health, political crises taking place in the world—I have been thinking quite a bit about our role in the world. (Not sure if Canada has politicians? But most other places in the world do.)

Christianity has the unfortunate tendency to exclude itself from culture-making through social withdrawal and Reactionism. We try and legislate social norms for people we won't interact with, or people we disdain. For example, making abortion illegal won't solve the problem of abortion. The difficulty is created through restricting our actions to a voting platform so severely that we inhibit our ability to influence culture outside of the act of voting. Voting should not be the only time to brush up on the issues and make your voice heard. The vote is only one measure/opportunity of influence... possibly the weakest. It happens much more infrequently than the casual conversations at work, at home, etc.

For the record, if given the option, I would vote against abortion because I believe that we come alive, we are quickened, at the moment of conception. BUT.... abortion is legal, and will likely never be put up to a popular vote or repealed. So, outside of a voting circumstance, what are my responsibilities to the issue? What is the church's role? Is it to condemn people? Is it to be a constant overbearing, self-righteous reminder of how bad someone's life choices are? I doubt it very much. The people that Jesus strongly condemned were those people representing the law of God—Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. Everyone else was met with grace, forgiveness and redirection—education/encouragement on how to live. We can't just say, "well, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant." 

The Church needs to be actively asserting and reaffirming it's position on the importance and value of both mother and child. It, more than any other entity, needs to be the champion of women who are victims of not just rape and incest (these only account for less than 2% of abortions, btw, a very weak argument for abortion) but also for all the women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. There are thousands of reasons for this to be the case. But, I digress, this isn't about abortion.  

A friend and I recently uncovered just the tip of the iceberg regarding the gay marriage conversation. Again, given the option to vote, my worldview sees that relationship as an imperfect and/or distortion of the husband/wife ideal that God created. In fact, not only do I believe we were created that way, but that is the model relationship God uses to define his relationship with us—the bridegroom and the bride. There is a divine legacy in the genesis of the husband/wife relationship.  So, I vote from my worldview... but, does that mean that when the law passes (because surely it will pass in Washington!) that I abstain from any community where there are married gays? Do I protest? Do I degrade? Not if I'm interested in cultural renewal. Naturally, there would be some presumption of prejudice by the fact that I think one mode of living is better than another. But, that is the nature of all worldviews, I DO think one mode is better than the other. CS Lewis said, "There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there is never more than one." [source] But, again, this isn't about gay marriage either. 

I don't think we need to condone behaviors in order to gain acceptance. For me, a vote for something is interpreted as a tacit form of not just acceptance, but of endorsement, of approval. So, how do we communicate that we do not condone something while at the same time inviting people into community? It's easier to relabel some of these things to make the point. What if they are a smoker? I would never vote to allow smoking anywhere, and given the chance, I'd vote to ban it. Yet, I wouldn't infringe on a person's right to smoke (as long as its still legal for them to do so)... But, more importantly, I wouldn't "define" them by the act either. People are not so one-dimensional. Do I think smoking is more harmful than not smoking? Yes. So that's how I'd vote. But, how would I live? Besides not smoking, that is... Well, I'd live in such a way that the smoker would come to view me as an encouraging source of hope in their life—living with them, celebrating the wins and empathizing the losses. I don't need to judge them for smoking, nor do I need to endorse it. It is simply one variable difference (among many) that hopefully is overshadowed by the common ground we've established to build our relationship. 

Conclusion: My motto this year has been, and will continue to be: 

In Essentials, Unity.

In Nonessentials, Liberty.

In All Things, Charity. 

The biggest revelation I have had is that we (everyone) often mistake Nonessentials for Essentials. We all think everyone ought to think like us, and if they don't, they should keep that part of themselves closeted somewhere. What is essential is the restorative message of the Gospel. The message that our relationship with God has been restored and is there for the relating. 

Honoring life qualifies as an Essential belief. This is something that can't be negotiated. No one is disagreeing that life isn't sacred... just about when it begins. Abortion is either an issue of protecting, or taking, human life. But, I don't know that there is (in a proof-starved world) solid evidence to support either position. So, we are left with our worldviews. I believe life begins at conception, dissenting opinions/beliefs/choices still need to be handled with grace and charity. I'm not restricting a woman's right to choose unless I agree that it's just tissue in her body. I'm not killing a baby unless I agree it's alive. 

Gay marriage, while I believe it does have significant psychological impact on personal and social perspectives, has no bearing on the truth of the Gospel, nor on my understanding of salvation. It is a Nonessential. Therefore, I need to extend the Liberty to choose differently to others and do it charitably, graciously. I have the opportunity to voice my worldview through the vote, but that is not how I think the issue is to be won or lost. The voting is not the battleground. Who cares about a law if there is no one there to exercise it? Somewhere in the south (probably), it's illegal to drive a donkey-powered cart through the middle of town on November 7th. That law was put into place for a specific reason, but I'm sure it is no longer a divisive social issue, despite the law still living in the books.

This is a fallen world. Legislation isn't going to correct that.