The Evangelical Outpost is having a symposium asking about Judeo-Christian morality in an ethically pluralistic society. First, I'm going to narrow the topic from Judeo-Christian morality and look specifically at an Evangelical one (given that in my opinion the whole Judeo-Christian label is not helpful). Second, since the topic itself appears to beg the question I will not presuppose what form the influence Evangelical Christians ought to have on society as a whole.
The problem concerning the interaction between a so-called pluralistic society and believers is almost three thousand years old. King Ahab had adopted the henotheism of the surrounding Canaanite culture. Henotheism is the a belief that each nation had its own god. We will see more of this in a much different context later. This was (like today) a faux pluralism. You could choose amongst a number of gods, but the choice of Yahweh who was the God of all people was not available. The prophet Elijah challenged the state religion and made truth claims in what we call today the "marketplace of ideas". Even Elijah was plural in the sense was there were multiple options of which there needs to be choice. Elijah put it this way in 1 Kings 18:21:
Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."
But the people said nothing.
Elijah was definitely counter-cultural in that he was one prophet amongst hundreds on the other side. He also became depressed when his actions did not produce a society-wide change. Note how Elijah was rejected by the people making a non-choice and the king by an imposed choice. This is the essence of pluralism. God relieved that depression by showing Elijah a remnant who truly followed Him and who did made a real choice.
Presenting an option is the middle ground between the non-choice and the imposed choice of a state religion. The latter has produced profoundly negative effects in church history.
After the Thirty Years' War came the Peace of Westphalia. This established a "henotheism" in Europe by carving it up into Catholic and Lutheran sections. This was the start of the established national churches. There were exceptions by the so-called "free churches" that were not established. (Note: the Evangelical Free Church of which I am a member is a descendent of such a church.) An attempted revolt against the established religion in the Peasants' War resulted in disaster with hundreds of thousands of deaths. In fact, death was the result of established religion irrrespective of who was in charge. For example, in England Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and Sir Thomas More were all executed for their religious views.
This produced the English Dissenters or non-conformists who dissented from the Act of Uniformity. Many of the non-conformist denominations (e.g. Baptists, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and Puritans) are the forerunners of modern Evangelicals. This particularly carried over to America. Patrick Henry's famous speech Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death was in part the result of witnessing a non-conforming pastor being flogged for lacking a license to preach. Thomas Jefferson's famous letter coining the phrase "separation of church and state" was in response to the Danbury Baptist Association who were concerned about the established church.
Here's a part of their request that spawned Jefferson's remark:
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Scripture and history teach us that pluralism is not quite the enemy we assume them to be. It is true that it is used as an excuse like the people at Mount Carmel not to decide. But, it is preferable to the religious tyranny spawned by state-sponsored religion. There is a catch phrase used by people in progressive politics that applies here to Evangelicals as we interact with our culture:
Speak the truth to power.
We may not be in charge, nor is it likely that we will be. Yet, we must propose the truth to all of the remnant who might listen. If God be God follow Him. If Baal be God follow him.
Comments