A Way Out

With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor we will probably embark on another divisive episode on top of the divisive episodes we have seen in the early 21st Century. Justice Connor's career was marked as being in the middle and she also was associated with compromise in church/state relationships. But how well has this compromise served us as Evangelicals living in the United States? Noah Feldman wrote a provocative piece in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine. Here he turned the compromise on its head.

In the courts, the arrangement that I'm proposing would entail abandoning the Lemon requirement that state action must have a secular purpose and secular effects, as well as O'Connor's idea that the state must not ''endorse'' religion. For these two tests, the courts should substitute the two guiding rules that historically lay at the core of our church-state experiment before legal secularism or values evangelicalism came on the scene: the state may neither coerce anyone in matters of religion nor expend its resources so as to support religious institutions and practices, whether generic or particular. These constitutional principles, reduced to their core, can be captured in a simple slogan: no coercion and no money. If no one is being coerced by the government, and if the government is not spending its money to build religious-themed monuments or support religious institutions and practices, the courts should hold that the Constitution is not violated.

Admittedly, this approach goes against the trends of the last several decades, which are for stricter regulation of public religious symbolism and more permissive authorization of government financing and support for religion. At first blush, then, the proposal may strike both sides of the current debate as mistaken, since it requires each to give up some victories in exchange for an alternative solution. Nonetheless this approach is not only faithful to our constitutional traditions; it also stands a chance of winning over secularists and evangelicals alike and beginning to close the rift between them.

As Evangelicals such a proposal is worthy of our consideration. This is because the current compromise is corrupting us. For example, those who propose Intelligent Design pretend that such a position is motivated by secular rather than religious reason. Truth is, neither those who support nor those who oppose Intelligent Design believe this. I believe in design for religious rather than scientific reasons, but I oppose so-called "Intelligent Design" because it is not honest about its motivations. By insisting on a secular purpose our religious expression is muted. The corrupting influence is that we are tempted to equivocate in order to be able to speak in the public square. Ironically, succumbing to that temptation lessens our power because in the end our witness is dependent on our truthfulness.

The other temptation is related to money. The government has their own "golden rule": He who has the gold makes the rules. When we accept government money for faith-based institutions we must accept the restrictions. This also corrupts us. One of these restrictions disallows proselytizing. While we ought not force someone to be converted, an Evangelical who cannot speak the "evangel", the good news, is a contradiction in terms. This temptation gets resolved either by not preaching the Good News or not helping the poor. The Bible makes neither of these optional.

In short, Feldman provides a way out and is a reasonable proposal as seen at least by this Evangelical. I don't have a sense how this will play with the secularists but if it is acceptable to them then maybe we can move beyond the "Culture Wars".

Comments

[*** Dave]

An interesting idea, and one I could support. The problem comes in the question of what constitutes coersion. Is a privately funded display in a courtroom, indicating that the Ten Commandments is the foundation and guiding light of our legal system, coersive? Does it make people who disagree with (any of) its tenets either feel that they must pay lip service to them or that they cannot get a fair trial?

The point of restricting public display of religious symbolism and so forth has been that the state, by being associated with them (even if no money is actually spent) does act in a tacitly coersive fashion to promote at least public adherence to those religious symbols and dictates.

[Rich]

In my mind the Ten Commandments issue is a distraction. The Evangelicals I know who are fighting this are doing so because of concern that their religious expression is being attacked and not a concern about Ten Commandments memorials per se. If that expression could be better established, the Ten Commandments as an issue will disappear. As for myself, I would easily trade these off also in order to have fuller religious discussion in the public square. What is interesting is that neither of the two sides identified by Feldman perceive themselves as winning and both are concerned with their religious (or irreligious) expression. Once Evangelicals realize that the establishment of religion hurts rather than helps free expression of religious ideas, a common ground might be able to be established. What both sides seem to miss is that the separation of the institution called church and the institution called state has nothing to do with private religious expression. Furthermore, that private expression is what both sides care about anyway.

[*** Dave]

In my mind the Ten Commandments issue is a distraction. The Evangelicals I know who are fighting this are doing so because of concern that their religious expression is being attacked and not a concern about Ten Commandments memorials per se.

Then perhaps the debate needs to be refocused less on "The 10C are the foundation of our law and what every Good Person should be obeying, and anything less will mean the end of our nation" and more on "We feel disenfranchised to participate in public discussion, and would welcome an avenue to let us, as well as others, do so." Those folks who are most vocal about the 10C seem to feel entitled to have them out everywhere, not because people should be free to discuss religion publically and have private religious lives as well, but because dammit, this is a Christian nation and state ought to make sure that everyone can see the 10C and if they don't believe in them or follow them they're not quite as good Americans as we are.

I'm not saying that's the actual motivation of every evangelical, but it's certainly a perception that too many evangelicals seem willing to allow, which fosters opposition to same.

Once Evangelicals realize that the establishment of religion hurts rather than helps free expression of religious ideas, a common ground might be able to be established.

Perhaps. Certainly there are voices in the evangelical community that, for example, in the area of federal money/faith-based initiatives have gotten the message that getting in bed with the government is a long-term losing proposition. (The best parallel I can think of there is federal involvement in education -- everyone demanded federal money back in the 60s-70s, not realizing that with it would come federal regulation of what local schools could do, and dependence on those monies to compel compliance.)

But too many evangelicals, it seems, are more interested in winning the debate than in winning souls. The sense is that, if only they could get free rein, they could get their message out to everyone, and everyone would then pick up on it and become a happy little evangelical, too. (There's also a sense, from some quarters, that it's as much a matter of controlling public policy, enacting God's laws, so defined, on Earth, as it is a matter of private religious expression. The danger being, of course, who gets to define God's laws and what happens when your interpretation of same differs from mine.)

[Rich]

But too many evangelicals, it seems, are more interested in winning the debate than in winning souls. The sense is that, if only they could get free rein, they could get their message out to everyone, and everyone would then pick up on it and become a happy little evangelical, too. (There's also a sense, from some quarters, that it's as much a matter of controlling public policy, enacting God's laws, so defined, on Earth, as it is a matter of private religious expression. The danger being, of course, who gets to define God's laws and what happens when your interpretation of same differs from mine.)

We are not so naive that if we got the message out that everyone would become a "happy little Evangelical". On the other hand, we would like an opportunity to make the case in order to have a possibility of convincing people. Winning the debate as defined above will make that possibility a number that closely resembles zero. Thus, for Evangelicals who are concerned with winning souls the worst-case scenario is the Religious Right winning.

[*** Dave]

We are not so naive that if we got the message out that everyone would become a "happy little Evangelical".

There is certainly a train of thought in some evangelical circles that, if the Good News is properly preached, all men will come to it (except for those who are Bad, defined as those who reject the Word).

Thus, for Evangelicals who are concerned with winning souls the worst-case scenario is the Religious Right winning.

You would think that the history of what's eventually happened when there's been a strong state religion -- from persecution of minorities to eventual apathy as the Church becomes the Status Quo -- would be clear to anyone of a religious bent. Obviously not, though.

[Rich]

There is certainly a train of thought in some evangelical circles that, if the Good News is properly preached, all men will come to it (except for those who are Bad, defined as those who reject the Word).

That's flatly unbiblical. While it is true that everyone is responsible in how we respond to the Gospel, that is not the only reason why it is rejected. One theme you see over and over in Scripture is that God is often rejected because of the hypocrisy of those who claim to be his people. In Jeremiah 34, Jeremiah noted the last straw before the Babylonian Captivity was when the leaders re-enslaved people after promising to release them. This profaned the name of the Lord because their behavior accrued to the Lord's character. Jesus was even more to the point.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

and

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

So, even if we get all that we want there will be people who don't accept our message because of the hypocrisy of those who profess to be Christians. One more thing from Jeremiah 31:33. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." It is more important to have a Ten Commandments memorial in my heart than on the courtroom steps.

[apostle john]

Enjoying discovering your blog -- great reading!
http://apostlejohn.blogspot.com/