Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth [Danforth writes], and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.
Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.
But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Here, then, Danforth exposes the crux of one of the most important debates of our time: the question of certainty.
Along those very lines, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page has written this recent column. He points out that those whom he calls "sultans of certainty" were oh, so sure that Terri Schiavo was not all but dead, but might someday reawaken. Then, after her doctors arranged for her final demise at the behest of her husband and a sitting judge, an autopsy showed their certainty to have been misplaced.
Columnist Cal Thomas's Church, not state, must advance moral agenda actually supports one of Danforth's main points, that it's wrong for Evangelical conservatives to look to government to change people's hearts. This, even though Thomas is himself an Evangelical and a conservative. (Go figure!)
Yet I find that Thomas doesn't really get it. Danforth's dictum that "religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people" draws this response:
John Danforth seems to flirt with universalism when he says that he and his fellow religious moderates believe "religion should be inclusive." Not exactly. Different religions make competing claims and the Christian faith separates "sheep from goats," the saved from the lost, and heaven from hell.
"Competing claims" characterizes not just different religions, but the differences among all those who are nominally Christian ... not to mention the differences between atheists and those who believe in God. If, as Thomas does, we see this fact in the light of "Jesus said he came to bring a sword. A sword divides," then Danforth's reluctance to declare certainty on important issues can only be the road to perdition.
Or so it would be logical to conclude. We can't have it both ways, as Cal Thomas seems to want to do. It cannot possibly be enough to back off and stop trying to win the culture war through governmental and civic action. Those who call themselves Christians must also practice heartfelt tolerance. They must not, with Thomas, sniff:
[Jesus] told the woman taken in adultery that while he did not condemn her, she was to "go and sin no more." To a moderate, I guess that was intolerant.
No, Mr. Thomas, to a moderate that was tolerance personified. Which is the whole point. Today's Christians ought to be a lot more tolerant and forgiving than they are ... and a lot less certain that they alone have the final answer to everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment