Today is July 5th.
Independence Day has come and gone. We
tend to feel very patriotic on that day and are stirred by
highfalutin ideas like “Liberty,” “Honor,” and “Patriotism.”
But does this passion for freedom extend beyond the festival of
fireworks?
There has been a lot of talk about
religious liberty lately. Many of the English settlers to this
continent did so in order to secure the freedom to worship as they
chose. Catholics wanted to freedom from Elizabethan oppression.
Puritans wanted the right be free of excess. Quakers wanted to be
free to follow their “inner light.” (And apparently to start
their own line of fiber-rich breakfast foods. It was no accident
that the first amendment to the Constitution was a guarantee that the
Federal government should not impinge on its citizens right to
worship freely. So often this issue is examined through the lens of
politics: what is the relationship of government to religious
liberty? But I would like to take a look at it from a different
angle: what is the relationship of Christianity to religious liberty?
This brings me to something I see often
on the highways: the COEXIST bumper stickers.
I'm sure you've seen
them on a random bumper here or there, probably a few more by college
campuses. The words are spelled out by different symbols from major
religions or belief systems. I have always had a nagging problem
with these signs: I don't know what they mean.
I'm sure I could look up the history
and origin of the makers of this slogan, but that would defeat the
purpose reducing your message to a single word. If I had a bumper
sticker that said “Quarvat,” it would not be very effective,
since I'm guessing that no one knows what that is (bonus points to
anyone who can tell me the answer).
There seem to me to be 2 possible
meanings to COEXIST.
The first is that all religions should
be treated the same because they ARE all the same. As a Christian, I
have to completely reject this idea. All religions are not the same.
Christianity is not the same as Islam, or Buddhism, or Sikhism, etc.
It is an insult to all people of faith. The main theme of Kevin
Smith's atrocious movie Dogma was “It doesn't matter what you
believe, as long as you believe.” I read a film critic who wrote,
“It's hard to argue with that point.” It's only hard if you
don't bother to think. It sounds nice. It sounds tolerant. But
there are 2 problems with this position:
a. No one believes this in practice.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. You may agree or
disagree, but I would venture to say that most would shrug their
shoulders and say, “Okay.” But if I said I worshipped the demon
Moloch who demanded infant sacrifice, I doubt any rational person
would say to me, “It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as
you believe.” No, we would rightly reject such a horrible thing as
morally wrong.
b. It implies that none of the
religions are true. All religions make truth claims. Some of these
truth claims are compatible. For example, most religions believe
kindness is better than cruelty, or courage is better than cowardice.
But there are some things that or not compatible Christians believe
that Jesus is God. Muslims believe that He was only a prophet, but
not God. This is not a matter of taste or opinion, like “I like
ice cream.” When I say “I believe Jesus is God” I am not
saying, “I like Jesus.” The Church is not the Jesus Fan Club:
“You like Jesus? I like Jesus! [singing] WE LOVE YOU JE-ESUS! O
YES WE DO-O. WE LOVE YOU JE-ESUS! AND WE'LL BE TRUE-UE!” Both
the Christian and the Muslim are making claims about the truth or
falsehood of the nature of Jesus. Both claims cannot be true at the
same time. It is possible that one is true and the other is not.
But the COEXIST bumper sticker doesn't seem to play favorites. The
only other possibility is that neither of them are true. This would
mean Jesus Divine nor a Prophet in reality. The only way you can put
all religions on equal footing in terms of value is to say that they
are all equally wrong.
So that is one possible meaning of the
COEXIST ethos. But I think that there could be another.
If COEXIST means that in a free society
all peoples must be free to pursue God and thus coexist in peace,
then this makes sense to me. This position also excludes the
Molochites, because this religion seeks to constrain the freedom of
the babies they kill. On this interpretation, we COEXIST because
religion cannot be imposed.
And as a Christian, this makes perfect
sense. But that is not the end of the story.
We believe that there is only one God
and that there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ (that is not
to say that unbelievers cannot go to heaven, but more on this in
another post). We are called to bear witness to the truth and make
disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19). But the acceptance of Christ
as Lord must be a free choice. We cannot force anyone to make that commitment. Others have tried it in the past with horrible results. This can only be done if we are also
free to reject Him.
Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, the
birthplace of our Declaration, wrote the other day:
The
purpose of religious liberty is to create the context for true
freedom. Religious liberty is a foundational right. It’s necessary
for a good society. But it can never be sufficient for human
happiness. It’s not an end in itself. In the end, we defend
religious liberty in order to live the deeper freedom that is
discipleship in Jesus Christ. What good is religious freedom,
consecrated in the law, if we don’t then use that freedom to seek
God with our whole mind and soul and strength?
The purpose if freedom is not to be
free. We are free so that we can freely choose the good. What
Chaput is saying is that religious freedom is necessary, but not
sufficient for the human person. For example, oxygen is necessary
for the human person. Without it, we would die quickly. But it is
not sufficient. We need more than air to survive. If all we had was
oxygen we would die from something else like hunger, thirst,
exposure, etc. In the same way, we need religious freedom. Without
it, our souls could not exercise choice in liberty. But to have the
choice is not enough.
I've seen a few movies where choice was
an end in itself and it always rang hollow. At the end of the Matrix
trilogy, Agent Smith asks Neo why he fights. Neo's answer is: “Whoa”
Sorry. Kidding.
Actually, his answer is “Because I
choose to.” He doesn't fight for love or friendship of the good,
but choice. But choice without an aim or purpose is not really a
choice. It is simply random activity. Similarly, in Prometheus,
when a character is asked why they have faith, they respond, “It is
what I choose to believe.” But that answer has no bearing on
whether or not what she believes is true. I could choose to believe
that Egyptian pyramids were early attempts by the gods to make
4-sided dice, but that doesn't make it true. We must choose. But
to what end? In the choosing, we will become closer to God or
further away. If we choose God, we will find our true happiness.
If I program my computer to say “I
love you” every time I log in, it does not mean that my computer
loves. If I forced my wife to marry me, her decision wouldn't mean
much because it was not free. Our choice for Christ must be free.
This why, as Christians, we must support religious freedom. There
are many countries in the world where men and women of all different
faiths are suppressed by the power of the state. When the government
tries to circumvent this freedom, it takes away the means by which
man can truly find his happiness. Or as Archbishop Chaput wrote:
Real
freedom isn’t something Caesar can give or take away. He can
interfere with it; but when he does, he steals from his own
legitimacy.
We do not get our rights from the
government. We do not even get our rights from the Constitution. We
get our rights from Nature. The Constitution was designed to prevent
the government from attempting to usurp those essential rights. When
any government tries to take away our rights, that government breaks
faith with the people it governs and loses its authority.
We are a great nation. We are, so far,
a free nation. We are a tolerant nation where men and women of any
faith or no faith come to exercise that freedom. And in that sense,
we should all COEXIST.
As Americans, we lead people to
freedom. As Christians, we lead them to happiness.
I have always seen the COEXIST bumper stickers as a simplistic pseudo intellectual attack on the major religions by "high-minded" agnostics/atheists and american paganists. To test my theory look for the companion bumper decoration which is usually a Darwin fish or a "Blessed by the Goddess" bumper sticker. COEXIST is nothing more than sophomore level syllogism that concludes with the major religions being responsible for worldwide violence. Because of this, whenever I see a COEXIST bumper sticker I think of a Kirk quote in Star Trek II. "Khan, I'm laughing at the "superior intellect."
ReplyDeleteAnd the person with the COEXIST sticker will say, "He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him!"
Delete"To test my theory look for the companion bumper decoration which is usually a Darwin fish or a "Blessed by the Goddess" bumper sticker."
Delete---------------------
Considering I know a number of Christians who display that bumper sticker, or attitudes similar to it, I think that is a bit over-simplistic (not to mention that I don't see Christianity and a belief in evolution as necessarily contradictory). Religion is not the ONLY factor responsible for worldwide violence/conflict certainly, but it is a contributing one. Religion has been in the past- and still frequently is- used as a tool or an excuse for oppression, hatred, and war.. though Christianity in its many forms is certainly not the only religion guilty of this..