I'm not sure that is good news. They want to "preserve our precious Christian heritage." I could salute that flag if only I imagined we agreed on what that precious heritage is. They identify themselves as strongly pro-life and believe "in strong, traditional family values." They were willing to mail me a leader's portfolio with information on the separation of church and state; the church's role in the public square; and "how your church can be a powerful force for righteousness in Canada and stay within the law."
To be fair, I probably should have gone and engaged in the discussion. Excuse number one: I was attending Truth and Reconciliation Hearings in Halifax and those seemed more relevant. Excuse number two - I feel like I've had these conversations before and they don't get me very far. So I am stuck with evaluating the CHP from what I remember from living in Ontario and the material they mailed me. The topics in the "leader's portfolio" were enough to scare me off. They give every evidence of promoting the further Americanization of Canadian social life.
The church and Christianity have a far different role south of the border. That's an historic and contemporary fact dependent on a variety of social factors. In the United States the doctrine of the "separation of church and state" is an established constitutional reality, although scholars debate what the original crafters meant. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that they meant to protect the church from the state. Most folk who invoke the phrase today in the Untied States want to protect the state from religious interference. Quite a shift. Nevertheless, there simply is no such concept in Canadian history. Most of the early European immigrants to Canada were not fleeing religious persecution. Churches and church-run institutions played an important role in developing modern Canada before being (largely) peacefully surrendered to the community (think of universities, hospitals and schools). To talk about the separation of church and state in Canada is to create a ghost of a conflict that has no substance and never did. It should set off alarm bells. Perhaps some folk look south of the border and viewing the prominence of civic religion in American politics think it would be good for Canada. Down there, identifiable blocks of voters with definite socio-religious commitments are a big factor. Perhaps some would like to create that kind of presence here in order to advance their agenda.
Call me cynical but I don't imagine that the laws that I might want to "stay within" would be the same as the ones the CHP authors are concerned about when we think about the church as "a force for righteousness". I'm more likely to be found supporting an Occupy movement or protesting nuclear armed warships in Halifax Harbour than picketing a hospital that provides safe medical procedures that are legal under the Canada Health Act. And as for "traditional families" - whose traditions and whose families?
I have to compliment the CHP folk though. They have convictions and they are not afraid to take them into the public square. For instance, ask the average Canadian about the Christian position on abortion and they are likely be far more aware of the strongly "anti-" stance that characterizes the CHP, the Evangelical Alliance of Canada and the Roman Catholic Church. If that doesn't represent the majority of Christians - or even all within those three groups whose fault is that? There is currently an important court case addressing physician assisted suicide underway in British Columbia. Chances are, if you asked the same average Canadian for a "Christian" viewpoint on that subject you'd get the one that characterizes the same three players. That's only partially because of the huge spill-over of American broadcasting from a context where these are often polarizing issues for people who self-identify as Christian and non. The largest responsibility lies with Canadian Christians and churches who have been overwhelmingly silent on these subjects - at least in the public sphere. There may be good reason for the reticence: we know what happens to people who take public stands and we have traditionally been more respectful of freedom of opinion by believers. But as long as we remain silent, or talk only to ourselves about these subjects, it's not surprising that the average Canadian thinks that the "heritage" that the CHP promotes is the same that everyone who calls themselves by Christ's name might claim.
So, what might we do? Well, for one thing, the liberal-evangelical churches (the historic mainline) need to do a better job of helping Christians think like Christians – rather than merely as good, law-abiding folk who happen to attend worship. We need to help one another identify idolatry and anti-Christian behavior. Instead, our primary identifications are as consumers or partisans or taxpayers or . . . For instance, how many church members use some form of active, intentional spiritual discerning when they cast a ballot? We might not agree on the results, but at least we should actively consider whether the candidate or the party seems consistent with my understanding of God’s call in Christ to love my neighbour before myself.
A simple antidote presents itself. Christianity Today is not my normal reading, but I was caught off guard by the headline: “Frequent Bible Reading Can Turn You Liberal.” In the States, frequent church attendance seems to correlate with conservative views. But a Baylor University survey suggests that frequent bible reading raises opposition to increasingly repressive federal security actions and the death penalty, and raises concern levels for social and economic justice. Wow!! Now that’s a Christian Heritage I could support – even without the chicken dinner.
No comments:
Post a Comment