Jun 12
6
Can you be bought off with only the freedom to worship?
ChristianGovernance eletter – June 4, 2012
Freedom of worship or freedom of religion? The wrong answer spells doom…
Some time before his death, Chuck Colson started to regularly warn about the cunning transformation in America of the principle of “freedom of religion” to simply a “freedom of worship.” Some others in the U.S. and Canada, including ChristianGovernance, have been reporting on this trend for some time, but Mr. Colson was the first I had heard to use the terminological distinction of religion and worship. I think it is an excellent way to frame the conflict in this key area in today’s “Culture War.” It’s a trend that’s been visible for longer in Canada.
The following article explains the distinction very well. It’s a lengthy article, and we only include an excerpt below. It is highly recommended reading for Christians who want to understand the thinking behind the increasing marginalization of Christianity in Canada’s and America’s public squares. We read it in the Red Deer Advocate, but our link takes you to the Knoxville News Sentinel posting of the article.
Unfortunately, the problem we face is not “out there”. Different Christian traditions come down in different places on the key theological issues at play in this question. For Christians who support the Humanist goal of eliminating Christendom, the logical eventuality is the complete marginalization of Christianity into a tolerated corner – if that – for private worship. Because there is no such thing as neutrality, Christianity will be replaced by something else, likely Humanism or Islam.
The notion of a sustainable neutral pluralism exists only in the academic constructs of creative theoreticians. Even EFC (Evangelical Fellowship of Canada) lead Bruce Clemenger, in his latest Faith Today column, “How Broad is Your Gospel?”, emphatically stated that there is no such thing as neutrality: “… those of us who affirm the Lordship of Christ can get caught up in the debilitating myth of neutrality”.
It’s probably not the first time he’s said that, but I don’t read every one of his columns. He did say that it was a newer understanding for him in that it wasn’t part of his thought process when in university – but that was a while ago. His challenge to the broader Evangelical church was to join him in recognizing that there is no such thing as neutrality; that Christian truth should be brought to bear on every area of life.
Mr. Clemenger and ChristianGovernance would come down at different places on numerous issues when it comes to our attempts to apply Biblical truth to life, but simply recognizing that there is no such thing as neutrality is huge for the modern Church because most Evangelicals still don’t believe this, having been schooled in various theories of common sense, common ground, natural law and pluralism, which are predicated on one notion or another of moral and epistemological neutrality.
There is no neutrality, therefore the abandonment of Christendom will be met by a replacement. Today it is an increasingly intolerant, post-modern Humanism. It is marginalizing Christians by redefining freedom of religion to limit it to freedom of worship, and banning Christian thinking from law and public policy. As long as Christians continue to embrace the notion of neutrality, the only outcome will be increased marginalization. If Christians, on the other hand, rediscover the vision of Christendom with its explicitly Christian vision for culture and civilization, for the family, law, education, the civil government, journalism and architecture, etc., then Christianity will rise again because no other vision or worldview can withstand a genuine Christian vision for life and godliness.
~ ~ ~
Click here to read the complete article.
Knoxville News Sentinel – June 2, 2012
Freedom of worship or religion?
By Terry Mattingly
With the sounds of protests echoing across campus, President Barack Obama knew his 2009 commencement address at the University of Notre Dame would have to mention the religious issues that divided his listeners.
“The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt,” he said. “It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what he asks of us.”
With this sweeping statement, Obama essentially argued that religious faith contains no rational content and, thus, offers no concrete guidance for public actions, noted Thomas Farr, director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University.
This would shock America’s Founding Fathers or anyone else who has used religious doctrines and arguments in favor of human equality or in opposition to tyranny.
The president’s views were even more troubling when combined with remarks weeks earlier at Georgetown by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, said Farr, during a conference sponsored by the American Religious Freedom Program of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. The daylong event drew a variety of scholars and activists, including Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Jews, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Mormons.
Clinton’s speech contained repeated references to freedom of “worship,” but none to freedom of “religion.” She also argued that “people must be … free to worship, associate and to love in the way that they choose.” Thus, the secretary of state raised sexual liberation to the status of religion and other central human rights, said Farr.
This evolving political doctrine is now shaping decisions in some U.S. courts.
Click here to keep reading this article.
Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Centre at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Contact him at [email protected] or www. tmatt.net.